Should Christians avoid organic foods?

[OldWiseGuy]

Local food will taste better, don't make the local food stand throw away produce cause you feel guilty lol. Milk is subsidise they say or I'd all cost $7-8 bucks a gallon?

Unsold produce is usually fed to the farm animals or returned to the soil, thus engendering no guilt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I trust only facts. As for Christians, why so rational about organic foods and not the fact that there's no proof that "God" exists?

It was a simple question.

 

[keith99]

Inasmuch as my own father died --confirmed by the US Army--from complications of exposure to Agent Orange, it's going to take serious proof to me that dousing food with more of Monsanto's Agent Orange (aka Roundup) is not dangerous.

Agent Orange and Roundup are entirely different chemicals. No Chlorine or benzene rings in roundup.

 

[Audacious]

Inasmuch as my own father died --confirmed by the US Army--from complications of exposure to Agent Orange, it's going to take serious proof to me that dousing food with more of Monsanto's Agent Orange (aka Roundup) is not dangerous.

...roundup has no similarities to Agent Orange. Agent Orange was developed by Monsanto Chemical, which is a completely different company from Monsanto the biotech firm; Monsanto Chemical is now part of Pfizer, which has nothing to do with the company producing Roundup.

 

[RDKirk]

Agent Orange and Roundup are entirely different chemicals. No Chlorine or benzene rings in roundup.

...roundup has no similarities to Agent Orange. Agent Orange was developed by Monsanto Chemical, which is a completely different company from Monsanto the biotech firm; Monsanto Chemical is now part of Pfizer, which has nothing to do with the company producing Roundup.

Yes, you're right.

OTOH:

Many regulatory and scholarly reviews have evaluated the relative toxicity of glyphosate as an herbicide. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment published a toxicology review in 2013, which found that "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing" with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).[9] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[10] In March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a summary of its forthcoming monograph on glyphosate, and classified it as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.

And

Glyphosate can have carcinogenic effects in non-human mammals. These include the induction of positive trends in the incidence of renal tubule carcinoma and haemangiosarcoma in male mice, and increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats.[11] A 2015 review found that glyphosate may be toxic below the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level that has been assigned to it by regulators, and that its effects may include "teratogenic, tumorigenic and hepatorenal effects.

And

With its heavy use in agriculture, weed resistance to glyphosate is a growing problem. While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and are widely used, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist.

Some crops have been genetically engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate (i.e., Roundup Ready, also created by Monsanto Company). Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a postemergence herbicide against weeds, but the development of glyphosate resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem.

So you still need to convince me that there is no risk.

I'd mention that just as Roundup-resistant weeds are beginning to be a problem because of the overuse of Roundup, so are antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms becoming a problem because of the over-use of antibiotics on livestock...and that is necessary because of unhealthy mass-commercial farming methods.

It's also interesting that Monsanto first develops a herbicide that's not quite so safe for ordinary crops...then develops a proprietary crop that resists its own herbicide.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This study, composed of reviewing many other studies, didn't come to any conclusions. Science is often very myopic in it's conclusions. Under the same university roofs students are told that 'everything is connected', and, 'nothing is connected'. No wonder people are confused.

Over a four year time period Stanford scientists laboriously reviewed thousands of studies dating back decades to narrow their research to a few hundred select peer-reviewed papers, which they then scrutinized with meta-analysis.
The study focused exclusively on the health, nutritional, and safety aspects of organic versus conventional food, and the results showed that most organic foods offered paltry nutritional benefits and rarely contained additional vitamins when compared to its conventional counterparts. It didn't denigrate organic food or find that it lacked any additional benefit, but it concluded that there weren't substantial health advantages for much it (not all), or substantial risks for consuming food grown with conventional farming methods. I don't think we're confused on this campus. We do have divergent views on numerous issues, which is healthy and to be encouraged at a university. When were students at Stanford told that "nothing is connected," and in what context?

There are other considerations when determining which agricultural method is better for the consumer (nutrition-wise and financially), society, and for the environment, which is why I wrote in my previous post that it's a nuanced matter. There are also social justice issues (whether workers are being paid fair wages and have humane working conditions; organic farms do tend to have a better record in this regard) and others to consider. My family has a membership to a farm-to-table biweekly service that brings foods directly from farms (mostly organic, but not all are) in Los Angeles county to our house, and we also enjoy shopping at local farmers markets. For us it's more about supporting local families and small businesses who are working very hard, treating their employees well, and putting love into what they do than out of fears about conventionally grown food or overinflated perceptions of benefit from organic food. My dad and stepmom are both physicians who stay well-read on research, and they put some stock in organic food but think there are many misconceptions about it amongst consumers. We can afford that luxury. Many other families cannot. Organic food can cost substantially more than its conventional counterparts, and for a family living paycheck to paycheck struggling to put any food on their table, it can simply be unfeasible. I've read posts on this forum and elsewhere that insinuate that parents who do not provide their children with organic, non-GMO foods aren't being as caring about their health, and that's false. It's why it's wise for consumers to educate themselves about whether specific organic foods and products offer any health benefits, and if those benefits are substantial enough to justify the additional costs, and then make a decision accordingly. They also need to know that affixing an organic label to a product doesn't automatically mean it's healthy. Many consumers have bought heavily processed, nutrition deficient foods like cookies sodium-ladden frozen meals and falsely believed they were healthier choice simply because they were labeled organic.

I think that people are justly concerned with the ill effects of pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics on our health. I hope that this consciousness will grow.

I don't know that the concern is proportional to the reputable scientific facts. Though organic farming methods have existed for millennia, it is also indubitably a marketing trend to slap the organic label onto everything from garbage bags to dog toys.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The study focused exclusively on the health, nutritional, and safety aspects of organic versus conventional food, and the results showed that most organic foods offered paltry nutritional benefits and rarely contained additional vitamins when compared to its conventional counterparts.

This study, as described above, doesn't make the connections and nuances that you allude to. If you want to discuss those nuances and connections I suggest that you read Albert Howard's "An Agricultural Testament", and, "The Soil and Health".

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This study, as described above, doesn't make the connections and nuances that you allude to.

I summarized it accurately. Have you actually read the meta-analysis Stanford published in the Annals of Internal Medicine or have you merely read summaries of it by third parties?

No, it doesn't discuss issues such as fair wages for farm workers on organic vs. conventional farms or the environmental impact of either agricultural methods. That's why I clarified that the study only focused on the health aspects. I then added other some of the other considerations for mindful consumers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I summarized it accurately. Have you actually read the meta-analysis Stanford published in the Annals of Internal Medicine or have you merely read summaries of it by third parties?

No I haven't.


No, it doesn't discuss issues such as fair wages for farm workers on organic vs. conventional farms or the environmental impact of either agricultural methods. That's why I clarified that the study only focused on the health aspects. I then added other some of the other considerations for mindful consumers.[/QUOTE]

It would be interesting to see how many connections could be made.

 

[dogs4thewin]

One should consider the REASON they cost more and yield smaller amounts which has to do ( in large part) to the lack of pesticides used. Which means you lose more crop while I personally do not do orangic food ( though I do eat a good bit of garden stuff ( particularly in the summer). I can see the benefit of how it is healthier as nothing is "used on it'. Yes that leads to more cost and lower yields, but it also means that it is all natural, and has nothing added on it.

 

[jeff baggett]

Organic farming is less productive than conventional farming, requiring more land and labor for smaller yields. It also increases the cost of food substantially. Of course this is bad for the poor of the world who need more, and cheaper, food.

So, should Christians avoid organic foods in favor of conventionally produced foods?

A good question. Some of Jesus' parables were about being a good steward with that which God has entrusted to you. It can also be asked if it is immoral to poison earth and its waters with the deadly chemicals that conventional farming practices produce?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Organic farming is less productive than conventional farming, requiring more land and labor for smaller yields. It also increases the cost of food substantially. Of course this is bad for the poor of the world who need more, and cheaper, food.

So, should Christians avoid organic foods in favor of conventionally produced foods?

No, Christians should not avoid organic foods. In fact, I find moral fault with those who want to engineers ways by which we chemically and genetically grow and/or modify our food sources in ways that are not in line with the typical structures of nature. By working with the structures of nature I mean farming methods that reflect the manipulation of food sources by methods that simulate the typical modes by which various plant and animal species live through normal evolutionary means.

It's time for Christians to own up by "greening up."

And if we think we want to "feed the world," then we don't need to screw with nature to do so; no, we need to advocate for instilling functional change into the political frameworks which often cause brutal deficiencies in the food supplies of various disadvantaged people groups.

Jesus told us that the "poor" would always be among us. The implication of His saying this, even as it reflects the same statements from the Old Testament, is that God's people have their work cut out for them in take opportunities for beneficence which continue to exist wherein starving people should be fed......................by us.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, Christians should not avoid organic foods. In fact, I find moral fault with those who want to engineers ways by which we chemically and genetically grow and/or modify our food sources in ways that are not in line with the typical structures of nature. By working with the structures of nature I mean farming methods that reflect the manipulation of food sources by methods that simulate the typical modes by which various plant and animal species live through normal evolutionary means.

It's time for Christians to own up by "greening up."

And if we think we want to "feed the world," then we don't need to screw with nature to do so; no, we need to advocate for instilling functional change into the political frameworks which often cause brutal deficiencies in the food supplies of various disadvantaged people groups.

Jesus told us that the "poor" would always be among us. The implication of His saying this, even as it reflects the same statements from the Old Testament, is that God's people have their work cut out for them in take opportunities for beneficence which continue to exist wherein starving people should be fed......................by us.

I don't think it's possible to "work with nature" and at the same time feed the starving of the world. Working with nature would mean producing less food, not more.

Anyway I think we already produce enough food to feed everyone, if we could get it to them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A good question. Some of Jesus' parables were about being a good steward with that which God has entrusted to you. It can also be asked if it is immoral to poison earth and its waters with the deadly chemicals that conventional farming practices produce?

Much of our farmland is "addicted" to these chemicals. It would take years to return to sensible farming practices.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think it's possible to "work with nature" and at the same time feed the starving of the world. Working with nature would mean producing less food, not more.

Anyway I think we already produce enough food to feed everyone, if we could get it to them.

There's also the matter of even IF we could get through the various lines of Red Tape of international bureaucracy that exist and which prevent starving peoples from being fed, we'd still have to deal with business models in the West that incline farmers and/or food companies to sometimes let the overproduction of crops just lay to waste and rot for the sake of the almighty dollar.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think it's possible to "work with nature" and at the same time feed the starving of the world. Working with nature would mean producing less food, not more.

Anyway I think we already produce enough food to feed everyone, if we could get it to them.

Its the small farmers of the developing world who are getting crushed by over-cheap (subsidized) first world ag products. 'Conventional' ag is building a delicate house of cards food system thats way too vulnerable to economic and, sooner or later, biological, shocks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's also the matter of even IF we could get through the various lines of Red Tape of international bureaucracy that exist and which prevent starving peoples from being fed, we'd still have to deal with business models in the West that incline farmers and/or food companies to sometimes let the overproduction of crops just lay to waste and rot for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Lots of waste from farm to table, but at each step such waste can be converted to something useable. Many landfills (see link) capture garbage generated methane. Unsalable or excess crops left in the field simply return to the soil. The problem of 'waste' is somewhat overstated considering the broad scheme of things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-the-united-states/?utm_term=.fc4c7d284699

https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas

 

[MoneyGuy]

Organic farming is less productive than conventional farming, requiring more land and labor for smaller yields. It also increases the cost of food substantially. Of course this is bad for the poor of the world who need more, and cheaper, food.

So, should Christians avoid organic foods in favor of conventionally produced foods?

If that’s your criteria then you should be vegan.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If that’s your criteria then you should be vegan.

I don't think the answer to global hunger is to reduce the standard of living of us meat-eaters. Besides the efficacy of animal manures as fertilizer cannot be overstated.

 

[durangodawood]

Also, the whole premise of the question is strange.

How is your choice to buy organic going to deny others the choice to buy conventional? We arent talking about legislating organic-only, are we?