Going Organic......

[N.O.R.F]

I have decided to go organic (heh). Ever wondered why meat tastes better when back home? Or enjoyed the taste of an organic fruit?

 

http://www.organicfacts.net/organic-food/organic-food-basics/health-benefits-of-organic-food.html

[Alpha Blondy]

Especially Dalxis restaurant somaha?

[Prometheus]

Organic food enthusiasts are not much different from Halaal food enthusiasts. Their preference for such foods has precious little to do with the quality of the food; rather it is an aesthetic preference, not a scientific one. It's mostly about preparation and process, and any claims about an intrinsic difference between organic and non-organic food is unwarranted. The systematic review of the literature – that is, the meta-analysis of all high-quality research studies - conclusively demonstrate that organic foods are not safer, better, or healthier than conventional foods. So why do people continue to pay more money for the same thing? Is it merely a harmless fetish with all things ‘natural’? Do organic foods really taste better? I suppose some such idiosyncrasies are tolerable insofar as food faddists do not advocate and agitate for dangerous agronomic policies. Vilifying genetically-modified foods might be fashionable, but it is not reasonable. I think the quip that 'for every suburban, white, dreadlocked kid who touts the benefits of organic foods, there is a gray-beard PhD agricultural scientist who shakes his head' is pretty accurate.

 

P.S. The article posted in this thread is refreshingly candid about the so-called benefits of organic foods. Claims of benefits are hardly supported by the scientific evidence. The author, however, does mention that organic tomatoes and milk might be an exception, as they contain higher levels of important chemicals (yes, the natural vs chemical dichotomy is inane). But even the author of this research was quite skeptical about the inherent superiority of organic tomatoes and milk. The higher nutritional value of these foods can be adequately explained by various factors. The manner of production has little to do with it.

[N.O.R.F]

^hadal badan uma jeedee bal wax 'concrete' ah la kaalay.

 

Alpha, Somali meat is expensive in the Gulf. The taste is great.

[Prometheus]

Awoowe, waxaan umalaynayaa ‘fahmadu kuuma looshana’. My remarks about the purported benefits of organic foods were neither verbose nor obscurantist. At best, some organic foods might taste better than others. At worst, highly suggestible people pay more money for the same thing. It only concerns me when scientific illiterates start claiming that genetically-modified foods are unhealthy or dangerous. In fact, a lot of the times non-organic foods can be more beneficial.

[N.O.R.F]

Heh. Dee dhagaha ha xidhan'e wax la kaalay. Or is it a case of taking your word for it?

[NGONGE]

Warya Prom, Norf is not suggestible dee, he's merely bored.

[Qandalawi]

Organic food, not bad idea, but its expensive.

[Prometheus]

NG, dee inuu i xiijiyo ayuunbuu doonayaa Norf. I doubt he has the patience to read any peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes studies of this sort. But allow me to make a spectacularly simple to those who share Norf’s naive, pastoral fetishism. The word ‘organic’ is a misnomer, as all food (organic or ‘inorganic’) is organic (carbon-based molecules). But why do food faddists use the word organic to describe only certain foods? Are such foods different in their molecular or chemical composition? No. Are such foods better or healthier in any objective, measurable way? No. Norf, do you want me to furnish you with references of journal papers and books that make this rudimentary point? Aar naga daa, mid aanu saaxib nahay baa af carabi jajaban ku odhan jiray, Soomaali laa yaqra, wa ithaa qara' laa yafham. Be that as it may, I'll still provide you with a credible source, US Department of Agriculture, that makes the same point sans the technicalities

 

Is organic food better for me and my family?

USDA makes no claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Organic food differs from conventionally produced food in the way it is grown, handled, and processed.

 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPGoingOrganic&description=Going%20Organic&acct=nopgeninfo

[N.O.R.F]

^oo ma waxaasaad la timi?

 

Saxib, I know you enjoy to babble on and rabble rouse but one doesn't need to read academic journals to know that eating chicken that hasn't been injected with hormones is better than eating chicken that has (same with chemicals in fruit and veg). In addition, what you have posted there as proof tells me nothing. Markaa naga daa sheekada.

 

Same with Halaal vs Non Halaal food.

[Prometheus]

Awoowe, the subject isn't religion. I don't understand why you insist on playing the role of the pious nincompoop. Whether 'chickens injected with hormones' (a mostly urban myth, nowadays) are less healthy than 'organic' poultry is a question that can be decided by experiments. And all the relevant agriculture and food authorities are agreed about it. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with 'going organic', if it makes you feel better. But you can't expect to be taken seriously if you dogmatically parrot factually inaccurate talking-points. I have always found pastoral fetishism irksome and doltish. Do facts even matter to people who espouse such fashionable nonsense? Waxay ku leeyihiin, I don't need to read anything to know such-and-such must be bad. I just have a gut-feeling it's unhealthy. Besides, did I mention it's not natural?

[xiinfaniin]

lool@oo ma waxaasaad la timi

 

North, awoowe keligaa maaha ee dad badan baa sidaada irsaaqada dhabiiciga ah usoo laabtay oo nacay macmalka Promertheus naftu uga dhacday difaaceeda.

[ElPunto]

^I don't think it is as clear cut as you make. An organic apple may not be scientifically proven to be more healthy or nutricious in itself - I would think the buildup of chemicals and pesticides associated with non-organic foods over time in humans would not be beneficial to one's health. Are there any studies on the longterm health of individuals re organic/non-organic lifestyle? I know eating a non-organic apple isn't going to do my health any damage but over time....

 

GM foods, while having a number of benefits, are there solely to generate a profit for multinationals through the patenting of the natural world. A few years ago Monsanto wanted to patent a strain of Basmati rice before the uproar in India and a court case led to a retreat. These corporations want to ultimately enslave everyone in agriculture.

 

Not sure why halaal came into the discussion - that is entirely a different matter.

[Prometheus]

ElPunto, isn’t some such thing always the concern? What if it has unknown, yet deleterious, long-term consequences? But that can be said about pretty much anything. The question is predicated on an argument from ignorance. You just can’t frame research questions in such amorphous, sloppy ways. It’s more fruitful to ask if there is any scientifically plausible reason to think that, say, a molecule of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), which is chemically identical to the ascorbic acid found in organic oranges, can have different effects on the body? As it turns out, physiology doesn’t care about the origin of a chemical (whether it came from the lab, or the wild), and can’t tell the difference. Your body will process it just the same. But where does this fear that there’s some hidden, long-term danger to such chemicals come from? Maybe the word ‘chemicals’ itself inspires such anxieties. Do you think organic foods are composed of magical stuff? They too are composed of the same ‘chemicals’. So why harp on the pre-scientific piffle about unknown dangers?

 

I’ll say two things about pesticides and transnational companies. Conventional foods do not contain any harmful traces of pesticide. This isn’t my conjecture. It’s the verdict of the scientific agencies and organizations whose job description it is to study such matters. And besides, organic foods also contain pesticide residues. Of course, organic food enthusiasts will blithely retort that such pesticides are ‘organic’, but such responses betray a comical ignorance of basic chemistry.

 

Big agricultural companies are like big pharmaceutical companies. Profit drives both. But should we reject the marvels of agricultural science (higher yields, fortified foods, etc) and the wonders of pharmacology (vaccination, antibiotics, etc) because such companies are driven by profit? What has profit to do with the science? It’s a non-sequitur. It’s unfortunate that many people are given to popular delusions about the sinister nature of the science that underpins the success of big agra and big pharma. These suspicions give rise to unhinged organic movements and anti-vaccination agitations, creating silly controversies over matters of well-established science.

 

In any event, I won't push the point any farther, lest xiinfaniin think it's overkill. Suffice it to say that any objective reader ought to understand that organic and non-organic foods are equally salubrious or, as the case might be, deleterious.

[ElPunto]

Oh come on now. You're comparing ascorbic acid to some multisyllabic unpronouncable toxic pesticide like polychlorinated dibenzofurans? The point is that in non-organic agriculture toxic chemicals designed to kill are used. This begs the question whether these toxic chemicals over time have a deleterious effect on human health. I don't know but for a few extra dollars - I'd rather not be a guinea pig.

 

As to conventional foods not containing any harmful pesticides - there are others who would quibble with that. Check out the Pesticide Action Network - http://www.panna.org/ And the pesticides don't have to be in the food - they can be in the air and that may cause harm to human health.

 

If only GM companies were like any other profit seeking entreprise - it would be a different story. First - I have a choice with regard to Big Pharma's products - I don't have to take the the anti-cholesterol drug or the AIDS cocktail. But human beings must eat ; if however Monsanto manages to patent wheat, rice and other crops and individuals are forced to abide by that patent - it is a whole different matter. Ultimately Monsanto and other GM companies want to control the ability to produce the food that we eat to line their own pockets. That puts them in a whole different category. They simply are not similar to Big Pharma.