• TechLauren@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My definition of organic =contains carbon so = all food uless you are eating sand for some reason. Just another meaningless tag on US foods imo.

    • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My own definition is: 30% upcharge for the same damned thing in a differently labeled package

      You’re paying for the label

      ( looking at you too, “non-GMO” 👀 )

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, no, my food’s not genetically modified. It’s just been developed via artificial selection for thousands of years.

        • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair, genetic modification and selective breeding are not the same thing. It is funny how one is totally normal and the other is considered negative when they’re quite similar

          • PreachHard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think some reservations can come out of the idea that the natural environment isn’t producing these genetic changes. Just to play devil’s advocate.

            Edit: does nobody fucking know what devil’s advocate means? This isn’t my opinion christ. Also there’s a bit more depth to the argument though that you guys seem to be really obtuse about.

            • Hobo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The natural world tries to kill you all the time. Why are you trusting that!?! Seriously though, both of these arguements are somewhat fallacious. Saying that GMOs are safe because, “It happens all the time in nature.” Is the same fallacy that it isn’t safe because, “It isn’t natural to accelerate the process with genetic modification.” Both are just mental shortcuts for people so they don’t have to think about the insanely complex topic of GMOs, the effects, and what the right path forward is for all of us.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

              • PreachHard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think this is somewhat strawmanning what the point of the argument in this specific case is. They’re not appealing to nature being good, that’s not the argument.

                The point is that if you are genetically selecting for specific genes through modification then you are circumventing the typical process for genetic change. There are lots of unintended effects of genetic changes and there are lots of corrective mechanisms built into DNA when genetically modified through selective processes rather than direct gene splicing. Science is always slow to catch up with analysis of an entourage effect where many other small factors may influence results long term.

                I’m not anti GMO and this isn’t my opinion as I think GMO products have amazing potential. I’m just sick of people on my side totally misrepresenting this argument as “hurr durr nature good.” It’s such a smooth brained take.

      • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ( looking at you too, “non-GMO” 👀 )

        I’ll let someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe carrots were never orange, as in every orange or yellow carrot you buy is GMO

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Virtually everything we eat now is GMO after countless generations of selective breeding and all that. Ever read about the wild versions of common foods? Bananas, watermelons, corn, all that stuff in their completely natural wild form is unrecognizable from the monstrosities on sale in every grocery store.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nearly every food you could theoretically consume is a GMO. The label is intentionally misleading.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not quite the same. I couldn’t get my normal soy milk recently and opted for a more expensive organic type from the same company. It tasted baaaaad. Like idk what the material difference is, but it sucked. The smell was really strong. I think I actually tossed a bunch of it out it was that difficult to drink. Now I just get light if the regular stuff is gone.

    • ShadyGrove@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you consider a tomato a fruit as well? Organic has different meanings depending on the context, just like the culinary vs botanical version of fruits and vegetables.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You probably eat more sand then you realize. It was the filler in Taco Bell meat before they got called out for not having enough beef to call it beef.

      So they sourced cheaper beef, of course, and the taste went to shit.

      Also, I appreciate the label, even though it is a misnomer. I prefer not eating glyphosate.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, I may have been wrong about TB. They did change their meat formulation about ten years ago (I remember the texture changed drastically, possibly as a PR move by TB when Alabama sued them in 2011).

            Silica is a common food additive regardless. You can verify this yourself easily on Wikipedia.

            • Hobo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              While silcon dioxide is used as a food additive, and is found naturally in a lot of food, it’s regarded as safe and even has been shown to have health benefits.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

              That’s wildly different then the claim that Taco Bell was sued, and had to change formula, because they had so much “sand in their meat.”

              • treefrog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I didn’t say it was unsafe. Just that we do eat sand.

                And yes, I was wrong about TB. Their meat did change drastically in 2012 and I repeated a rumor as to why.

                My point was just that the poster I was replying to does eat sand and that the organic label, while a misnomer, is far from meaningless.

                • hemko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, but saying “TB was putting sand in their meat” is wildly misleading, when talking about silica as food additive.