Purpose of this Discussion
Few concepts in nutrition elicit a greater emotional response than organic foods and genetically modified foods.
The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate the scientific evidence supporting and refuting the following issues:
1. Organic vs. conventionally grown foods
2. Genetically modified foods (also called genetically engineered, or GE) vs. conventionally produced foods
Before completing this discussion, read the textbook section on organic vs. conventional foods, and the section on genetically modified organisms.
You have two options for completing this discussion board:
1. Read the following article from The Washington Post, The Truth about Organic Produce and Pesticides. (Links to an external site.)
Scroll through the reader comments and identify one comment to either support or refute. Use 1-2 science-based resources (such as PubMed), compose a 2-paragraph discussion post in which you either support or refute the comment made about the article. Copy and paste the comment you are writing about into your discussion post, and provide links to any references used in your summary post.
OR
2. Choose one article from the ‘Panic-free GMOs (Links to an external site.)’ series published on Grist.com.
Read the article, then scroll through the reader comments and identify one comment to either support or refute. Use 1-2 science-based resources (such as PubMed), compose a 2-paragraph discussion post in which you either support or refute the comment made about the article. Copy and paste the comment you are writing about into your discussion post, and provide links to any references used in your summary post.
3. RESPONSE: Write a 1-paragraph response to two class member’s posts. Your posts should use the research you’ve done to either support or refute the arguments of your classmates. NOTE: please disagree with your classmates in a professional, non-aggressive way!
Your original post is due by Friday, and your responses to classmates are due by Sunday.
Grading of Discussion
Grading is based on the clarity and completeness of your initial post, as well as your ability to critically synthesize the information required. You will be awarded 10 points for your original post, and 10 points for your responses to other students.
Paregraph needs to respond to:
1, After reading the following article about “The Truth about Organic Produce and Pesticides” I have identified a comment that stood out to me. Clay’ comment stood out to me the most, because of the reasons he identified and the factual evidence he had in order to prove his point. His comment states “Pesticide residue ingestion by humans, though not a red herring, is really a distraction from the real issues. The point of organic crop production, not just food crops, is not the direct health effects on the humans who come in contact with products. It is the long term health of the environment”. This specific piece that was mentioned tells us that intaking the pesticide residue is a very accurate claim that pertains to good health benefits. However, this is a better way for us as humans to stay healthy and maintain a good diet by incorporating organic crop production into our body rather than conventionally produced foods.
To start off I can say that I support this specific claim of organic versus conventionally grown food products. Organic and conventional food are about the same intake, which means you are gaining the right amount of health benefits either way you choose to intake your food. In his comment he mentions “The point of organic crop production, not just food crops, is not the direct health effects on the humans who come in contact with products. It is the long term health of the environment”, meaning that the results are better for you in the end, because of the health effects it has on the human body specifically. However, it seems to me that organic foods are more sustainable and even have higher nutrients than traditional regular foods, which is why taking these products is more acceptable for your body. After doing more research on these two the results show that organic is a better substance for humans, because of the things organic products can rid off such as a lack of allergies, chemicals or even certain symptoms that people contain. This is the main reason why humans find organic products healthier way to input these products.
2, “For produce that *does* have excessive residues, where do they go? Into animal food–where they may contaminate dairy products, eggs, or meat–and even more troubling, directly into pet food. A USDA official told me to my face that when produce is condemned for human consumption due to contamination, it can still be used “without limit” in pet food. This is not a “one glass of wine per 3 months” issue… pets are eating the same food every day for years. They are the canary in the coal mine; as shown by the chronic disease and cancers that were unknown a few decades ago.”
This person has a point. We do have this false belief that we are only getting very small amounts in out food. However, the very small amounts build up to something big. Do I believe organic is necessarily better? Not particularly. But, it seems as though organic food is striving for the betterment of the environment while old technics are not. There are so many natural pesticides in the world such as marigolds. I’m not sure why we are not utilizing things we already have. Possibly because it’s not as easy as simply spraying on chemicals.
I do believe it is healthier to eat fruits and vegetables- regardless of whether or not they are organic. I think a lot of people get caught up in the, “I won’t eat it/ use it if it is not organic.” However, the more important thing is that people are getting nutrients and striving to eat healthier. I would much rather eat a tiny percentage of chemicals on my food than to not be able to eat these products at all. Does there need to be changes? Absolutely. There is no doubt.