Sick said:
I'm curious about when "organic" became synonymous with "healthy."
If I make a Big Mac-like sandwhich and use organic beef, organic cheese, organic lettuce, buns made from organic wheat, and all other organic ingredients, guess what? It's still going to be unhealthy. Maybe less so, because it will have less sodium, preservatives, etc., but if I use ingredients that are inherently full of fat, cholesterol, and other things that are bad for me, I'm going to get a final product that's bad for me.
I'm pretty sure that raising organic, free-range cattle doesn't eliminate the fat or cholesterol in the beef made from them.
And if I make fries out of organic potatoes? Still fried potatoes.
It's an issue I've seen in many articles I've read on how it's impossible to have a healthy diet on a limited budget. The writer inevitibly lists the things he tries to buy with his limited funds: organic eggs, organic milk, free-range chicken, shade-grown coffee cultivated by the last descendents of a native people made nearly extinct by Spanish colonization.
He then concludes it's impossible to live on such a budget. No shit? Those things are expensive. The non-organic equivalents are nearly equal in nutritional value, and are more wthin most people's budgets.
So let's be realistic.
Yeah, i sort of like that whole thing. People don't always think clearly.
I mean you could eat organic Foxglove. It will kill you, but you would die "healthy."
However, I am more than willing to pay more for organic foods. And for locally grown ones. I think that what is intended is to indicate that some foods are raised pesticide and chemical fertilizer free. It is much more labor intensive and expensive (you lose a lot more product to bugs and disease) to raise things this way. The point is that you are reducing the amount of chemicals you ingest and are also attending to the environment in encouraging (and paying) farmers to use more eco-friendly techniques than the scorched earth approaches of Archer Daniels Midland.
This is a choice of conscience for me and one that I am willing to pay for. Fact is, some of our food budget is so high because we eat too fucking much. A pound of tofu is to much for one person to eat at a sitting - it doesn't matter if it is "healthy" or not.
So. Yes. Eat organic. Eat locally grown foods. And enjoy the occasional Big Mac (You could eat one a week for the rest of your life and it would not harm you, if you had an otherwise healthy diet.)
Somethings you have to pay for. The American obsession with price is what gets us anti-freeze in our toothpaste. You want to pay shit? What you get is shit.
NickFaust said:
However, I am more than willing to pay more for organic foods. And for locally grown ones. I think that what is intended is to indicate that some foods are raised pesticide and chemical fertilizer free. It is much more labor intensive and expensive (you lose a lot more product to bugs and disease) to raise things this way. The point is that you are reducing the amount of chemicals you ingest and are also attending to the environment in encouraging (and paying) farmers to use more eco-friendly techniques than the scorched earth approaches of Archer Daniels Midland.
This is a choice of conscience for me and one that I am willing to pay for. Fact is, some of our food budget is so high because we eat too fucking much. A pound of tofu is to much for one person to eat at a sitting - it doesn't matter if it is "healthy" or not.
Which I can agree with. However, the eco-friendliness of organic foods and the nutrition of organic foods are different issues.
One makes "organic" synonymous with "eco-friendly," while the other makes it mean "healthy." One makes sense, one does not, you know?
NickFaust said:
However, I am more than willing to pay more for organic foods. And for locally grown ones. I think that what is intended is to indicate that some foods are raised pesticide and chemical fertilizer free. It is much more labor intensive and expensive (you lose a lot more product to bugs and disease) to raise things this way. The point is that you are reducing the amount of chemicals you ingest and are also attending to the environment in encouraging (and paying) farmers to use more eco-friendly techniques than the scorched earth approaches of Archer Daniels Midland.
This is a choice of conscience for me and one that I am willing to pay for. Fact is, some of our food budget is so high because we eat too fucking much. A pound of tofu is to much for one person to eat at a sitting - it doesn't matter if it is "healthy" or not.
Which I can agree with. However, the eco-friendliness of organic foods and the nutrition of organic foods are different issues.
One makes "organic" synonymous with "eco-friendly," while the other makes it mean "healthy." One makes sense, one does not, you know?
Well. From the perspective of it being pesticide and chemical fertilizer free - or in the case of meat, antibiotic and prion free - it is healthier.
However, I agree with your basic premise, which is that these days "organic" is just a marketing tool and really does not in most cases guarentee the original health pluses of eating organic. Which is why buying local - knowing the person who raised your food - is better.
Antihero82 said:
Instead of regulating the amount of fast food chains in an area why doesn't the government change how they price food...
The government sets food prices in the USA? Who knew?
They practically can. They technically could tax the fuck out of unhealthy food if they wanted making it more expensive than healthy food. It probably would turn into a logistical and legislative nightmare in the long run though.
Being a Californian living in Tennessee I have come to realize how ridiculous my home state is, especially after reading about giving birth control to pigeons in Santa Monica, I think it was! Don't get me wrong, I love home but my home state tends to over do it in some areas! That, and when I go home to visit I buy all my tobacco in TN because a can of long cut is $6.75 in CA compared to $3.40 in TN, and a pack of 27's is also $3.40 compared to $5.25+ in CA. Home sweet Home........
Yeah, rather than banning a certain type of food, they should just make healthier foods more readily available....I do have to say though that it seems like "bad" food is far easier to come by, the vending machines at my college only offer shit like doritos and cookies, meanwhile the vending machine with freezer food only has burgers and ice cream....doesn't mean they shouldn't offer these things, but they should have some healthier alternatives available as well.
GRAK said:
That, and when I go home to visit I buy all my tobacco in TN because a can of long cut is $6.75 in CA compared to $3.40 in TN, and a pack of 27's is also $3.40 compared to $5.25+ in CA. Home sweet Home........
Ha ha !
Tobacco products are cheap, thats your standard ?
Well YAY Tennessee !!
I'm going to guess the cost of cancer is about the same.
Ember said:
Yeah, rather than banning a certain type of food, they should just make healthier foods more readily available....I do have to say though that it seems like "bad" food is far easier to come by, the vending machines at my college only offer shit like doritos and cookies, meanwhile the vending machine with freezer food only has burgers and ice cream....doesn't mean they shouldn't offer these things, but they should have some healthier alternatives available as well.
They banned things like that in our vending machines in our old school and put in water, it works to a level.
How the hell do you have a burger in a vending machine though? Does the machine cook it for you?
GRAK said:
That, and when I go home to visit I buy all my tobacco in TN because a can of long cut is $6.75 in CA compared to $3.40 in TN, and a pack of 27's is also $3.40 compared to $5.25+ in CA. Home sweet Home........
Ha! A pack of 25 here is $10+... and Ontario is one of the cheaper provinces. My relatives in PEI tell me they are paying $13+.
Ember said:
Yeah, rather than banning a certain type of food, they should just make healthier foods more readily available....I do have to say though that it seems like "bad" food is far easier to come by, the vending machines at my college only offer shit like doritos and cookies, meanwhile the vending machine with freezer food only has burgers and ice cream....doesn't mean they shouldn't offer these things, but they should have some healthier alternatives available as well.
Yep.
Even the food court at my school (where they make the food and thus can make just about anything) consists of a Dunkin' Donuts, a Pizza place, a Subway, a burger/fried food section and a salad bar with ratty, wilted vegetables. hmm...what are students going to choose?
NickFaust
USA
April 2004
SEP 16, 2007 07:18 AM