I essentially believe that it is healthier (in general) and safer than processed and non-organic equivalents. My skepticism is in the vein, "How do I know it really is?" My children purchase mostly only organic for the dozen grandchildren. The only thing I've ever purchased organic is the chickens in my Amish neighbors front yards and my archery license! So is it really organic because the label says so? Thank you!
Need I be a skeptic about organic?
- Thread starter emrtmakesshiteup
- Start date
I suppose it depends on what you mean by organic. I tend to not listen to the term "organic" when it comes to mean. For chickens, I look for no antibiotics, free-range, hormone free and natural.
* "Natural" means there are no artificial ingredients or preservatives. That claim can be made for most chicken sold at grocery stores.
* "Hormone-free" has even less meaning since hormones are not legally allowed in poultry. Same goes for "farm-raised," since just about every chicken sold is raised on a farm.
* "Antibiotic-free" has significance to those who are concerned about consuming an animal treated with antibiotics. An organic chicken cannot be treated with antibiotics.
* "Fresh" means the chicken has never been cooled below 26 degrees Fahrenheit (-3 degrees Celsius).
* "Free-range" is taken by many to mean that the chickens roam free in a pasture, but legally it just means they have access to the outside.
* "Natural" means there are no artificial ingredients or preservatives. That claim can be made for most chicken sold at grocery stores.
* "Hormone-free" has even less meaning since hormones are not legally allowed in poultry. Same goes for "farm-raised," since just about every chicken sold is raised on a farm.
* "Antibiotic-free" has significance to those who are concerned about consuming an animal treated with antibiotics. An organic chicken cannot be treated with antibiotics.
* "Fresh" means the chicken has never been cooled below 26 degrees Fahrenheit (-3 degrees Celsius).
* "Free-range" is taken by many to mean that the chickens roam free in a pasture, but legally it just means they have access to the outside.
For the most part "it is". The "problem" is trusting a company and/government to be honest. Keep in mind $$$$$$ rules both 
That being said, more and more people are "watching".
The iPhone is a powerful truth tool
That being said, more and more people are "watching".
The iPhone is a powerful truth tool
Your skepticism isn't unfounded.
There are two reasons that people buy "organic" foods. One is personal health (which is why I suspect your children are buying it for their children) and the other is environmental health.
Regarding the former, there is no scientific evidence that organic foods have more nutritional value than non-organic foods, so the argument then comes down to the unintended vector of pesticides and pharmaceuticals (antibiotics and hormones). I am not aware of any papers that suggest that the non-organic food supply chain represents a toxicologically meaningful flux of toxics to human consumers.
In theory, "organic" production (especially in terms of row crop agriculture) is better for the environment. However, traditional farming (which includes careful use of pesticides) can also be quite safe. And frankly we cannot feed the population of the world through organic farming alone (yield per acre goes down and cost per unit yield goes up with organic farming).
So there is nothing wrong with buying organic if you want. I personally find that some "organic" products (e.g. chicken breasts) are bigger and more visually appealing, so sometimes I will seek those out. But if your children are buying all of their food at Whole Foods at the expense of saving for their kids college, that's not smart.
(an aside: as an environmental chemist the use of "organic" in this context drives me crazy. Organic really means a compound consisting of carbon (and usually hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen). The pesticide DDT is organic. So is gasoline. So organic in the true sense of the word doesn't mean something is healthy)
Something can be organic and processed.
Processed vs. not processed is certainly something to consider.
Organic... sounds good, but other than milk I don't think there is true value.
Where there is value is in meats what the feed is and or the range, that plus organic has some merit.
Meat can taste very different depending (IMO)
LdN
Great point. Another label that amuses me is "all natural." Our products are all natural (hence it has to be good for you, right?) That's nice. Tobacco is all natural. So is rattlesnake venom and poison ivy.
Good points re: natural.
In addition to your examples, so are mercury, lead and uranium.
A little off topic, but I also love things that could not possibly contain gluten (e.g. raisins) are labeled as gluten-free.
Yes they do this with cholesterol too. Our oatmeal is cholesterol free. Well no kidding.
Be skeptic about organic. It all ends up in the septic.
I have to get on the phone with our marketing department right now. We are definitely missing the boat here.
Not only is our gasoline 'organic', it is also 'pesticide-free', 'gluten-free' and 'low-fat'.
We can boost the price a dime a gallon, and people will be lining up at the stations. We'll make a mint.
Organic's not that hard. It's all hype. P-chem is the ball-breaker.
Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Are they better for animals? Are they better for the environment?
Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains.
So glad to see the question raised. There is absolutely no evidence that you will be healthier or live longer eating organic. There are a lot of theories, and some of the theories have science attached to them.
But there are NO actual studies that prove, for instance, that eating organic lettuce will benefit you over eating conventional lettuce. They are chemically identical, sometimes even grown in the same fields -- but the organic one gets a special sticker with a higher price tag.
The one that really dries me nuts is GMO free. Half the junk food in the grocery store says GMO free. Most people have no idea what it means but they like to see that sticker because GMO is "bad." Reality is, GMO is developing plants via gene splicing instead of through selective breeding, which takes longer. There are lots of valid question about where gene splicing might be hazardous or bad for the environment. But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that eating plant species developed in a test tube will be any different from eating no-GMO.
I think the obsession with organic and no-GMO reflects several things:
1) Food has become infected with conspicuous consumption just like every other consumer product. You drive a $60,000 car, you wear a $5,000 watch, so naturally you will buy organic beef that costs $28 a pound instead of $10 a pound.
2) Ignorance of science that extends from the left to the right hand of the political spectrum. The right refuses to believe in climate change and wants to burn coal and eliminate air quality standards. The left wants to shut down nuke plants even if it means burning coal to replace them, and refuses to believe that gene splicing can improve the food supply. A pox on both of them as far as I'm concerned..
But there are NO actual studies that prove, for instance, that eating organic lettuce will benefit you over eating conventional lettuce. They are chemically identical, sometimes even grown in the same fields -- but the organic one gets a special sticker with a higher price tag.
The one that really dries me nuts is GMO free. Half the junk food in the grocery store says GMO free. Most people have no idea what it means but they like to see that sticker because GMO is "bad." Reality is, GMO is developing plants via gene splicing instead of through selective breeding, which takes longer. There are lots of valid question about where gene splicing might be hazardous or bad for the environment. But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that eating plant species developed in a test tube will be any different from eating no-GMO.
I think the obsession with organic and no-GMO reflects several things:
1) Food has become infected with conspicuous consumption just like every other consumer product. You drive a $60,000 car, you wear a $5,000 watch, so naturally you will buy organic beef that costs $28 a pound instead of $10 a pound.
2) Ignorance of science that extends from the left to the right hand of the political spectrum. The right refuses to believe in climate change and wants to burn coal and eliminate air quality standards. The left wants to shut down nuke plants even if it means burning coal to replace them, and refuses to believe that gene splicing can improve the food supply. A pox on both of them as far as I'm concerned..
The label is absurdly over-used and misused to the point where it really has no meaning in food industry. Let's put it this way, all milk - 100% of it - whose source is pasteurized from the milk of a cow is organic.... All meat butchered from a previously living animal is "organic".... Etc... Absurd to say or label it otherwise. There is such a thing as "free range" (or wild) chicken, fish, etc..., but again all fish is "organic" whether it is farm-raised or caught wild - to say and label something otherwise is absurd.
Physical chemistry.
A typical course of study would go inorganic chemistry (Chem 12/13/14/15 at PSU), then organic (aka "o-chem", Chem 34/35/38?) then physical chemistry (aka P chem, Chem 450??).
To oversimplify it slightly, P chem deals with the physics of "why" chemical reactions occur the way they do.
I just took plain chemistry with a lab at Villanova and even that pissed me off. I also had to take 4 credit courses in Biology and Physics. I was an Eng. Lit. Humanities major. WTF.
For the most part "it is". The "problem" is trusting a company and/government to be honest. Keep in mind $$$$$$ rules both
That being said, more and more people are "watching".
The iPhone is a powerful truth tool
Personally, I think the whole thing is more about "marketing" and "$$$" (i.e., they charge more for these products) than it is about actual "science" and "scientific definitions". The poster who put up the "10 points" link is a good summary....claiming that selecting and "splicing" varieties of vegetables such as corn to promote various attributes as has been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of years by biologists and farmers is horrifying and unnatural is just plain dumb. Essentially, claiming the "domesticated rose" is a Frankenstein-esque creation of biologists and farmers through the ages is great "alarmism", but laughably lame and truly stupid.
You were English Lit? That was my second choice for my major, not kidding you. Anyway, everyone needs a good mathematics and science course in college, just as math majors like me need a good literature course. When I was a freshman at UP in 1974 I took an American Lit course where I read, in one quarter, The Sound and the Fury, The Sun Also Rises, Long Day's Journey into Night, and The 42nd Parallel, not to mention numerous poems. Terrific course and here I am telling you all about it 43 years later. Do you hear me bitching because I was a mathematics major and didn't need no stinkin' literature courses? No. Nut up already.
One of the subtleties of the GMO "argument" is that GMOs get lumped in with people who are "anti-Monsanto." Monsanto developed Round-Up Ready Crops using GMOs which allows farmers to use Round Up (a relatively non-toxic to humans herbicide) on crops that normally would be killed by it. This is a pretty huge deal and is good for farmers and good for the environment (i.e. you can use less harsh chemicals).
Like many big companies the way they did this was with a profit first approach that some people view as unfair to farmers (that's a value judgement I won't get into here).
But even if you are anti-Monsanto, you shouldn't lump all GMOs together, especially if you don't understand what GMOs are.
GMOs are a tool. The best analogy I heard is comparing GMOs (a tool) to a tractor (another tool). You could use the tractor to plow your field or you could use it to run over puppies. But just because one application is horrible doesn't mean they all are.
You seem to know what you're talking about but I've been reading that Round-Up is carcinogenic.
You mean to say that Monsanto poured all that time and effort into research, testing, development and marketing with the expectation of making a PROFIT?
Why the nerve of them.
Well wild fish, poultry and meat taste very different than species of the same, or similar, variety that are "farm raised" - it has ZERO to do with "organic" as they are ALL by absolute scientific definition "organic". It has purely to do with the fact that they are wild versus farm-raised (i.e., domesticated), which impacts what they are eating, fat content, lean-muscle mass,etc.... To imply that a farm-raised salmon is "inorganic" and a different organism than a wild salmon of the same species is just silly. Will the meat of the two fishes taste different? Hell yea they will.
One stinking tit course in an area you enjoyed. I had 12 bloody credits in shit I hate. I liked Calculus. Biology was okay. But Chem and Physics, no thanks. Valences, who needs 'em when we have prose, poetry and plays.
And I gotta sack, saggin' but still.
I think Villanova used those science courses for Humanities guys to thin the crop, much like I heard they used writng courses for engineers.
And stop using UP. I know what you're up to - UP (Penn).
The literature is pretty divided on this. However, even the studies that are showing there is a link between glyphosate (Round Up) and human cancer are linking it to farm workers who apply it (which is not good, but not even in the same ballpark at causing cancer in people who eat crops sprayed with the chemical).
It is also important to keep in mind that toxicity is relative. Round Up is almost certainly less toxic than the current alternatives. So unless you are advocating going organic (see above for why that's not a great idea), Round Up is a pretty good option.
For many produce items, it doesn't really matter. It's the dirty dozen, that you should try to buy organic.
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
Roundup is an organophosphate. I would not recommend a Roundup-on-the-rocks, but it is a big improvement toxicity-wise over its chlorinated predecessors.
None of the stuff is good for you. At the same time, you have to keep risks in perspective. If you want to feed the world (there is only so much agricultural land available) you have to be productive. To do that you need mechanization and a bunch of pesticides. It is simply a tradeoff. While I would suggest washing your produce before you eat it (actually I'm more worried about coliform than pesticide residue), I'd also remind people that malnutrition is also a known health risk.
People get worked up about everything from microwave ovens to nuclear power plants to pesticide residue to high voltage power lines to fluoridated drinking water. And God help anybody who makes a profit in return for furnishing a product or service.
Yet at least in the First World, life expectancy continues to increase. Of all the things that are going to kill me sooner or later, pesticides are way down low on the list.
Reminds me of a story a friend of mine told me. His cousin is a pig farmer. Pig farming has gone the way of chicken farming. Many farmers provide labor and a place to raise animals. The actual buying of feed, livestock, vet visits, and other things are provided by the companies the farmers are contracted to. As such, corporate has control what gets fed to the animals.
One day, the farmer was talking to the feed delivery man. In the days when the farmer was responsible for feed, it was something he raised or bought at the local feed mill. There weren't very many additives in the feed.
Anyways, they got to talking about raising pigs, and farmer says that when a pig breaks a leg, they simply kill it and butcher it. That way he didn't have to buy too much meat. The delivery man says that wasn't a good idea, since there were a bunch of growth additives in the feed, and they don't get weaned out until about 2 weeks before butchering. The farmer thought maybe that's why his weight had ballooned up to 400 lbs.
IMO organic food tastes better. The cucumbers aren't waxed, nor are the apples and other fruit or vegetables. My wife buys non-organic because its cheap. I buy organic and it stays fresh longer. Grass fed beef has a better flavor. But, when I was a kid, everything was organic and grass fed.
There is a local organic farmer at the local farmer's market. His produce is garbage and expensive. I won't buy from him. Another local organic farmer raises stuff that looks good, just like a well grown garden. He composts mainly grass and tills it into the soil.
Call me old fashioned, but I think that better ingredients make a better meal.
One day, the farmer was talking to the feed delivery man. In the days when the farmer was responsible for feed, it was something he raised or bought at the local feed mill. There weren't very many additives in the feed.
Anyways, they got to talking about raising pigs, and farmer says that when a pig breaks a leg, they simply kill it and butcher it. That way he didn't have to buy too much meat. The delivery man says that wasn't a good idea, since there were a bunch of growth additives in the feed, and they don't get weaned out until about 2 weeks before butchering. The farmer thought maybe that's why his weight had ballooned up to 400 lbs.
IMO organic food tastes better. The cucumbers aren't waxed, nor are the apples and other fruit or vegetables. My wife buys non-organic because its cheap. I buy organic and it stays fresh longer. Grass fed beef has a better flavor. But, when I was a kid, everything was organic and grass fed.
There is a local organic farmer at the local farmer's market. His produce is garbage and expensive. I won't buy from him. Another local organic farmer raises stuff that looks good, just like a well grown garden. He composts mainly grass and tills it into the soil.
Call me old fashioned, but I think that better ingredients make a better meal.
Again, using the actual and scientific definition of the term "organic", this statement is nonsensical:
All fruits and vegetables picked off the stock, out of the ground, off a tree, off a vine, etc... are "organic" by definition. Whether a steer is grass, corn or cabbage fed will not change the actual molecular makeup of its protein - can it taste slightly different (and have different fat content, etc...) based on its diet? Yes, sure it can, but it has nothing to do with it being organic or non-organic - all living things whether grown from the ground or walking the surface are "organic" in creation (the opposite of "organic" - i.e., non-organic is "synthetic"....living plants and animals by definition are "organic" not "synthetic")
Let's look at this the way most people do. Organic is a way of growing food. Non-organic is another way of growing food. People who buy food generally understand that its a farming practice. They don't think that non-organic is synthetic.
Its sort of the same argument used with things that are sustainably harvested. People think that clearcutting timber isn't sustainable. They also think that "selective harvesting" is sustainable. In many instances they aren't.
Its sort of the same argument used with things that are sustainably harvested. People think that clearcutting timber isn't sustainable. They also think that "selective harvesting" is sustainable. In many instances they aren't.
Great stuff, thanks. A great illustration of how the greenie left is just as clueless and fact-resistant as the Trumpist right.
Freudian slip perhaps, but the first time I read the title of this thread, I misread the last word as being "orgasm." I was somewhat disappointed when I realized my mistake.
I enjoy doing my own thing.
From my land, I harvest deer, grouse, rabbit, turkey, catfish, perch, trout, and maybe eventually a bear. I have grass fed beef. I raise meat chickens and egg layers (all free range).
Natural apple trees. Peach, pear, and plum that I have planted.
Raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, watermelons, and about a dozen veggies in my garden.
I pick wild leeks in the spring. I have well water. I like to make a little wine. I heat mostly with wood that I process myself.
We mostly use the grocery store to supplement, for grains, flour, etc.
Why not?
From my land, I harvest deer, grouse, rabbit, turkey, catfish, perch, trout, and maybe eventually a bear. I have grass fed beef. I raise meat chickens and egg layers (all free range).
Natural apple trees. Peach, pear, and plum that I have planted.
Raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, watermelons, and about a dozen veggies in my garden.
I pick wild leeks in the spring. I have well water. I like to make a little wine. I heat mostly with wood that I process myself.
We mostly use the grocery store to supplement, for grains, flour, etc.
Why not?
Born raised An spent my 55 years on a dairy farm non organic I can assure you everything we can do we do to produce the best milk we can we do An everything we do to use as few antibiotics An on crops as few herbicides as possible. For many reason but the facts are those things are expensive An since we've been receiving lest for a hundred pounds of milk than we did in 1979 when I graduated from high school every penny counts. I strongly believe that god gave us these animals to care for to treat kindly An to treat if sick. An we do every drop of milk that leaves our farm is tested for antibiotics An if we ship antibiotic milk we are responsible to pay for whole truck load of milk which in this farm climate could put our 6 th generation farm out of business. Our milk comes from heathy well cared for cows ( who sleep on water beds) An have names that we gave if they get sick we call vet or dr ourselves that milk is dumped till tested to no longer have traces of antibiotics is it .
Let me help clarify for you. Antibiotic residue in milk has been illegal since like forever. In the 1980s the testing for antibiotic residue became nearly foolproof because of test's accuracy and the procedures for each truckload of milk entering a plant. Advertising "no antibiotic residue" is a redundant if not misleading claim.
GMO plants have allowed crops to be grown with a fraction of the pesticides as before. Unfortunately for farmers, the seed companies do pretty well in taking those savings away.
Despite the confusing claims by the various agenda driven groups, milk not only is a nutritious food but perhaps the safest food in the supermarket. Every drop is tested in the plant before it is shipped to the stores. You can't say that for lettuce or cucumbers shipped "fresh" from Mexico.
