Organic Vs Conventional Fruits & Vegetables

ihbh on 15/07/2019 - 20:22

The EWG's Dirty Dozen is based on USDA data and the pesticide residues are within safe zones so there is an element of scaremongering. However, we don't really understand the potential interaction effect of the multiple pesticide residues.

I'm curious, do you buy mostly conventional (non-organic) or organic fruits and vegetables where you eat the skin/leaf, and why?

Does anyone own a farm/work on one and can shed light into the use of pesticides for crops such as apples, blueberries, strawberries, plums, broccoli, cabbage, kale, mesculin salad mix, and any other fruit/veg. Is the story about the grower having a separate organic patch for the family's consumption organic propaganda? Are the practices and pesticides use in Aus roughly similar to the US and around the world? Out of interst, what are the health risks to the workers?

Irrespective of the level of residues, try to eat as much fruit and veg as your budget allows; … there is the story of the parent you didn't let their kids eat strawberries at a party because it wasn't organic, but let them help themselves to the sweets and biscuits.

Poll Options

  • 46
    Conventional (Non-Organic)
  • 7
    Organic
Food & Grocery

Comments

  • boomramada on 15/07/2019 - 21:22
    +4

    This is how I put it, Organic food usually twice more expensive than inorganic. But there is no proven x2 benefits so I go for Inorganic.

    • Freeza on 15/07/2019 - 21:56

      "But there is no proven x2 benefits so I go for Inorganic."
      I think organic food is grown without harmful pesticides/chemicals and lasts way longer than that of In-organic that's why costly.

      • Quantumcat on 15/07/2019 - 22:23
        +2

        In contrast, it goes bad faster

      • boomramada on 15/07/2019 - 23:27

        I think

        That's not real scientific avidence is it? Only benifits I can think of is the less environmental pollutions due to chemicals and pesticides. Then again we got limited area to agriculture to feed billions of ppl. What about GM food ?

      • sareth on 16/07/2019 - 08:01
        +1

        "I think" is the problem. Organic foods have no requirement to reduce pesticide or herbicide use at all. Organic simply means grown without synthetic fertiliser (ie with manure). It's a scam.

      • brad1-8tsi on 16/07/2019 - 08:32
        +1

        I think the speed that it goes bad is more to do with the supply chain before purchase.

        I used to get fruit/veg direct from the inlaws garden and the shelf life was crazy long, even for stuff like spinach, parsley, etc.

    • garetz on 16/07/2019 - 00:32
      -1

      This is the same argument they used in the 50s when people smoked packs a day, in 10-20 years time when we know what pesticides do to our bodies, you might reconsider your opinion.

      • brad1-8tsi on 16/07/2019 - 08:34
        +2

        This is the same argument they used in the 50s when people smoked packs a day, in 10-20 years time when we know what pesticides do to our bodies, you might reconsider your opinion

        Soaking produce in the sink for 5 minutes with 8L tepid water and 2 cups cheap vinegar is extremely beneficial in removing pesticide residue.

  • altomic on 15/07/2019 - 21:28
    +1

    my father-in-law is a beef farmer on the murray river. He recently explained to me how "organic" the organic farms are in his area.

    there are organic farmers that make use of the rich river flatlands - very fertile soil, great water source (near snowy mountains). they don't use any pesticides/herbicides. they call their produce "organic".

    there are other farmers along the river that do you use pesticides/herbicides.

    when the murray floods occasionally then the pesticide/herbicide residue is washed downstream….on to the organic farms.

    • brad1-8tsi on 16/07/2019 - 08:38

      Plus the aerial sprayer on the farms next door to the organic farms.

      You can't just call yourself "organic" You have to be certified.

      If the Murray floods the dilution of chemicals would be significant enough to nullify the contribution of the chemical. I've pissed in a dam that feeds raw water to Sydney Water. Do you think anyone in Sydney can taste my wee?

      • Ozpit on 16/07/2019 - 10:21
        +3

        I’m pretty sure I did. Once, when I was passing through Sydney heading up to Queensland, I took a few mouthfuls from a drinking fountain in Hyde Park and it tasted like piss. I spat it out. My partner was incredulous, so also took a sip, and she said, “You’re right, this tastes like piss.”
        What month and year did you urinate in the dam and I’ll see if our dates correlate.

        • brad1-8tsi on 16/07/2019 - 10:36

          ROFL.

          Did it taste like asparagus?

      • [Deactivated] on 16/07/2019 - 23:12
        +1

        You can't just call yourself "organic" You have to be certified.

        False.

        There is no mandatory requirement for certification of organic product sold domestically in Australia.

        • brad1-8tsi on 17/07/2019 - 07:58
          +1

          AAh! So those that have the label "Organically Certified" or similar have chosen to pay for a further level of validation.

          Thx for the information.

          • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2019 - 14:21
            +1

            @brad1-8tsi: While the ACCC demands that brands substantiate organic claims, companies do not have to be officially certified to label their products as "organic" nor to use a made-up 'organic' logo on their packaging.

            Those with the "Certified organic" labels have gone through a process of certification by a third party to guarantee the integrity and purity of the product. As there is no singular regulatory body in Australia, there are seven certification companies that have been approved by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS):

            • Australian Certified Organic (ACO)
            • National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia (NASAA)
            • AUS-QUAL Limited (Aus-Qual)
            • Bio-Dynamic Research Institute (Demeter)
            • Organic Food Chain (OFC)
            • Safe Food Production Queensland (SFPQ)
            • Tasmanian Organic-dynamic Producers (TOP)
  • Cluster on 15/07/2019 - 23:42
    +2

    I am a blueberry fanatic and eat a bowl full every day. Costco is my source, and I have tried both their normal and organic range. In terms of taste they're pretty much the same, but is the organic one ($11.50/kg) so much better than normal? ($6.50/kg)

    Let's see what google says:

    https://www.livestrong.com/article/457959-10-worst-nonorgani…

    "Blueberries are an additional berry type that contain a high level of pesticides. The thin skin allows the chemicals to enter the fruit's flesh. Buying blueberries organic is the safest option. Conventional blueberries contain 52 pesticide chemicals."

    Okay then. Thin skin and each blueberry contains 52 (!!) chemicals. This is extraordinary. Just what sort of farmer is spraying 52 types of spray?

    Let's check somewhere else:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/20/five-…

    "If you can't find organic, conventional raspberries and blueberries are low risk."

    So, according to one source blueberries are absolutely loaded with toxic chemicals, but from another they're fine.

    This is what I deeply dislike about the organic vs conventional debate. One side uses the word "chemical" as a scare card, and assumes every piece of fruit is sprayed with every possible chemical, while the other says it's low risk. Who do you believe?

    The added problem is I doubt anyone actually tests the conventional and organic blueberries for their added chemical content. The organic farmer might have a bad infestation of pests and resort to spraying. Who is going to know? There's plenty of testing to achieve the certification but I doubt sport checks are regularly carried out afterwards.

    • JIMB0 on 16/07/2019 - 06:37
      +2

      The organic farmer still uses the chemical dihydrogen monoxide although they call it by a different name.

      • altomic on 16/07/2019 - 10:49
        +1

        have you seen what that chemical does to metal!!! imagine what it does to your stomach when you ingest it!!!

        • Bargain80 on 17/07/2019 - 11:13

          what chemical? what metal?
          water can be called chemical
          and if you pour water on steel overtime it will form rust.
          Therefore you shouldn't drink water.

    • ihbh on 16/07/2019 - 08:17

      Livestrong are regurgitating the EWG as do many other "sources" - please try to inform yourself so you don't spread false info about all kinds of different sources, when they might just quote one original source. Consumer Reports are similar to EWG. The conclusions from their analysis are not necessarily correct. See my original post re safe zones.

      52 chemicals (this would be an extreme - outliers aren't representative of the norm) - I think probably due to "run-off" from other crops, but looking for actual farmer/grower to provide insight, hence original post.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/07/2019 - 23:03

      The real question is what colour are your poos? My toddler used to love blueberries and would request it at every meal + for snacks. His poop would range from a dark purple to black 😲

      • ihbh on 17/07/2019 - 08:06

        My poos are dark green from all the green leafy veg I eat.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2019 - 11:00

          The thing we do as a parent..

          • ihbh on 17/07/2019 - 11:16

            @[Deactivated]: … to lead by example.

            • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2019 - 11:17

              @ihbh: Yep, I have to eat all my veggies otherwise my youngest one won't eat his :(

              • ihbh on 17/07/2019 - 11:22

                @[Deactivated]: Luckily I enjoy mine and do it for health reasons as well. :)

                But it sure helps the kids get on the right track (and also there is very little junk/processed food available to them in the house)!

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 15/07/2019 - 23:45
    +2

    The best way is grow your own. Cuts down reliance on others! Good exercise as well.

    • Ozpit on 16/07/2019 - 10:50
      +2

      Backyard fruit and veggies almost always taste better, regardless of whether pesticides are used, because they can be picked when ripe. Supermarket fruit (always) and veg (often) are picked well before they are ripe, and allowed to ripen on the journey (usually weeks, sometimes longer) between the farm and supermarket, or while in storage. This almost always diminishes their potential flavor.

      Moreover, supermarkets choose produce to sell based on its presentation or perfect looks. This often means growers are forced to select genetic strains that result in perfectly shaped and blemish-free produce rather than strains that taste better but may not present as well.

  • leiiv on 15/07/2019 - 23:52

    How hard is it to test by myself the food that I buy for any chemical residues at home?

    • Cluster on 15/07/2019 - 23:57

      There are kits you can buy to test for individual chemicals, but these will just give a general indication and are not sensitive.

      To truly know what's on/in your food you need a mass spectrometer.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry

      If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.

      • leiiv on 16/07/2019 - 00:13

        Before the spectrometer even exists, how did the scientists test for chemical contents? Perhaps with some reagents that change color in the presence of some pesticide residues?

        • Cluster on 16/07/2019 - 00:21

          You can test for a single class of contaminants using a reagent. Here is one example:

          http://www.fftc.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&style=type&i…

          The problem is you need a complete set of kits to test for each of the seven types of pesticide, and one kit won't test for all in that class. You may end up with 20 or more test kits. Worth it?

          The advantage of a mass spectrometer is it can test for a very broad range of chemicals all in one go. The catch is it's very expensive.

        • azonki on 16/07/2019 - 10:49
          +1

          Before the spectrometer, nobody gave a f##k.

  • savage bargain on 16/07/2019 - 00:54
    +2

    All food is organic. Well, unless you're my toddler…

  • User210686 on 16/07/2019 - 09:07

    I buy certain things organic such as berries, kiwi(because I slice them and eat the skin), apples (again I eat the skin) while others (avocado, egg plant) non organic. Other fruits and vegetables I buy both organic and non organic depending on the availability.

    • ihbh on 16/07/2019 - 09:31

      Where do you buy your organic produce?

      Egg plants - do you eat the peel - that's where the nutrients are mainly?

  • TEER3X on 16/07/2019 - 09:09

    Nothing wrong with pesticides so long as there's no glyphosate

  • bohn on 16/07/2019 - 09:39
    +1

    I think the pros of eating fruit and vegetables outweigh the cons of pesticide residues.
    Non-organic should be okay ;)

  • [Deactivated] on 16/07/2019 - 10:42

    I buy organic if I can afford it, if not then just regular produce. People need to look at the bigger picture, you can eat organic fruit and veg and but eat processed crap day in day out and negate the effect. Eating fruit and veg is better than not eating it.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/07/2019 - 15:48
    +2

    There's no official regulation of the term "organic" here in Australia.

    There has been no scientific evidence that "organic" food has any benefit over those not labelled "organic".

    The most compelling studies for the "organic" industry is about the level of inorganic residue on produce. The study makes relies on people not washing their food.

    Studies where produce have been washed shows negligible difference between the two.

    Synthetic chemicals are not always as harmful as natural ones. Cyanide can be naturally harvested after all.

    • HighAndDry on 16/07/2019 - 17:30
      +1

      Yup. Start chowing down on stone-fruit pits and see how long you last. Or selenium poisoning from Brazil nuts.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/07/2019 - 17:40
        +1

        … only if it is organic. 😂

      • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2019 - 14:07
        +1

        Fun Facts on Brazil nuts: If your partner ( and I use the term loosely) has an allergic reaction to nuts, best to avoid consuming any for 72 hours prior to swapping bodily fluids with them as there are recorded cases of severe food allergic reactions transferred by vaginal and oral intercourse.

        The theory is that the proteins in these nut resist digestion and ends up in the immune system, triggering immune reactions and possible anaphylactic shocks.

        And yes, that would be the perfect crime.

  • preferredusername on 16/07/2019 - 16:42
    +3

    Just throwing it out there… is the general public aware that foods are already regulated and tested for pesticide residues? For example, the APVMA regulates any agvet chemicals in Australia, there are businesses dedicated to finished product/food testing (such as DTS, Agrifood, Eurofins, SGS, etc), and so on. I'm not saying the system is foolproof, but I feel people (naturally, excluding the well-informed, knowledgeable ozbargainer that inevitably earns $300k+ per annum) aren't generally aware of the level of testing that already takes place (eg detection of aflatoxins could be as low as ppb)?

    Also, the concept of toxicity has many facets: exposure, bioavailability, etc. We need water and oxygen to survive, but in low/high enough concentrations they can both be ~toxic~. In terms of organic being synonymous with sustainability, that's a tangent for another day.

  • HighAndDry on 16/07/2019 - 17:27
    +2

    However, we don't really understand the potential interaction effect of the multiple pesticide residues.

    That's a bit (not totally) of a naturalist fallacy. Naturally occurring chemicals and substances can be just as harmful or toxic as artificial ones. All diseases and food-borne viruses and pathogens are natural, for instance.

    If it weren't the fact that most artificial chemicals were pesticides, etc, you might argue that taking these out would reduce your risk of something harmful, but pesticides themselves reduce OTHER harmful things that could be on your produce, so the net effect could be lower risk of harm from artificial chemicals, but increased risk of harm from natural pathogen-borne ones.

    • ihbh on 16/07/2019 - 21:45

      For example, watch at around 25 minutes of the BBC's The Honest Supermarket to see the interaction of small doses of pesticides and the impact they have on rats and hamsters (yeah, yeah, we're not rats or hamsters, but look at the difference in level between individual ones and the interaction of a couple).

      • HighAndDry on 17/07/2019 - 10:08

        small doses of pesticides and the impact they have on rats and hamsters

        Are the doses small in absolute terms (milligrams, etc) or in bodyweight terms (milligrams/kg bodyweight)?

        Honestly asking because I haven't watched the show.

        • ihbh on 17/07/2019 - 10:36

          There wasn't detail of dosage for rats/hamsters and levels relative to people. The key insight was a 1 unit impact of individual chemicals can have a significant (say 1000 unit) impact as a cocktail when they interact (referenced this article that led to the research https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11376445_Something_…)

          The interaction effect was found to disrupt the normal sexual development of male rats and caused genetic damage to hamster cells.

          • HighAndDry on 17/07/2019 - 10:39

            @ihbh:

            There wasn't detail of dosage for rats/hamsters and levels relative to people.

            Chemical dosage is ALWAYS (in scientific literature at least) by bodyweight, because it affects people based on bodyweight. (like alcohol, etc).

            The interaction effect was found to disrupt the normal sexual development of male rats and caused genetic damage to hamster cells.

            Everything does "genetic damage". The important point is how much. The main cause of aging is telomere shortening due to oxidation….. which is caused by breathing. As an example.

            • ihbh on 17/07/2019 - 11:20

              @HighAndDry:

              Chemical dosage is ALWAYS (in scientific literature at least) by bodyweight, because it affects people based on bodyweight. (like alcohol, etc).

              Yes, I understand but the details weren't included as the show is targeted at a broad audience.

              important point is how much

              Yes, and I hope more research is conducted on the interaction effect to help us understand.

              telomere shortening

              An interesting topic, especially how we can slow it down or even reverse it a little.

              • HighAndDry on 17/07/2019 - 11:21

                @ihbh:

                details weren't included as the show is targeted at a broad audience.

                Laudable, but in my experience a lot of the time "details aren't included" so it can sound more sensationalist.

                I hope more research is conducted on the interaction effect to help us understand.

                Same.

                especially how we can slow it down or even reverse it a little.

                DEFINITELY same.

              • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2019 - 13:33

                @ihbh:

                An interesting topic, especially how we can slow it down or even reverse it a little.

                We already know one way to stop ( even increase) the length of telomeres: cancer*! Cancer cells don't die (which is the main problem) because they activate an enzyme called telomerase that adds on to the telomeres each time the cells divide.

                Researchers in Sweden also discovered that not everyone's telomeres necessarily get shorter over time.In fact, they found that this was quite the opposite for some : their telomeres were getting longer.

                In the study, 959 individuals donated blood twice, 9 to 11 years apart. On average, the second samples had shorter telomeres than the first. However, approximately 33 percent of those studied had either a stable or increasing telomere length over a period of about 10 years.

                What it means is unclear. It could be that those people have an amazing cellular anti-aging mechanism; it could be that they have an early sign of cancer (researchers tried to rule this out), or it could be fairly meaningless. What we do know for sure is that aging is a lot more complicated than simply looking at the shortening of telomeres.

                *As does anti-depressants and some medications for bi-polar.

                Edit: This one is for the interns and doctors out there :(

                Edit 2 : As for mothers:

                A study published in Human Reproduction last year found telomeres were shorter in mothers compared to women without children. The effect was so striking, study author and epidemiologist Anna Pollack said ‘it is equivalent to around 11 years of accelerated cellular ageing’.

                I wonder if knowing this would make some women re-think having kids?

  • greater mimic on 25/07/2019 - 08:54
    +1

    Growing organic is wasteful. Uses way more water and land to produce a much smaller crop than when pesticides are used.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join