Need I be a skeptic about organic?

[heckmans]

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..

Except, by your standards about science of evidence, there is no evidence that man-made global warming is real or that any of the prescriptions (ie Kyota, Paris, IPCC) would have any meaningful impact on global temperature, but it WOULD create economic calamity that would cause misery and death on the scale climate alarmists claim will be cause by global warming.....just sayin'

 

[tboyer]

Except, by your standards about science of evidence, there is no evidence that man-made global warming is real or that any of the prescriptions (ie Kyota, Paris, IPCC) would have any meaningful impact on global temperature, but it WOULD create economic calamity that would cause misery and death on the scale climate alarmists claim will be cause by global warming.....just sayin'

Oh geez, here we go. All those photos from the Antarctic, from Greenland...just Photoshop magic I guess.

 

[heckmans]

Oh geez, here we go. All those photos from the Antarctic, from Greenland...just Photoshop magic I guess.

Yup. The science is settled position is the most "Anti-science" stance you can have by science's own standards.
1. We've been measuring sea ice since 1979. Posters on this board have T-shirts older than that
2. You better do some research. Antarctic sea ice is at a recorded maximum one year and recorded minimum the next. Let's repeat. We've been measuring this for 38 years

2014 NASA report:
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

2017 NASA report:
Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles | NASA

I suppose the record ice levels are photoshop magic?
AGW may be real, but let's not pretend it's remotely conclusive as you have flippantly suggested. No offense.

 

[PSU2UNC]

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?

This is great but is obviously not for everyone. And in fact we could not support the population of the U.S. (let alone the world) in this fashion.

 

[Langmuir]

Organic's not that hard. It's all hype. P-chem is the ball-breaker.

For me it is the opposite. P-Chem was just math. That I can deal with. Organic is memorization which I really struggle with. That may be obvious based on my user name.

 

[STPGopherfan]

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.

I do get your point, but cigarettes also have chemicals added to them.

 

[PSU2UNC]

For me it is the opposite. P-Chem was just math. That I can deal with. Organic is memorization which I really struggle with. That may be obvious based on my user name.

Actually if you really understand O-chem, it's not memorization at all (other than naming conventions).

 

[Langmuir]

Everything comes at a cost. We don't always know what that cost is, but that does not mean it is not there.

My wife always yells at me for using Roundup on the driveway because she says I am putting poison into the ground. I tell her the other option is to repave the driveway every few years and have 100's of times more petroleum leeching into the ground from the asphalt pavement than the small amount of Roundup that I use. Of course we could just not have a paved driveway but that does not seem to be an option.

Solar energy is viewed as something non-polluting. However there is a lot of pollution generated during the manufacture of solar cells. I heard the head of the Architecture Engineering Dept at PSU give a talk and he witnessed massive pollution in China from solar cell manufacturing. It makes people fell better since they don't see the pollution when they buy and use the solar cells. There is always a cost.

For "organic foods" the cost comes with generally less efficient farming methods and higher costs to the consumer. I agree with the general principle of trying to use less man-made chemicals but I have seen no compelling evidence that it is actually healthier for the person eating it. That is just marketing.

 

[hereforthebeer]

This is great but is obviously not for everyone. And in fact we could not support the population of the U.S. (let alone the world) in this fashion.

No argument here. I'm enjoying reading and learning from your responses. We're obviously in your arena. I was just pointing out in my own little way that if people have a mind to, they can know exactly where their food comes from, how it was raised, and enjoy freedom from this issue on a personal scale. Macro-level stuff is, thankfully, to be solved by folks with a greater capacity for logistics and scientific knowledge than me.

 

[lurkerlion]

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.

Best veggies sp

No argument here. I'm enjoying reading and learning from your responses. We're obviously in your arena. I was just pointing out in my own little way that if people have a mind to, they can know exactly where their food comes from, how it was raised, and enjoy freedom from this issue on a personal scale. Macro-level stuff is, thankfully, to be solved by folks with a greater capacity for logistics and scientific knowledge than me.

You are kinda the microcosm of the arguments. There is nothing better than growing your own vegetables and going straight from the garden to the table. Second is buying straight from a farm where you know it is fresh.

However, feeding the world is not so easy. People don't garden like grandma; they don't can their vegetables anymore like grandma (speaking on average, not the exceptions). In order to feed they world, different varieties have been developed which sacrifice some taste and other attributes in order to survive harvest and shipping.

Organic is a marketing matrix which defies rational argument. Farmers can't refute the matrix because there are too many strands. People just get bored with the discussion and stick with the organic is healthy mantra.

I will say this. In my opinion, organic definitions are driven more by the climate people than the food safety people. "Science" is pretty clear that organic food is no safer. If you think organic is better for the climate, the discussion gets too lengthy and you won't listen anyway. Enjoy Whole Foods where they will happily take lots of your money.

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

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.

That's all neat and wonderful and all....but the reality is that the word "organic" already has a very precise scientific definition and it has bupkis to do with "farming techniques" and everything to do with molecular science and biochemistry:

or·gan·ic
ôrˈɡanik/
adjective

1. relating to or derived from living matter.
   "organic soils"
   synonyms: living, live, animate, biological, biotic
   "organic matter"
2. PHYSIOLOGY
   relating to a bodily organ or organs.

Claiming some fruits, vegetables, fish and live-stock are "organic matter", while others are "non-organic" is a scientific absurdity to the extreme, which is in fact "non-science" bull$hit rather than any kind of "science-based" distinction that it is purporting to make. Again, ALL fruits, vegetables, plant-matter, dairy products, meats, fish, game, etc...are ORGANIC MATTER and PRODUCTS, not just the small subset of these ORGANIC PRODUCTS produced by non-scientific lunatics attempting to grossly mislead the ignorant public out of their own self-interest and avarice via the use of "alarmism propaganda" and non-science based lies.

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

Best veggies sp

You are kinda the microcosm of the arguments. There is nothing better than growing your own vegetables and going straight from the garden to the table. Second is buying straight from a farm where you know it is fresh.

However, feeding the world is not so easy. People don't garden like grandma; they don't can their vegetables anymore like grandma (speaking on average, not the exceptions). In order to feed they world, different varieties have been developed which sacrifice some taste and other attributes in order to survive harvest and shipping.

Organic is a marketing matrix which defies rational argument. Farmers can't refute the matrix because there are too many strands. People just get bored with the discussion and stick with the organic is healthy mantra.

I will say this. In my opinion, organic definitions are driven more by the climate people than the food safety people. "Science" is pretty clear that organic food is no safer. If you think organic is better for the climate, the discussion gets too lengthy and you won't listen anyway. Enjoy Whole Foods where they will happily take lots of your money.

Agree 100% - the reason "locally grown or raised" or "wild" ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS taste different than "mass produced / farmed" ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS has to do with whether they are being mass-produced or "micro produced" AND the amount of attention each individual plant or animal is receiving....what they are being fed, etc... Can "micro produced" or "wild" organic food products taste quite a bit different than say a "Hydoponic" mass-produced" vegetable from CA? Sure it can. But will there also be a radically different price associated with a "hand-raised" (or locally-sourced wild) product? You bet there will be. Hand-raised or wild-sourced ogranic food products may well taste much better, but they are also very expensive to raise or source on a "per unit" basis - radically more expensive. If you can afford it, that's all good and wonderful....and may lead to better "haut cuisine" in the kitchen, but it will also drain your food budget many multiple of times faster. The one thing it will not do is make the products themselves any more or less "organic" regardless of how much $$$ you spend on the product.

 

[GreggK]

My problem with GMO's is that it allows farmers to spray a crap ton of pesticides on their crops. This destroys ecosystems and the environment.
Runoff causes algae blooms. Having no other plants growing than the crops that the farmer grows is bad for insects that in many ways are not only crucial to the environment but also to agriculture. Bee's are a perfect example of that.

You have huge swaths of this country that only have crops in them. Not native weeds are plants.

That is my problem with GMO's. Obviously they are not more or less nutritious than organic.
But the point of them is that they can have chemicals poured all over them and not die.

 

[GreggK]

Agree 100% - the reason "locally grown or raised" or "wild" ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS taste different than "mass produced / farmed" ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS has to do with whether they are being mass-produced or "micro produced" AND the amount of attention each individual plant or animal is receiving....what they are being fed, etc... Can "micro produced" or "wild" organic food products taste quite a bit different than say a "Hydoponic" mass-produced" vegetable from CA? Sure it can. But will there also be a radically different price associated with a "hand-raised" (or locally-sourced wild) product? You bet there will be. Hand-raised or wild-sourced ogranic food products may well taste much better, but they are also very expensive to raise or source on a "per unit" basis - radically more expensive. If you can afford it, that's all good and wonderful....and may lead to better "haut cuisine" in the kitchen, but it will also drain your food budget many multiple of times faster. The one thing it will not do is make the products themselves any more or less "organic" regardless of how much $$$ you spend on the product.

I think also the reason locally grown tastes better is because they are choosing varieties based on taste on not on what ships well. Take the tomato for example. Most are picked when unripe and are "gassed" so they turn red. They are also varieties that can stand up to bumping in the truck, being handled and sitting on a shelf.

The local farm on the other hand picks when it is rip and chooses varieties based on taste.

 

[farmer79]

Greggk as someone who has sprayed crops for 30 years you couldn't be more wrong gmo to me is round up ready An some pest control in the plant I have gone from using 3 to 4 pounds of atrazine An princep plus a quart an a half a acre To this year quart of roundup that has no residual An 3/4 pound of atrazine an 4 ozs of a spray called balance that last 4 months an I can sow grass next year. Also no longer is a pesticide at anytime

 

[PSU2UNC]

My problem with GMO's is that it allows farmers to spray a crap ton of pesticides on their crops. This destroys ecosystems and the environment.
Runoff causes algae blooms. Having no other plants growing than the crops that the farmer grows is bad for insects that in many ways are not only crucial to the environment but also to agriculture. Bee's are a perfect example of that.

You have huge swaths of this country that only have crops in them. Not native weeds are plants.

That is my problem with GMO's. Obviously they are not more or less nutritious than organic.
But the point of them is that they can have chemicals poured all over them and not die.

You are conflating some issues here.

Algal blooms are caused by excess nutrients in runoff (not pesticides) so that's not a GMO issue (GMOs also require fertilization). So this issue is solved with holistic nutrient management which is important (but not a GMO issue).

As discussed above, GMOs allow farmers to use less toxic herbicides (e.g. Round Up) as opposed to older school stuff that is more toxic (e.g. atrazine).

Not picking on you, but these are exactly the kinds of misunderstandings that lead to consumers deciding that they hate GMOs, when they don't really understand what they hate about them.

And finally, since we've discussed how the term "organic" has been stolen to mean something else:
"But the point of them is that they can have chemicals poured all over them"
You realize that plants (and everything else on this planet) are made of chemicals, right?

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

The iPhone is a powerful truth tool

THIS ^^^^^ .

TRUTH!

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

You are conflating some issues here.

Algal blooms are caused by excess nutrients in runoff (not pesticides) so that's not a GMO issue (GMOs also require fertilization). So this issue is solved with holistic nutrient management which is important (but not a GMO issue).

As discussed above, GMOs allow farmers to use less toxic herbicides (e.g. Round Up) as opposed to older school stuff that is more toxic (e.g. atrazine).

Not picking on you, but these are exactly the kinds of misunderstandings that lead to consumers deciding that they hate GMOs, when they don't really understand what they hate about them.

And finally, since we've discussed how the term "organic" has been stolen to mean something else:
"But the point of them is that they can have chemicals poured all over them"
You realize that plants (and everything else on this planet) are made of chemicals, right?

Many fertilizers used by farmers are "Organic Chemicals" such as cow manure or compost..... Local gardens farmers use fertilizers and pesticides as well. GMO has to do with selecting and cross-pollinating (or splicing) varieties to maximize yield, decrease perish-ability, etc..., but farmers have been doing this for thousands of years all the way back to Mesopotamia.

 

[Langmuir]

Any nitrogen rich runoff is terrible for waterways. Cow manure is typically the biggest culprit in this regard. Farmers using "chemical" fertilizers really try to limit runoff since that is just money that is getting washed away. Manure is generally free.

 

[lurkerlion]

"organics", the industry and the regulations have been completely "gamed" by Big Ag. They saw the profit potential and just had to get in on the action.

It started as a small farm/grower movement but very quietly became perverted by big Ag into the joke it is today. Big ag employs an army of lobbyists and "associations" in state and federal governments. They certainly aren't going to leave profits on the table especially to small scale farmers.

IMO, buy local, buy seasonal, and know your farmer. At the very least, it will taste better and it's better for the local economy.

You must really like conspiracy theories and such. Farmers markets are doing fine as far as I can tell. The driving force for "organic" farming as far as I can tell is the climate change cabal which is able to drag along a bunch of foodies who don't know any better.

Fact check: 1) No difference between organic and traditional foods nutritionally

2) Taste differences will be because of variety choices and freshness (vine ripened)
3) There are no documented safety differences between organic and traditional
4) GMO's have radically reduced pesticide use by farmers
5) There are no documented dangers with GMOs
6) Most organic farming techniques are actually aimed at carbon emissions
7) Commercial nitrogen fertilizer is the main target of organic rules
8) Nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas
9) Use of commercial fertilizer does not affect the safety of the plant
10) The alternative fertilizer is cow manure and not only does that have problems, but there is not enough of it

I can't say this more clearly: organic farming is a type of farming defined by a bunch of people worried about climate change and carbon emissions, not food safety. In order to gain support they have created a "foodie" following which just keeps saying organic is better without any idea what it is.

 

[lurkerlion]

Conspiracy? LOL!!! Whatever..

Read my post again. Where do I say food safety? Or GMO?

I pointed out that the organic industry is a joke because big ag broadened the definition of organic so that they could participate in a very lucrative sector of ag. That is "gaming".

I didn't say GMO's are or aren't safe. I didn't say any thing about fertilizer, manure or anything.

You guys are funny...you seem to "know" everything. I get a kick out of reading some of this stuff.

Sorry but when you say big ag is gaming a local movement you are throwing a lot of stones. I also wonder about your claim about broadening the definition. Can you explain?

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

Sorry but when you say big ag is gaming a local movement you are throwing a lot of stones. I also wonder about your claim about broadening the definition. Can you explain?

Agree with you regarding the use of "organic" and that misuse of the term has nothing to do with broadening its definition. The appropriate name for the industry or purported agriculture approach would be more appropriately termed "Micro farming" or "Micro Ag" (if the mainline farming is called "Big Ag") - really not a whole lot of different than the approaches to another "organic industry", Beer and Spirits, being called "Micro Brewed" or "Batch Brewed" versus "Mass Produced" Labels in terms of distinguishing their "custom" hand-crafted approach and philosophy. Is the more expensive customized, labor-intensive, presumably "higher quality" and standards approach worth the price difference? Well the consumer would make that determination and at the end of the day is a subjective question unlike the question of whether something is "organic" or not, which is absolutely a binary, scientifically-based "objective" question.

 

[lurkerlion]

Agree with you regarding the use of "organic" and that misuse of the term has nothing to do with broadening its definition. The appropriate name for the industry or purported agriculture approach would be more appropriately termed "Micro farming" or "Micro Ag" (if the mainline farming is called "Big Ag") - really not a whole lot of different than the approaches to another "organic industry", Beer and Spirits, being called "Micro Brewed" or "Batch Brewed" versus "Mass Produced" Labels in terms of distinguishing their "custom" hand-crafted approach and philosophy. Is the more expensive customized, labor-intensive, presumably "higher quality" and standards approach worth the price difference? Well the consumer would make that determination and at the end of the day is a subjective question unlike the question of whether something is "organic" or not, which is absolutely a binary, scientifically-based "objective" question.

Agree with you regarding the use of "organic" and that misuse of the term has nothing to do with broadening its definition. The appropriate name for the industry or purported agriculture approach would be more appropriately termed "Micro farming" or "Micro Ag" (if the mainline farming is called "Big Ag") - really not a whole lot of different than the approaches to another "organic industry", Beer and Spirits, being called "Micro Brewed" or "Batch Brewed" versus "Mass Produced" Labels in terms of distinguishing their "custom" hand-crafted approach and philosophy. Is the more expensive customized, labor-intensive, presumably "higher quality" and standards approach worth the price difference? Well the consumer would make that determination and at the end of the day is a subjective question unlike the question of whether something is "organic" or not, which is absolutely a binary, scientifically-based "objective" question.

Just read about amazon and Whole Foods. How long before bezos cranks up the ad machine to convince more people that organic is better? There will not be any science involved.