"Organic foods have same nutrients as non"

[IJesusChrist]

Just a heads up,

An extensive and credible source (from the top chemical / biology journal) released last week that organically grown plants hold no more nutrients than industirally grown plants.

ITS JUST THERE. I'm not advocating either way.

If you buy industrial you're still feeding an asshole.

 

[ophiuchus]

the problem with non organic food, is not with nutrient content, rather, it is with genetic diversity. lack of genetic diversity is inbreeding, quite literally. and we all know what happens when you deal with inbreeding for a couple of generations...

:retard:

this video(and the rest of the parts) goes in depth on why we should not eat genetically modified food. it's about harmonics. one can't just chop up somethings dna genepool as one sees fit and consume only that kind of food, and expect there to be no consequences...

in other countries(besides america), if you ask if something is "organic" they look at you like a retard. "of course it's organic... wtf else would it be??" the cool thing about this is, that once ones harmonics are thrown far enough out of whack, that genepool will no longer be able to produce offspring. natural selection has ways of dealing with ignorance...

 

[IJesusChrist]

I overheard a conversation once that cattle's genetic strength (probability to stay deformation free) is actually much greater with inbreeding - the opposite of us humans.

Never looked it up, don't really care too, but if I do I'll post a link.

Edit, I'm sure eventually this theory breaks down though... maybe.

 

[VerusDeus]

Like Ophiuchus said, it's not really about the nutrients anyway.

To me the main reason to try and stick to organic foods is because they aren't(supposed to be) treated with chemical pesticides.

And the theory you overheard IJesuschrist, sounds like bogus to me. Isn't it imperative for genetic evolution to 'gather' as much new genetic material as possible? And also why would genetics be different for cattle?

 

[maxfreakout]

This is a vacuous strawman argument, - has anyone ever actually claimed that organic foods are more nutritious?

 

[Schwanke668]

Actually yes. Though in the vague "I eat organic foods because they are healthier for you." statements such as lots of my wish they were hippie friends back in college. (Still liked em (the friends ) but me I wanted the industrial trip not a happy feel good one hehe. I was in it for the head kick, psychological suicide lol.)

 

[ophiuchus]

@verus: dna is functionally the same in all living beings. im on the "that's bogus" wagon. i wouldn't trust any information that any given american has been fed (regurgitates).

@max: it's about genetic diversity. and, i choose the food that lead a naturally healthy life 10/10 times, because we literally ARE what we eat.

another thing to consider. a grapefruit that is more pink than a grapefruit that is more green has more vitamin a. the green has more of other vitamins than the pink... genetic diversity is nutrient diversity, within the same species! (to a degree of extent, obviously). and so, with inbreeding ("genetically modifying") food, you don't get that. GMing eliminates these subtle varieties for the sake making a fruit that "looks pretty". so you end up with a very narrow selection of nutrients over time, even if each individual piece of fruit, when compared, still has a comparable "number"(mg) of nutrients.