Organic vs Non Organic. . NON' ORGANIC VS ORGANIC THIS PRODUCT IS AND AFFORDABLE. THIS PRODUCT, l ON THE OTHER COMPLETELY l lfie I" DEADLY Toxins THOSE IMI.' TH Organic vs Non NON' ORGANIC VS THIS PRODUCT IS AND AFFORDABLE l ON THE OTHER COMPLETELY lfie I" DEADLY Toxins THOSE IMI ' TH
Upload
Login or register

Organic vs Non Organic

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
NON' ORGANIC VS ORGANIC
THIS PRODUCT IS
AND
AFFORDABLE.
THIS PRODUCT, l
ON THE OTHER
COMPLETELY l
lfie I"
DEADLY Toxins THOSE IMI.'
THAT ls
mam? BECAUSE THOSE EVIL"
THEY mu THE !
OTHER STUFF
...
+657
Views: 29430 Submitted: 05/16/2013
Hide Comments
willisteal has disabled anonymous comments.
Refresh Comments (94)
[ 94 comments ]
asd
#3 - masterfuck
+38 123456789123345869
(05/16/2013) [-]
Everything natural is totally safe! Hurr.
#6 to #3 - notthepedobear
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #9 to #3 - billybong
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Welll... amanita muscaria makes you throw up (or it did for me when I prepared it)
User avatar #5 - blacksmithgu
+12 123456789123345869
(05/16/2013) [-]
Is organic food good for you? Sure.
If non-organic food terrible for you? No. Fast food certainly is, but the standard salad or meat you get at a grocery store which doesn't have that wonderful "100% organic" label on it is not bad for you; most of it is either genetically modified to grow more quickly (and contrary to popular belief, that does not decrease the quality or edibility of the food) or in the case of animals, hormonal additives which must cease anywhere between 30 - 180 days prior to slaughter. The only reason non-organic food would be bad for you is if additives are added post slaughter (like unhealthy fats and greases, aka fastfood), or if the people raising the non-organic food are breaking federal law by the FDAA. Or its cafeteria food. Who knows what they do with that...

People who so dramatically advocate organic food as so wonderful while villanizing commercial-level food products seem far too biased for me.
#12 to #5 - kingpongthedon
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
It's not that non-organic is bad, necessarily, but that organic is better. The only reason I care is that organic fertilizers tend to be much better than the standard NPK fertilizers that are industry standard. Organic fertilizers typically replace more than just these three elements, which means better tasting food with higher nutrient densities. Stronger flavors lead to satisfaction quicker meaning you'll be eating less in the long run. A lot of "junk food" companies do the exact opposite. For example, Doritos are engineered so that they have no distinct spike in their flavor spectrum (I know it sounds like a made-up term), so you don't ever feel fully satisfied, which is why you can eat an entire bag and still be hungry despite having just inhaled hundreds of calories.
User avatar #14 to #5 - infinitereaper
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Processed foods have a huge amount of issues, today we have only a small amount of slaughter houses and they are fed stuff that isn't exactly... booming in the health department. Of course quality varies, and some things aren't so bad, but eh... You are what you eat, ah... whatever.

I could really get into this whole food inc thing, but frankly, no one gives a ****, and no one believes there is anything wrong with modern day society, so **** it.

Everything can degrade towards the inevitable dystopia.
User avatar #45 to #5 - motherfuckingkenji
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
And **** the people who think anything GMO is bad.
People don't have a problem with it if genetic engineers tinker with the DNA of a virus or something to make a vaccine, do they? "I'm a diabetic that's against genetic engineering." Then where the **** do you think they get your insulin, asshole?
I know everyone already knows this, but people suck and I hate them.
User avatar #10 - reaperriley
+7 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Organic food is more expensive because it costs more to produce. For example, eating an organic vegatable means that they dont use pestasides, genetically altered seeds, etc. Which means, they are smaller, there are less of them, but they are better for you.
#25 to #10 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #46 to #25 - ruebezahl
+2 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Well, having a snail in your lettuce is not going to kill you. It's just rather disgusting.

As a sidenote, you'd expect people who buy organic food to be a bit more accepting of insects, blemishes, etc., but sometimes I have the impression that a lot of people in the organic food stores are even more picky about finding that perfect tomato or apple.
#94 to #46 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #98 to #94 - ruebezahl
0 123456789123345869
(05/18/2013) [-]
No organic food does not have pesticides. If pesticides are used (even "organic" ones), then it is not organic food. Don't believe all the BS people tell you.
#99 to #98 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #61 to #46 - elyiia
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
It could kill you, if it's a poisonous snail.
User avatar #70 to #10 - TreesyDoesIt
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
organic food is just the regular **** people used to eat a couple decades ago, businesses just caught on that people don't like all the big bad toxins etc. in their food so they kept creating their old produce too but at a higher mark-up
#43 - bullbrigade
+6 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
But it comes with a free frogurt!
#44 - bonnierock
-11 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
uh im going to go ahead and say i would like organic and GMO free thank you
< Rat expirement involving GMO http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm
#77 to #44 - hellfiazz
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
GMO isn't a chemical you tool, it's just genetically changing an organism. The person who did this, clearly ****** up.
#92 to #77 - hellfiazz
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #86 to #77 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
huh where does it say "Chemical"?
#93 to #86 - hellfiazz
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
You're very much implying it.
User avatar #47 to #44 - thedudeistheman
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Whatever they pumped directly into that rat, I don't think we're just directly eating it. Not saying everything we eat is great for us, but it seems like they injected/fed the rat with the chemical/stuff that's not good, not anything else that allows us to eat certain things without ending up like that rat.
User avatar #50 to #47 - bonnierock
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
"We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world" so that means that its the "genetically modified (GM) maize" that they were fed and this is the bit where they try to feed it to humans http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gmcropdatabase&mode=ShowProd&data=MON863+ x+MON810+x+NK603
User avatar #96 to #50 - thedudeistheman
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, we should probably put less **** in our food.
User avatar #48 to #44 - ruebezahl
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
This doesn't mean that all GM food is automatically bad. You could probably find test results like this about new medications that were tested out on animals before being released. That also doesn't mean that every medicine you take is bad. On the contrary, the purpose of those tests is to weed out the stuff that is potentially dangerous.

However, I do believe that GM crops need to go through the same thorough testing and approval processes as pharmaceuticals. There's a middle ground to be found between "GM is bad! Kill it with fire!" and "No problem with GM! No risks at all!"
User avatar #52 to #48 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
its a bit late for that bit considering its already being used in products and is already being fed to people across the world they just rushed all this through and now tons of people are ingesting GMO made food and "at risk"
#54 to #52 - anon id: bb40a718
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
People have been eating GM foods for as long as we have been selectively breeding plants.

There is nothing magical or shady about GM foods, we're simply changing them in a more targetted way to produce faster results (which is saving lives worldwide by providing cheap, more nutritious strains of staple foods.)
User avatar #58 to #54 - ruebezahl
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Yes, and studies are only now beginning to find negative side effects of selectively bred plants. Just one example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20664999

We have adapted through evolution to the naturally occuring plants on this planet. Introducing heavily modifed plants always carries a certain risk that must be recognized.

No, I am not saying that GM foods or selective breeding are bad - on the contrary, I am heavily advocating GM. I am just saying that both needs to be evaluated carefully.
#75 to #58 - anon id: bb40a718
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
It's true that selectively bred plants may have some effects which are undesireable however their usefulness has vastly outstripped the possible risk.

As with everything, there will be a risk/reward ratio. What GM fear-mongerers don't do is fairly assess the benefits of using GM products against the possible risk. They instead compare them to their imagined worst-case scenarios which have very little scientific backing - case in point being this study.
User avatar #63 to #58 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
i sat here and wrote out a big long ass essay to try and prove my point then realized that we are talking about the same thing i like the idea of GMO but i don't like their application i have no idea what exact effect GMO's will have on my body and no one has told me exactly if the effect will be positive there was no big news debate saying "GMO proven to cure _____" "GMO helps against _____ disease" there was none of this except for a single study saying purple tomato cure cancer my final point is that they needed to (past tense) do everything you said and didn't and know we may all live having no idea what we are sticking in our ******* mouth with GMO, Soybean, Artificial sweetners, and **** knows what else
User avatar #64 to #63 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
we could cure stuff we could get super powers but at the moment people and company arn't they just want to reduce their overheads
User avatar #55 to #54 - bonnierock
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
yeah did you miss the bit above about the study showing the effects of GMO's on rats and then the bit in it about it already being used to feed HUMAN BEING"S around the world
#56 to #55 - anon id: bb40a718
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
That rat was given concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food. Give a rat the same inflated amount of common substances - salt, calcium etc. and you will see equally horrific results. The study set out to deliberately find problems with GM foods and it's 'scientific' method is laughable.

When trying to understand science, being able to pick out which studies have actual merit and what assumptions or methodical erros have been made is far more useful than trying and failing the understand the actual mechanisms involved.
User avatar #57 to #56 - bonnierock
-2 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
following your understanding of science would you care to go through the study where the rat's where given "concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food" and show us where exactly it says this? i can only find this bit regarding the feeding regime for these rate:
" For each type of GM maize, only two feeding doses were tested per sex. This consisted of either 11 or 33% GM maize in an otherwise equivalent equilibrated diet; that is when the diet contained only 11% GM maize, the difference was made up by adding 22% non-GM maize (varieties not indicated). "
#73 to #57 - anon id: bb40a718
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
The picture you posted is not from the report linked. Notably however the report linked describes, in detail, the statistical failure of this study and why essentially it is worthless.

Following your understanding of science, as long as I make some effort at doing an 'experiment' I can then draw any conclusions I would like from it.
User avatar #80 to #73 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
firstly i thought i asked you to find the area within the study claiming "concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food" nice way to change the subject suddenly that photo is all across the internet linked to this study and various others secondly on the "statistical failure" the study states " In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops" care to find the extract your talking about or are you looking at a different study?
#84 to #80 - anon id: bb40a718
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Also you are talking ******** about this study and that image being linked. The two are linked only by the fact that fear-mongerers have used it in conjunction with this study to try and peddle their ignorence.
User avatar #85 to #84 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed how does this study and my defence of it show a lack of infomation? and i'm still waiting for the bit about "concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food" you going to find that bit or what?
#81 to #80 - anon id: bb40a718
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Section 2.3: Statistical power related to the experimental design
"The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. For example, concerning the statistical power in a t test at 5%, with the comparison of 2 samples of 10 rats, there is 44% chance to miss a significant effect of 1 standard deviation (SD; power 56%). In this case to have a power of 80% would necessitate a sample size of 17 rats. Therefore, the statistical power is insufficient in these studies to allow an a priori dismissal of all significant effects."

In short, the experiment sucks. They really ought to teach how to analyse experiments in school these days, I'm fed up of people having terrible understanding of what good science is.
User avatar #83 to #81 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
"Consequently, based on the clear inadequacy of the statistical power used to refute toxic effects (for instance the unquestionable large size effects in this study), knowing also that billions of people and animals can consume these products prior to the performance of appropriate in vivo safety evaluation, we applied an appropriate, experimentally validated statistical analytical methodology [5], elements of which are described below."
User avatar #87 to #83 - bonnierock
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
missed this bit did you or are you purposely taking bits out of context?
User avatar #49 to #44 - willindor
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
GMO causes that? Awesome!
User avatar #53 to #49 - ruebezahl
+4 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Many of the superheros that were invented in the 20th century have origin stories related to nuclear accidents and radioactivity, because that was the "mysterious power" that people were afraid of at the time. Perhaps superheroes (and villains) of the 21st century will be created through eating unforeseen combinations of GM food?
User avatar #88 to #44 - SuitUp
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
I've seen this before. The guy that did the experiment is well known to be anti-GM and his other works have been descreditted. What his report says is highly unlikely to be the process actually undertaken and the strain of rats he used is highly prone to tumours in the first place.

I would say that this is another case of a 'scientist' with an agenda fudging figures to shock people.
User avatar #89 to #88 - bonnierock
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
do you have some evidence to back up that statement my ego and ideas aside i would honestly want to see some?
User avatar #90 to #89 - SuitUp
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
www.nhs.uk/news/2012/09September/Pages/Claims-of-GM-foods-link-to-cancer- disputed-by-other-researchers.aspx

A nice NHS link that breaks down the story. It's worth taking into consideration as well that it seems to have first been reported by the Daily Mail, which isn't proof against it by itself but that always sets my alarm bells off.
User avatar #91 to #90 - SuitUp
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
User avatar #66 to #44 - cthumoo
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
well it's a good thing I'm not a rat, 2 testicles is enough for me.
User avatar #67 - pastelink
+3 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Organic = Living and/or cellular. All produce is organic.
User avatar #68 to #67 - sketchE
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
yes but in this case organic means grown without additives pestecides or any genetic alteration
User avatar #69 to #68 - pastelink
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
I know. It's just that, as a biology enthusiast, this really bugs me.
User avatar #76 to #69 - theasguard
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
I'm not even an enthusiast and it bugs me, it's an extremely poor way to label things.
User avatar #71 to #69 - sketchE
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
theres an argument a few pages back about what the term native actually means. words have multiple meanings that is the importance of context
User avatar #42 - ruebezahl
+3 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Well, it is significantly more work to produce organic food, so that is one reason for the price markup. I'm not saying that there aren't people getting awfully rich by selling expensive organic food, but "conventional" food companies like Kratt Foods or Nestle aren't exactly poor either.

And no, I don't believe that all organic food is automatically better. But when I buy food, I have a pretty good idea of which food is probably going to be healther in its organic version. If you use just the inside of a pumpkin, then you don't need an organic pumpkin. If you use the whole thing, you're better of with an organic one, because the pesticides do build up in the outer layers. Non-organic meat does contain antibiotics (which is one big reason for the growing antibiotics resistence in bacteria) and hormones (which is theorized as one reason for why girls reach puberty earlier nowadays). Organic meat does not always taste better, but at least the best chicken (by far) that I have ever eaten was organic. So your mileage may vary greatly, and the higher price is not always justified.
User avatar #11 - allamericandude
-2 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Ironically, the "natural" pesticides they use to grow organic food are more toxic than the synthetic pesticides used on regular food. That's why synthetic pesticides were invented in the first place.

However, people use the word "chemical" to describe synthetic pesticides, and people have a weird way of reacting to the word "chemical"--which is why "organic foods" were created.

It's like a circle, but it's vicious.
User avatar #41 to #11 - ruebezahl
+3 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Well, I like to point out to people that snake poison is natural and that there are not many chemical poisons that are more poisonous than the worst snake poisons.

However, real organic farming does not actually use any pesticides, neither chemical nor organic. Organic farming uses the natural predators of the pest insects.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pest_control
#40 - thechosentroll
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I'm from a third world country. We're too poor to afford all those chemicals and growth hormones you keep whining about. The **** we grow's cheap and clean as ****.
#35 - kmichel
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
I'm surprised there's no mention of the bastards Monsanto
User avatar #36 to #35 - snakefire
+1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
**** monsanto man. We need someone to put a bullet in their CEOs head.

Its one thing to make nature better (ie built in pesticides) but when you do **** like making them unable to reproduce so you have to keep buying from them, is just downright retarded and could lead to the extinction of the plants...
User avatar #51 to #36 - SuitUp
-1 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
I realise it's one of the internets favourite circle-jerks to hate Monsanto but if you're going to do it at least have the courtesy to look up what actual goes on.

Monsanto has a patent for a mechanism by which they could engineer plants with infertile seeds. It does not, has never and has promised never to implement this in any of its products. What it does do is hav e a clause in the contract that farmers sign which say that they will purchase seed annually rather than replanting from the crops they grow. The thing is, and i cannot stress this enough, this is also standard practice for non-GM seed distributors and has been for a long time.
#95 to #51 - kmichel
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
It'd their ruthless business practice that I hate, for example suing farmers for growing their crops after detecting modified genes in genetic testing. The genetic material could have been transported by wind, or even by an employee working for Monsanto in a sabotage attempt. Then the local farmer goes bankrupt and Monsanto buys the property. Not to mention the executives seem to be in bed with the government.
User avatar #97 to #95 - SuitUp
0 123456789123345869
(05/18/2013) [-]
I hate to be that guy but again that story is a skewed one. There was a case of a farmer being persued by them because they detected their strain of crops in his field, however that was because he had previously bought seed from them, saved it and replanted - in direct violation of his contract. The amount of their product that was found in his field was far too high to be a simple cross-pollination issue (Which really isn't that likely in the case of those plants anyway.)

I'm coming off as a Monsanto marketter here - they do some truly evil things and like most big companies have some terrible practices which are fine to hate on. I just don't like people hating things because of unjustified stories rather than the actual issues.
User avatar #65 to #51 - angelusprimus
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, they also patented part of human genome.
Literaly part of you is owned by monsanto.
Atleast Bond villains have style.
User avatar #72 to #65 - SuitUp
0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
I agree that patenting human genomes is rediculous. Thats a failure of America's rediculous legal system as much as the greed of Monsanto. It's also completely irrelevent to the point about them making infertile seeds.
[ 94 comments ]