Originally Posted by mr_bigmuscles
Less pesticides is better than more pesticides, don't you agree? I'm not going to sit around and wait for 20 years of double-blind studies before taking simple, easy steps to reduce my exposure to them. And the marginal cost of organic food is not that great (assuming you aren't living paycheck to paycheck). Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Well, I'm not sure less pesticides is better than more pesticides. Why start from the assumption that a chemical introduced into a foodstuff is probably harmful? I don't know very much about the effects of pesticides on the body, except DDT, so I don't see a reason to avoid them. Same for e numbers.
If the cost difference was marginal, I would eat organic every time, because in my view they're more environmentally friendly. But in the UK, organic veggies are generally considerably dearer. For example, garlic, mushrooms, beetroot are three things I just wouldn't buy as organic because they are 60-100% more expensive.
2. Again, the ratios may well be different, but to what extent does this affect health? Cruciferous veggies have nutrients that preserve collagen, and might prevent wrinkling, but you'd have to eat kilos of them per day to have any real benefit.
It matters. And, I'm working on it (the eating kilos of food every day thing)
The wikipedia link supports the idea that consumption of omega 3s, or the ratio of 3:6, is a variable that affects health. Fine. I didn't dispute that at all. What I'm saying is that the differences in organic vs non-organic farmed products may make an insignificant contribution to that.
A quick google gave me one study (no idea how valid it is) showing about 16mg/g fat of both Omega 3s and 6s in grass fed cows and 8mg 3s and 42 mg/g fat in predominantly grain-fed. But this doesn't tell me if it's better to drink milk from grass-fed cows. Without knowing how much of each substance really has an effect on health, the figures don't tell me anything.