Unhealthy Eating Habits: What's Going Wrong?

[NeoDevin]

Could a Mentor please move the posts discussing conventional vs. organic farming to a new thread, so we're not derailing this one so much.

Thank you.

 

[turbo]

So first you make the claim that "conventional" produce/food is "contaminated" by various chemicals, but when it's pointed out that organic produce and meats have (greatly) increased incidences of contamination with bacteria, you just brush it off? Our choices seem to be to have traces (if even that much remains) of pesticides (at levels which, to my knowledge, have never been shown to have adverse effects), or to have E-coli bacteria (which is very harmful) in our salads... tough choice.

All soils contain pathogens, not just organic or non-organic garden soil. It is necessary to wash produce to remove pathogens - just common sense. E coli, C botulinum, and other pathogens are found in soils everywhere, not just in soils that have been built up using organically-derived nutrients.

If you wish to claim that organically-produced foods have "(greatly) increased incidence of contamination with bacteria", it might be a good idea to back that up. Also, in your previous post, you claim that commercial farmers use organic fertilizers/compost and only supplement the nutrients with chemical fertilizers. Funny how selective your bacteria are. They will propagate in my soil, but not in soil fertilized with supplemental chemical nutrients. Quite creative but unconvincing arguments.

BTW, it is not a good idea to let chemical companies and agri-businesses determine the "safe" levels of pesticide residue for you. Dow stopped making DBCP in the US because the chemical was causing sterility in men. Dole threatened to sue Dow for breach of contract if they stopped delivering the chemical, so Dow kept producing it off-shore and delivering it to Dole, which sprayed the pesticide on its banana plantations in Central America, poisoning their workers.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_knWbFc1RWGQWx9_Fp4ZF6gVk4Q

And the lawsuits continue.

http://www.bananabook.org/discovolonte/2008/12/save.html

 

[NeoDevin]

If you wish to claim that organically-produced foods have "(greatly) increased incidence of contamination with bacteria", it might be a good idea to back that up.

Think premium brands are safer? Overall, chickens labeled as organic or raised without antibiotics and costing $3 to $5 per pound were more likely to harbor salmonella than were conventionally produced broilers that cost more like $1 per pound.

In addition, as Evo pointed out, the outbreaks of E-Coli were due to organic farming techniques. Maybe I shouldn't have added the "(greatly)", my apologies.

Also, in your previous post, you claim that commercial farmers use organic fertilizers/compost and only supplement the nutrients with chemical fertilizers.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said that the few farmers I knew did this, I did not claim that commercial farmers in general do this.

Funny how selective your bacteria are. They will propagate in my soil, but not in soil fertilized with supplemental chemical nutrients. Quite creative but unconvincing arguments.

They will propagate in any soil, but one subset of farmers is willing to use pesticides and antibiotics.

BTW, it is not a good idea to let chemical companies and agri-businesses determine the "safe" levels of pesticide residue for you.

You'll get no argument from me on this point, there should definitely be testing and regulation.

 

[turbo]

Think premium brands are safer? Overall, chickens labeled as organic or raised without antibiotics and costing $3 to $5 per pound were more likely to harbor salmonella than were conventionally produced broilers that cost more like $1 per pound.

In addition, as Evo pointed out, the outbreaks of E-Coli were due to organic farming techniques. Maybe I shouldn't have added the "(greatly)", my apologies.

This is a myth. According to the FDA:

Q. Are chickens labeled "Kosher," "free-range," "organic," or "natural" lower in Salmonella bacteria?
A. FSIS does not know of any valid scientific information that shows that any specific type of chicken has more or less Salmonella bacteria than other poultry.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/salmonella_questions_&_answers/index.asp

Of course, Perdue and other big producers would have you believe that free-range chickens are more likely to be contaminated. One factor that people miss is that the big producers feed antibiotics to their chickens, and that apart from the % of contamination (which the USDA says is independent of growing methods) chickens that are routinely given antibiotics in their feed may harbor some drug-resistant strains of salmonella that would be tough to treat in humans sickened by them.