Online Now 3268

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 2785
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 3560
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Is organically grown food worth the extra money?

  • LooseGoose2012 said...

    More absolute lack of knowledge. "Organic" cattle are raised in VERY similar conditions to any other cows. You're obviously their prime customer since you believe all the bull.

    lol

    This is where I buy my meat. So you can PISS OFF with your "lack of knowledge" bullshit. Look in the mirror, boy. Seems you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    Home Page Of Fischer Farms

    http://www.ffnatural.com/

    www.ffnatural.com

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • LooseGoose2012 said...

    It's certainly not hate on my part, except for people getting scammed by having their fears exploited by companies using the old guilt trip that they should buy organic to protect their family.

    Organic food as it stands today with the dilution of standards, misleading "education" and lack of verification is the 2nd biggest scam of the last 25 years that food companies/grocery stores have pulled.

    what is the #1 biggest?

    Binford4State

  • Binford4State said...

    what is the #1 biggest?

    You can't actually play "Bugles".

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    You can't actually play "Bugles".

    lol. I used to love Bugles, but have found them too greasy as an adult. Now, I'm more of a Munchos guy when it comes to totally processed crap chips.

    Binford4State

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    lol

    This is where I buy my meat. So you can PISS OFF with your "lack of knowledge" bullshit. Look in the mirror, boy. Seems you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    lol, testy boy. Now without having a stroke tell me how that's radically different from how most cows are raised?

    I realize they yammer on about how others constantly add antibiotics to their feed etc but that's all part of the schtick, not necessarily the absolute truth.

    Their cows are on pasture and fed supplemental grain. That's not something they just thought up, lots of farms raise cows that way.

    signature image signature image signature image

    LooseGoose2012 ●

  • Binford4State said...

    what is the #1 biggest?

    The biggest consumer scam of the last 25 years? Bottled water. Coke/Pepsi with Dasani/Aquafina selling you your own tap water back for huge profits.

    The great bottled-water scam

    http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/10164/1064953-109.stm

    old.post-gazette.com
    Play

    The Amazing Bottled Water Scam - A Must See

    In one test performed by the Environmental Working Group, 38 low-level contaminants were found in bottled water, with each of the 10 tested brands containing an average of eight chemicals. Disinfection byproducts (DBPs), caffeine, Tylenol, nitrate, industrial chemicals, arsenic, and bacteria were all detected. The belief driving sales of bottled water is that it must be cleaner, and therefore healthier. But thats where weve all been fooled.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/y8MnX7oPrhA
    signature image signature image signature image

    LooseGoose2012 ●

  • robb. said...

    while i'm using the blanket term "pesticides" the research i referred to is research on specific chemicals used in pesticides. and while the amount of those pesticides is below what the FDA/USDA consider safe today (in terms of toxicity), emerging research is showing that it takes far lower concentrations of many of these chemicals to disrupt our hormone balance, leading to obesity and other deleterious effects depending upon the chemical.

    milk, low fat or otherwise, is never an important part of the diet. there is no research that indicates that it is good for you, and there is a lot of research that indicates that it is very bad for you. i don't get bent if people love cheese. that's pretty understandable. but it's time we stop disputing that milk is bad for you in the same we we've stopped disputing that refined sugar is bad for you. every part of milk is difficult for the human body to digest, from the proteins to the sugars. if you stop consuming it, your body will stop adapting itself to digest it. there are way better plant and animal sources of protein, and there are way better plant sources of sugar.

    I am in no way a pesticide expert, i just know that they are not found within our food in levels that are toxic to us. Doesn't mean you shouldn't give your vegetables a rinse, though. However, there is no doubt that pesticides and the chemicals in them are in fact harmful in the right doses and if i read your first paragraph correctly, the various constituents of pesticides can be more potent in how they act within the body than pesticides themselves. I haven't seen such research so i don't know, but assuming that what you claim holds water, i guess my response would be if it's known that these different chemicals perform the same actions in the body by themselves as they would as a part of a the whole solution. I don't know what chemical changes to the ingredients are involved when making pesticide. For example, mercury is toxic but all you need to do is slap a methyl group on there and it makes it much worse. No idea if any part of the pesticide process reduces the toxicity of some of the ingredients.

    btw, it's really weird to be on the side closer to "pesticides aren't bad for you", even though i never claimed such a thing. My whole deal is that neither conventionally grown food nor organic exposes us to harmful levels of these chemicals, however, i DO know that organic produce is NOT chemical free.

    And the milk part reminds me of the Gluten thread which was quite bothersome in its own right, but only a certain small portion of the population is allergic to the proteins in dairy or lacks the lactase enzyme to successfully break down the lactose in milk. The rest of us are fine. It's an excellent source of calcium, potassium and vitamin D. Due to fat and cholesterol concerns i can see why some claim it's bad for you which is why once you are done with childhood, you should switch over to skim. Somebody added on that you don't need milk. But of course you don't NEED milk. You can obviously get calcium, vitamin D etc elsewhere but that's the same as saying you don't NEED bananas for potassium because orange juice and many other foods have a lot of potassium in it. There is always another source of nutrients to replace a food but that doesn't mean they're not all a part of a good diet.

    But for some of the rest of you, it is almost painful to read some of the things people spout off. Food topics everywhere are always filled with know-it-alls with misinformation. As a food scientist myself, it is always a bit surprising when people who learn their knowledge from the internet and what friends tell them, absolutely refuse to believe what I tell them regarding issues in my actual field of education.

    All Ages Shows ●

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    lol

    This is where I buy my meat. So you can PISS OFF with your "lack of knowledge" bullshit. Look in the mirror, boy. Seems you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    Here's where I shop for my steaks......and burger too.....

    attachment

    "No one cares what you know, until they know how much you care." Mark Dantonio

    GTASpartan87 ●

  • GTASpartan87 said...

    Here's where I shop for my steaks......and burger too.....

    Those might be organic but very few deer in Michigan would meet the standard since they've probably wandered into some farmer's field that has had herbicides, pesticides or fertilizer used on it.

    A good example of why the actual organic designation doesn't mean as much as knowing where your food comes from.

    signature image signature image signature image

    LooseGoose2012 ●

  • "Government attracts do-gooders and meddlers who believe that, as Mark Twain put it, "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." Or, as Twain's spiritual descendant, H.L. Mencken, said about Puritanism, government health officials seem to have "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." "

    The Assault on Food - HUMAN EVENTS

    For every study that says X is bad for you, another study disagrees. How is a layman to decide?

    www.humanevents.com
    signature image signature image signature image

    LooseGoose2012 ●

  • Study released today...

    Study Questions Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce - NYTimes.com

    Stanford University researchers concluded that fruits, vegetables and meat labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.

    www.nytimes.com

    Trevor Barnes

  • Trevor Barnes said...

    Study released today...

    Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    The study also found that organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.

    _____

    The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. While the difference was statistically significant, the size of the difference varied widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. “I interpret that result with caution,” Dr. Bravata said.
    _____

    The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.

    The Pantry

  • The Pantry said...

    Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    The study also found that organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.

    _____

    The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. While the difference was statistically significant, the size of the difference varied widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. “I interpret that result with caution,” Dr. Bravata said.
    _____

    The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.

    So it's basically a mixed bag.

    Bacteria will be taken care of if the food is properly cooked.

    You might be better off taking omega-3 supplements rather than spending the extra on organics.

    Sounds like the results on phenols were from too small of a sample.

    As for pesticides, the amount in conventional foods still falls within the acceptable range: "Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans."

    Trevor Barnes

  • the only reason to really organic is out of environmental concerns. Organic farming is better for the environment and organic meat is from animals that are treated humanely.

    tVargMan Prime

  • Trevor Barnes said...

    So it's basically a mixed bag.

    Bacteria will be taken care of if the food is properly cooked.

    You might be better off taking omega-3 supplements rather than spending the extra on organics.

    Sounds like the results on phenols were from too small of a sample.

    As for pesticides, the amount in conventional foods still falls within the acceptable range: "Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans."

    Which would you prefer to feed your kid?

    The Pantry

  • The Pantry said...

    Which would you prefer to feed your kid?

    The type that won't poison them.

    So either is fine.

    All Ages Shows ●

  • Study says organic food is not any more nutrious

    Study finds organic food is no better on vitamins, nutrients | Fox News

    Stanford University doctors conclude there's little evidence that going organic is much healthier

    www.foxnews.com

    "I think the world is run by C students" Al Mcguire

    rob

  • VargMan said...

    the only reason to really organic is out of environmental concerns. Organic farming is better for the environment and organic meat is from animals that are treated humanely.

    No it isn't. We would need to farm more land to make up for the decreased yields of Organic farming.

    This post was edited by ConQueso on 9/4/2012 at 8:47 AM

    Sparty is our mascot, we are Spartans.

    ConQueso

  • A lot of pesticides are nothing more than lower strength chemical weapons like nerve gas banned by the Geneva Convention. So if I have the opportunity to buy fruits and vegatables that aren't chemically treated I will.

    GRR Spartan

  • ConQueso™ said...

    No it isn't. We would need to farm more land to make up for the decreased yields of Organic farming.

    I stand corrected and edit my statement to be:

    the only reason to really consume organic foods is so that we make ourselves think we're doing good for the world.

    tVargMan Prime

  • VargMan said...

    I stand corrected and edit my statement to be:

    the only reason to really consume organic foods is so that we make ourselves think we're doing good for the world.

    it's sort of a guilt tax.

    AMwood

  • ConQueso™ said...

    No it isn't. We would need to farm more land to make up for the decreased yields of Organic farming.

    Is that a problem?

    Farming is a total environmental system when done properly.

    More smaller farms that produce grass-fed beef (grass is the cow's natural diet....not grain), for example, are less harsh on the TOTAL environment than feed lots when you consider soil and water treatment.

    When the cattle move OFF of the pasture, move chickens in. They'll spread the manure and eat worms and insects, part of their natural diet. Then grow hay or alfalfa. Rinse, repeat.

    I'm naturally a skeptic. I generally don't believe a word of advertising on television. I *enjoy* educating myself on issues like this. There's a very compelling, objective documentary I watched about organic rotational farming....I'll look for the title. I've spoken to farmers at farmer's markets. I talk to my butcher.

    For me, it boils down to this: I want to eat meat where the animal is raised in the way nature intended. Not a corporation like say, Monsanto, who's entire motivation is to grow & sell AS MUCH cheap corn and soybeans as possible.

    Chickens are meant to have spurs, and body size proportionate breasts. They're supposed to be able to fly a short distance. Cows are not meant to be raised on a mostly corn diet. When they are raised on a mostly corn diet, they need to be pumped full of antibiotics to kill the bacteria that builds up in their bodies due to indigestion.

    I'm not saying my viewpoint is the right one for anyone but me. Don't want to buy organic/natural? Don't.

    All Your Base

  • VargMan said...

    I stand corrected and edit my statement to be:

    the only reason to really consume organic foods is so that we make ourselves think we're doing good for the world.

    People always use that argument. The fact is it wouldn't take that much more. In the past 30 years an increasing amount of farmland, used for crops, has been put aside or used for other things.. So if anything we'd just be using the same old farmland.

    And the land that is currently in use is raped so badly by commercial farming that they have less fertile soil and lower yields than if they took care of it, as some organic farmers do not all. Thats why they have to put so many pesticides and so much fertilizer, because the land is unhealthy and can barely support life.

    Therefore, if a large scale switch to organic farming did occur, old land would be put back into use and current land could theoretically be recuperated.

    manofthewild07

  • All Your Base said...

    I'm naturally a skeptic. I generally don't believe a word of advertising on television. I *enjoy* educating myself on issues like this. There's a very compelling, objective documentary I watched about organic rotational farming....I'll look for the title. I've spoken to farmers at farmer's markets. I talk to my butcher.

    The funny thing is, no one who actually knows anything about the subject claimed organic food was "more nutritious".

    Only commercial organic farms with their marketing did that.

    manofthewild07

  • All Your Base said...

    Is that a problem?

    Farming is a total environmental system when done properly.

    More smaller farms that produce grass-fed beef (grass is the cow's natural diet....not grain), for example, are less harsh on the TOTAL environment than feed lots when you consider soil and water treatment.

    When the cattle move OFF of the pasture, move chickens in. They'll spread the manure and eat worms and insects, part of their natural diet. Then grow hay or alfalfa. Rinse, repeat.

    I'm naturally a skeptic. I generally don't believe a word of advertising on television. I *enjoy* educating myself on issues like this. There's a very compelling, objective documentary I watched about organic rotational farming....I'll look for the title. I've spoken to farmers at farmer's markets. I talk to my butcher.

    For me, it boils down to this: I want to eat meat where the animal is raised in the way nature intended. Not a corporation like say, Monsanto, who's entire motivation is to grow & sell AS MUCH cheap corn and soybeans as possible.

    Chickens are meant to have spurs, and body size proportionate breasts. They're supposed to be able to fly a short distance. Cows are not meant to be raised on a mostly corn diet. When they are raised on a mostly corn diet, they need to be pumped full of antibiotics to kill the bacteria that builds up in their bodies due to indigestion.

    I'm not saying my viewpoint is the right one for anyone but me. Don't want to buy organic/natural? Don't.

    Post of the year?

    xGASMANx ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports