Would you buy 'organic' everything if you hit the lotto?

Hit the lotto? Can you buy organic cocaine?

If I knew the Organic produce was traceable I probably would buy a lot more of it!

I don't have the same fear of chemicals that many people do so personally it doesn't really bother me. If someone conclusively proves health risks associated with certain chemicals then I'll avoid and I'd hope for government regulation to ban their use, but other than that it doesn't bother me at all. Chemicals in this context are literally just molecules which happen to only come into existence when humans mix other molecules together. Some of them are harmful, most aren't. Molecules of entirely naturally occurring elements can also be harmful - arsenic will kill a human no problem at all, and yet because it's naturally occurring, some would probably describe it as "organic".

The panic over synthetic chemicals of any kind is just bizarre to me.

Having said all that, there are certain chemicals which have been conclusively shown to be harmful to health and they're still allowed in abundance. Something should clearly be done about that. I don't use lavender soap anymore, for example, after discovering that the phytoestrogens contained in them wreak havoc on young mens' endocrine systems if they get absorbed into the skin. Stuff like that, which is demonstrable and verifiable, will cause me to avoid certain products - but this idea that "if it's synthetic, it's bad" is in my view a ridiculous simplification and not one that's ever really bothered me at all.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But it makes farmers rich and it let's consumers be smug about the veg they bought that's half the size and twice the price.

Good point - while I'm sure there are a lot of people who genuinely believe that their health is threatened by regular "chemically compromised" food, I've often wondered how much of it is a form of virtue signalling. Some "all organic" types - the kind who are more likely to make a point of letting people know - tend to have at least some other virtue signalling "causes" (veganism, gender-messing, #checkyourprivilege) that they'll regularly broadcast about, so one wonders in those cases if it's more about image than genuine belief. But personally I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not accuse anyone of insincerity in their political beliefs without evidence.

I do think though that those who give unsolicited lectures on this are those who are more likely to be virtue signalling rather than sincere. But that's just me.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Good point - while I'm sure there are a lot of people who genuinely believe that their health is threatened by regular "chemically compromised" food, I've often wondered how much of it is a form of virtue signalling. Some "all organic" types - the kind who are more likely to make a point of letting people know - tend to have at least some other virtue signalling "causes" (veganism, gender-messing, #checkyourprivilege) that they'll regularly broadcast about, so one wonders in those cases if it's more about image than genuine belief. But personally I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not accuse anyone of insincerity in their political beliefs without evidence.

I do think though that those who give unsolicited lectures on this are those who are more likely to be virtue signalling rather than sincere. But that's just me.

I lived with a girl once who served up lamb burgers at a bbq with the patties rare in the middle. I said I prefer my mince fully cooked and she said it should be fine, it was organic lamb. That's not how it works says I......

Canis Lupus wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't have the same fear of chemicals that many people do so personally it doesn't really bother me. If someone conclusively proves health risks associated with certain chemicals then I'll avoid and I'd hope for government regulation to ban their use, but other than that it doesn't bother me at all. Chemicals in this context are literally just molecules which happen to only come into existence when humans mix other molecules together. Some of them are harmful, most aren't. Molecules of entirely naturally occurring elements can also be harmful - arsenic will kill a human no problem at all, and yet because it's naturally occurring, some would probably describe it as "organic".

The panic over synthetic chemicals of any kind is just bizarre to me.

Having said all that, there are certain chemicals which have been conclusively shown to be harmful to health and they're still allowed in abundance. Something should clearly be done about that. I don't use lavender soap anymore, for example, after discovering that the phytoestrogens contained in them wreak havoc on young mens' endocrine systems if they get absorbed into the skin. Stuff like that, which is demonstrable and verifiable, will cause me to avoid certain products - but this idea that "if it's synthetic, it's bad" is in my view a ridiculous simplification and not one that's ever really bothered me at all.

But it makes farmers rich and it let's consumers be smug about the veg they bought that's half the size and twice the price.

Similar to how they got people worrying about cholesterol and now they can fill a carton of milk halfway and pour water in for the rest. I could do that at home and save 50%.

And the price of some of those butter substitutes masquerading as healthy alternatives to a natural product is hilarious. The people championing these kinds of products are the same people who usually spread layers of butter thicker than the bread itself. What a stupid waste of money.

No.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Organic is actually bad for the environment as the required space to produce the same amount of produce is much greater, around 40% more. Hence more farm land required leading to deforestation instead of efficient use of current land.

It don't quite work that I'm afraid. 'Organic" certainly ain't bad for the direct environment where organic production methods are used. Benefits include increased diversity of micro-organisns and wild life in general. Better soil health and fertility especially where organic matter is added to the soils.

Organic produce is still a niche market and there is absolutly no danger of it ever completly replacing conventional production. Organic producers make up any shortfall in efficiency through somewhat higher prices for organic products.

Plus your average organic farmer in Ireland can't just rock up over to Brazil or wherever and grab a bit of land to grow his broccoli or whatever.

In Ireland and most of Europe there is no active deforestation for the purposes of creating agricultural land. If anything the opposite is true - agricultural land is increasingly being turned over to forestry.

If you won the lotto- you could buy land - then you can grow whatever you want!

Resverathrole wrote: »

I always eat healthy. I don't go for the organic because its too expensive. There's no point in going for it anyway unless you're diet is already perfect. But would it make a bit of a difference in the long run? I mean all those pesticides!!

"organic" just means that the fertiliser and pestisides used by farmer are organically approved.
No Farmer will use absolutely nothing on his crop and hope it'll be ok.