The entire ‘“health” food store’ falls into this category, it should almost be illegal for them to use the word “health” because nearly everything they sell is an overpriced scam and nothing they do would promote anyone’s actual health.
You seem to be confused about what a USDA standard is.
A USDA standard is a MARKETING standard to facilitate interstate trade and increase crop prices. The USDA-AMS stands for USDA - Agricultural MARKETING Service.
Standards were originally created to standardized grading of foods grain, fruit, etc. to facilitate trade. The Organic Certification program is implemented and enforced by the Agricultural MARKETING Service.
The standards are for MARKETING purposes and have no basis in scientific, environmental, or nutritional basis. All claims of this sort are for MARKETING purposes only.
Organic food is generally more destructive to the environment by increasing soil degradation, nutrient runoff, decrease in yield/acre causing more land to under cultivation. It is also dependent upon factory farming of livestock and GMO crops.
Please site proof from official sources. Organic can protect you from things like and not limited to. Taken from links I already posted.
Materials or methods not allowed in organic farming include:
Artificial (synthetic) fertilizers to add nutrients to the soil
Sewage sludge as fertilizer
Most synthetic pesticides for pest control
Using radiation (irradiation) to preserve food or to get rid of disease or pests
Using genetic technology to change the genetic makeup (genetic engineering) of crops, which can improve disease or pest resistance, or to improve crop harvests
Antibiotics or growth hormones for farm animals (livestock)
Organic farming’s does less damage per acre than conventional farming but it damages more acres.
On a per unit produced, it does more environmental damage. So for every organic vegetable you purchase, it’s more environmentally damaging than conventional.
No, it says “not necessarily per product unit”. Your characterization of the abstract is incomplete as it doesn’t definitely state what you’re claiming it states. It’s also a euro meta analysis, not a US analysis, so extrapolating your oversimplified conclusion is even more of a stretch since we’re talking about the USDA. I’m more concerned about carbon, water use, pollinator collapse, and a host of other metrics than NOx (which is a function of diesel emissions standards and crop yield, and can be fixed independently).
I’ll need a source. Just based on anecdotal evidence, which is NOT scientific, you are a pretty rad person. You should be more positive and proud of yourself. Ergo, you lied and you should feel bad. Have a donut.
Asbestos is food-safe at least. It doesn’t react in your body, the problem is the damage it does mechanically, which is a lot easier to prevent than the chemical contamination of everything by indiscriminate use of polluting substances that don’t degrade.
While we’re making a list, can we do something about all the “uncured” meat products that are in fact cured with celery juice? It has the same carcinogenous nitrates and nitrites as any other curing process, but it tastes worse.
“Natural” is another one. People look at food packaging as if it’s the result of a scientific study, but it’s all just marketing.
The entire ‘“health” food store’ falls into this category, it should almost be illegal for them to use the word “health” because nearly everything they sell is an overpriced scam and nothing they do would promote anyone’s actual health.
Natural is not regulated by US law on labels. Organic is though and has government requirements.
Organic is a marketing tool and make zero sense environmentally, nutritionally, or biologically.
The rules try to standardize the meaning for the trade of goods. It’s the same as USDA grading of fruits and vegetables.
Please read and see it is a actual regulated US government standard and to have it on your product you must follow certain by law guide lines.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/organic-basics https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880
You seem to be confused about what a USDA standard is.
A USDA standard is a MARKETING standard to facilitate interstate trade and increase crop prices. The USDA-AMS stands for USDA - Agricultural MARKETING Service.
Standards were originally created to standardized grading of foods grain, fruit, etc. to facilitate trade. The Organic Certification program is implemented and enforced by the Agricultural MARKETING Service.
The standards are for MARKETING purposes and have no basis in scientific, environmental, or nutritional basis. All claims of this sort are for MARKETING purposes only.
Organic food is generally more destructive to the environment by increasing soil degradation, nutrient runoff, decrease in yield/acre causing more land to under cultivation. It is also dependent upon factory farming of livestock and GMO crops.
Please site proof from official sources. Organic can protect you from things like and not limited to. Taken from links I already posted.
Materials or methods not allowed in organic farming include:
Okay, a scientific literature meta-analysis. This is basically summary paper of all the references listed.
https://r.jordan.im/download/organic/tuomisto2012.pdf
I paper basically says
Organic farming’s does less damage per acre than conventional farming but it damages more acres.
On a per unit produced, it does more environmental damage. So for every organic vegetable you purchase, it’s more environmentally damaging than conventional.
Please link to official website and not a random document to download. No one should be downloading untrusted files from the internet.
Somebody has no clue about scientific papers and avoiding publishers … FYI the authors generally host it to get more citations.
Here’s the official publisher if you would like to pay for it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479712004264
No, it says “not necessarily per product unit”. Your characterization of the abstract is incomplete as it doesn’t definitely state what you’re claiming it states. It’s also a euro meta analysis, not a US analysis, so extrapolating your oversimplified conclusion is even more of a stretch since we’re talking about the USDA. I’m more concerned about carbon, water use, pollinator collapse, and a host of other metrics than NOx (which is a function of diesel emissions standards and crop yield, and can be fixed independently).
Cyanide is natural technically
Snake venom… perfectly natural!
As is anthrax.
So am I and I’m incredibly toxic.
I’ll need a source. Just based on anecdotal evidence, which is NOT scientific, you are a pretty rad person. You should be more positive and proud of yourself. Ergo, you lied and you should feel bad. Have a donut.
An organic donut?
And we can’t forget the best natural substance asbestos!
I only use organic gasoline in my cars.
Me too. GMO dinosaur goo really frightens me.
Asbestos is food-safe at least. It doesn’t react in your body, the problem is the damage it does mechanically, which is a lot easier to prevent than the chemical contamination of everything by indiscriminate use of polluting substances that don’t degrade.
It is phytotoxic and genotoxic.
True, I was remembering wrongly from incomplete information.
I wouldn’t eat asbestos but it’s scarier in your lungs than in your stomach.
While we’re making a list, can we do something about all the “uncured” meat products that are in fact cured with celery juice? It has the same carcinogenous nitrates and nitrites as any other curing process, but it tastes worse.
It has even more nitrates actually. Several times what you are legally allowed to add “artificially”.
FDA only regulated the quantity added directly, not the amount actually in the product that occurs “naturally”.