I can see the author's point, people that are utter control freaks over their foods definitely have issues. I mean you have to be able to go to a friend's house for dinner or travel and eat some weird foods and some unhealthy crap.

But unhealth food junkies are creating some eating disorders too - obesity and diabetes. I guess it's about moderation. And maybe understanding some of the basics of nutrition.

I think we have bigger issues to deal with, like getting kids to eat healthier. If they rely on the governments idea of what healthy is, then they will continue to be unhealthy and have unhealthy habits. Instead of spending money to teach kids how to grow healthy foods, they spend money on studies so they can discredit the obsessively healthy. Does that make any sense at all?

http://therealfoodchannel.com/page/7.html

Here's the right one:

http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/30.html

A bit off-topic for this forum, innit?

Organic veggies are healthy, no debate about that......

That's illogical.

Al

Organic veggies are healthy, no debate about that......

Actually there is ;)

Conventionally produced crops are regulated in terms of pesticide residues, organic crops are not. The organic grower can put rotenone all over their crop and send it right off to market and nobody looks at the pesticide residues on it the way they do in conventional farming.

Did you know that most of the organic food in the supermarket is not from small family farms, but large agribusinesses like Dean Foods?

Do you think these large corporations are withholding the pesticides? Even small farmers can't withhold the pesticides when they grow pest prone crops. They just switch from a well tested pesticide with residual limits to a less tested one deemed organic and don't have to respect any residual limits.

And that is not to say - altho I can easily make the case that it is not - that big ag has no farms that have good soil. That is: if a Big Ag farm has good healthy soil, likely the nutrient content of the crop is indistinguishable from organic.

But if we want to get all out of ourselves with the 'healthy', then it is clear the EROEI of organic is lower. Which to the earth is healthier.

Dan

" then it is clear the EROEI of organic is lower. Which to the earth is healthier."

I think this sums it all up

Sums what up? The OP was about health food 'nutts' (not implying that all who make healthy diet choices are 'nutts'. The OP was talking about those that go overboard, to the point of it being an eating disorder), and the topic morphed when 'organic foods are healthier' was illogically stated. THEN, Dan ended his comments with an observation about what's healthier for the earth. I'm not being critical of Dan's opinion, but I am questioning how the leap in logic was made, and just exactly what Dan "summed up"?

I so often see where a person seizes on a phrase in a text or a post and and uses it to further a personal ideology. Dan also stated in the same post, "... if a Big Ag farm has good healthy soil, likely the nutrient content of the crop is indistinguishable from organic." If you wish to take Dan's offering as an excellent summation (and I'm not passing judgment one way or another), then why pick and choose the phrases or sentences that only mesh with an individual ideology?

Al

Isn't this the organic "gardening" forum? Are we not gardeners? We don't debate the virtues of produce grown on massive factory-farms because we grow our own. We care not what happens in such mad places as the Salinas valley and Whole Food markets, as long as we have our sprouts and our little scale to measure our daily allotment of sesame seeds --whoops, strike that last part.......

We care not what happens in such mad places as the Salinas valley and Whole Food markets

Well, my point was we should care. And why the organic movement falls short when making blanket statements about food nutrition.

Changing the scale of consideration allows us to see that certain statements are flat wrong. This is all of the same piece with the point of the article quoted by the OP.

Dan