Shopped at Organic Market

[spiritbird]

My dentist is next to a wonderful organic market so each time I go I come home with a bonanza of bird food. When I got home the birds got carrot tops, dandelion greens, beet greens and apple slices. Daisy loves to take a bath on the carrot tops and Kobe goes for the stems first. Then ended up in a little altercation over the greens but it did not last long.


[Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

[StitchynMe]

That is really awesome! Do you chop up fruits and veggies for your birds each morning? I do that every morning except on Sunday's when I have to rush out the door for church.

Today Stitchy had honey dew melon, pears, chard and kale, a little spinach and orange bell peppers. Of course he never eats all of that but I like to offer a variety. Sometimes it's apple slices and grapes, pea pods, carrots, broccoli and other assorted vegetables. All organic whenever possible.

I like the idea of dandelion greens!

[spiritbird]

Dandelion is the most nutritious of the greens. Not the ones from your back yard unless 100% organic. I do not chop because my birds love to play in the greens so I hang them or put them in that rubber ball for foraging.

[StitchynMe]

Dandelion is the most nutritious of the greens. Not the ones from your back yard unless 100% organic. I do not chop because my birds love to play in the greens so I hang them or put them in that rubber ball for foraging.

I watched the video and it's looks like they were having fun in the greens! I'm going to have to get some dandelion greens and hang them up.

[Casper's 2nd best friend]

I think I can safely say that everything in our garden is totally organic. Its a jungle out there (apart from the bits Margaret has just cleared).
Casper had one of his favourite treats today, a cored apple hung in his cage for him to swing about, bash, bite and swing on.

[Mare]

Oh, how fun! Looks like they are loving it! When I hang greens in Amigo and Sassy's cages, they are clipped instantly and fall to the floor before they can really enjoy. Chip is much better at savoring these kinds of treats :)

[spiritbird]

It's either feast or famine for greens. I found a way to extend their life. I layer the dry greens unwashed in a plastic container and they are fresh for much longer.

[jtbirds]

Just a word about organics, recently some studies show that the pesticides they us that are "organic" may also be just as bad for us as commercially bought food. I watch this stuff closely because of my lifestyle choices. Not saying organic is bad, but spending the extra money may not be worth it. Unless your organic markets are similar to ours which actually match prices similar to the grocery stores. I really wish this whole food problem of what is better would be a lot more simple, obviously fruits and veggies are much better then other substances, but the debate between GMO, Non- GMO, organics etc is just horribly out of control.

[Casper's 2nd best friend]

There was a TV program on recently (that I didn't watch but heard all about) which was about the well preserved early human body that was found on a glacier in the European Alps. They found wheat in his gut and also evidence that he was coeliac. So apparently humans have been suffering with unsuitable food for thousands of years.
GM crops are not permitted to be farmed in the UK. I would like to thank those Americans who are acting as crash test dummies for proving that we aren't going to destroy the planet. We have been modifying crops and livestock by selective breeding since the year dot and things have been going along OK. We just have to watch out for the modern trend of going totally over the top and doing things on a mass scale. They shouldn't let accountants get involved, they know nothing about real life. Their brains are too full of spreadsheets*
*outrageous generalisation.

[plax]

Just a word about organics, recently some studies show that the pesticides they us that are "organic" may also be just as bad for us as commercially bought food. I watch this stuff closely because of my lifestyle choices. Not saying organic is bad, but spending the extra money may not be worth it. Unless your organic markets are similar to ours which actually match prices similar to the grocery stores. I really wish this whole food problem of what is better would be a lot more simple, obviously fruits and veggies are much better then other substances, but the debate between GMO, Non- GMO, organics etc is just horribly out of control.Hi Justin... did you read my reply here: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks] ??

I'm both interested in and concerned about the source(s) of information you're relying upon that claim pesticides used on organic produce are equally as dangerous as those used on non-organic produce. Within the reply cited above, I've made effort to explain the reasons for that concern.

Moreover, GMO and organic are not the same thing.

[jtbirds]

Firstly here is a video that may or may not be biased, and I don't know what he knows, So that being said this gentleman disagrees with organics: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

This article concludes that everything is still on the edge as organics have not been around long enough to conclude any positive or negative health benefits, One major thing to point out is that we still fertilize these crops with animal waste which is a growing health concern to many: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

Again another link gathering information from various doctors, that easily conclude that organics may or may not be better: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

I have many more, I am not saying organics are not a better choice or are. I tend to buy organic produce as well, but there are a lot of fine lines. Plax to respond to the statement saying usda organic is a hard label to get, the answer is yes when it first came out it has grown easier. I am on the fence and I don't believe much of ether sides stories the problem is money is involved in both organics, gmo, non gmo, farm grown, non tilled land, etc etc.. all of it is produced for the masses to yield massive profit. Anything money touches so does corruption, so organics is currently at a point that we need to find out for sure if its better or if it is so minimal that it doesn't matter.

Similar to for a while vegans began eating "free range chicken eggs" Some vegans concluded that free range hens had a happy life and the eggs where then something good for you. Later to find out the companies/ farms selling these eggs slaughtered hens after the egg production went down. Some of these free range eggs where also produced by all organic chickens, money got involved.

I am on the edge, if you'd like more information I can probably dig up more of my links and videos.

[plax]

Firstly here is a video that may or may not be biased, and I don't know what he knows, So that being said this gentleman disagrees with organics: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks] ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks])

This article concludes that everything is still on the edge as organics have not been around long enough to conclude any positive or negative health benefits, One major thing to point out is that we still fertilize these crops with animal waste which is a growing health concern to many: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks] ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks])

Again another link gathering information from various doctors, that easily conclude that organics may or may not be better: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks] ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks])

I have many more, I am not saying organics are not a better choice or are. I tend to buy organic produce as well, but there are a lot of fine lines. Plax to respond to the statement saying usda organic is a hard label to get, the answer is yes when it first came out it has grown easier. I am on the fence and I don't believe much of ether sides stories the problem is money is involved in both organics, gmo, non gmo, farm grown, non tilled land, etc etc.. all of it is produced for the masses to yield massive profit. Anything money touches so does corruption, so organics is currently at a point that we need to find out for sure if its better or if it is so minimal that it doesn't matter.

Similar to for a while vegans began eating "free range chicken eggs" Some vegans concluded that free range hens had a happy life and the eggs where then something good for you. Later to find out the companies/ farms selling these eggs slaughtered hens after the egg production went down. Some of these free range eggs where also produced by all organic chickens, money got involved.

I am on the edge, if you'd like more information I can probably dig up more of my links and videos.Thanks for the links, Justin. One thing that should be a big concern is that we usually can't know the affiliations or the genuine motivations of folks using YouTube and other platforms to speak against a particular sector of industry. I assure you that often when such individuals speak out like this, and particularly when they do so repeatedly, it's because there's a powerful driving motivation behind their efforts.

Concerning: "No evidence to show that conventional pesticides affect our health in a negative way." ...

To begin with, that statement is little more than a claim. And it's a claim that's easily refuted with reports to the contrary. Have a look at the following examples...


Many studies are showing the effects of pesticides on children. In 2010 the journal Pediatrics published a study by the Harvard School of Public Health which found that children with high levels of pesticides known as organophosphates were twice as likely to develop ADHA (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity-Disorder).2 The data found was based on the general U.S. population. Which means pesticides could be harmful at levels normally exposed to children. Researchers agree that this is a strong association and that if true, is a very serious concern since these are widely used pesticides. Organophosphates were originally developed for chemical warfare and are known to be toxic to the nervous system.

Beyond infants and children, new studies are also showing that pesticides in fruits and vegetables may be harmful for a developing fetus as well. A new University of California, Berkeley study linked prenatal pesticide exposure to lower levels of IQ in children. The study measured pesticide exposure in the urine of pregnant women in Salinas and found a 7 point IQ deficit in children whose mothers had the highest pesticide levels.3What’s alarming is that the urinary pesticide concentrations were within the range of levels measured in the general U.S. population. In other words it was an average amount of exposure. This was one of three studies published on April 27, 2011 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, showing the association between pesticide exposure and children’s IQ. The other two studies, one at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, and the other at Columbia University, examined inner city populations in New York City. Researchers were surprised by the level of consistency across populations in the studies, which is very unusual.

From: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]


The most convincing evidence that pesticides are carcinogens comes from epidemiological studies. Farmers who frequently use 2,4-D have a six-fold increase in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Scientists believe that the use of lawn chemicals such as 2,4-D has been a significant factor in the 50% rise in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma over the past 20 years in the American population. (World health Organization. 2,4-D Environmental Aspects. Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.) 2,4-D has also been linked to malignant lymphoma in dogs. Pets are exposed to higher doses of pesticides because they are closer to the ground where concentrations are the highest. Parts of their bodies, such as their scrotum and armpits, are often directly exposed to pesticides. They also ingest pesticides when they are grooming themselves. Studies show that the risk of lymphomas doubled in dogs whose owners treated lawns four times a year.

The lawn pesticides, mancozeb and chlorothalonil have been classified by the EPA as "probable" cancer causing chemicals in humans, as they have been found to cause cancer in animals. Mancozeb has also been found to react with sunlight to form a new compound the EPA categorizes as a "known" human carcinogen. The common lawn pesticide 2,4-D has been shown to increase the risk of lymphatic cancer in farmers six times the normal rate, according to a National Cancer Institute report. (Sinclair, W. 18 Studies Show Why Pesticides Are More Dangerous than Previously Realized. Tampa, Florida)

A University of Iowa study found that working as a golf superintendent significantly increased one’s risk of getting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, brain cancer, lung cancer, large intestine cancer, and prostrate cancer. Other experts are starting to find that golfers, and non-golfers who live near golf courses, are experiencing similar health problems. A 1996 research project studied brain cancer rates among 600 people. The research demonstrated a twofold increase risk for developing brain cancer for people who lived within 2600 feet of an agricultural area. (American Journal of Public Health, 86(9): 1289-96, 1996.) In 1983 the National Cancer Institute studied 3,827 Florida pesticide applicators who had been spraying for more than 20 years. They found that these pesticide applicators had nearly 3 times the risk of developing lung cancer and 2 times the risk of developing brain cancer. There was no increased risk for pesticide applicators who had been spraying for only 5 years. (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 71(1), July 1983.)

Beginning in the late 1970s there have been reports linking pesticides to leukemia in children. A 1987 study by the National Cancer Institute showed that children living in pesticide-treated homes had nearly a 4 times greater risk of developing leukemia (cancer of the blood). If the children lived in homes where pesticide was sprayed on lawns and gardens, the risk of developing leukemia was 6.5 times greater. All the children in the study were 10 years of age or younger. (Dr. John Peters, University of Southern California, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, July 1987.) Cancer rates in the US have increased by 37% between 1950 and 1986. Over a million people are diagnosed with cancer in the US reach year. 10,400 people in the US die each year from cancer related to pesticides. It is estimated that the cost of cancer in term of lost production, income, and medical expenses amount to over US $38 billion each year.

From: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]



(Beyond Pesticides, June 21st, 2012) A new study details the toxic effects of long-term exposure to commonly used agricultural pesticides. Results indicate an increased likelihood of moderate to severe blood toxicity and a reduced total number of bone marrow cells, which can lead to degenerative diseases like aplastic anemia. The study, entitled “Pesticide Induced Alterations in Marrow Physiology and Depletion of Stem and Stromal Progenitor Population: An Experimental Model to Study the Toxic Effects of Pesticide ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks])” is published in the online version of the Journal of Environmental Toxicology .


The experiment, led by researchers at the Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine’s Department of Biochemistry and Medical Biotechnology, exposed a group of mice to a mixture of organochlorine, organophosphate and pyrethriod pesticides, including a preponderance of the chemicals cypermethrin ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]), and chloropyrofos ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]). The exposed mice showed an overall reduction in the ability of their bodies to produce bone marrow cells. Bone marrow, the soft flexible tissue found in the interior of bones, is a storehouse for stem cells. While the exact mechanism is unknown to researchers, the study reveals that the microenvironment in which stem cells develop is somehow deranged by pesticides. This derangement prevents the maturation of stem cells into every type of blood cell, including red and white blood cells and blood platelets. A suppressed level of these blood cells can result in degenerative diseases such as aplastic anemia, which often requires a bone marrow transplant to successfully treat.

Sujata Law, Ph.D., co-author of the study, remarked, “In order to prevent degenerative diseases related to pesticide exposure, it is of prime importance that those handling pesticides take precautions like wearing protective clothing, including masks and gloves.”

Another recent study in India found high levels of the organochlorine pesticide endosulfan ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks])in the bone marrow of children with blood cancers. The study ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]), published in the journalIndian Pediatrics, affirmed the fact that the pesticide has the potential to accumulate in bone marrow. All of the children who had high endosulfan levels in their bone marrow were from areas where exposure to the pesticide is common. Children with blood cancer had elevated levels of endosulfan in their bone marrow compared to those without the disease. Six out of 26 children with blood cancer tested positive for endosulfan in the bone marrow compared to one out of 26 children who did not have blood cancer.

Although this study was based in India, the chemicals chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, and endosulfan are still used to varying degrees in the U.S. Cypermethrin applications in the U.S. are approximately 1.0 million pounds of the active ingredient per year ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]). EPA has identified the pyrethriod cypermethrin as a possible human carcinogen and classifies formulated pesticides containing it as slightly or moderately toxic. Synthetic pyrethroids are suspected endocrine disruptors, have been linked to certain cancers, and are particularly dangerous to aquatic life even at low concentrations. Despite the fact that there are plenty of effective pest management methods ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]) that are not nearly as toxic, these insecticides are some of the most popular household pesticides, available in the form of powders and sprays to control ants, mosquitoes, fleas, flies, and cockroaches. As research unfurls, particularly on the long-term and combined effects that these insecticides have, the high-volume uses of pyrethroids are major cause for concern to human and environmental health ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]).

Organophosphates like chlorpyrifos are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulses. In 2010 ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]), Beyond Pesticides and over 13,000 other organizations sent a letter to the EPA ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]) calling for a ban on chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Chlorpyrifos was phased out for residential use under a2000 agreement ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]) between EPA and Dow Agrosciences, but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture. EPA’s action in 2000 removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses but retained all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf courses ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]), and “public health” mosquito spraying ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]). The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but it ignored the special risks to farmworkers’ children, as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. This recent study provides sobering evidence of the long-term dangers farmworkers’ children could face.

The best way for consumers to reduce the impact that these chemicals have on our health and the environment is to choose organic foods ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]). Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices.


From: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

And another thing that is very much supported by evidence is as follows. It's a hard fact that the utilization of conventional pesticides generates far greater crop yields for produce farmers, which equates to far higher profits, than would forgoing the use of those pesticides. That's a reality which I think speaks volumes about motivation to grow non-organic. Putting the profit element aside for a moment, I think we only need look at the wikipedia article on 'health effects from pesticides' to come away with some reasonable concerns about long-term ingestion of conventional pesticides. You can find it at: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

Importantly, in order for there to be evidence, scientific studies need to happen. And of course those studies must be funded before they can happen. Politicians and lobby groups are very good at making sure that few to no funds are allocated for such studies if/when those studies are likely to work against their ends. That's just what they do. And it's simply because they are invested in the success of large industry... they're notorious for using every tool at their disposal to protect corporate interests and agendas. But studies still occur and some of the results have been frightening.

So now back to pesticides. And when I say pesticides, I'm not speaking of substances created/replicated through procedures of genetic modification in order to increase levels of naturally occurring protection in plants from pests. Instead, I'm speaking of simple organic farming protocol and of which USDA-approved pesticide substances may be applied to crops. I will as well say that when assessing controversial topics like this, adherence to logic may be the best practice. As such, one important logical consideration concerning the 'no evidence' claim is that when there's no proof of possible harm from a substance, process, or practice, it simply does not negate any genuinely existing but yet-unknown health hazard that said substance, process, or practice may in fact pose. In other words, it doesn't make much sense to say: "since we haven't been able to learn the truth as to whether a substance is dangerous in the long-term, we should assume that it's not." Stated another way, a true disposition of 'no evidence' should never itself be considered evidence that an opposing argument is valid.

To add to the above, I could say that there's no evidence non-organic produce is safer than organic produce. So if you feel compelled to take the "no evidence" route (i.e., that there have been no scientific studies - which is actually not true - and I think it's important to note that some studies are prone to render skewed conclusions depending upon who is paying for them), we'll end up at square one again with each of us citing what someone said or what some organization or agency has published. Will we not? As such, it seems all that's left may be for us to try and adhere to a logical viewpoint. To me, the best logic is as follows: consumption of fewer unnatural chemicals over an extended period should have the greatest likelihood for presenting less long-term negative health effects than the alternative. That alternative, of course, would be consuming a greater number of unnatural chemicals during an extended period. I know what you're thinking... you're concerned about the argument some folks pose claiming that certain natural chemicals have proven to be a greater health risk than man-made chemicals. I'd rather not get into that unless and until we can look at some valid study data with specifics. But whatever we do, lets try and avoid the 'no evidence' statements because I think they nearly always serve as false arguments.

Here's yet another consideration. I don't think it makes much logical sense to purchase a product from one supplier that contains residues from 10 potentially dangerous substances when I'm able to acquire a similar product from another supplier that, because of federal law certification requirements, may at most contain residues from just 3 or 4 potentially dangerous substances. The higher number of potentially dangerous substances available to non-organic produce growers has me concerned. In my view, the more varieties of conventionally grown produce we consume, the more kinds of potentially dangerous substances we stand to ingest. I believe we would be served well by a federal mandate for produce distributors to list all chemicals utilized during production of a product on an accompanying label.

Further, I guarantee you that the collective of non-organic food producers is astronomically greater than the collective of organic food producers. Quite simply, this means that in the non-organic food producing sector there's more money at stake -more money to lose...more profits to become lower- than in the organic food producing sector. That's why the propaganda, the lobbying and the political favors are so prevalent against organics. A large number of powerful politicians are onboard with those guys!

I'm a proponent of organic produce because many pesticides are simply not used by certified organic food producers. Whereas with non-organic food producers, anything goes. Profit is king with them! Their designs on increasing profits trump concern for safety and regulation. And adding in the fact that the industry has a humongous lobbyist element and maintains an agenda-driven structure that churns out deliberately misleading information on a regular basis, you end up with quite a ruthless monster.

That said, I'm going to continue to endorse organic produce. I well know that certain corporations and non-organic farmers have a vested financial interest in getting as many people as possible to believe that organics are no better (or even worse) than non-organics. I simply do not believe their claims because of the motivations involved that I'm aware of, and because it's just an all-around illogical argument in my view. Disturbingly, the conventional food producing industry holds the majority of wealth, along with the necessary structural backing and the most effective mechanisms to do what they've been doing as far as their war against organics. They have tremendous influence and they utilize it to their extreme advantage. I suppose the bottom line for me about organic produce vs. conventional produce will always be what seems most logical.

[spiritbird]

I appreciate other points of view. If I had two meals in front of me, one organic and one not, the choice would be organic. In the growing season I am lucky to get fresh greens from my yoga instructor. She and her husband have a few acres to grow 100 percent organically plus have free range chickens. Neither one of them has ever needed a doctor. Both are vegan. They built a greenhouse to grow food in the winter. Also take lots of herbs and daily Apple cider vinegar with mother. Guess I got a little off track here. I will ask her what they use for fertalizer

I am getting dandelion greens from them now until they stop growing.

One can grow them in large containers with kale in organic soil.

[spiritbird]

[Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

[plax]

Thanks Dianne. I am very much in favor of feeding our birds organic produce. I've revised my reply below to include some examples of cited studies that have linked certain unnatural pesticides to physical harm.

[jtbirds]

Dianne why do they have free range chickens? The eggs are not ours to eat so there should be no need to eat them.

Tony- I do not disagree with anything you stated and the evidence saying organics is better is still greater then any supporting it is not. I still support organics and buy them for me and my birds alike. I really have no argument about this especially since both of us only know what we are reading. Maybe if we both had an organic farm and grew our self's and knew the procedures. I have read what you have on the positives, and I have seen the negatives. Mostly what I read is all positive, I didn't mean to offend you or step on your opinion. My opinion still stands, buy what you can without breaking the bank and the rest may not be organic, but its still better then the alternatives.

I completely understand that many of the unnatural pesticides have shown and caused physical harm, but what I am saying that right now what we may be using that is "organic" may 100 years down the road prove to be bad as well. It is similar to the whole smoking to vapping thing, smoking is in defiantly bad for everything, everyone considers vapping to be way better and some say healthy. The thing is vapping hasn't been around to show long term effects on health. Now sure organic produce and smoking are to very different spectrum's, but evidence is cumulative and will only add up over time on both subjects.

My personal hope is that laws on organics stays strict maybe gets stricter, this leading to way better produce for everyone and ensuring that no evidence can be collected over a period of time saying different. I really hope organics becomes widely bought and consumed enough that GMO kings can be brought down because they are really hurting us and animals.


Just to add to the what I stated before I did not mean to portray that you shouldn't feed your birds organic produce, I simply meant do what you can afford and stay in touch with what organics can/ are becoming. I always research before feeding certain things to myself/ my animals and I encourage everyone to get all the knowledge they can before making a decision on what food to feed/ path to take:)

[plax]

I didn't mean to offend you or step on your opinion. My opinion still stands, buy what you can without breaking the bank and the rest may not be organic, but its still better then the alternatives.Just so you know, Justin, I wasn't offended. I'm merely adamant about my views concerning certain topics. Organics happens to be one of those topics. Sometimes all it may take to deter someone from a product is for them to read a comment along the lines of: "This thing isn't as safe or helpful as you may have thought it was... if I were you I would think twice about relying upon it any longer." It can truly be a shame when such a comment -that's based largely upon hearsay and speculation- results in someone forgoing the use of a beneficial product when that product is actually relatively safe. I thus felt it important to address the purported (and unfounded) risks relating to organic produce and the associated corruption within the produce industry at large, as well as the related corruption within the political arena. So that's all my responses were about.


I really hope organics becomes widely bought and consumed enough that GMO kings can be brought down because they are really hurting us and animals.I'm with you on the GMO stuff because with GMO we simply can't tell what we're getting. Importantly, though, I think it needs to be clarified that "GMO" (Genetically Modified Organism) is not "organic" by any shape or measure! GMO substances are not even permitted for use by USDA-certified organic farmers. I'm mainly addressing this issue in case some folks happen to be unaware of the difference between the two terms. Below is an excerpt from usda.gov confirming what I have just explained:



The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can’t use any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren’t using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances, such as GMOs, from farm to table. - See more at: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks].1DJmymPE.dpuf

From: [Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]


All folks need to remember is that certified organics are good. Whereas GMO foods may present health risks. Again, organics has nothing to do with GMO!

[spiritbird]

Tony can you explain what GMO stands for please?

[plax]

Tony can you explain what GMO stands for please?GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism(s). It means that the DNA in a species has been altered from its natural state. The creation of GMO products typically involves transferring genetic material from one species to another. The result has been referred to as "Frankenfood". The object of GMO efforts is to create super species (food items that include the favorable characteristics of other species)... such as a produce item that will resist decay for longer periods than its natural counterpart.

[spiritbird]

Oh those. Thanks for the clarifications/definition. I say no thanks and stick to organic as much as possible.