snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > The Bad Gastronomer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 16 May 2014, 12:46 AM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

Penn and Teller : Organic food taste test.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 16 May 2014, 01:02 AM
quink quink is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2005
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 3,193
Default

I buy most of my produce at our year round farmer's market because, in general, it tastes better and is higher quality than grocery store produce. A lot of it is organic, but that's not something I specifically look for. By far, the most noticeable difference is when food is local and in season. The carrots from an hour up the road have ruined grocery store carrots for me (we literally won't buy them if we can't get them from the farm), and I'm just waiting to get proper peaches in. During the winter, I still enjoy shopping at the market but the quality isn't all that different from our regular grocery store. You can tell most of the goods are coming far from the south, organic or not.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 16 May 2014, 01:26 PM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

I think "organic farming" is a scam. Like all those super foods that are suddenly available. People who are willing to pay so much more for food are going to believe that it is tastier/healthier/better than other, cheaper food.

I'm not sure how much credence we give Penn & Teller's test, but the bit where people were saying that one piece of a banana was definitely tastier than another piece of the same banana was hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 16 May 2014, 02:36 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,152
Default

Penn & Teller's TV show isn't even a remotely credible source of information. They present all their opinions as fact and ignore anything that contradicts them. Don't trust them when it comes to testing things like that, they're almost certain to have introduced a bias into the test in order to get the results they want.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 16 May 2014, 03:48 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,387
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Penn & Teller's TV show isn't even a remotely credible source of information.
Exactly. It is entertainment.

Apparently, from what I read on the net, if they had their way they were going to do an episode about their own show, highlighting how they were out to get a one-sided debate going on all their topics. But their show was cancelled before they could pull it off.

That would have been good to see.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 16 May 2014, 04:45 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
[Any] TV show isn't even a remotely credible source of information. They present all their opinions as fact and ignore anything that contradicts them. Don't trust them when it comes to testing things like that, they're almost certain to have introduced a bias into the test in order to get the results they want.
Fixed it for ya (more honestly than most who do that, in the I used brackets to show the substitution). To a certain extent that might be inevitable in any programming, particularly issues-oriented programming. Some, like broadcast network news, are poorer than others.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 16 May 2014, 05:47 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

The banana taste test is so true and proven time and time again. Not the organic part, but the introduction of a bias before the test. In this case telling the person that one half is organic and the other not.

When watch Penn & Teller's show Bullshit I did fact check when I could and found the information they were quoting to be correct. That does not mean they were not presenting in very bias manner. At least they were not making up the information that I checked like some other TV and radio shows.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 16 May 2014, 06:15 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,035
Glasses

I've been resisting the temptation to say this since the thread opened; alas, I'm weak.

I've never felt guilty about buying non-organic produce. I've never felt guilty about buying any kind of produce at all. Why would I?

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 17 May 2014, 04:57 AM
Dasla's Avatar
Dasla Dasla is offline
 
Join Date: 15 April 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
I've been resisting the temptation to say this since the thread opened; alas, I'm weak.

I've never felt guilty about buying non-organic produce. I've never felt guilty about buying any kind of produce at all. Why would I?

Seaboe
and you shouldn't. I am on an extremely limited budget at the moment and don't drive, so the fruit and veg I buy at the local grocery stores are fine. If I went for the organic, I would buy and eat much less. There was a farmers markets within walking distance I few years ago, which was great, but it didn't last long unfortunetly. There are other similar markets around but would involve more effort to get to (usually on Sunday morning)

I am growing a few herbs and things on my balcony. The basil is the main thing I have used so far. It is fantastic but I think that is more due to the fact I pick and then use and then eat it within an hour then the fact it is organic.

By the way doesn't anyone want any basil planets? They have dropped seeds and the orginal doen't seem to be dying off for winter.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 17 May 2014, 01:01 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
I've never felt guilty about buying non-organic produce. I've never felt guilty about buying any kind of produce at all. Why would I?

Seaboe
I actually go the opposite way. Occasionally, I see produce marked organic which is less expensive than the stuff not marked that way, and I am embarrassed to be seen with it. I'll put other things on top of it. I have done my research and am thoroughly convinced that there is absolutely no value or sense to the label 'organic' and I do not want to be thought stupid enough to be fooled by it, or to be associated with those who insist on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasla View Post
By the way doesn't anyone want any basil planets?
You have planets of the stuff - wow, you have been prolific! Pesto for all!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 17 May 2014, 05:23 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

I have a very simple reason to feel no guilt at all for buying exclusively non-organic, and if possible, I also buy GMO crops.

The reason?

Every two years, as many dies of starvation as all the losses combined during WW2, civilian and military, the genocides included. We actually have a three times higher death rate than WW2 due to starvation.

In a situation like that, I can't find any moral justification for using any non-optimal crops, especially as the worries about them are not even proven, they are just vague "...but we don't know everything...". Well, I'll tell you one thing we do know: 36 million starve to death every year, and almost a billion are suffering from malnutrition. That's the immediate problem, and if a solution to that doesn't have any scientifically proven, extremely drastic effect, I would almost call it a crime against humanity to reject it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 21 May 2014, 08:35 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Thorny's link is interesting because it means fewer pesticides on the food but it doesn't support the claim that there are fewer pesticides on the farms. Not that I doubt Thorny's experience and expertise but it would be nice to see some data.
USDA organic regulations here:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...05_main_02.tpl

Some of the relevant sections here:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...354.2&rgn=div8

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...354.4&rgn=div8

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...58.27&rgn=div8

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...354.7&rgn=div8

-- How much sense all of that makes to people without significant background in production agriculture I don't know. The whole thing, or at least all of it relevant to the specific operation, needs to be taken together: you don't get to use something allowable in limited circumstances without convincing the certifying agency that the specific operation actually falls into those particular circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
it just seems there could be other factors at play, such as the type of pesticide used, the way it is applied, the way the produce is prepared, shipped, or packed, etc. (Not trying to pick nits but I suppose it's also just a difference between "supports" and "is consistent with" - which really is just a nitpick.)
There may also be differences in handling after harvest; some of the relevant sections of the code are here:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...54.16&rgn=div8

and here:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...54.17&rgn=div8

However, it doesn't seem to me that this makes the OP claim any more valid; if anything, it makes it less so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
I hope that not too many people are really feeling guilty about not buying organic. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
I've never felt guilty about buying non-organic produce. I've never felt guilty about buying any kind of produce at all. Why would I?
I don't think guilt is either reasonably applicable or likely to be useful when applied to people's diets, in this or in most other fashions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
I have done my research and am thoroughly convinced that there is absolutely no value or sense to the label 'organic' and I do not want to be thought stupid enough to be fooled by it, or to be associated with those who insist on it.
I know how to convince farmers who have that attitude. It can't be done by argument, statistics, or discussion on or off message boards. It's done -- and I have seen it happen -- by the presence of a well-run organic farm in their immediate physical vicinity. Year after year of going by that farm and seeing the state of the crops and the state of the soil -- especially in years wetter and drier than the average -- causes converts.

I have no idea how to convince non-farmers who have that attitude. I am mildly curious, however, as to what you mean by "having done [your] research."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
I have a very simple reason to feel no guilt at all for buying exclusively non-organic, and if possible, I also buy GMO crops.

The reason?

Every two years, as many dies of starvation as all the losses combined during WW2, civilian and military, the genocides included. We actually have a three times higher death rate than WW2 due to starvation.

In a situation like that, I can't find any moral justification for using any non-optimal crops, especially as the worries about them are not even proven, they are just vague "...but we don't know everything...". Well, I'll tell you one thing we do know: 36 million starve to death every year, and almost a billion are suffering from malnutrition. That's the immediate problem, and if a solution to that doesn't have any scientifically proven, extremely drastic effect, I would almost call it a crime against humanity to reject it.
Didn't we have a very long discussion about this on these boards before? -- yes, indeed, we did; and it's still there, which is good, because I don't feel like typing all that out again in order to explain what's wrong with your claim. Here it is:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=82855

Please note in particular posts #23, #39, #44.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21 May 2014, 08:39 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I have no idea how to convince non-farmers who have that attitude. I am mildly curious, however, as to what you mean by "having done [your] research."
Reading numerous articles from various viewpoints. And no, I do not have the cites. I do not collect cites from all the many things I read.

ETA: I have no doubt that there are agricultural practices that make for better soil conditions and resiliency from drought, flood, etc. While some organic farmers may practice those methods, the methods are not definitional of organic farming or organic produce.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 21 May 2014, 09:00 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I know how to convince farmers who have that attitude. It can't be done by argument, statistics, or discussion on or off message boards. It's done -- and I have seen it happen -- by the presence of a well-run organic farm in their immediate physical vicinity. Year after year of going by that farm and seeing the state of the crops and the state of the soil -- especially in years wetter and drier than the average -- causes converts.
Right.

Get in a car and drive through the Midwest. You'll pass tens of thousands of square miles of "non-organic" farms. You think they are that way simply because there aren't any organic farms in the vicinity to be the "shining beacon or reason"?

Fact is that if a large percentage of farms went "organic" then they would fail. They would saturation the market with an arguably better product that is more expensive to produce, prices would fall and they would go out of business.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21 May 2014, 09:15 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
I actually go the opposite way. Occasionally, I see produce marked organic which is less expensive than the stuff not marked that way, and I am embarrassed to be seen with it. I'll put other things on top of it. I have done my research and am thoroughly convinced that there is absolutely no value or sense to the label 'organic' and I do not want to be thought stupid enough to be fooled by it, or to be associated with those who insist on it.
Interesting. I'd be embarrassed to care so much what other people think about my produce choices.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 21 May 2014, 11:23 PM
khisanth's Avatar
khisanth khisanth is offline
 
Join Date: 23 September 2010
Location: Trabuco Canyon, CA
Posts: 206
Default

Lately I've been on a "buy American" kick whether it's non-organic or organic. I've been going to a store where they label what country the produce is from.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22 May 2014, 03:43 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
How much sense all of that makes to people without significant background in production agriculture I don't know.
True but I do appreciate the effort! Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22 May 2014, 04:49 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Didn't we have a very long discussion about this on these boards before? -- yes, indeed, we did; and it's still there, which is good, because I don't feel like typing all that out again in order to explain what's wrong with your claim. Here it is:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=82855

Please note in particular posts #23, #39, #44.
Yep, and I still don't agree. Better technology will, eventually, reach even the poor countries. Heck, who would have thought that such things as mobile phones and internet would reach them if you asked people just a few decades ago?

We need an efficient food production chain. That's not possible if we can't improve what we do. That means we need GMO.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22 May 2014, 09:58 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Yep, and I still don't agree. Better technology will, eventually, reach even the poor countries. Heck, who would have thought that such things as mobile phones and internet would reach them if you asked people just a few decades ago?
That's a beautiful sentiment but it's a logical fallacy. It could be like someone in 1940 saying "nuclear energy technology will eventually reach the poorer countries; we need it". First, it won't necessarily; it hasn't yet. (Maybe you blame politics and that might be a good call. But, whatever the reason - politics, capitalism, society, etc. - that doesn't change the facts: technology doesn't necessarily spread to all places.) Second, it could have easily reached them in the form of a bunch of mushroom clouds destroying the rest of us as well. Maybe technology is, in the long run, benevolent. Maybe it it hasn't always been but, more importantly, maybe it will not always be. Maybe we've just been lucky so far to have kept slightly ahead of the curve and one of these says - blam.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 23 May 2014, 12:36 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Better Ag technologies has already reached most, if not all, of the world. Modern high yield and/or drought or insect resistant wheat, rice, corn, ... are now grown pretty much everywhere in the world.

Not that that means the food supply system is what it should be, but it is widely accepted that it is much better than it was several decades ago. It has to be since the world's population is considerably higher than it was several decades ago.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The fallacy of locally grown produce Mickey Blue Social Studies 26 12 January 2014 06:28 PM
HR 875: The End Of Organic Farming? snopes Politics 8 27 March 2009 10:55 PM
How much ejaculate can the human body produce? (NFBSK) snopes Fauxtography 58 07 June 2008 09:06 PM
Supermarkets spray produce with insecticide every night Little Galaxy Food 10 12 January 2008 02:43 PM
Buildings of GUILT Rebochan Glurge Gallery 9 16 March 2007 06:39 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.