to be or not to be Organic?

So I was talking to a friend last night and she claims that my views about trying to eat the least processed foods (factory refined, packaged, etc.) as possible and choosing organic food as much as possible is a BIG JOKE. She is claiming that it is all a lie. Everything that I have read or heard about food, she's telling me that all of it is aimed at making money and that's all it's all about. She was also trying to convinced me that eggs are eggs and that free-range as opposed to factory egg factories are the same thing, Hormone injected cows are no different from organic cows (so as a result the milk to drink from either doesn't matter), pesticide and chemical treated fruits and vegetables are better that ORGANIC because she claims that the organic products have bug shit on them and even goes so far to claim that the Chemicals and Pesticides are actually good for us.
Of course I disagreed with her, which annoyed the hell out of her. I am a hardcore runner and exercise regularly and care deeply about what I put into my body. I understand that although food labels can be misleading at first sight, that's why it's important to check the ingredients and the nutritional value percentages (fat from calories and so on).
What do you guys and gals think about this? What's your philosophy on food or rules that you follow when it comes to food? do you care? do you care or know exactly what people put in your food?

I think it's a matter of ethics and statement more than anything.

For instance: Free-range cattle versus slaughterhouse, "mass-produced" "beef factories"
Who wouldn't want to buy from a free-range cattle farm where animals are treated more humanely and given a higher standard of life? The question is: do you want to PAY more for your guilt?

I'm not sure about the hormones free-range farms put into their cattle, if any at all. I imagine their main selling point is that their cattle are, in fact, "free range." Of course, I don't know about the actual validity of the marketing claim, SO.

Organic vegetables, local farmers, what-have-you's I can't really say much about. I know that when I am given the option, I prefer buying local to aid my local economy and support my local farmers. Chances are they don't use as many pesticides as the huge conglomerate vegetable folks do, but that opinion isn't based in fact. I'd buy locally (or organically) not for health reason, but for local reasons. I like my local economy to thrive and be more self-reliant.

The reasons I would buy organic is not a question of health as much as ethics, local economy, supporting small-time Mom & Pop farmers, and to see a thriving local community.

I'm not someone who knows a hell of a lot about the agricultural fields, but I am pretty sure that locals do it better.

Healthier? Not sure. Depends. I can't imagine you can make such HUGE generalizations about an entire industry.

The dairy manager where I work insists Organic Milk isn't any healthier for you. The only difference is that due to not using what they normally would to make the cows produce more milk, they produce less milk and therefore charge more since there is a lower supply.

I think Sassafrass is right, it's basically a question of how much you're willing to pay to feel good about your eating habits. Personally, I don't notice much difference in the taste of most 'organic' foods, but sometimes I'm okay with paying more just because it feels more special.

On the other hand, whether organic food is better on a global scale, I'm not sure. It would be nice if everyone could afford it, but there are a lot of people in this world who barely get any food at all, and if you have to choose between starving or eating food that was only possible to grow thanks to pesticides and artificial fertilisers, the choice is quite clear.

I agree as well, if I could afford organic all the time, I would. The only few things I get that are organic is sugar, and other odds and ends.

I usually buy locally in the summer since I am home. We have a large market of local beef, vegetables, and fruits so I generally purchase local grown food. Besides, some of the stuff produced at home is awesome! Especially local bakers using local staples.

I'm all for organic foods.

I'm sure many chemicals/pesticides/etc.. used in farming have various effects on the body after a hearty build up over a lifetime of minute dosages when we eat. I also believe scientisits may find a causal link in the future to all sorts of ailments. I do sometimes find that organic food does taste better but alot of the time its the same. (Unless Marks & Spencers but I suppose thats a quality issue, their organic stuff is heavenly).

HOWEVER

Your friend may be right; I can't help but be sceptical as being 'organic' is the new marketing and money making thing in this enviromentalist period of time. I read this on the Food Standards Agency (UK Government body) website a while ago:

Quote:

Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view.

Nutrient levels in food vary depending on many different factors. These include freshness, storage conditions, crop variety, soil conditions, weather conditions and how animals are fed. All crops and animals therefore vary in nutrient level to some extent. The available evidence shows that the nutrient levels and the degree of variation are similar in food produced by both organic and conventional agriculture. All processed food, including organic, has a nutrient content that is dependent on the nutrient content of ingoing ingredients, recipe and cooking methods. The impact of processing on nutrient levels will be the same for products made from organically and conventionally produced ingredients.

You see there are many more factors which determine the nutrition of food other than the simple farming process. So e.g poor diet of animals with non organic feed; or a longer cooking of ingredients (e.g. ready meals) or a period of longer storage in a warehouse freezer, Organic food could have less nutrients than regular produced foods which has been put on the shelf quicker for example. BUT YOU ARE NEVER TOLD THIS!

I'm also sceptical about whether the food really is organic because many farmers and companies use certain loopholes and 'interpretations' for their own needs in the regulations for marketing and crop growing. Its hard to see how DEFRA can police these farms with any real rigor to stop these theiving supermarkets. Its funny when something is labelled 'Healthy & Organic' yet when you pick up the regular version it has less salt or fat per 100g than the organic version which shows its just those bastard supermarkets again. The consumer always gets exploited.

The "organic" label needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Sorry, organic oreos are not healthy. =p

Free-range, grass fed and finished beef, if you can get your hands on it, is without a doubt worth the money. The same goes for chicken and eggs. And if you're going to buy fish, make sure it's wild as opposed to farmed. The difference is all in the fat. I'm sure everyone's aware of the benefits of omega-3's by now. Regular ground beef is something like 20:1 in omega-6 to omega-3. Grass fed beef is more like 2:1, which is on a par with wild salmon.

Produce these days is pumped up with extra water and lacking in nutrients. I'm not sure that being organically grown really changes anything here. But the fact is that Americans don't eat enough fruits and veggies.

When I hit the grocery store, I generally shop around the perimeter. But I'd rather go to the farmers' market.

Originally Posted by Will

The "organic" label needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Sorry, organic oreos are not healthy. =p

Some organic foods or ingedients used in various products are part of proprietry supermarket brands labelled 'Healthy living' which you have to pay extra for. You see what they did there?

I was in the supermarket maybe a week ago and my sister showed me the packages of 2 items where the organic or health encompassed version which may have used organic ingredients had either more salt or fat per 100g.

I suppose you could say its not dissing the ingredients but the way supermarkets fiddle about with them. Like I said it may be free range but if it takes longer to get the shelf than the regular type it may have lost its better taste or nutrients by then which is damn shame. Meat generally is alot less stringy when free range for sure I must say; but I haven't noticed a difference with eggs like you have.

That's why I don't go down the aisles.

I'd like to shop at more expensive places where you know the stuff is organic and the simple feel and look shows you the freshness but concurring with other posters its either too far away, too expensive, or I cannot taste the difference.

so meh..

I think people confused the ideas of Expense and Convenience. Sure to buy something that is not as expensive is saving you money but at the cost of putting unnecessary ingredients into your body is not worth doing. Yes, healthy and Organic food are most of the time more expensive but you got to think about what you are willing to invest in, for me it's my health

I figure the best way for me to try and stay healthy is by cooking as many of my own foods as possible and not using pre-packaged meals. I don't care how unhealthy a bacon cheeseburger might be, it's still a lot more filling and probably about as bad for me as eating two poptarts.

I'd like to point out that between "free-range" and "organic", only "organic" is an actual certification with enforced criteria. There is no uniform "free-range" criteria for growers to follow, and no agency regulating it - therefore, "free-range" is even more of a marketing tool than "organic" may be.

That's not to say that there aren't "free-range" animals who are truly given plenty of space to roam - but at the same time, you could slap a 2 by 6 feet enclosed yard next to a huge chicken barn full of thousands of chickens, and say that's "free-range" just by the fact that you gave the chickens a tiny yard that they can theoretically walk around in. There's nobody making any rules for that.

Regardless, I do eat organic foods, simply because it's a good way to avoid many kinds of additives. As others have said, though, organic doesn't necessarily mean "wholesome" or "healthy" - it just means it was (hopefully) produced under strict guidelines to limit the amount of certain pesticides, hormones and antibiotics used in its production.

The only food product I strictly follow organic/free-range policy on is eggs. I love eggs, so I'll pay $5 for a half-dozen to be sure that the eggs I eat (especially when I like to eat them raw) are safe to consume.

As far as produce goes, I'm not too picky, but I like getting my produce at the local farmer's market. I know that the produce there is fresh and it tastes better. It also supports the local farmer's economy, like Sass mentioned. Whether it's organic or not, I don't really care. I do prefer organic foods as opposed to non-organic if it's available for relatively the same price. Why? Well, to be theoretical (according to SpaceMonk's friend's logic, you'd want to buy products grown with pesticides because you don't want bug shit on it): why the hell would you want to eat produce that even bugs (or any other creature, for that matter of fact) wouldn't touch?

I'm curious, how many people in this thread use margarine or some other butter substitute?

I'm sure some of them do but don't realize it.

Originally Posted by Shorty

The only food product I strictly follow organic/free-range policy on is eggs. I love eggs, so I'll pay $5 for a half-dozen to be sure that the eggs I eat (especially when I like to eat them raw) are safe to consume.

I'm not sure I follow this. Please explain to me how organic and free-range chickens lay eggs that are less prone to carry bacteria that could make you sick.

Also Sass, local farmers do it better? Efficient farming requires equipment that's big and costs a huge amount of money. If every farm started doing the "local farm" bit, we wouldn't be able to support as large a population.

Originally Posted by Radez29

I'm not sure I follow this. Please explain to me how organic and free-range chickens lay eggs that are less prone to carry bacteria that could make you sick.

Also Sass, local farmers do it better? Efficient farming requires equipment that's big and costs a huge amount of money. If every farm started doing the "local farm" bit, we wouldn't be able to support as large a population.

Since organic practices limit the use of antibiotics as preventative measures, arguably, chickens that are grown organically are arguably more prone to bacterial disease. What organic practices limit, AFAIK, is the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria - that is, if you don't constantly use antibiotics, you aren't killing off the normal bacteria and allowing the resistant bacteria to flourish,

On the other hand, truly free-range chicken may be less likely to carry disease simply because they aren't crammed into battery cages or closed warehouses with hundreds or thousands of other chickens. It's the same reason why disease is more likely to spread in a crowded human slum than in the suburbs - if one chicken is sick, the close proximity to other chickens and sometimes, the amount of filth left in the environment, facilitate rapid spread of disease than if they were raised with plenty of free space.

Where it comes to food distribution, I think that the huge concentrations of people in urban centers makes it quite difficult for local farming to support everyone. It may be possible that in the future, some farmers or economists may find a clever way around this, but for now, our current system seems to be the way to go. That's not to say that it's not full of glaring flaws ( huge food-borne disease outbreaks, food security threats, control of food distribution by a few corporations), but until a better way is found, it'll have to do.

Originally Posted by Shorty

why the hell would you want to eat produce that even bugs (or any other creature, for that matter of fact) wouldn't touch?

Nicely put! I totally agree with you, I mean that's the stuff that kills. Sure the FDA approve that it's not harmfu