Ezekiel Bread

@Blickers,

Quote:

As you reject proof. You came in here swaggering and "informed" us that organic was a marketing gimmick. Then I posted a page from the Dep't of Agriculture which showed stringent controls, including in-person inspections, for such standards as the soil the organic food was grown in could not have been exposed to artificial fertilizers or pesticides for fully three years before anything to be labelled "organic" could be grown there. That's a real expense for the farmer-and you try to pass it off as a "marketing gimmick".

I am not rejecting proof. I am rejecting politics.

There is no where that I have seen that the Department of Agriculture claims that their Organic standards provide any health benefits to consumers. The Department of Agriculture doesn't make such a claim because the science doesn't back it up. They created the arbitrary standards behind the Organic designation because interest groups wanted it, and the former department head said just as much.

Pepsi, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Campbell's (i.e. soup)... these companies all have organic brands. They all produce them because by labeling them as "organic" they get a much greater profit margin.

Marketing is about profit margin. The fact that you need to pay a little more to produce food that has the "organic" label doesn't mean that it isn't a great marketing strategy when you sell it with a big mark up in price.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

HEB has some apples and oranges at a reasonable price that are juicy and delicious. Some of the other organic stuff is expensive, some not. I planted my own tomatoes this year, because we eat so many. I made sure it was the older kind, not the "scientifically improved" kind.

1 Reply

https://scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/s720x720/17504303_1440337222653373_6302449385362248906_o.jpg?oh=a020a568eac70a5418a9bb4cb2212daf&oe=5961607E

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Memories...

In the good old days back in Venice (CA), I planted nine types of heirloom tomatoes each year, as I had built raised beds with plenty of room grow them, even though it was a small yard. Haven't grown them here, entirely different soil (aka sand).

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

I have a very small sunny area, so I don't garden whole hog. If I could get rid of the damn pines I would have room for a good one.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote Max:

Quote:

There is no where that I have seen that the Department of Agriculture claims that their Organic standards provide any health benefits to consumers.

What about the Swedish study that showed the pesticide percentage in the urinalysis declined sixfold when the subjects switched from a non-organic diet to an organic one? That's science.

What about the report that in 2015 only 15% of food tested had no pesticide applied at all, down from over 40% the previous year?

As for government oversight agencies, what about the already posted NY Times report that says:

Quote:

a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

. That's fact.

How about Edgar's factual article that the scheduled testing for Roundup in the general food supply that was scheduled to start next month has been put off indefinitely.

How about the fact that you assured us that organic was just a "marketing gimmick", and my posting the stiff and lengthy soil requirements, taking farmers years to pass, before they can even begin to grow food they can label "organic"? You dodged that question.

Undoubtedly, there are some researchers who honestly believe there is no difference between organic food and non-organic. Just as undoubtedly, there are other researchers who just as honestly believe that the stiff requirements necessary to grow a crop labelled "organic" does produce something that is likely to be healthier. For instance, I can't prove that eating vegetables with pesticide sprayed on it will be less healthy for me than eating vegetables with much less or no pesticide sprayed on it, but a sane person would put their money on the no-pesticide vegetables, especially since he'll be eating them for decades. And I can't prove that vegetables grown in soil that legally cannot have sewer sludge added to it will be healthier than eating non-organic vegetables grown in soil where sewer sludge can used as fertilizer. The choice can and should be mine, and the idea that a person has to be anti-science to make that choice for the organic food is absurd.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

You are making the same arguments that Global Climate Change skeptics make. You are picking out single studies with inconclusive and irrelevant findings.

The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence of significant health affects for consumers of conventional (non-organic) food. This is the same way, the scientific consensus that global climate change is real and caused by human activity.

Now lets look at your claims.

1) A single Swedish study showing "pesticide percentage" in urinalysis is irrelevant to the question of health affects. Obviously you would need to show that these values where significant compared to the levels where there were adverse health impact. And, you would have to show that these findings were peer-reviewed and reproducible.

2) I don't even know what point is of the percentage of food tested having pesticide.

3) I don't like studies being quashed... I probably agree with you on this point. Although, I would need to know the details before making a judgement.

4) A marketing gimmick is a label that companies, such as Coca-Cola and General Mills (both of which market and sell organic products), slap on their food to increase profit. The fact that it costs more to get this label doesn't change the fact that companies do this to increase profit margin. I think I am answering your question.

There are many marketing gimmicks that cost the companies money. Making Barbie Talk, or putting 4 colors of marshmallows in Lucky Charms cost extra money... and yet are profitable enough to make them worthwhile.

Are you making any argument here other than a claim that marketing gimmicks don't cost money?

4) What you say as "some researchers" includes the vast majority of the scientific community... if you are talking about the scientists who believe that there are no valid health differences between organic and non-organic foods.

You are using the same rhetorical tricks that the Climate Change Deniers are using.

Quote:

The choice can and should be mine, and the idea that a person has to be anti-science to make that choice for the organic food is absurd.

Of course the choice is yours whether to consume organic food or not.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote max:

Quote:

A single Swedish study showing "pesticide percentage" in urinalysis is irrelevant to the question of health affects.

You do realize pesticides are poison, right? The less of it the better from a health standpoint.

Quote max:

Quote:

I don't even know what point is of the percentage of food tested having pesticide.

How about: The smaller percentage of what you eat has pesticides, the healthier you are likely to be? I need a study for that?

Quote max:

Quote:

There are many marketing gimmicks that cost the companies money. Making Barbie Talk, or putting 4 colors of marshmallows in Lucky Charms cost extra money... and yet are profitable enough to make them worthwhile.

You cannot compare putting 4 colors of marshmallows in Lucky Charms, which costs about 2 cents per box, with a farmer making the sacrifice of not using artificial fertilizers or pesticides on his farm for three years before he can label his crop organic. Or to subject himself to periodic inspections. That is a huge commitment. That's not a "marketing gimmick".

It stands to reason that since pesticides are poison, the less you take in of them the better. Or that crops grown in sewage are less desirable than crops which are not. Add the issues of money corrupting the Federal oversight agencies, which it certainly appears to be, and it is not a dangerously unscientific decision to decide to go with organically grown fruits and vegetables.

0 Replies

It's not to the profit interests of investors to admit that the food chain has been compromised.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It's not to the profit interests of investors to admit that the food chain has been compromised.

Of course it is. You buy Ezekiel Bread from "Food for Life" corporation because you believe the food chain has been compromised. The investors in the "Food for Life" corporation are profiting from this. That is why they invested in a 80,000 square foot factory in Arizona to produce this bread.

Organic food is a $65 Billion market, and it is quickly growing. They are making a very nice profit on it. That is why corporations from Pepsi, to General Mills are jumping into it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

It may be in the interests of investors of companies that sell organic food products to say the food chain has been compromised, but it most certainly is not in the interests of far larger giant food conglomerates to admit that. For one thing, they the corporation officers would be facing jail.

If those giant food companies do decide to hedge their bets and start up organic food brands themselves-or more likely, purchase organic food companies already operating-so what? They still make a lot more money on non-organic food and they are still apparently getting government bodies to suppress studies showing the effects of artificial pesticides and fertilizers. Not to mention sewage as fertilizer.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

I am really curious why you are obsessed with sewage as fertilizer. Humans have used sewage as fertilizer for thousands of years... and I think you can do so and still be considered organic.

I don't see why you think this is important. You have a better argument about pesticides (although organic food can be grown with pesticides too). The fact remains that there is no unbiased scientific evidence that there is any significant health benefit to eating organic food.

It is impossible to argue against conspiracy theories. If you really think that scientists working for government agencies (under multiple administrations) and Universities are all being "suppressed"... than there is nothing I can do to convince you. This is true whether you are arguing against conventional agriculture, vaccinations, moon landings, flouride or any other any other alleged conspiracy. So I won't try.

I am curious about the sewage though.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Ok... I just did a little reading it is hard to find well-written scientific information among the political hand-wringing. It seems like there is some legitimate concern that sewage sludge (processed from municipal waste facilities) can contain heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals.

And, it does seem that the USDA organic food certification disallows the use of this product.

So, sure Blickers I see Blickers point.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

It may be in the interests of investors of companies that sell organic food products to say the food chain has been compromised, but it most certainly is not in the interests of far larger giant food conglomerates to admit that. For one thing, they the corporation officers would be facing jail.

If those giant food companies do decide to hedge their bets and start up organic food brands themselves-or more likely, purchase organic food companies already operating-so what? They still make a lot more money on non-organic food and they are still apparently getting government bodies to suppress studies showing the effects of artificial
pesticides and fertilizers. Not to mention sewage as fertilizer.

The only reason I can see why they would buy up organic concerns is so they can shut them down.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

The only reason I can see why they would buy up organic concerns is so they can shut them down.

Are you kidding?!?! These big corporations aren't stupid. They exist to make profits, and organic food is highly profitable. You can sell organic food at a higher profit margin than conventional food. There is no way that they are shutting them down.

Go into your local Costco, and look at how big the organic food section is there. Organic food is a cash cow.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

On NPR One, they featured a "Science Versus" podcast on Organic food (I highly recommend the "Science Versus" podcast in general).

She interviewed an organic farmer. The farmer thought that organic food was nonsense, and he said as much. But his profit margins as an organic farmer are high enough to convince him to get certified. And now his farm is certified organic.

There is, without question, a marketing advantage to producing organic food.

0 Replies

Many of us are interested. I have had my own veg gardens, the likes of which people paid attention, plus advising design clients and their talking back and their being right on consideration, at times, always learning. A non pesticide person once I got it.

As I said, I'm a bread maker, and I'm going to play with ezekial ingredients. I'll report, but it might take forever, as I love other breads. I've no interest in the ezekiel promo, nor hearing max.

I'm still waiting for myself to make buckwheat pasta.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Quote:

I've no interest in the ezekiel promo, nor hearing max.

So.... why again are you in this thread titled Ezekiel Bread Wink

?

You seem to irresistibly attracted to the disagreements that you pretend you don't like, Osso. Admit it... you wouldn't be in this thread if I weren't here stirring things up.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I am interested in breads, not you.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

This happens to be a thread about Ezekiel bread, a commercial organic product sold in stores nation wide. The thread has evolved into a discussion about the commercial organic food industry in general.

You didn't just stumble into this thread by accident to talk about bread, Osso. We know each other far too well for me to believe that.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know