What would you think if someone told you...

[hollyhock2]

... That they could only eat organic food because conventional food makes them sick?

My first thought is doubt, but is it possible that this could be a real thing? I'm trying to give benefit of the doubt. I've never heard of anything like this.

Thoughts?

[Guest]

*

[Pawz4me]

Orthorexia (although I don't really like that term).

Or they just need to feel special for some reason.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Unless you are cooking for them, what does it matter?  I wouldn't waste the energy on judging them on what could be a sensitivity to pesticides or other chemicals. 

If you are cooking for them, is it for just one meal?  Then unless I were extremely strapped for money, I would just accommodate them without a thought by buying organic foods for that one meal.  (Even organic foods can vary in price and can go on sale.)

 

[happi duck]

When I eat *perfectly* I feel so much better in every way.  In comparison I can imagine describing how I feel when I eat "normally" as "sick".  (gut hurts, joints ache, sluggish, anxious)

I would not bother telling people that though.

[fairfarmhand]

I would think they had a complicated medical issue that would be challenging to explain so it's just easier to tell you that organics are best. 

Or they thought they were a special snowflake (and I know these people) who like the attention of having a special need. If I didn't know the person well, I would never assume this. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, happi duck said:

When I eat *perfectly* I feel so much better in every way.  In comparison I can imagine describing how I feel when I eat "normally" as "sick".  (gut hurts, joints ache, sluggish, anxious)

I would not bother telling people that though.

Same here. I have IBS. If I eat “perfectly,” I feel pretty good. But it turns out I’m carnal and waiver from what I should and shouldn’t eat. Then my guts hurt. And then I will get my act together for a few weeks and eat correctly again. 

[abba12]

Legit. My friends child had salmonella at 6 weeks, despite being breastfed and her mother having actual OCD, so, pristine home. It was crazy

Anyway, her gut was destroyed. She became intollerant to ALL the things, milk, wheat, oats, soy, preservatives, the lot.  They eventually worked out she could eat meat if it was grass fed organic but couldn't tolerate regular meat, possibly because of the diet the animal consumed as she was not celiac but rather is intolerant to the grain proteins which is why she's also intolerant to oats. 

And when I say that I mean if her mother ate a regular chicken piece and then breastfed her she would have blood filled diapers for two days.  Yes it was that bad.  

So after supporting her through that for the past 4 years, a sensitive pesticide allergy is quite believable to me

[abba12]

Oh, and I also know a homeschooled child who is allergic to all fruits and vegetables. Apparently she's allergic to the natural preservative plants have? She has other complicated health issues and constant specialist visits including a gut specialist and dietician so it's absolutely legit

Bodies are crazy

[Tap]

Lots of people have chemical sensitivities.  It isn't that surprising to me that someone has figured out they feel better avoiding chemicals on food too.  Maybe they don't truly need organic produce but since they can't say which chemicals are on each piece of fruit etc, avoiding the vast majority of chemicals by eating organic is the easiest option. 

In pharmacy we sell so much prilosec, protonix, ranitidine (all for GI issues) etc is is ridiculous.  People have very messed up GI systems and I have to believe that a portion of that comes from a lot of the chemicals and non-food we all eat on a daily basis.

[klmama]

One of my dc reacted to a bunch of foods as an infant. After extensive testing,  I remember the doctor asking if we lived on a farm, because dc's reaction to some pesticide was so high.  He recommended dc eat all organic. 

[Tanaqui]

I'd think that unless I was cooking for them, it's none of my business.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, happi duck said:

When I eat *perfectly* I feel so much better in every way.  In comparison I can imagine describing how I feel when I eat "normally" as "sick".  (gut hurts, joints ache, sluggish, anxious)

I would not bother telling people that though.

Yes this.

I feel tired sluggish and achey a lot.  By a lot of people's definition the way I feel counts as sick.  Don't have the luxury of eating all organic to find out if it fixes things though.

[goldberry]

We have a friend who only fed her kids organic and mostly vegetarian since they were born.  DD became friends with the daughter at about 6 yo.  She was probably 7 or 8 when she was at our house and both she and her mom said she got really bad stomach trouble eating non-organic food. I believed them. It was all she'd ever had, and I'm sure her system was used to it.

Fast forward to teenage years, girl purposely would eat some non-organic and even junky food every so often because she didn't want it to make her sick.  She still gets stomach troubles on occasion, but not as bad.

[Carol in Cal.]

I believe it, but it's pretty rare.

Also, although I can't tell a difference in how I feel on organic vs. nonorganic produce, I can smell the difference between organic and non-organic blueberries, and taste it slightly.  It's subtle but it's there.  Not for anything else, though.

I can't eat all organic, but I try to stick to organic berries, tomatoes, and other things that I eat the skin of, and choose grass fed/grass finished beef whenever I can.  

[hollyhock2]

Wow, those are some crazy stories. It really doesn't matter to me, but I was curious if anyone had heard of such a thing. I have a long history with this person and I do not doubt that orthorexia could be the cause, but I could never say for sure.

[Teaching3bears]

2 hours ago, abba12 said:

Legit. My friends child had salmonella at 6 weeks, despite being breastfed and her mother having actual OCD, so, pristine home. It was crazy

Anyway, her gut was destroyed. She became intollerant to ALL the things, milk, wheat, oats, soy, preservatives, the lot.  They eventually worked out she could eat meat if it was grass fed organic but couldn't tolerate regular meat, possibly because of the diet the animal consumed as she was not celiac but rather is intolerant to the grain proteins which is why she's also intolerant to oats. 

And when I say that I mean if her mother ate a regular chicken piece and then breastfed her she would have blood filled diapers for two days.  Yes it was that bad.  

So after supporting her through that for the past 4 years, a sensitive pesticide allergy is quite believable to me

 

poor baby!

[SKL]

I would assume they have sensitivities or allergies to something that is found in many conventional foods.  And they find it easier to just stick to organic.

[LucyStoner]

I'm skeptical but it's not my business. 

Sick is a vague and subjective term, speaking as the daughter and sister of two hypochondriacs.  

[J-rap]

I'd assume that they have sensitivities to the pesticides, chemicals, and additives found in a lot of foods, and have learned that they feel a lot better when they eat as "clean" as possible.  Maybe their statement that "conventional food makes them sick" is a more simple and general way of describing it.

As an example of how this might play out...  We have a super powerful migraine/headache gene in our family.  One of my dd's has them chronically.  She has slowly learned that her body is just super sensitive to its environment -- whether it be weather changes, noises, food additives, etc.  She technically she doesn't have specific food allergies, but if she eats a "clean" diet -- it really does help.  

[Bluegoat]

I'd be very doubtful.  I might believe it if it was one particular food or group of foods,  I might think it was a particular chemical  used in processing or growing, but overall? No.   It's not like organic foods don't contain agricultural chemicals.  So I'd not expect just switching to organic to be effective for a very generalized sensitivity.

But I also don't necessarily think that people who tell me they need to be on a lot of restriction type diets or fad diets really feel better.  Or rather, they do, but in many many cases I think it is psychologically based.  I don't think feeling better or symptom improvement are especially reliable indicators for food sensitivities or problems, unless it's a blind test, which is never the case.

[marbel]

Based on my experience with some people who go from one dietary restriction to another  as their whims take them, I would be a little skeptical.  However, I have known of a few people who had unusual sensitivities to certain foods or types of foods so I imagine it's possible.  

Quote

Unless you are cooking for them, what does it matter?  I wouldn't waste the energy on judging them on what could be a sensitivity to pesticides or other chemicals.

 

I don't see OP as judging anyone. She's asking a question, I assume in order to learn something and understand the person. 

[catz]

Well, I know someone who did an blind experiment with their child who was having all sorts of low grade issues with no answers.  Evything was changed to Whole Foods, organic, free range, etc.    It changed this kids life.   She used to gag on any meat. It now loves organically raised beef.  She used to have behavioral issues that are gone  rashes,etc

I have some unusual food sensitivities that some people would find odd.  Like corn syrup is a no.   Highly processed foods are not great.   

Anyway, who am I to doubt what is making someone else feeling better.   That shouldn’t make you change your kitchen.   Not that people don’t go overboard with this stuff.   If you’re talking and obsessing about food all day every day, I can’t imag that is healthy.  But unless you are my spouse or kid it’s probably not my business.

[Pawz4me]

19 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

But I also don't necessarily think that people who tell me they need to be on a lot of restriction type diets or fad diets really feel better.  Or rather, they do, but in many many cases I think it is psychologically based.  I don't think feeling better or symptom improvement are especially reliable indicators for food sensitivities or problems, unless it's a blind test, which is never the case.

Agreed.

I've known way too many people who've embraced a particular WOE and absolutely raved about how wonderful they felt, swore they'd never ever eat any other way, etc. And it lasted all of a few months or a year or two and then they drastically changed their WOE and swore the same things all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

One of the benefits of being old is you see this kind of thing over and over enough to realize it's a thing. ?

And I do not doubt that for a time those people really do think they feel better. The placebo effect is a powerful thing, and really . . . does it matter what causes the perception of improvement? I'm all for people feeling well.

[shawthorne44]

I'd assume that they had sensitivities to some chemicals.   There are probably many foods she could eat, but aren't.   But, since there isn't a test she is playing it safe.    

The now-ex of a good friend of mine suddenly had a bad reaction to all farmed meat.   Grass-fed beef was OK, but they were too cheap for that.  Eventually their doctor told them that a tick caused the problem.   So, like Lyme, only completely different.  

I also know several people whose dogs can't eat GMO corn.   Dogs aren't people, but they also don't care or know about things like GMO or organic labels.  

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Agreed.

I've known way too many people who've embraced a particular WOE and absolutely raved about how wonderful they felt, swore they'd never ever eat any other way, etc. And it lasted all of a few months or a year or two and then they drastically changed their WOE and swore the same things all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

One of the benefits of being old is you see this kind of thing over and over enough to realize it's a thing. ?

And I do not doubt that for a time those people really do think they feel better. The placebo effect is a powerful thing, and really . . . does it matter what causes the perception of improvement? I'm all for people feeling well.

 

The only problem I think is that it can become the focus when it shouldn't' be, and it also is a pain for others when your aunt is now on her 6th complicated new diet in 10 years.

13 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well, I know someone who did an blind experiment with their child who was having all sorts of low grade issues with no answers.  Evything was changed to Whole Foods, organic, free range, etc.    It changed this kids life.   She used to gag on any meat. It now loves organically raised beef.  She used to have behavioral issues that are gone  rashes,etc

I have some unusual food sensitivities that some people would find odd.  Like corn syrup is a no.   Highly processed foods are not great.   

Anyway, who am I to doubt what is making someone else feeling better.   That shouldn’t make you change your kitchen.   Not that people don’t go overboard with this stuff.   If you’re talking and obsessing about food all day every day, I can’t imag that is healthy.  But unless you are my spouse or kid it’s probably not my business.

 

Well, sometimes it can be legitimate.  But honestly, even with parents and kids, I am not convinced the observations are reliable in a lot of cases.  Like Pawz, I have just seen too many cases where it seems like that is just a manifestation of a bigger issue, often the parents.

[gardenmom5]

13 hours ago, Quill said:

I would think they had Orthorexia. I do not see any way that could be a valid illness. 

this.

 unless you are paying for their food, or having to otherwise accommodate them, - it's not your problem.

if they go on and on about it and are in your face about it - that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.  in which case they are being anywhere from being a bore to being rude.

[FriedClams]

I would internally (hopefully) roll my eyes and make a note to myself that we'd be better off to meet at a restaurant if food were involved.

[Katy]

I'd believe they've had real symptoms, but I'd doubt it was from pesticides.  Organic pesticides are frequently MUCH MORE toxic to humans than typical ones, which typically don't effect mammals at all. (ETA: In typical quantities). So unless there was double-blind testing done to discern specifically which chemicals are causing a reaction, I'd bet it's more power of suggestion and the human tendency to look for patterns even when none exist than it is legitimate.

For the family a PP mentioned above who gets "sick" from non-grassfed beef, it's literally impossible for them to be having a reaction to the proteins from the grains the animals ate.  Grain proteins are not retained in meat, they are completely broken down.  But the person might be unusually sensitive to inflammatory Omega 3:6 ratios, and corn fed beef is unusually inflammatory compared to the fat ratios in grass fed beef. You could probably correct that by supplementing Omega 3 fats with a handful of walnuts or chia or flax every time they eat standard beef, but that would be much less snowflake special than sticking to only grassfed.

[BeachGal]

14 hours ago, hollyhock2 said:

... That they could only eat organic food because conventional food makes them sick?

My first thought is doubt, but is it possible that this could be a real thing? I'm trying to give benefit of the doubt. I've never heard of anything like this.

Thoughts?

 

If people can have problems with other chemicals, then it’s entirely possible to have problems with conventional agricultural chemicals.

For those of you mentioning chemicals used on organic crops, which specifically are the worst and why? Curious...

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

 

If people can have problems with other chemicals, then it’s entirely possible to have problems with conventional agricultural chemicals.

For those of you mentioning chemicals used on organic crops, which specifically are the worst and why? Curious...

 

The worst "organic" one I've heard about is Neonicotinoids, (high concentrations of nicotine, the addictive additive in tobacco), which harms humans and bees so much it has recently been banned in the EU.

I'm trying to quote reputable & unbiased sources, there are many articles you can find if you google something like "organic pesticides worse" or "organic pesticides toxic."

NPR: Organic Pesticides: Not an Oxymoron

Science Daily: Organic Pesticides Not Always "Greener" Choice

UC Berkeley blog: On Organic Produce

Scientific American: Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

Note: I am not saying I never buy organic.  We're part of a CSA from a small local farm that uses NO pesticides, including organic. And in a conventional grocery store if the organic is on sale for less than conventional and I'm buying something to use in the next 36 hours, I usually buy the organic.

 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, marbel said:

Based on my experience with some people who go from one dietary restriction to another  as their whims take them, I would be a little skeptical.  However, I have known of a few people who had unusual sensitivities to certain foods or types of foods so I imagine it's possible.  

 

I don't see OP as judging anyone. She's asking a question, I assume in order to learn something and understand the person. 

I know right?  Wondering about something doesn't equal judgment. Or minding someone's business.

[SKL]

I mean it could be psychological, but who am I to assume one way or the other?

Any supposed medical condition "could be psychological" (or just a lie).  Why do people assume it more about some things than others?

 

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

I mean it could be psychological, but who am I to assume one way or the other?

Any supposed medical condition "could be psychological" (or just a lie).  Why do people assume it more about some things than others?

 

 

Not really, if your gums are turning black and teeth falling out, there's a fair chance you have a disease.  There are plenty of objective criteria around disease.

If, on the other hand, you have seen how many people report feeling better from fad diet changes which later are shown to be false, or people who report feeling great and having their lives changed every two years when they discover a new way of eating, or even meet enough moms who are projecting their own food issues onto their kids, it's easy to be skeptical of results from self-reporting.  

Add to that the number of snake oil diet approaches, especially right now around restricting foods - it's difficult not to be skeptical.  And when the reported issue actually doesn't make much sense, even more so.

[BeachGal]

6 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

The worst "organic" one I've heard about is Neonicotinoids, (high concentrations of nicotine, the addictive additive in tobacco), which harms humans and bees so much it has recently been banned in the EU.

I'm trying to quote reputable & unbiased sources, there are many articles you can find if you google something like "organic pesticides worse" or "organic pesticides toxic."

NPR: Organic Pesticides: Not an Oxymoron

Science Daily: Organic Pesticides Not Always "Greener" Choice

UC Berkeley blog: On Organic Produce

Scientific American: Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

Note: I am not saying I never buy organic.  We're part of a CSA from a small local farm that uses NO pesticides, including organic. And in a conventional grocery store if the organic is on sale for less than conventional and I'm buying something to use in the next 36 hours, I usually buy the organic.

 

 

The problem with these discussions is finding truly unbiased information. The federal agencies, such as the USDA, that are supposed to be protecting consumers are captured agencies. The people in charge have strong ties — conflicts of interest — to the corporations they are supposed to be overseeing. University research can also be influenced when these corporations fund the research either directly or indirectly. Lobby groups and media also do their fair share of spreading misinformation. This is where I have a problem with these discussions.

 

 

[Katy]

The placebo effect is real.  Airborne, despite being shown to be a placebo effect at best, still sells every year.  So do homeopathic "remedies" that have been proven over and over to be completely fraudulent. "Needing" organic foods are just another faddish placebo effect.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, BeachGal said:

 

The problem with these discussions is finding truly unbiased information. The federal agencies, such as the USDA, that are supposed to be protecting consumers are captured agencies. The people in charge have strong ties — conflicts of interest — to the corporations they are supposed to be overseeing. University research can also be influenced when these corporations fund the research either directly or indirectly. Lobby groups and media also do their fair share of spreading misinformation. This is where I have a problem with these discussions.

 

So your objection isn't the science itself or even the studies and facts quoted in the articles I linked, but the idea that the funding from the science might be from a source you disagree with?  Is there a fact somewhere in your argument or is the science basically a vast conspiracy theory to you?  Do you have any evidence you can link?

[Bambam]

If someone told me this, I'd wonder too. I wouldn't necessarily disbelieve them, but I would find it curious as I had never heard of that and just investigate to find out more about it. I wouldn't think of that as not-minding-my-own-business but as me trying to learn something new. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

25 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

So your objection isn't the science itself or even the studies and facts quoted in the articles I linked, but the idea that the funding from the science might be from a source you disagree with?  Is there a fact somewhere in your argument or is the science basically a vast conspiracy theory to you?  Do you have any evidence you can link?

 

I have to say, I find myself kind of suspicious of these kinds of articles at times - the Scientific American one for example - while I agree that industrial organic production isn't what people think in many cases, just to call them organic myths seem so general it's kind of untrue.

(I've found this sort of thing a lot with SA articles in recent years - it seems less and less scientific.)

[Irene Lynn]

I have a friend who was having a number of systemic inflammation type symptoms and felt bad or off most of the time.  She went to a nonconventional health guy (I don't know what he called himself.) and he did some testing and put her on a super restrictive diet to calm the inflammation.  A LOT of foods were forbidden and the ones she could eat had to be organic.  Whatever she does, she does wholeheartedly, so for a little while, she saw danger in most things.  She did feel much better and pain subsided and other symptoms took a vacation.  After a while she began trying some of the forbidden foods to see how her body responded, so her diet is modified now.  She has found some things that definitely cause problems and others that seem to be fine for her.  I do believe that for some people, whose bodies are pretty sensitive/reactive to chemicals, both natural and manmade, that their bodies can get so overwhelmed that even foods/chemicals that were not the natural culprit for inflammation can begin to contribute.  It is like the body just can't deal with anything extra.  Some of those things aren't really a problem when the body isn't overwhelmed. It is kind of like when a person is super stressed out.  ANY new stress/work is too much.  As others have mentioned, there are some very rare cases of people, whose bodies can't handle and never will handle things that the vast majority have no problems handling.  My friend thought for a while that most foods held some danger.  Maybe there was danger everywhere for her and maybe there wasn't and the diet didn't need to be quite so restrictive, but the drastic change was helpful for her and was faster than trying things one at a time.

[Katy]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I have to say, I find myself kind of suspicious of these kinds of articles at times - the Scientific American one for example - while I agree that industrial organic production isn't what people think in many cases, just to call them organic myths seem so general it's kind of untrue.

(I've found this sort of thing a lot with SA articles in recent years - it seems less and less scientific.)

 

I thought this particular article did a pretty good job of explaining exactly why they are myths.  As well as being objective.  Is there a specific thing you disagree with or do you dislike the tone of SA in general?

[BeachGal]

21 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

So your objection isn't the science itself or even the studies and facts quoted in the articles I linked, but the idea that the funding from the science might be from a source you disagree with?  Is there a fact somewhere in your argument or is the science basically a vast conspiracy theory to you?  Do you have any evidence you can link?

 

I’m not saying anything about a “vast conspiracy theory.”

I will say that bias most definitely exists and sometimes it’s done for profit at the expense of consumers. Many members of my family and friends work or have worked in research, including agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. My husband’s PhD is in statistics and he has studied bias in research extensively. He has also testified before Congress multiple times and has seen how legislation really gets passed. Bias is far more common than the public may realize and it’s not very difficult to find the studies to support particular claims. Much of the funding is given in ways that are not transparent.

I could link all kinds of information to support what I’m saying but, IMO, it’s better for individuals to research these issues themselves and then make a decision.

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

<snip>

 

I could link all kinds of information to support what I’m saying but, IMO, it’s better for individuals to research these issues themselves and then make a decision.

 

I for one would really appreciate if you DID link credible information about this topic.  I have neither the time nor inclination to spend more than 20 minutes seeking out more crunchy but reputable sources than NPR and Berkeley, though if someone here or a reputable journalist did it for me, I'd be happy to change my mind.

How to lie with statistics is an interesting conversation but it isn't relevant to the question of whether large scale commercially farmed organic produce is actually safer for humans than large scale conventionally farmed produce. With regard to deadly food poisoning alone, it is demonstrably not safer.

[SKL]

I dunno.  I think it's clear that food and food additives impact health / wellness differently for different people.  Why are people spending so much energy being skeptical about what others say?  If they are telling you that you need to change your diet, that's different.

I mean I think coffee is the elixir of the gods, but if someone tells me "coffee doesn't agree with me" or "caffeine makes me sick," my reaction is "oh, ok."

Science doesn't always get it right either.   Just recently they again reversed their stand on whether or not you can/should eat lots of eggs.  And some other scientific advisory was also reversed - I don't remember which one.  I'm so used to this happening every x years about just about everything.  So yeah, I am not going to blindly follow anyone, scientist or otherwise.  I'm gonna *gasp* do what feels good.

[SKL]

54 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Not really, if your gums are turning black and teeth falling out, there's a fair chance you have a disease.  There are plenty of objective criteria around disease.

If, on the other hand, you have seen how many people report feeling better from fad diet changes which later are shown to be false, or people who report feeling great and having their lives changed every two years when they discover a new way of eating, or even meet enough moms who are projecting their own food issues onto their kids, it's easy to be skeptical of results from self-reporting.  

Add to that the number of snake oil diet approaches, especially right now around restricting foods - it's difficult not to be skeptical.  And when the reported issue actually doesn't make much sense, even more so.

Having been accused of the bolded - yeah, don't assume.  Unless you know the person pretty well and are aware of both their and their kids' issues, just dont' go there.  Believe it or not, it is possible for a kid to have food issues when his mom does not.  Making what border on abuse allegations does not help.

[BeachGal]

I’m merely offering my opinion and what I’ve heard and observed. I’ll try to find some links for you and will post them when I do.

Statistics are immensely important in research and are absolutely relative to the question of which methods of farming are healthier.

Researchers aren’t necessarily lying intentionally, either. However, studies may be poorly designed, sometimes intentionally. Or results may be improperly interpreted which happens often enough.

Food poisoning can occur in conventionally grown crops as well.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, HeighHo said:

 

Untrue.  Many have genetic issues which mean that they cannot process the additives to nonorganic foods..and they didn't find out until they were very ill and paying tens of thousands of dollars to find out.  Me, I can't process the folic acid the US adds to grains...and go ahead an call me an outlier, or a person who should be genetically culled -- you'll get rid of 15 to 30% of the population.  Its measurable chemically as well as in the uptick of cancer patient$.  I feel it as brain fog and fatigue aside from what the scientist observes.  To eat wheat, I have to go organic..only uncontaminated source available. 

 

Yeah, I have MTHFR too.  How a crop is grown has nothing to do with it, it's the processing after that's the issue.

[Bluegoat]

20 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I thought this particular article did a pretty good job of explaining exactly why they are myths.  As well as being objective.  Is there a specific thing you disagree with or do you dislike the tone of SA in general?

 

It's probably down to the tone.  It's a very reductive view of what "organic" means- almost to the point of meaningless, it just means, in accordance with regs at that point. 

It's very dismissive of the fact that organic agriculture, to anyone who knows anything about it, means much more than that.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It's probably down to the tone.  It's a very reductive view of what "organic" means- almost to the point of meaningless, it just means, in accordance with regs at that point. 

It's very dismissive of the fact that organic agriculture, to anyone who knows anything about it, means much more than that.

 

In theory it's different than regulations.  If you're buying from a local small farm you've visited that doesn't use even organic pesticides, it is different.  But the point is that the sort of organic produce you find in supermarkets isn't grown the way most consumers think it is. We lived in Iowa for years, and met many small non-certified organic farmers at farmers markets, and visited several of their farms. From what we heard from them, the massive "organic" farms that grow the majority of things in the organic aisles in large supermarket chains DO work that way.  They use massive amounts of "organic" chemicals and it is worse for everyone.  Nicotine, for example, is toxic for everyone.

Don't get me wrong, we as a family do support a small local non-certified organic pesticide-free CSA farm with a focus on sustainable practices. But when we buy produce at the grocery store I often buy whatever looks like the highest quality, rather than choosing organic as a matter of course. And we always cook organic greens.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Agreed.

I've known way too many people who've embraced a particular WOE and absolutely raved about how wonderful they felt, swore they'd never ever eat any other way, etc. And it lasted all of a few months or a year or two and then they drastically changed their WOE and swore the same things all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

One of the benefits of being old is you see this kind of thing over and over enough to realize it's a thing. ?

And I do not doubt that for a time those people really do think they feel better. The placebo effect is a powerful thing, and really . . . does it matter what causes the perception of improvement? I'm all for people feeling well.

Tangent: Have you seen that funny commercial where the guy is at the counter ordering a bunch of meat and his friend says, “Dude, I thought you were vegan?” And he replies, “I was. I’m Paleo now.” 

There’s a reason why that’s so funny. Truth is funny.