Is Organic Better For You?

You can also soak your veggies in Colloid Cleaner to remove pesticide residue.

I think the majority of the claims are way overstated. Usually by unscientific types that spruik other nonsense, However, there is good evidence to suggest that some foods are better consumed organic than others, on the basis of pesticide residue. Strawberries are at the top spot on that list I believe.

From an environmental or ethical point of view, absolutely organic is a better choice. So it should be on that basis that one buys organic when they can. .

From memory, I think it's because strawberries are so porous that pesticides cannot be effectively removed by washing strawberries like you would any other fruit or vegetable. Nothing beats home grown strawberries!

But if you're like me and live in an area with lots of bobtails, it's wise to grow them in hanging baskets. While I'm happy to share with the wildlife, the bobbies don't leave much for us.

I believe eating organic is better. Using pesticides and fertilizers that are not organic has to have an effect on us and the environment. I work in a wine growing region and the rate of cancer is higher in our area because of the sprays used on the grapes. Not good. Although some pesticides have been taken off the market for the home gardener, they are still used for wholesale. Certain fertilisers kill the worms and organisms in the soil, often leaving heavy metals in the soil. So if it stays in the soil, surely it builds up in our bodies over time.

the environment sustains us, as we are it.

so yes.

but you're saying... "maybe eating organic isn't better because all the non organic food process has destroyed all the benefits anyway, so why eat organic?"

>  -  <

just pointing out

the world is 'sooo bad' the little good is smothered, means we shouldn't do little good?

organic just means with out poison... so I mean...is that a good thing?

Also if this were entirely true about soil bacteria and B12, farmers wouldn't be able to sustain grazing in-between. I guess unless these residues don't stay around and the soil recovers while they sew their leguminous feed crops/nitrate/soil resting times.

pst. I mean you're conveying this notion, I realize this isn't your message ~P~

No, I'm saying that from a scientific perspective, there is no difference in the nutritional value between organic and inorganic produce.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think that people should stop eating organic, or buying organic. I just don't like that it's touted as being hugely better for your health, when that's not really how it works.

yeah, why does something which costs less to grow and doesn't employ huge manufacturing infrastructural synthesis of non-ecofriendly toxins, end up costing the end user more.

haha... I guess because they need less money in the end to pay for medical bills and the social system has to extract your money some how

we're talking accumulative heavy metal poisoning for example, things which build up if done persistently then BAM... you are an iron quigong. but no... the objective is neither better or worse in the same constant, as change is the good variable.

If you do the same thing over and over, like a flow of water down a river never ending... the same sediments will collect and never leave the same places... but if there is a flood of change, even if this goes back to the same constant after it has changed. Then things are flushed away.

Yes there are good and bad instances, but my answer is, being less likely to ingest a constant toxic tinge is a good thing.

An exacerbated version of this 'change' is popping an aspirin... but with organic changes, most are based on circumstantial instances, this is why humans pull these things out of anomaly and reproduce the phenomenon endlessly.. so exposure to benefits are not based of humble and nature based lifestyles... but the mind is endlessly overstimulated, overwhelmed and warning signs are NEVER relevant or relative.

Colorful packaging, saturated tastes, combobulated smells... all from such a substance-less and often indigestible mass.

Apparently Microwaves do as much food damage in 30 seconds as 3mins of boiling...

BUT... the boiling is only damage if the left over water is thrown away as the molecules burst into the water people throw out. Where as a microwave changes proteins into something the body cannot use. (well and boiling organisms to death/irradiating one energy form with another)

Like B12 analogues which fill all the places the vitamin would be used, but are not active.

So I mean... in what context is there no difference between organic and irradiated food.
In what way is it not better or worse for living off.

I doubt we've deviated enough thus far and mutated enough for the native environment to be injurious to our being, but maybe we have...

Maybe these chemicals only kill off things we no longer rely upon,
maybe these things it kills are in conflict with us now we no longer relate to them.

Humans do exist on a micro-bacterial level. As we are, and the environment ~P~.

Curious. I've heard the conclusions made by FDA/FSA on collated studies regarding the nutritional difference between organic and non-organic as disputable and erroneous, despite agribusiness and a whole other bunch of orgs and nut. societies embracing and disseminating the findings. Tried looking into it once. Gave me a migraine. Ain't nobody got time for migraines.

But yeah, environment ftw.

And hey, is it still permissible for use and type of pesticides and herbicides to not be disclosed to the public when selling non-organic produce in Australia?