Organic Food

[Puppycow]

I have some questions about organic food:

1) Is it healthier for you?
2) Is it better for the environment?
3) Is it worth the extra cost?
4) In the Grand Scheme of Things, is organic food good, neutral, or bad?

[Lothian]

Damn, You last question prevented me from replying with 4 nos. I'll go for 3 and neutral.

[Rolfe]

1. no
2. not necessarily, on balance generally no
3. depends in what terms you're considering it (worth it to me for health benefits, or worth it to us all for environmental benefits or whatever), but overall, no
4. overall, probably bad

Rolfe.

[Francesca R]

I would rather that organic food was defined in the same way as organic chemistry (as in: derived from compounds containing carbon)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's the way I define it, Acuity. I only eat inorganic food on alternate Tuesdays.

~~ Paul

[Slimething]

No to all. Organic farming is what all the people who can't afford the tools of modern farming do all around the world. That takes more resources per measure of crop rendered, is less likely to yield untainted food (contaminated with bacteria, fungi, critters), and is actually worse for the environment. It's basically the result of a romantic notion for the purity of yesteryear and a mistaken notion that Natural is better than synthetic.

[Stitch]

I have some questions about organic food:

1) Is it healthier for you?
2) Is it better for the environment?
3) Is it worth the extra cost?
4) In the Grand Scheme of Things, is organic food good, neutral, or bad?

1) No, infact if they are using manure, the bacteria count can be far higher
2) Not really, it's often shipped much greater distances than if you were just to buy local produce.
3) Personally, no, but try a blind taste test
4) I err towards bad due to transportation issues.

[Puppycow]

Thank you all. That's what I suspected, but I wondered how other skeptics thought about it. Another example of the naturalistic fallacy, I guess.

[tkingdoll]

Organic food bought from local farms is likely to be fresher, so will absolutely taste better. But then, non-organic food bought from local farms also tastes better for the same reason. The difference is, there aren't really any non-organic local farms doing the £10-a-box delivery scheme like the organic suppliers do. So, in my opinion it's worth paying a little bit extra to get very fresh fruit and veg delivered to my door, but if you're buying processed food, or fresh supermarket produce, it's a complete waste of money.

[Professor Yaffle]

Organic food bought from local farms is likely to be fresher, so will absolutely taste better. But then, non-organic food bought from local farms also tastes better for the same reason. The difference is, there aren't really any non-organic local farms doing the £10-a-box delivery scheme like the organic suppliers do. So, in my opinion it's worth paying a little bit extra to get very fresh fruit and veg delivered to my door, but if you're buying processed food, or fresh supermarket produce, it's a complete waste of money.

Also organic food people tend to grow tastier varieties that have been pushed out by the supermarkets because they don't look as good on the shelves as some less tasty variety.

[Ian Osborne]

Sounds like homeopathy. Farm-fresh organic foods 'work' in that they taste better and offer more vitamins, but for reasons other than the fact they're organic.

[Puppycow]

Good point about local food. I can understand and agree with that angle.
In my case, I live in the largest urban agglomeration in the world (http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/agglomerations2.htm) but they seem to have good fresh vegetables available, especially at your local "yaoya-san." Vegetables here are smaller but more flavorful, it seems than at a typical supermarket in the US.

[seayakin]

Before a quick reply I thought I'd look up what evidence is available about the claim of organic foods.

From the University of Michigan which states that there appears to be no evidence:
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/organicfood.htm

From Medical News Today it seems to support the idea they are healthier
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.php

I need to do more research because I need to confirm what scientific studies have been done on the claims.

[ixolite]

I have some questions about organic food:

1) Is it healthier for you?
2) Is it better for the environment?
3) Is it worth the extra cost?
4) In the Grand Scheme of Things, is organic food good, neutral, or bad?
Organic meat is tastier *yummy*:p and "healthier" (no hormones, less use of antibiotics and such) and more environment friendly, since it is usually from local farmers. For veggies and fruits it doesn't really matter.

[tkingdoll]

Also organic food people tend to grow tastier varieties that have been pushed out by the supermarkets because they don't look as good on the shelves as some less tasty variety.

This is very true. I love ugly food. And I love washing the mud off, it's relaxing.

Supermarket tomatoes and carrots are the worst. They're all uniform size and shape and colour, and taste of nothing. Still, consumer demand has led the changes, we get the tomatoes and carrots we wanted.

[tkingdoll]

Organic meat is tastier *yummy*:p and "healthier" (no hormones, less use of antibiotics and such) and more environment friendly.

It's not more environmentally friendly, and in the UK supermarkets it's certainly not likely to be from local farmers, they import most of their organic meat.

You should talk to Rolfe about your misconceptions about 'healthier'. And in blind taste tests, organic meat tends to fare no better than non-organic if the meat is of the same age.

[bruto]

I get lots of yummy organic food, but for the reasons Prof. Yaffle and Teek suggest: they tend to be good varieties, grown with care and picked fresh, whereas commercial produce is often from far away, harvested way before ripe, and shipped under stressful conditions. How important that is may depend on where you live and how good the produce is at your local supermarket. Here in Vermont, it's hard to find a good supermarket produce section, so the local co-op, despite its annoyingly self-righteous air and its racks of homeopathic nostrums, gets at least some of our business.

There is also an economic issue here, because as the small family farms disappear from New England, the organic food racket has been a boon to local growers, and I'm happy to support them if their produce is cheap enough. Oddly enough, many items are actually cheaper at the local co-op than at the supermarket, so why not eat them?

[Francesca R]

I believe (have not checked) that a roadside market in central London can qualify as a "farmers' market" (which gives the impression of locally grown food and less mileage) as long as the produce is sourced within 100 miles, which means it could come from France in an articulated lorry on Eurotunnel.

[meg]

I have some questions about organic food:

1) Is it healthier for you?
2) Is it better for the environment?
3) Is it worth the extra cost?
4) In the Grand Scheme of Things, is organic food good, neutral, or bad?


1) Maybe. Organic produce tends to be fresher, which means more vitamins and minerals than less fresh produce.

Because pesticides approved for organic use tend to break down much quicker in the environment, organic produce tends to have much less (2/3 less) pesticide residue than conventionally grown produce.
Here's a link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04EEDC1530F93BA35756C0A9649C8B63

Whether that is actually "healthier" or not, of course, depends on the particular pesticide and how it reacts in human bodies. Previously approved conventional agriculture pesticides like lindane, dursban, diazanon, or kelthane have been removed from the market because of later found human health risks. Because of this, I tend to believe that just because a particular pesticide is approved for agricultural use now does not mean that it is actually safe for human consumption.

I personally think that minimizing the amounts of pesticides you eat is probably a good idea. I believe it is "healthier".

2) Sometimes. Organic farming is a method of farming that concentrates on improved soil structure and fertility, minimizing off farm inputs, and reclaiming and returning nutrients back to the soil. These methods reduce soil erosion, minimize runoff and reduce the amount of nutrients and pesticides that can leech into water tables. Organic practises also concentrate on cultural and biological solutions to problems, for example choosing a variety of plant that is resistant to local common fungal infections rather than choosing to spray fungicide, which lessens the amounts of pesticides transferred to and stored on farms, which reduces the risks associated with spills, accidents and misuse, as well as their approved use.

3) I think something to keep in mind when considering the cost is that there are very few subsidies available to organic farmers. Out of the around $16 billion of U.S. subsidies to farmers, only about $20 million went to organic agriculture. ($5m to assist certification and $15m for research for the next 5 years), so when you buy organic produce, you are actually paying a more "real" cost of growing, storing and transporting that food, vs the subsidized price you pay for more conventionally grown foods. Should the U.S. start to subsidize organic farmers or should they reduce the amount of subsidies for conventionally grown products, the consumer price for organic vs conventionally grown will probably grow closer.


4) In the grand scheme of things, organic farming in developed nations has created a system whereby consumers can buy a high quality product for which small and medium sized farmers can actually charge a price that allows them to stay in business without subsidation. In less developed countries organic farming methods allow farmers to produce high quality food products with less cash money up front, which can allow them to keep their land producing food for their communities.

I consider both of those things to be "good" things.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have some questions about organic food:

1) Is it healthier for you??

No

2) Is it better for the environment?

No

3) Is it worth the extra cost?

No

4) In the Grand Scheme of Things, is organic food good, neutral, or bad?

Neutral

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would rather that organic food was defined in the same way as organic chemistry (as in: derived from compounds containing carbon)

I always have fun with this with the loons at the farmers market.

"Can I help you"
"just looking"
"All my produce is organic"
"of course it is"
"not like the stuff at <insert local supermarket>"
"No, that's organic too"
"No, I've been there, and they don't carry organic produce"
"Well, I've been there too, and all their produce is organic"
"No, it's grown on giant corporate farms"
"Pehaps, but it is still organic"
Blank stare
"In fact, this grass we are standing on is also organic"
Blank stare
"And I had lunch at McDonalds on the way over, and their burgers are organic"
Blank stare

etc...

These are mostly all the same people who believe in homeopathy and energy healers.

[Slimething]

1) Maybe. Organic produce tends to be fresher, which means more vitamins and minerals than less fresh produce.

I believe this to be an assumption on your part insofar as time from harvest is concerned. Why would an organic banana at my grocer's be any fresher than a non-organic banana? Yes, vitamins degrade on storage as do taste and sugar content but minerals don't. What's the half-live of iron in cauliflower?

Because pesticides approved for organic use tend to break down much quicker in the environment, organic produce tends to have much less (2/3 less) pesticide residue than conventionally grown produce.

Nope.


Here's a link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04EEDC1530F93BA35756C0A9649C8B63


I read the article and it was very slanted toward the organic mystique that pervades popular culture. So, I tracked the publication to their website and found that the journal cited is not peer reviewed (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/tfacauth.asp). So, their conclusions are questionable. I would caution you not to get your science from newspapers, Consumers Union or Ken Cook (nutball).

Whether that is actually "healthier" or not, of course, depends on the particular pesticide and how it reacts in human bodies. Previously approved conventional agriculture pesticides like lindane, dursban, diazanon, or kelthane have been removed from the market because of later found human health risks.

Nope. They were later removed because of more stringent regulatory requirements and competing chemicals which break down more quickly in the environment. Please note that the article you cited never mentioned that most of the food tested had no residues whatsoever, organic or conventional.

Because of this, I tend to believe that just because a particular pesticide is approved for agricultural use now does not mean that it is actually safe for human consumption.

Then, what you believe is that modern toxicology is worthless.

I personally think that minimizing the amounts of pesticides you eat is probably a good idea. I believe it is "healthier".

Pesticides are not vitamins. Reducing intake of everything, including food, water and air, reduces risk. What you are describing here is what is knows as The Precautionary Principle where nothing should be done until it's proven safe. Do as you wish but you have to realize that there are no risk-free actions in life. Even wild foods contain pesticides, although they are endemic to the food. As a matter of fact, modern food varietes have been saftened as their wild versions are many times more toxic per se.


2) Sometimes. Organic farming is a method of farming that concentrates on improved soil structure and fertility, minimizing off farm inputs, and reclaiming and returning nutrients back to the soil. These methods reduce soil erosion, minimize runoff and reduce the amount of nutrients and pesticides that can leech into water tables. Organic practises also concentrate on cultural and biological solutions to problems, for example choosing a variety of plant that is resistant to local common fungal infections rather than choosing to spray fungicide, which lessens the amounts of pesticides transferred to and stored on farms, which reduces the risks associated with spills, accidents and misuse, as well as their approved use.


Nope. All farmers choose varieties that will thrive in their area. All farmers conserve topsoil. This is myth.

3) I think something to keep in mind when considering the cost is that there are very few subsidies available to organic farmers. Out of the around $16 billion of U.S. subsidies to farmers, only about $20 million went to organic agriculture. ($5m to assist certification and $15m for research for the next 5 years), so when you buy organic produce, you are actually paying a more "real" cost of growing, storing and transporting that food, vs the subsidized price you pay for more conventionally grown foods. Should the U.S. start to subsidize organic farmers or should they reduce the amount of subsidies for conventionally grown products, the consumer price for organic vs conventionally grown will probably grow closer.

AFAIK, subsidies are apportioned per type of crop grown, not whether a farm is organic or conventional. Many farms are both. Could you give us a (credible) source for these stats?

4) In the grand scheme of things, organic farming in developed nations has created a system whereby consumers can buy a high quality product for which small and medium sized farmers can actually charge a price that allows them to stay in business without subsidation. In less developed countries organic farming methods allow farmers to produce high quality food products with less cash money up front, which can allow them to keep their land producing food for their communities.

More myth. Organic farming is the default situation. No one had to give underdeveloped countries organic farming as there was no choice other than to not farm at all. In developed countries, farmers would use organic farming if they could but the need to farm via expansive monocultures leaves the crop too vulnerable to insect/disease pressure to do that. Pesticides are expensive and farmers would not use them at all if there were any other way. Also remenber that there is no evidence that organic produce is of higher quality than conventional produce.

I consider both of those things to be "good" things.

You can believe anything you want. Buying organic produce won't bankrupt you. It may do you harm in that the highest risk of eating anything is from bacterial contamination which comes from either the improper use of manure fertilizers or "free range" practices. Good luck.

[Rolfe]

Organic meat is tastier *yummy*:p and "healthier" (no hormones, less use of antibiotics and such) and more environment friendly, since it is usually from local farmers. For veggies and fruits it doesn't really matter.


OK, you asked for it.

I don't buy "organic" vegetables because I can see no reason to pay extra, possibly for more contaminated produce. However, I don't actively boycott them because as far as I know carrots can't suffer.

I actively botcott organic meat and animal-derived products for animal welfare reasons, because I don't approve of the anti-medicine woo that deprives animals of properly tested and regulated veterinary medicines for ideological reasons. The biggest nonsense of the lot is the antivax stance, though I believe that is softening a bit. Yes, we don't mind antibodies in the meat so long as they came by natural infection, but if they came by way of a vaccine, dearie me no, artificial, chemicals, can't have that!

I understand that in the US there are indeed some issues with BST and antibiotics in meat, but these are not issues in the UK. If there are undesirable residues in meat, then for goodness sake tackle the issue properly so that all meat is safe, don't create another tier of product and ignore the mainstream product - on the other hand, if there isn't a problem, what's the point in the first place?

I'm also very very opposed to the whole anti-science stance of the organic movement. It seems that if something is properly tested and licensed for safety and efficacy, then it's an evil chemical. However, if it's not, it's "natural", and that's fine. Hey, if your "natural" product does anything at all, I want it properly tested and licensed for safety and efficacy, dammit!! - except if you do that, it's now a nasty chemical and you can't use it. On the other hand, if it does nothing, then why use it at all - just admit you're not going to treat the poor beast and be homest about it.

Oh yes, and the pro-homoeopathy stance is quite sickening. Homoeopathy isn't just tolerated (anybody even thought about the possible residue problems of an active ingredient that gets more powerful the more it's diluted?), it's actively encouraged as being safe and kind and natural and good for the environment. They tout all the woo-woo veterinary studies about how it can cure mastitis and so on, positively Dana-esque.

They're a bunch of pernicious Luddites without the clear-sighted logic of the original Luddites. And animal welfare is an expendable commodity so long as their batty ideas about "purity" are satisfied.

Rolfe.

[skepHick]

I'm also of the opinion that organic offers no particular benefits, except as previously mentioned, being perhaps locally grown/fresher, or sometimes offering heirloom or different varieties of some produce. Still, the only time I buy organic is if the item I want isn't available in the "regular" section. Otherwise, I intentionally avoid buying organic as I think of it as overpriced hooey. Luckily, my local grocery makes this quite easy as they dedicate a special section for organics which I happily bypass.

I once purchased a pint of milk with my lunch at an "upscale" sandwich shop, where of course all of their milk and juice offerings are organic. :rolleyes: The back of the carton proudly proclaimed, among other things, that antiobiotics weren't used on the cows. My immediate reaction was, "Gah, what kind microbial beasties are floating in this milk that could make me ill?" I believe even organic milk has to be pasteurized here, so that should take care of any potentially harmful bacteria, but still, I didn't think that was anything to crow about. Nevermind any poor, sick cows that have to go without antibiotics. I don't like being "forced" to purchase the organic drinks, so now I choose Diet Pepsi so I can be sure to get my dose of "harmful" chemicals via artificial sweeteners. What can I say? I like to live on the edge. :D

[patnray]

It might be better for the environment if all produce were produced "organically". That's because yields would be lower and half the population would starve. With fewer people there would be less pollution. And oil prices would fall, too...

[tkingdoll]

It might be better for the environment if all produce were produced "organically". That's because yields would be lower and half the population would starve. With fewer people there would be less pollution. And oil prices would fall, too...

Hee hee. I like the way you think.

[Modified]

Supermarket tomatoes and carrots are the worst. They're all uniform size and shape and colour, and taste of nothing.

For tomatoes, the biggest problem is that they are picked green and ripen in a truck. The same rather bland varieties taste a lot better when picked ripe. Similarly, a lot of people don't know that most grapefruit varieties are quite sweet if picked ripe, sweeter than your average truck-ripened grocery store orange.

[Slimething]

For tomatoes, the biggest problem is that they are picked green and ripen in a truck. The same rather bland varieties taste a lot better when picked ripe. Similarly, a lot of people don't know that most grapefruit varieties are quite sweet if picked ripe, sweeter than your average truck-ripened grocery store orange.

When it comes to veggies, there is nothing better on this planet than home-grown tomatoes or corn eaten within minutes of picking. This is also probably true for most fruiting veggies, succulent beans and cukes/gourds/melons but maters and corn are what I loves best.

[tkingdoll]

When it comes to veggies, there is nothing better on this planet than home-grown tomatoes or corn eaten within minutes of picking. This is also probably true for most fruiting veggies, succulent beans and cukes/gourds/melons but maters and corn are what I loves best.

Oh god yes. I wish I had a garden, but we swapped size for location and I gave up my veggie and herb garden.

There was no irradiated-and-ancient shop basil that smelled or tasted like the just-picked stuff from my garden. And the smell of just-picked tomatoes, even the green ones which were great for pickling...drool!

Slice the tomatoes, throw on some basil, add a few slices of buffalo mozzarella, and a good glug of decent olive oil and balsamic vinegar. A sweep of salt and pepper and you're away. Screw you, supermarkets!

Oh, except I don't keep buffalos, obviously.

[Puppycow]

Thanks for all the additional posts. I have read them all, and I feel quite edified. :D

[DRBUZZ0]

I'm actually doing some research for an upcoming post on my site going into details on organic foods. It's actually quite ridiculous what the regulations are for "organic" labeling of food.

Basically the thing is it tends to mean "No processed fertilizer and minimal processed insectaside, only used when needed" I guess that is what it ammounts to.

But there are verious round-about ways of "organic" farming getting the same things as standard farming.

For example, conventional farming uses fertalizers to increase soil content of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and such. So they use nitrate based fertalizers, various things like amonium nitrate, also potassium salts, phosphorius salts, Diammonium Phosphat, Urea-based fertalizers

An organic farm cannot use anything synthetic or processed by modern industrial means. So they cannot use urea-based fertalizers. But they can use runoff of livestock waste, which is full of urine which is mostly urea. They can use potassium nitrate, but only if it's "Mineral saltpeter." So if it's dug up it's ok, but if it's the same compound which was somehow refined they cannot.

They can use potash, which is common for standard farming too. Only with standard farming methods the potash is processed to concentrate the potassium salts and remove inert bulk. Organic farmers use the same stuff, but as it comes from the ground. They can't use it if it's "cleaned up" and put in bags.

They get a lot of the same compounds in very round-about ways. Things like manure (s**t) are used, food slurries (stuff from the slaughter house or other food places which is left over and "slurried"), also sewage or sewage sludge, animal urine runoff, potash, saltpeter, seaweed, old crops. This stuff is supposed to be composted, but that doesn't necessarily mean much.

There are dangers to health and the enviornment from organic farming. Since it involves a lot of poo-based or animal-based fertalizers, it can have bacterial issues. The runoff from an organic farm is not necessarily better than a regular farm and it can be worse if it contains large amounts of bacteria or other contaminants. It can also cause problems with causing huge population explosions of flies or nasty smells. You throw a few tons of cow crap in the hot summer and it won't be pleasant for those in the area.


And natural does not even mean better for the environment. Take pest control for example. Which do you think is worse: Controlling pest populations with a measured amount of approved insectaside or bringing in huge numbers of lady bugs or other predatory insects which can go out and fubar the eco system for quite a distance.


Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that environmentally sound farming is possible and involves runoff control, runoff collection, integrated pest management, use of approperate fertilizers without overuse, proper plowing, good crop rotation practices. This is all going to help reduce the enviornmental issues. But "organic" farming? Not especially helpful. And not for nutrition either.


And also, remember "organic" does not mean anything about irrigation or having big thundering diesel-powered tractors chewing everything up. If you think "organic" means that it comes from maw and paw farmer working for a living and respecting the land while they till the fields with their salt-of-the-earth hands, you're mistaken!

[EHLO]

I actively botcott organic meat and animal-derived products for animal welfare reasons, because I don't approve of the anti-medicine woo that deprives animals of properly tested and regulated veterinary medicines for ideological reasons. The biggest nonsense of the lot is the antivax stance, though I believe that is softening a bit. Yes, we don't mind antibodies in the meat so long as they came by natural infection, but if they came by way of a vaccine, dearie me no, artificial, chemicals, can't have that!
.
.
.
They're a bunch of pernicious Luddites without the clear-sighted logic of the original Luddites. And animal welfare is an expendable commodity so long as their batty ideas about "purity" are satisfied.

Rolfe.

Hi Rolfe, I was a little surprised by your stance, can you clarify something for me - does meat in the UK or EU with the "organic" certification require that the animals have had no vaccination or been administered regulated veterinary medicines? This seems like a radical extreme to me, and counter to the ethical treatment principal that I thought underpinned organic animal farming?

(Baring in mind most of the info I have associated with organic farming has come from this guy (http://www.rivercottage.net/Content.aspx?pid=65) so may be confusing "organic" with "ethical", "free range" etc.)

[ixolite]

It's not more environmentally friendly, and in the UK supermarkets it's certainly not likely to be from local farmers, they import most of their organic meat.
In Germany it is from local farmers.

You should talk to Rolfe about your misconceptions about 'healthier'.
Um...so you say that pumping animals full of hormones and giving antibiotics even though they are not sick is healthy?

And in blind taste tests, organic meat tends to fare no better than non-organic if the meat is of the same age.
Well, I know the difference in taste between the meat I buy in the supermarket and the one I buy at the organic butcher from experience and that is what counts for me. Apart from the fact that organic meat doesn't shrink to half it's size in the pan.

[Rolfe]

Hi Rolfe, I was a little surprised by your stance, can you clarify something for me - does meat in the UK or EU with the "organic" certification require that the animals have had no vaccination or been administered regulated veterinary medicines? This seems like a radical extreme to me, and counter to the ethical treatment principal that I thought underpinned organic animal farming?

(Baring in mind most of the info I have associated with organic farming has come from this guy (http://www.rivercottage.net/Content.aspx?pid=65) so may be confusing "organic" with "ethical", "free range" etc.)


No, it's not as extreme as that. Vaccination is not banned, but very much frowned on. Up till now the idea has been that organic farmers can only vaccinate if they can demonstrate that there is a real present risk of the disease in question - which usually means that they have to suffer an actual outbreak before they can vaccinate. This is a ridiculous sop to the anti-vax lobby. There's absolutely no issue with vaccination and food production and it's ignorant and reactionary to act as if there is.

Other prophylactics are also very much frowned on. Routine worming is discouraged as much as possible, with strategies of moving to clean pasture and so on employed instead. The trouble is that these strategies are often not enough - they're just things that any sensible farmer should incorporate into his management plan to reduce parasite challenge and so reduce the requirement for medication. However, there is almost always going to be the occasion when infection does occur, and then you need to treat - moving to clean pasture then won't help the animals, all it will do is contaminate the clean pasture. It all seems to be about not using sensible prophylactic regimens that have been carefully worked out over many years, just hope to avoid the problem and then reluctantly treat in the face of actual outbreaks of disease when they occur.

When actual treatment is required, the general rule is, whatever the licensed withdrawal period for the medicine, double or even triple it. There's no rationale for this at all. Medicine withdrawal times are very well researched and evidence-based, so what these guys are really saying is, we don't trust your science so we'll just impose our own arbitrary rules. If meat animals aren't close to slaughter it doesn't always make so much difference, but for example with milk there's a big issue. There's a reluctance to treat, because of the long time interval before that animal's milk can be "organic" again - but never mind, it can always go into the normal milk supply, it just won't command the premium organic price.

I repeat, if there is a demonstrable problem with residues etc. in the ordinary food supply, then that must be addressed for the benefit of everyone - including observing the precautionary principle. It makes no sense to create a second category which purports to eliminate this supposed problem while leaving the bulk of the food supply unchanged. However, if there is no such problem, and in general there is no problem in the first place, the organic hype is as much about demonising ordinary food as anything else, then where is the justification?

And I already said what I think about their promotion of homoeopathy. There's no chance I'll even consider that the organic movement is in any way scientific while they promote magic water as a safe and effective and residue-free treatment for animals.

In my opinion the whole "ethical" thing is pure marketing. Ethical is about looking after your animals properly and giving them the best possible standards of health and welfare. Every farmer ought to be about that, and sorry, adding in prohibitions and restrictions on the use of licensed ethical medication is not going to improve matters. "Organic" animals which are healthy and well cared for are in that situation despite the organic rules, not because of them.

Rolfe.

[ixolite]

I actively botcott organic meat and animal-derived products for animal welfare reasons, because I don't approve of the anti-medicine woo that deprives animals of properly tested and regulated veterinary medicines for ideological reasons. The biggest nonsense of the lot is the antivax stance, though I believe that is softening a bit. Yes, we don't mind antibodies in the meat so long as they came by natural infection, but if they came by way of a vaccine, dearie me no, artificial, chemicals, can't have that!

Huh? Organic doesn't mean without veterinary care. They just don't give hormones and antibiotics only if needed, giving antibiotics before an animal is sick is forbidden and rightly so.

Damn it, can't post any links. :mad: That sucks. I buy my meat from "Neuland", homepage is only in german.

[Rolfe]

In Germany it is from local farmers.

Um...so you say that pumping animals full of hormones and giving antibiotics even though they are not sick is healthy?

Well, I know the difference in taste between the meat I buy in the supermarket and the one I buy at the organic butcher from experience and that is what counts for me. Apart from the fact that organic meat doesn't shrink to half it's size in the pan.


Nobody should be "pumping animals full of hormones", or giving them antibiotics even though they are not sick. Or certainly not willy-nilly. So far as I know the problems the US has with hormones in meat are largely absent now in the EU - indeed, certain useful hormone treatments for pet animals are even banned, because the blanket ban on the use of these things in animals wasn't confined to farm species.

Some prophylactic use of antibiotics does happen, but this is only used where there's a clear danger of infection by an agent that can't be eliminated, and withdrawal times ensure that there are no residues in the meat, so the consumer should have no issues with it. The whole over-use of antibiotics and hormones as "growth promoters" has shrunk away almost to nothing.

This is what I mean when I say, if there is a problem, then address it by law for all food production so that we all benefit. This happened in respect of the over-use of growth promoters, and now it really isn't an issue. Where would we have been if concerned lobby groups had ignored the main food chain and just set up a little niche market in better produce for themselves and their well-heeled friends?

The trouble with the organic lobby is that instead of identifying specific areas of concern and addressing them in an evidence-based manner for the benefit of everyone, they employ a magical thinking attitude that labels certain things (such as licensed medicines) as "bad" without evidence, then impose arbitrary rules with no scientific sense behind them. In my opinion they are abrogating their responsibility to promote best evidence-based practice for everyone by retreating into this fantasy "chemical free" world which has no practical application for real scientific food production.

And any difference you are finding in organic meat and the ordinary stuff has precisely nothing to do with its organic status. It's all about how the meat is butchered and hung, and about the quality of the carcass in the first place. It does apear that some organic producers are getting these aspects right, probably because they are small scale and have the luxury of attending to them. Also, their margins are better, because of the premium price they can command, so they damn well should be able to attend to such things. But it's all about quality carcasses butchered and hung in a quality manner, as opposed to mass-marked stuff shunted through at speed. The actual organic rules have bugger-all influence on the taste or cooking qualities of the meat.

Now even if it were the case that, for these reasons, organic could be relied on to be tastier, I would still boycott it. Because I believe that the organic rules are profoundly reactionary and anti-science, and that animal welfare takes second place to this phobia about "chemicals" and anti-vax and pro-homoeopathy ideology. However, fortunately quality butchers, at least where I come from, are able to supply this quality product without all the organic baggage. This is what I believe we should be demanding and be prepared to pay for. To compare "organic" with mass-produced supermarket product, and then assume that the difference is due to the organic status, is entirely failing to understand what is really going on.

Rolfe.

[Kahalachan]

As far as taste I can taste a significant difference in organic milk.

But since this is something I've always been skeptical about, I will keep an eye on this topic about organic foods.

[Rolfe]

Huh? Organic doesn't mean without veterinary care. They just don't give hormones and antibiotics only if needed, giving antibiotics before an animal is sick is forbidden and rightly so.

Damn it, can't post any links. :mad: That sucks. I buy my meat from "Neuland", homepage is only in german.


Of course I know that organic animals get veterinary care. I'm a vet, dammit!

You have a very incomplete view of what is going on in the organic movement. Yes indeed, there are provisions which allow animals to be treated - they simply couldn't get past any sort of ethical reviews without them. However, the entire ethos is all about a deep distrust and disapproval of the whole idea of treating animals with licensed medicines. If you knew that giving a sick animal a course of antibiotic would result in a partial loss of your organic status, and loss of profit, would you be happy to do it?

Do you really think that a body which discourages vaccination, even though there is no effect at all of vaccination on the safety or quality of the product, is a good thing? Do you think a body that promotes the use of homoeopathy instead of effective medicines is a good thing?

And oh yes, it sounds very fine to say that antibiotics should never be given before an animal is sick. Well, guess what, in normal farming this is not common practice, because it's generally not beneficial, and the less use of antibiotics the better for everyone (promotion of resistance etc.). However, do you really want pig herds breaking down with clinical outbreaks of Lawsonia intracellularis infection for example, when a prophylactic antibiotic treatment, designed to be safe, residue free and not using antibiotics where there is a concern about resistance, can prevent it? Life isn't black and white, and if you'd seen a pig suffering from that condition, then maybe you'd be a bit less rigid in your ideology. News flash. No farmer wants to go to the expense of adding unnecessary things into the ration. If the problem can be addressed in another way, for example by eliminating the pathogen, then he'll go for that. However, pragmatism says, keep the option available for animal welfare reasons as well as profitability, while making sure that all concerns about resistance and residues are fully and clearly addressed.

Just to say "giving antibiotics before an animal is sick is forbidden and rightly so" betrays such lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues. If something genuinely should be forbidden, and rightly so, then it should be forbidden by law for all farming. If the concern is real, that's what the concerned lobby groups should be working for. However, they aren't because in fact the concerns are now mostly not real, it's just woolly-minded back-to-naturism gone mad.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

As far as taste I can taste a significant difference in organic milk.

But since this is something I've always been skeptical about, I will keep an eye on this topic about organic foods.


There was a thread related to this elsewhere on the forum. There are a number of different treatments given to milk that will affect its taste and keeping qualities - basic pasteurisation, homogenisation, UHT treatment, and various additives among other things. Virtually every difference people were remarking on could be attributed to a difference in this type of treatment - for example, it appeared that the opponents of pasteurisation in fact didn't like homogenisation, but were unable to source pasteurised, non-homogenised milk.

I also find there are some taste differences between apparently identical bottles of milk which I think are a function of the age of the product - pasteurised milk keeps so well that I've a suspicion there is an improvement in flavour over the first few days in the fridge.

There is absolutely nothing different about organic milk per se that could affect the taste. I suspect that any difference you're noting is down to another difference in the processing system, such as homogenisation. Just as the apparent merits some people claim for organic meat can be traced to better butchering and so on, for the product aimed at a niche, "quality" market as opposed to mass supermarket sales.

Rolfe.

[Mr Clingford]

This is very true. I love ugly food. And I love washing the mud off, it's relaxing.

Supermarket tomatoes and carrots are the worst. They're all uniform size and shape and colour, and taste of nothing. Still, consumer demand has led the changes, we get the tomatoes and carrots we wanted.So, who is going to start the campaign for 'Ugly Food'?

[tkingdoll]

Well, I know the difference in taste between the meat I buy in the supermarket and the one I buy at the organic butcher from experience and that is what counts for me. Apart from the fact that organic meat doesn't shrink to half it's size in the pan.

Confirmation bias and anecdote doesn't do for evidence. Set up a blinded taste test. Then come back and tell us that you can tell the difference.

[Rolfe]

Oh, if he buys cheapo supermarket cuts versus prime well-butchered and hung "organic" I'll concede he might be able to tell the difference. But it won't be anything to do with whether or not the animal of origin was ever vaccinated, or had a prophylactic worm dose.

Rolfe

[tkingdoll]

Oh, if he buys cheapo supermarket cuts versus prime well-butchered and hung "organic" I'll concede he might be able to tell the difference. But it won't be anything to do with whether or not the animal of origin was ever vaccinated, or had a prophylactic worm dose.

Rolfe

Until we know more about how he's cooking it, I am going to remain very skeptical. Besides, that's not a like-for-like comparison. As I said in my earlier post, in blind testings when the meat is aged the same, people can't tell the difference. Food critics can't tell the difference. And with meat like chicken, people are very seduced by things like colour and shape, same as the tomato issue.

I mean, I can claim I can tell the difference between a homegrown tomato and a supermarket one, whether either is organic is irrelevant. But I doubt I could tell the difference between an organic homegrown tomato and and a non-organic one.

If he was in the UK I'd set up the tasting myself. I still have to organise the Marmite/Vegemite and bottled water tastings we've been discussing on UK Skeptics.

[DRBUZZ0]

Nobody should be "pumping animals full of hormones", or giving them antibiotics even though they are not sick. Or certainly not willy-nilly. So far as I know the problems the US has with hormones in meat are largely absent now in the EU - indeed, certain useful hormone treatments for pet animals are even banned, because the blanket ban on the use of these things in animals wasn't confined to farm species.


I agree that overuse of antibiotics is not good in general, but I'm not sure what "problems" you mean in the US with hormones. It's a myth that animals are "pumped full of hormones" in the US. There are some hormone treatments which are used, but I think you'll find that they're quite reasonable in both dose and type and have been researched pretty well. They're regulated by the FDA and the USDA.

The idea that there are famers pumping as much hormones as they can into animals is a myth. It's irritating that the EU seems to be so paranoid about it.

Also, the actual hormones which remain in the meat is not necesserily higher than that of non-treated animals who's hormone levels would run the gammet. There's no solid evidence that it's harmful to humans to eat meat treated with these hormones anyway. There are a lot of claims about it causing cancer. The studies which show this are, at best, dubious.



http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

[Thurkon]

I thought I would tack this on here instead of starting a new thread. A person at work told me artificial sweeteners, such as those in diet soda, have been connected to Alzheimer's and such. Anyone know if there's any truth to this?

[Roboramma]

Hey Rolfe, I agree with most of what you're saying. I think the idea of withholding effective treatment from animals because of some ideological stand is not just ridiculous but horrendous.

Anyway, on to a minor point of disagreement.

No farmer wants to go to the expense of adding unnecessary things into the ration. If the problem can be addressed in another way, for example by eliminating the pathogen, then he'll go for that. However, pragmatism says, keep the option available for animal welfare reasons as well as profitability, while making sure that all concerns about resistance and residues are fully and clearly addressed. On the other hand, sometimes it's not a matter of only using this approach when there are no other options. It's a matter of using this approach when other options are more expensive in the short term.
For instance, a farmer may be able to save money by giving his pigs a smaller living space, but by so doing expose them to a greater risk of infection. The antibiotics that he puts in their food to prevent that infection may cost less than maintaining that larger living space. In that case his interest (and that of the consumer, at least in the short term) lies in the use of less space and more antibiotics.

Some would suggest that the longer term negative effects, or the negative impact on animal welfare, are more important than the increased cost in this case. (by longer term negative impact I mean, for instance, possible antibiotic resistance)

Of course, I don't know how often farmers face that sort of balance. And I don't know that much about the laws, particularly in england, regarding how much space, for instance, each pig should be given. I'm just suggesting that there are times when it can be in a farmer's interest to do things that are not in society's interests, or the interests of the animals.

You also suggested that if people think that the current system has problems they should work to fix those problems rather than create a new system. I see two problems with that:
1. At present they are unlikely to be successful. Maybe that's because they are wrong. Maybe it's because others simply aren't aware of the problems and aren't interested in hearing about them. Regardless, if they aren't likely to be successful at changing the current system, sure they can do what they can, but they might think of doing something else that will have an effect in the present. You said you boycott organic meat because of ethical issues with it. I respect that quite a bit and your argument has gone some way in convincing me to do the same. From their perspective, by creating another source of meat they allow themselves and others the option of doing the same - boycotting meat that they feel is unethically produced.

2. Creating a separate system - and gaining the publicity that goes with it - may be an effective way of bringing the issues that they think are important to people's attention. That may be their best chance of effecting change.

Anyway, I think I should give my own viewpoint
:
What I care about are three things: cost, animal welfare, and the environmental implications. Sadly, I think that organic food comes up short on all three issues.

Cost wise, obviously, it tends to be more expensive.

Regarding animal welfare, I don't know enough, but from what I've read organic meat tends to be produced in much the same way as non-organic meat, but without decent medical care. They may say that they treat the animals better, but because "organic" is pretty vague, the requirements for the label end up doing very little to ensure a better life for the animals involved. In that sense, organic meat is likely worse from an animal welfare standpoint.

Environmentally speaking we're in an even worse state. We need a certain amount of food to support the current world population. Organic food requires more land for the same amount of food. The means the per person we're using more land.
To look at the same point differently, the organic movement drives up the price of food (because without it more food would be produced on the same amount of land, on average, worldwide). This drives up the value of arable land. Which increases the demand for more of it - fueling deforestation, for instance.

[Pipirr]

An old farmer I used to work with told me, "you can't beat the taste of a hen raised on the midden'.

The midden in question being a big steaming pile of slurry and straw that we had cleaned out the barn that morning.

I think his point was that if you want flavour, feed your animals poop.

[Professor Yaffle]

I thought I would tack this on here instead of starting a new thread. A person at work told me artificial sweeteners, such as those in diet soda, have been connected to Alzheimer's and such. Anyone know if there's any truth to this?

You should probably have started a new thread - it makes it easier for other peopl searching to find out if a question has been asked before.

Anyway, from the Alzheimer's Association:

Myth 5: Aspartame causes memory loss
Reality: This artificial sweetener, marketed under such brand names as Nutrasweet and Equal, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in all foods and beverages in 1996. Since approval, concerns about aspartame's health effects have been raised.
According to the FDA, as of May 2006, the agency had not been presented with any scientific evidence that would lead to change its conclusions on the safety of aspartame for most people. The agency says its conclusions are based on more than 100 laboratory and clinical studies.
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp

[Rolfe]

I agree that overuse of antibiotics is not good in general, but I'm not sure what "problems" you mean in the US with hormones. It's a myth that animals are "pumped full of hormones" in the US. There are some hormone treatments which are used, but I think you'll find that they're quite reasonable in both dose and type and have been researched pretty well. They're regulated by the FDA and the USDA.

The idea that there are famers pumping as much hormones as they can into animals is a myth. It's irritating that the EU seems to be so paranoid about it.

Also, the actual hormones which remain in the meat is not necesserily higher than that of non-treated animals who's hormone levels would run the gammet. There's no solid evidence that it's harmful to humans to eat meat treated with these hormones anyway. There are a lot of claims about it causing cancer. The studies which show this are, at best, dubious.

http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm (http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm)



I don't really know a great deal about the US situation. Only that, when I've had this discussion before, I've been bombarded with claims that cattle in the USA are routinely given BST (bovine somatotrophin) which doesn't happen in Britain and which I can see there might be problems with - if not from consumer health issues, then for animal welfare reasons. If that's not the case, then I'd be glad to hear it.

Also, while I know that antibiotic usage here is almost entirely therapeutic, with a small amount of genuine prophylaxis (and no, it's not as simple as "give the pigs more space and the L. intracellularis will magically go away") and really no "growth promoter" use at least in mammals, I don't know the situation in the US. So I tend to cover my back a bit by acknowledging that there might be issues in the US which could alter the balance. For example, I find it hard to believe that one can't get simple pasteurised milk in the US, that it's either go for no treatment at all (frankly dangerous) or you're stuck with a whole gamut of homogenisation and additives and so on, but from what others have posted that seems to be the case.

So, I was just covering my back, and if these aren't issues in the US either, then so much the better.

Rolfe.

[dakotajudo]

Regarding animal welfare, I don't know enough, but from what I've read organic meat tends to be produced in much the same way as non-organic meat, but without decent medical care. They may say that they treat the animals better, but because "organic" is pretty vague, the requirements for the label end up doing very little to ensure a better life for the animals involved. In that sense, organic meat is likely worse from an animal welfare standpoint.
The USDA standards for organic meat is pretty specific - and make clear that animal health is not to be neglected. See http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards/ProdHandReg.html or http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2059.pdf

One of the problems producers have, switching to organic, is that you can't just "go organic". Animals get sick to the point where "organic" methods fail, they get treated according to standard methods, but must be taken out of the organic program.

So, either you sell animals, individually, to non-organic producers or you run an organic program along side the standard herd.


Environmentally speaking we're in an even worse state. We need a certain amount of food to support the current world population. Organic food requires more land for the same amount of food. The means the per person we're using more land.
To look at the same point differently, the organic movement drives up the price of food (because without it more food would be produced on the same amount of land, on average, worldwide). This drives up the value of arable land. Which increases the demand for more of it - fueling deforestation, for instance.

Well, yes and no. Current practice for maintaining herds on pastureland is pretty intensive, to the point that pastures are net carbon sources (because they're losing soil carbon).

Then there's the net nitrogen loss. Soil microbes fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, but that takes time, so you use synthetic fertilizers - but that's a pretty big energy cost. Then there's the run-off problems.

So yeah, organic methods may require more acres, but they also do less damage to those acres in the long term.

As for driving up cost of arable land - that's going up anyway, with corporate agriculture; small farmers are getting sqeezed out because they can't bid as much for the same land.

One other thing, not on topic but is taking land out of production, are the rich, urban dwellers buying summer or vacation homes in the country - Montana, for instance - or setting up hunting preserves. For example, Ted Turner - http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/BUSINESS01/711290357/1436/BUSINESS .

Personally, I've got no problems with organic production. There are legitimate concerns, of quality versus quantity, that consumers should have the option. (Surprisingly, perhaps, I'd formed that opinion before realizing that one of the largest organic beef companies is centered in my hometown http://www.dakotaorganic.com/AboutUs/processing_plant.php - it opened after Dad had retired).


With respect to antibiotics, current chicken production needs a lot of inputs, because modern broiler breeds grow much to fast for traditional feed methods. Bone growth problems are what I'm most familiar with (when I raised hybrid broilers, they needed vitamin supplements in the water; feed supplements were not enough), but I suspect there's a need for prophylatic antibiotics as well.

With hogs, the situation is more complex. The hog confinement operations I'm familiar with are highly controlled environments - workers "shower in" and "shower out", and the list of potential prophylactic antibiotics is pretty long - see http://extension.missouri.edu/explorepdf/agguides/ansci/g02353.pdf . I couldn't find much information on the relationship between swine immune responsiveness and growth rate, but my general feeling is that hogs that are more genetically resistant to disease are not going to be higher producers. In otherwords, modern swine breeds need help to stay healthy (although in may be a simple as limiting disease exposure and the associated growth drag).

Our hogs, they were outside animals; but then, we had to be extra careful about cooking our pork.

[DRBUZZ0]

I don't really know a great deal about the US situation. Only that, when I've had this discussion before, I've been bombarded with claims that cattle in the USA are routinely given BST (bovine somatotrophin) which doesn't happen in Britain and which I can see there might be problems with - if not from consumer health issues, then for animal welfare reasons. If that's not the case, then I'd be glad to hear it.




I'll have to do some more research on it, but it's difficult because there is a lot of really bad info out there on it. Based on what I've seen the human effects seem to be something which have been shown to not be of concern, considering the actual amounts and such. I don't see grounds for concern over safety.

You're right about animal welfare though, that is more legitimate a concern. It's not like cattle are drenched in the stuff or anything, but there are credable reasons I've seen in that area. The EU approved it for use in all member countries a while ago but it was put on moratorium. Canada has limited use.

There's a lot of agendas out there, but as I said: Animal welfare might be a legit concern. I'll have to do more digging on that one. I just think the whole food supply things are not nearly what they are stated to be