Definitely one of my favorite South Park episodes.
I'll post food updates if I'm doing something particularly interesting (Like the first time I made marshmallows) OR if I'm so goddamn proud of myself for not fucking something up that I have to show it to someone else (my honey-almond chocolate torte comes to mind).
It's counter-intuitive, but this sort of self-rightous behavior is well documented for a whole slew of activities. I remember learning about it in my behavioral decision making class....that after people do something that makes them feel "right" they tend to judge other people harder/be less charitable/lie/cheat/steal. I'm not surprised that eating organic is just one of those many activities that activates the moral license button in our brains.
Seems backwards, but we're weirdly wired little monkeys.
It has NOTHING to do with with being liberal or conservative though LLYS.
Post by PinkSquirrel on May 21, 2012 16:24:19 GMT -5
I have lots of friends that eat a lot of organic/local food and I don't feel like they post about it unless they're asking for CSA/meat share recommendations, which I both enjoy reading and feel is totally appropriate for facebook.
Now what I can't stand is the friend that posts a picture of her heart rate monitor and how many calories she's burned EVERY day and the one that posts about doing homework 3 times a day. Someday they will learn that no one fucking cares
The organic crowd tends to be very "left" oriented and many are rather intolerant of those who do not practice according to their beliefs.
WHEEEEEE
Not sure about the intolerant part but IME those who eat organic are left leaning.
I don't think those folks are jerks, but I just don't relate. I don't think I will ever be convinced that I should spend more than necessary on my groceries. TYVM.
People attracted to what they think "organic" means tend to think they are making morally superior choices in general. To be proud of this feeling or wanting to share it with others is not offensive to me. I feel the same about the people who celebrate their weight loss or other kinds of food choices on FB. As a friend, I join in the celebration and encourage them to stay on track with their goals.
I think it's funny that "organic" foods confer very few if any health benefits at all. So the "smug" ones are smug over nothing anyway. They're just victims of clever marketing schemes like low fat baby formula.
Here's what Organic means: "100% Organic": Can only contain organic ingredients, meaning no antibiotics, hormones, genetic engineering, radiation or synthetic pesticides or fertilizers can be used. Can display the USDA organic logo and/or the specific certifying agent's logo. "Organic": Contains 95% organic ingredients, with the balance coming from ingredients on the approved National List. These products can also display the USDA organic logo and/or the certifier's logo. "Made with Organic Ingredients": Must be made with at least 70% organic ingredients, three of which must be listed on the package, and the balance must be on the National List. These products may display the certifier's logo but not the USDA organic logo
The only real advantages to eating "organic" produce is lack of chemical pesticide use, although the alternative is hand picking the bugs off.... meaning your produce will have more bugs and bug damage and cost much more for the labor involved. I find this minimally useful in protecting one's health because several kinds of pesticides permeate our entire environment, the water, the air, your house, your pets, the grass you walk through, etc. Most modern pesticides used on food are very unstable and degrade very quickly in the environment, meaning they pose minimal health risks period. Most pesticides can be washed off the surface of produce if it is still present (berries tend to absorb them through the skin though, so may be worth it to buy organic berries). You still need to wash organic produce as well because of the animal shit they grow it in.
There are definitely no health benefits to using animal shit as fertilizer in place of mined phosphate rock, potash and manufactured urea. Salmonella, Listeria and E Coli are greater threats to me than foods fertilized with pure mineral and chemical nutrients needed by plants. This is the other source of the greater cost of organic foods. Soil can not produce year after year without fertilizer. Animal shit is a very very poor fertilizer which contains nearly no potash at all, minimal phosphorus and some nitrogen depending on the hydration of the feces. Ammonia is the common nitrogen form found in poo. Ammonia is volatile and will leave the poo very quickly and before plants can benefit (especially in warm weather).
Bioengineered foods are not risks to health in my opinion. From what I know of genetics, it is not harmful for me to eat food with a different genome than other food. All species have a different genome as do all individuals of the same species.
Antibiotics can be harmful if they are still present in the food when eaten. Most animal antibiotics are not compatible with our bodies. This is why regular meats are already regulated by USDA to not contain antibiotics at slaughter and distribution. Those who've taken antibiotics may know that they don't stay in your system for the rest of your life. Antibiotics are typically administered to animals to treat/prevent sickness or to promote growth during the growing time (while they're young). Organic animals may actually be less healthy than those with a health plan and medicines.
I do not feel that meat grown up with hormones is harmful at all since all animals contain hormones anyway. The hormones are typically administered during the growing period and stopped several months before slaughter, plenty of time for them to flush out. From what I know of what happens during cooking, digestion and bioactivity of animal hormones, I see little to no health risks there either. Besides, there are more hormones in the public water supply than in non-organically grown meats (from birth control pills peed out).
It's actually an old one. It's been some time ago now. My nutritionist warned me of all this in ~2000. Some baby formula labels were marketing with claims of low fat. Mom's bought it thinking low fat is better, more healthy, but it really isn't for babies. Infants neeeed fat to sustain their immense rate of growth. Breast milk is naturally very high in fat. Brains and neurons are composed mostly of cholesterol and are nourished during development by fat intake. The babies taking the low fat formulas did not thrive. I don't know if the word got out and companies stopped making those formulas or if some regulatory agency stepped in and stopped them. I haven't noticed if any formulas today try to market with low fat claims.