Where did this anti-intellectual organic/alternative craze come from?

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, so my town's newspaper has a food site, which in turn has several food blogs. The most recent article is about how margarine is bad for you. Now, it might well be, I wouldn't know, but the author seemed to use as her main arguments that margarine was 'industry-produced' and a 'surrogate', as if this somehow made it inherently dangerous. This is about as ridiculous as me saying that a given good is unsafe because it's imported, or for that matter, that a given individual is untrustworthy because he has dark skin.

One of the comments added to the atmosphere by stating that butter was also dangerous, because the cows hadn't been fed "natural" ingredients, that they were "supposed to" eat grass, and that some of their food was "guaranteed" to be genetically manipulated - again, this buzzword came with no explanation of how this had any bearing on whether or not the food was safe.

This prompted me to make this thread - where did this craze for "natural" foods and medicine come from? Is it just that organic farmers and altmed people are very good at marketting? Has it got to do with AGW, which has strengthened the "human industry is destroying the environment" stance?

[TragicMonkey]

It's just an appeal to romance. Some people like to picture their milk coming from free-roaming, clean, good-smelling cows that wander around a grassy sunlit field with daisies. They don't like the idea that milk comes from great big dirty beasts penned up in giant buildings. Of course, none of that has anything to do with the quality or safety of the milk, but people are foolish and susceptible to romantic notions, and confuse one thing with another because of prejudices about "atmosphere".

You can test this by filling two bottles with tap water and putting labels on each, one reading "Crystal Clarity Norwegian Glacier Spring Water" on one and "Passaic NJ Municipal Water" on the other. Bet you people will not only find the first one tastes better, they'll have to be forced to sample the other one.

[Safe-Keeper]

You can test this by filling two bottles with tap water and putting labels on each, one reading "Crystal Clarity Norwegian Glacier Spring Water" on one and "Passaic NJ Municipal Water" on the other. Bet you people will not only find the first one tastes better, they'll have to be forced to sample the other one.Two of my collegues are supporters of organic food, I've been wondering if I should pull such a trick on them. Or buy one bag of organic apples and one bag of apples from a conventional farm, and see if they can tell which is which.

[GreNME]

The "organic" thing isn't simply a craze, and the example you give is one of people who obviously are not looking at food issues critically. One can be supportive of "organic" foods and not be the type of nutball to fall into a naturalistic fallacy every time the question comes up. It's a matter of education more than it is anything else.

I support "organic" foods for two reasons: biological and economic. For the biological reason, my concern is that there are so many foods being made with some form of corn-- and not just any corn, almost entirely from genetically engineered corn that supposedly produces more resistant and stronger crops (though tests are often inconclusive)-- that not only are our diets regularly imbalanced (lots of HFCS), but that these strains of crops are not regulated sufficiently to avoid problems if a strain mutates (or the insects and/or the plant diseases adapt to the preventative measures, spreading further). Now, on the converse of this, most of the engineered strains are highly patented and only good for a season-- in other words, farmers must buy new seed every year for their crops, they can't rely on planting seed from some of their harvested crop (it usually won't grow). However, since I'm unaware of any significant test results supporting the claims of these companies that produce the engineered crop seeds, I err on the side of caution that unintended consequences could be worse for agriculture in general than the expected rewards of using the engineered crops.

This also leads me into the economic problem: first and foremost, the fact that farmers have to buy new (and more expensive) seed every year results in either higher costs for the end product or a lower profit margin for the farms, most notably in the farms that are not huge industrial-sized farms where the low margin is offset by the huge quantities. The industrialization of agriculture from about the 1950's forward has steadily lowered and lowered the ability for provincial non-industrial-sized farms to have a workable profit, which has pushed more agricultural business to move to the industrial-sized model, which has increased helping sizes and led to HFCS (in some form) being used in practically everything, which continues to feed the huge cycle of industrializing agriculture but at the same time putting farmers out of business-- yet we're subsidizing farmers now who in reality can't compete in production with a megalithic company.

The situation is enough to have those on the right and the left annoyed-- on the right because of the expenditures of public funds to both keep farmers from starving as well as allowing the larger companies to get huge tax breaks (which affect budgets), and on the left where the regulation is so patchy and unevenly applied that the larger the company is the more risk they consider acceptable, as well as the tax break issues also for budgeting concerns (though not necessarily the same as those on the right). The problem, of course, is that much like all ideologies the concept of "organic" has come to mean for many the type of romantic nonsense that TragicMonkey describes, and they tend to approach it as such using the typical naturalistic fallacy arguments.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hippies.

[madurobob]

Two of my collegues are supporters of organic food, I've been wondering if I should pull such a trick on them. Or buy one bag of organic apples and one bag of apples from a conventional farm, and see if they can tell which is which.

Easy - the organic apples are the ones with the worms.

[Toke]

When woo and ignorance meets GreNM´s very real problems with industrialiced farming you can expect some strange offshots.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, there is an even saner concern there, and one many people aren't even aware of. A lot of the GM crops are genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides, or to be resistant of higher level of more conventional pesticides and herbicides.

E.g., since GreNME mentioned corn, yes, corn is one of the crops which nowadays produces its own pesticides. The gene that produces the toxin of the Bacillus Thuringiensis has been transplanted into corn, which now produces higher levels of it than you could economically spray on your crops. It is now grown all over the USA.

Now the tests I know of claim it's not toxic to vertebrates, although one test by Greenpeace (yes, not exactly disinterested) basically showed that if the dose of the toxin is high enough it produces liver damage in rats. I tend to believe the former, but I really can't blame anyone who's concerned about their food being literally marinated in pesticides at an every-cell level.

And the "OMG, stupid anti-GM wooists" derision that anyone is met with if they express any kind of concern about the matter -- or merely propose to do more testing -- is IMHO counter-productive.

The second very real and documented problem with it, is that the high levels of toxin also kill whole orders of non-harmful insects for miles around. India and China nearly exterminated several species of non-harmful insects with their own GM crops, and both cases are pretty well documented.

Again, personally I couldn't care less, but someone who's in a "save the planet" mindset... well, I can't really blame them for worrying about the near extinction of some species. Even of insects.

And so on. It seems to me like while there is a hideous amount of woo and stupidity, there are also valid concerns around. And a lot of times that woo is just a distorted version of the real concerns. E.g., the concern about the milk being contaminated when cows are fed stuff marinated in pesticides and antibiotics, has been obviously over-simplified by some to the level of "OMG, it's bad because it's not natural stuff", but the original concern behind it is actually a lot less stupid.

[dudalb]

It's an unfortunate offshoot of the "Back To Nature" craze of the 60's.

[GreNME]

It's an unfortunate offshoot of the "Back To Nature" craze of the 60's.

What an excellent refutation of the points HansMustermann and I brought up.

[Lithrael]

Yes, the tree-hugging crystal wavers do seem to very effectively poison the well for anyone who has more down to earth, properly researched concerns about food production.

I will roll my eyes at the hippies with the best of them, and sure without any GM at all you can still accidentally breed strains of potatoes that kill people, but that doesn't make it stupid to have concerns about things like how pollen from GM crops will behave in the wild.

[WildCat]

I support "organic" foods for two reasons: biological and economic. For the biological reason, my concern is that there are so many foods being made with some form of corn-- and not just any corn, almost entirely from genetically engineered corn that supposedly produces more resistant and stronger crops (though tests are often inconclusive)--
Why would farmers buy it if the results were inconclusive?

that not only are our diets regularly imbalanced (lots of HFCS),
What does the use of HFCS have to do with GM crops? After all, you can have organic HFCS can't you?

but that these strains of crops are not regulated sufficiently to avoid problems if a strain mutates
Why would a mutated strain of a GM crop be any different/dangerous than a mutated strain of non-GM crop? And all corn is mutated, no one is growing the tiny little corn plants all domesticated corn is evolved from.

(or the insects and/or the plant diseases adapt to the preventative measures, spreading further).
Why would insects be any more likely to evolve resistance to GM crops than to the exact same pesticide sprayed onto the crops?

Now, on the converse of this, most of the engineered strains are highly patented and only good for a season-- in other words, farmers must buy new seed every year for their crops, they can't rely on planting seed from some of their harvested crop (it usually won't grow).
When is the last time US farmers got their seed for next year's crop from saving seed from the curreent crop? It would be absolutely stupid to do so, if you're growing sweet corn and saved the seed for next year it would be contaminated by pollen from neighboring fields of field corn. It wouldn't grow into the strain of sweet corn you had last year, that's for sure. It doesn't matter whether it's GM or not, modern farmers don't get their seed from saving last year's crop. They buy it from seed suppliers who make certain that whatever cultivar they are selling isn't contaminated from other cultivars.

However, since I'm unaware of any significant test results supporting the claims of these companies that produce the engineered crop seeds, I err on the side of caution that unintended consequences could be worse for agriculture in general than the expected rewards of using the engineered crops.
So far you haven't made a single point that withstands scrutiny, or is based on evidence rather than irrational fear and ignorance.

This also leads me into the economic problem: first and foremost, the fact that farmers have to buy new (and more expensive) seed every year results in either higher costs for the end product or a lower profit margin for the farms,
Why the hell would farmers buy the seed if it lowered their profits? Do you think that farmers are stupid? Ignorant? Fools?

most notably in the farms that are not huge industrial-sized farms where the low margin is offset by the huge quantities. The industrialization of agriculture from about the 1950's forward has steadily lowered and lowered the ability for provincial non-industrial-sized farms to have a workable profit, which has pushed more agricultural business to move to the industrial-sized model, which has increased helping sizes and led to HFCS (in some form) being used in practically everything, which continues to feed the huge cycle of industrializing agriculture but at the same time putting farmers out of business--
Ah, so your concerns are really based on your hatred of corporations. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

yet we're subsidizing farmers now who in reality can't compete in production with a megalithic company.
We subsidize the corporate farms also. In fact, they get subsidized more than the small farmers do.

The situation is enough to have those on the right and the left annoyed-- on the right because of the expenditures of public funds to both keep farmers from starving as well as allowing the larger companies to get huge tax breaks (which affect budgets), and on the left where the regulation is so patchy and unevenly applied that the larger the company is the more risk they consider acceptable, as well as the tax break issues also for budgeting concerns (though not necessarily the same as those on the right).
More off-topic rantings against corporate farms. You do realize that most organic farms are also corporate farms, don't you? You think that giant corporations haven't noticed how suckers will pay more for organic produce and jumped on the bandwagon?

The problem, of course, is that much like all ideologies the concept of "organic" has come to mean for many the type of romantic nonsense that TragicMonkey describes, and they tend to approach it as such using the typical naturalistic fallacy arguments.
While others like you think it means small family farms and not gigantic agricultural corporations.

[T.A.M.]

Hippies.

lol....well said.

TAM;)

[Ladewig]

Two of my collegues are supporters of organic food, I've been wondering if I should pull such a trick on them. Or buy one bag of organic apples and one bag of apples from a conventional farm, and see if they can tell which is which.

Some people who prefer organic foods will admit that there is no noticeable difference in quality or taste. They prefer organic foods because they believe that the pesticides used in conventional farming are harmful to the ecosphere.

[dudalb]

Ah, so your concerns are really based on your hatred of corporations. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?


I am convinced that a lot of the "Frankenfood" fanatics would praise a lot of the GM products they condemn if the products were developed by some Government Agency in a
"Progressive" country rather then by a Big Bad Coporation.

[johnny karate]

I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals. But paying a premium for "organic" produce is just silly.

[Safe-Keeper]

most notably in the farms that are not huge industrial-sized farms where the low margin is offset by the huge quantities. The industrialization of agriculture from about the 1950's forward has steadily lowered and lowered the ability for provincial non-industrial-sized farms to have a workable profit, which has pushed more agricultural business to move to the industrial-sized model, which has increased helping sizes and led to HFCS (in some form) being used in practically everything, which continues to feed the huge cycle of industrializing agriculture but at the same time putting farmers out of business-- You realize, of course, that there exist huge organic farms as well. Size and level of industrialization do not necessarily correlate.

[slingblade]

Seems to me anything like this can be traced to people feeling a loss or lack of control in their lives.

If you grow your own food, you know where it comes from. If you get salmonella or other problems from your own food, you know who to blame, don't ya? But if you don't grow your own food, and don't really know where it comes from, you don't know jack about it. You could be poisoned, you could get sick, you could die. But you pays your money and you takes your chance, because you can't grow your own food, for whatever reason. You're kind of trapped. You're powerless. You're under someone else's control.

It scares people, this lack of control. So they try to take it back wherever or however they can. Scaremongering about the food is a symptom of this.

That there is my 'umble .02

[MikeMangum]

I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals.

I agree. You should really watch out for that Dihydrogen-Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html). It's an ingredient in almost all processed foods. For crying out loud, that stuff is used as an industrial solvent! Many foods have other nasty chemicals with polysyllabic names, like Carbamoyl Phosphate Synthetase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbamoyl_phosphate_synthetase), Triose Phosphate Isomerase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triose_phosphate_isomerase) and Methionine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine) found in many meats raised on industrial farms. Then there are thing like the long-chain polysaccharides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose) that are the primary chemical in most GMO and non-organic fruits and vegetables.

The really hard thing is to find food that doesn't have any deoxyribonucleic acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna). At 10 syllables, it must be absolutely terrible for the body.

[Safe-Keeper]

Also, lest we forget, a chemical is a material with a chemical composition. Which materials in the world have chemical compositions?

Only all of them:).

[tyr_13]

I don't see how a lot of these criticism of current farming practices, be they valid or invalid, are support for organic agriculture.

[Just thinking]

... Bet you people will not only find the first one tastes better, they'll have to be forced to sample the other one.

Damn straight ... I live in NJ and no way am I drinking that ****.

[Just thinking]

Also, lest we forget, a chemical is a material with a chemical composition. Which materials in the world have chemical compositions?

Only all of them:).

Now ask yourself ... which chemicals are not natural?

Only none of them. ;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Some people who prefer organic foods will admit that there is no noticeable difference in quality or taste. They prefer organic foods because they believe that the pesticides used in conventional farming are harmful to the ecosphere.

Thats part of the reason. ( I say that because as an Engineer, I have a lot of food processing clients and I retooled the family farm for USDA "certified organic")

In reality, "organic" ( and I mean by the USDA certification standards- not by the woo definition) isnt much different than conventional ( I have both side by side)

Some of it is pesticide ( at the grower level) but ( this is soley based on what my customers tell me and ask me in regards to food processing) the main concern is the processing chemicals and preservatives ( which would be post farm)

As far as taste- organic can be certified by controlled diet or free range. There is a little difference between free range and controlled diet. ( i guess the bugs do make a difference) but little else that I have ever noticed.

[lionking]

You can test this by filling two bottles with tap water and putting labels on each, one reading "Crystal Clarity Norwegian Glacier Spring Water" on one and "Passaic NJ Municipal Water" on the other. Bet you people will not only find the first one tastes better, they'll have to be forced to sample the other one.
Bottled water is a very good example. It sells wildly here despite Melbourne water being acknowledged as some of the purest and least tainted tap water in the world. One company even advertises it's product as coming from "the Yarra Valley catchments". Give you one guess where our tap water comes from.

[arthwollipot]

Also, lest we forget, a chemical is a material with a chemical composition. Which materials in the world have chemical compositions?

Only all of them:).Yeah, that argument really isn't all that effective, to be honest. Most people, for example, don't consider water to be a chemical, even though technically it is. I don't usually find it difficult to determine what is "a chemical" and what isn't in common parlance, even though the actual borderline is extremely fuzzy.

As always, meaning can be glarked from context. Are you talking about chemicals in a chemistry lab, or in a supermarket? In a supermarket, it's "a chemical" if it has its origin in a chemistry lab.

[Travis]

While GreNME and Hansmustermann bring up good points I think they are better as arguments for reforming Industrial farming and not necessarily reasons to wholesale adopt organic methods.

Besides there are some very real consequences with organic farming:


There is a finite amount of viable arable land

There are water shortages in many places where agriculture is reliant on irrigation

Organic farming is less efficient so more land and more water would be needed just to keep production comparable to current levels let alone account for future increased needs

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious and are generally more expensive

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's an unfortunate offshoot of the "Back To Nature" craze of the 60's.

These people are the Luddites of the 21st century.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am convinced that a lot of the "Frankenfood" fanatics would praise a lot of the GM products they condemn if the products were developed by some Government Agency in a
"Progressive" country rather then by a Big Bad Coporation.

I am 100% certain of this.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Also, lest we forget, a chemical is a material with a chemical composition. Which materials in the world have chemical compositions?

Only all of them:).

You'd be surprised how many Organotards don't know this. Come to think of it, you probably wouldn't be surprised.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

While GreNME and Hansmustermann bring up good points I think they are better as arguments for reforming Industrial farming and not necessarily reasons to wholesale adopt organic methods.

Besides there are some very real consequences with organic farming:


There is a finite amount of viable arable land

There are water shortages in many places where agriculture is reliant on irrigation

Organic farming is less efficient so more land and more water would be needed just to keep production comparable to current levels let alone account for future increased needs

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious and are generally more expensive

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods


Great points.

[HansMustermann]

While GreNME and Hansmustermann bring up good points I think they are better as arguments for reforming Industrial farming and not necessarily reasons to wholesale adopt organic methods.

Besides there are some very real consequences with organic farming:


There is a finite amount of viable arable land

There are water shortages in many places where agriculture is reliant on irrigation

Organic farming is less efficient so more land and more water would be needed just to keep production comparable to current levels let alone account for future increased needs

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious and are generally more expensive

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods


Maybe so, but I don't see any harm in letting them buy organic foods if that's what makes them feel better. After all, supply and demand ought to take care of all the issues above. The price will simply rise to the point where either it covers digging an extra well to produce more organic food there, or more people go "screw it" and buy the GM stuff.

[HansMustermann]

Also, lest we forget, a chemical is a material with a chemical composition. Which materials in the world have chemical compositions?

Only all of them:).

Like many of the pithy comments in this thread, it's kinda missing the point.

The question isn't "what has a chemical formula?", but "what has been eaten by billions of people for a thousand people already, and is thus amply tested to be harmless?" Normal wheat has been eaten by people for thousands of years now, so (short of a gluten allergy) you know it's unlikely to be harmful. Pesticides which often didn't even exist last year yet, well, we've been wrong before.

E.g., DDT was once considered to be thoroughly harmless and used in wholesale quantities on people and in agriculture. Then it turned out it's not so safe after all. Sorry. It only took about a hundred years to discover that, too.

With GM foods there have been at least two hastily discontinued variants, one which had also copied a strong allergen together with the intended genes to copy, and one which, it turned out, killed lab rats via lung damage. Yes, both were quite natural chemicals (in fact proteins) that got mistakenly copied, but both were not safe at all.

So what we have basically is a bunch of people who prefer to err on the side of caution. I don't think that's necessarily woo or stupid.

[Fiona]

Does organic/free range food taste different or better?

Some does (eg chicken - try it) some doesn't.

Is organic/freee range food more nutritious?

No

Is there any reason to be concerned about food produced for maximising profit?

Yes. Without regulation people will contaminate food with non-food additives which may or may not be inert: we know this because it happened and it led to regulation of the food industry

Yes again. It leads to a reduction in variety because some crops/breeds yield more. That is not a bad thing where there is not enough food produced: but it is at least a pity in those countries where we are actually over producing and much goes to waste. The premium market is a force against that loss of diversity however small the effect. Recently here we can once again buy a wider variety of apples and potatoes than we could for a while:but you still have to hunt for it. I will add that it is not solely the search for profit which reduces diversity - sometimes regulation itself does so so this is not an anti-corporate rant as such: though of course regulators are influenced by lobbyists too

Are there legitimate concerns about unintended consequences of our actions?

Always. The problem with this kind of thing is that if gm crops are once accepted that is irreversible. So we need to be very very sure and I do not think we are. I did not know about the effects on beneficial insects cited above:but that is a real cause for concern to me.

On the whole it seems to me that we should not do things which ultimately deprive us of choice in the name of freedom. And this has a potential to do that, does it not?

[WildCat]

E.g., DDT was once considered to be thoroughly harmless and used in wholesale quantities on people and in agriculture. Then it turned out it's not so safe after all. Sorry. It only took about a hundred years to discover that, too.
And millions of people have dies from mosquito-borne diseases since DDT was banned/fell out of use. In fact, the WHO now backs the increased use of DDT (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944).

Like most things, there are tradeoffs. It's wise to weigh them carefully before rushing to a conclusion.

[johnny karate]

I agree. You should really watch out for that Dihydrogen-Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html). It's an ingredient in almost all processed foods. For crying out loud, that stuff is used as an industrial solvent! Many foods have other nasty chemicals with polysyllabic names, like Carbamoyl Phosphate Synthetase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbamoyl_phosphate_synthetase), Triose Phosphate Isomerase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triose_phosphate_isomerase) and Methionine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine) found in many meats raised on industrial farms. Then there are thing like the long-chain polysaccharides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose) that are the primary chemical in most GMO and non-organic fruits and vegetables.

The really hard thing is to find food that doesn't have any
deoxyribonucleic acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna). At 10
syllables, it must be absolutely terrible for the body.

Exacty, because clearly what I was saying in my post is that all chemicals, in the strictest sense of the term, are bad, as opposed to just expressing my preference to not eat foods comprised of specific chemicals used as preservatives, or flavor and color additives, that otherwise have no nutritional value.

[GreNME]

I don't see how a lot of these criticism of current farming practices, be they valid or invalid, are support for organic agriculture.

This is a good point. You could say that it's more a matter of supporting sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately, that's also reached buzz-word status.

[HansMustermann]

And millions of people have dies from mosquito-borne diseases since DDT was banned/fell out of use. In fact, the WHO now backs the increased use of DDT (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944).

Well, IIRC resistance to DDT was already forming in many places where DDT had been increasingly used, and malaria deaths were actually on the rise again despite DDT.

Like most things, there are tradeoffs. It's wise to weigh them carefully before rushing to a conclusion.

I'll drink to that. But

1. my problem is that some people don't want to weigh anything carefully, they already made their decision based on ignorance and assumptions, and there's no budging them to even listen. And that goes for _both_ sides. I'm sorry, but a lot of the "OMG stupid wooists" pithy remarks come from people who are equally ignorant, or even more ignorant, of the issues discussed than those they deride.

2. you can't weigh all tradeoffs carefully before knowing them. For DDT the nasty side-effects and the tendency to bio-accumulate, were genuinely not known for the longest while.

Or X-Rays were considered harmless enough for a while that even shoe stores had a fluoroscope as a novelty attraction and pumped ridiculously high amounts of radiation through both employees and customers. And I mean sometimes intense enough beams to actually cause radiation burns. The whole thing had no amplification, so you genuinely had to pump intense enough radiation beams that the part converted to visible light by the screen could be seen well enough. And while in hospitals for that reason it happened in dark rooms, many shops just turned up the radiation.

Or since we're talking GM and foods (though for a change as separate words), HFCS is produced from corn starch and an enzyme. In theory, it's just the cleaved components of sucrose (sugar), so it shouldn't do anything else than what the same quantity of sugar would. As late as a couple of monts ago, if you even expressed any doubt about it being exactly the same as sucrose, or that it doesn't taste the same, you'd have been labelled as a paranoid wooist. Well, tough luck, it turns out that in heat it actually forms a toxin and it may be what's killing the bees too. (There still is some debate, though not over whether the toxin forms, but over how fast and whether it's enough to actually kill a bee.)

Given such precedents, I genuinely have a lot of understanding for whoever doesn't want to live on the bleeding edge. Erring on the side of caution is not inherently stupid or woo.

3. There is very little information around. While per normal labelling rules the manufacturers list every single preservative and colouring added while making that piece of food, I've yet to see any packaging list the exact GM strain used or the substances it's been modified to produce. There is no way to know exactly what such stuff is there in your food, how much of it, or whether you're among the first human guinea pigs for a new strain that didn't even exist last year.

I'm not an "organic food" buyer myself, but I must admit it makes even me slightly paranoid at times. Exactly which pesticides was the grain that went into this bread I just ate engineered to produce? I don't know. They're not written anywhere. Even if I called the manufacturer, I doubt that even they'd know. I like to think that it must be the Bacillus Thuringiensis kind, which seems benign, but it's just an unsupported assumption.

I don't think it's exactly the kind of conditions conducive to weighing plusses and minuses carefully. I think the correct word is: "faith." I must have faith that whatever grain went into it, they surely wouldn't use it if it was bad. It seems reasonable, but faith it is, nevertheless.

[technoextreme]

Or X-Rays were considered harmless enough for a while that even shoe stores had a fluoroscope as a novelty attraction and pumped ridiculously high amounts of radiation through both employees and customers. And I mean sometimes intense enough beams to actually cause radiation burns. The whole thing had no amplification, so you genuinely had to pump intense enough radiation beams that the part converted to visible light by the screen could be seen well enough. And while in hospitals for that reason it happened in dark rooms, many shops just turned up the radiation.

Wrongity wrong wrong wrong. There is plenty of evidence that the people pushing that crap actually knew it was dangerous.
Or since we're talking GM and foods (though for a change as separate words), HFCS is produced from corn starch and an enzyme. In theory, it's just the cleaved components of sucrose (sugar), so it shouldn't do anything else than what the same quantity of sugar would. As late as a couple of monts ago, if you even expressed any doubt about it being exactly the same as sucrose, or that it doesn't taste the same, you'd have been labelled as a paranoid wooist.
I would still say you are. Omg.... Toxins!!!!! Its a stupid argument namely because a toxin does not necessarily hurt you.

[MikeMangum]

Most people, for example, don't consider water to be a chemical, even though technically it is.

Are you referring to that evil industrial solvent Dihydrogen-Monoxide? It's apparently present in high levels in every lake, river, and stream in the country, probably because it is used as a coolant in nuclear power plants and as a medium for the distribution of almost all pesticides.

:eye-poppi

[GreNME]

While GreNME and Hansmustermann bring up good points I think they are better as arguments for reforming Industrial farming and not necessarily reasons to wholesale adopt organic methods.

Besides there are some very real consequences with organic farming:


There is a finite amount of viable arable land

There are water shortages in many places where agriculture is reliant on irrigation

Organic farming is less efficient so more land and more water would be needed just to keep production comparable to current levels let alone account for future increased needs

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious and are generally more expensive

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods


Great list, Travis. That addresses more of what I (and HansMustermann) have actually been talking as opposed to trying to divert the conversation into side arguments like some other posts. I'll try to address your points one by one:

There is a finite amount of viable arable land-- This is absolutely true, and the amount of viable land seems to be shrinking (example (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/348200_dirt22.html?source=mypi)) in at least small increments (and, apparently, in larger increments in the SouthWest).The problem with current methods and arable land is that our current methods tend to cause nutrient leaching of soil, which requires even more artificial treatment (and more time) to get the levels back (or requires more expensive fertilizers). This is one of the reasons why 'organic' methods are becoming more popular among those advocating for sustainability and conservation, since there are studies (like the data discussed here (http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Organic-Farming-Fertility-Biodiversity31may02.htm)) that claim 'organic' methods actually leave more fertile soil and more land that can be used on a regular basis using biodiversity as the method for keeping the lang arable. The fact that conventional farming has done a great deal of damage to quite a bit of the arable land over the years has shown up in plenty of studies (like this one (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/12/4522.full#B2)), and we're quickly reaching a point where our nation's agriculture is not going to be yielding the huge surpluses that it's able to produce right now. Since the viability of land to grow crops is recognized as a problem, the data seems to lead logically to organic methods being more likely to maintain a sustainable growth in production compared to current conventional standards.

There are water shortages in many places where agriculture is reliant on irrigation-- This is an issue of sustainability, and not whether food is grown 'organically' or not. I will say, though, that on this point I'm definitely in favor of finding ways to change or alter our current agriculture practices to provide more sustainability, particularly in places like California, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and other places that are currently hurting for water resources right now. To that end, new techniques are being developed to not only allow for higher yields of some crops, but also use a great deal less water (example (http://persianoad.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/growing-more-rice-with-less-water/), which happens to fall under the 'organic' method), and more of those types of methods need to be developed in the areas in the US where water is more and more scarce. Continuing like we have been isn't the answer, and considering that pesticide and fertilizer run-off leave water that is absolutely not consumable or reusable for human (or most animal) consumption, the argument could clearly be made that the need for change is getting progressively greater.

Organic farming is less efficient so more land and more water would be needed just to keep production comparable to current levels let alone account for future increased needs-- This is something that's often claimed, but rarely quantified (and usually false). Quite the opposite, long-term studies like this (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html) have shown that 'organic' farming techniques use less water and leave more in the soil than conventional methods, while still producing the same crop yields. If anything, and especially in places in the US where water resources are dwindling, the long-term benefits of organic farming are in all actuality demonstrably better than current conventional farming, based not only on water use during the growing season but by the viability of run-off to be used by humans due to less use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers.

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious and are generally more expensive-- I would not agree with so general a statement, because it certainly depends on what you're talking about as far as "healthier, safer or more nutritious" and which foods you're referring to. Most of the time when I see this sort of thing come up, I tend to read various emotional screeds (http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/hypocrisy.html) (all of which in that link can be pointed out as misdirection, falsehood, or overblown claims) about how 'organic' farming needs more land (it doesn't necessarily, but this link (http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/organic/) explains how 'organic' certification requirements can lead to such conclusions), uses more water (which it doesn't, as I pointed out above), is no better for the environment (which has been studied (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304) and the opposite conclusion drawn) and is no more healthy than conventional farming. Now, to that (last) point, there have been studies that questioned general healthiness factors between organic food and conventionally-grown food (example (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10408690490911846)), but the comparisons that were done were vague and general, not focusing on different types of crops. There have been studies, both in the US (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114202162/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) (article on the study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070326095806.htm)) and in Europe (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/organic-food-is-healthier-and-safer-fouryear-eu-investigation-shows-395483.html) that have found certain crops that do, indeed, not only have more nutritional value in terms of vitamins existent in the crop yields, but also have greater numbers of antioxidants in the yields. Other articles (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/health/nutrition/17nutr.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=603daa59326e0bf6&ex=1190260800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1191140034-/6y) on other studies have also pointed out that certain vegetables and fruits grown organically produce crops of a higher nutritional quality, based on a number (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf020635c?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jafcau) of studies (http://organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126) that show precisely those results. That isn't to say that there haven't been people who have written in opposition to such claims, but often when those individuals are placed under scrutiny (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/17/dining/eating-well-anti-organic-and-flawed.html) they are not found to being completely honest with the reader. One of the bases for the "no more nutritional" argument, however, is based on the lower use of pesticides and (industrial) fertilizers, and on that mark there has been (as far as I know) a valid argument that there isn't sufficient evidence to show these pesticides and fertilizers are having a negative impact on health. That doesn't negate the fact that fruits and vegetables that are usually high in things like vitamin C actually tend to have higher concentrations of it when grown organically, or that many fruits and vegetables grown organically have higher antioxidant and other vitamin counts. To say that there is no proof that organic foods are somehow healthier than conventionally-grown counterparts is simply false, as scientific studies of the claims has clearly shown otherwise.

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods-- If 'organic' foods were merely a fad, I'd agree with you. However, since organic farming has demonstrable and appreciable benefits over conventional farming with the same levels of crop yields, the last main objection would obviously be the price. However, the price issue is one of some debate, since the fact that organic farming has had far less historic subsidies as conventional farming and is still able to provide the same benefits, the fact that the prices still manage to be so close (particularly with the vegetables) shows their economic viability as well. It's ironic that in the healthcare debate a regular argument against government administration is that private business can't compete with government subsidy, and yet conventional agriculture has managed to maintain their market advantage (in cost) primarily due to government subsidy. This is actually one of the areas where I'm regularly amused by the resistance to organic farming by the more politically conservative in the US, when the cost advantage allowed for conventional farming is precisely the type of situation that is vehemently opposed by the right. This doesn't necessarily mean I'm directing that amusement at you, Travis, as I'm not completely aware of your leanings on that sort of topic, but when the issue of cost comes up my initial response is typically going to be "well, yeah, but it's easy to keep prices lower when the government is subsidizing your costs," which is precisely the case with conventional agriculture (particularly on the large scale). This is slowly changing as more large companies are getting into the 'organic' farming game, though overall I would guess that given an even ground on which to compete (which does not currently exist in the US), the organic products would quickly out-compete the current conventional products. However, since agriculture (as well as dairy and meat markets) are very pointedly not working on a level playing field, the argument of cost becomes more one of why the conventional industry leaders are assisted so much by government (de)regulation and subsidy when those methods have been found over the last 10-15 years to be less efficient, use more resources, and leave less arable land over long-term use. In more simple terms for the people who are instead looking at their wallets and pocketbooks in the supermarkets: why is the government subsidizing the cheaper milk, produce, and meat for you to buy now when it's been shown through scientific study that the other methods will ensure your kids, grandkids, and their kids will have at least the same selection as you when they go to the market? The answer tends to be the same as it's been for a while, for many types of issues: the government (meaning politicians) can't seem to manage anything in the long-term, especially when short-term interests pay off for them now while long-term interests aren't as big a lobby.

[GreNME]

Are you referring to that evil industrial solvent Dihydrogen-Monoxide? It's apparently present in high levels in every lake, river, and stream in the country, probably because it is used as a coolant in nuclear power plants and as a medium for the distribution of almost all pesticides.

:eye-poppi

It would be much better for an actual conversation to not persist in these ridiculous strawmen.

[MikeMangum]

Does organic/free range food taste different or better?

Some does (eg chicken - try it) some doesn't.

Is organic/freee range food more nutritious?

No

Actually, free range meat is more nutritious, at least when talking about beef. Plant seeds have a much higher proportion of Omega 6s to Omega 3s compared to the rest of the plant. Instead of feeding largely off of grains (high in Omega 6s) they feed on grass (higher in Omega 3s). Free range beef has a better ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s, but also tastes a bit gamier. I don't know if the same thing applies to chickens or other food animals. I think chickens are largely seed eaters anyway.

I'd personally rather have a corn fed, dry aged Filet and wash it down with a fish oil pill, but there is a difference.

[GreNME]

Actually, free range meat is more nutritious, at least when talking about beef. Plant seeds have a much higher proportion of Omega 6s to Omega 3s compared to the rest of the plant. Instead of feeding largely off of grains (high in Omega 6s) they feed on grass (higher in Omega 3s). Free range beef has a better ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s, but also tastes a bit gamier. I don't know if the same thing applies to chickens or other food animals. I think chickens are largely seed eaters anyway.

I'd personally rather have a corn fed, dry aged Filet and wash it down with a fish oil pill, but there is a difference.

You must be eating way different steaks than I can get (though, granted, I'm in TX). I can get locally-grown organic beef that's not only just as tender (or more), it also tastes wonderfully and requires fewer spices for the same flavor.

[MikeMangum]

It would be much better for an actual conversation to not persist in these ridiculous strawmen.

But it isn't a strawman, that's the point. Many of the people who are big fans of organic farming, live in deathly fear of GM "frankenfoods", etc. are basically swayed by the same sort of emotional, illogical arguments that are satirized in my post. Merely claiming something is used by "big industry" or by "evil corporations" is often enough to make people irrationally hate it. Merely having a funky, "chemical" sounding name is enough to make many people believe it is some sort of poison. Many of the organizations that want to curtail use of a specific substance will resort to tactics that are not that far removed from breathlessly claiming that the substance "has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients" as the DHMO.org website satirizes for water.

What's sad is how many people are like this. I can tell you as a former pesticide applicator that people are incredibly stupid about anything called a "chemical" and I experienced multiple cases where people responded with severe psychosomatic symptoms.

I'm calling to inform you that yet again I became deathly ill when you treated my neighbor's house with your evil pesticides. Wait, what do you mean that even though you called last night to let me know that you would be treating today, you didn't actually spray because you couldn't make it out? Then why did I develop this horrible rash and have to go to the emergency room for shortness of breath, the same reaction I always get when you spray your evil poisons?

[MikeMangum]

You must be eating way different steaks than I can get (though, granted, I'm in TX). I can get locally-grown organic beef that's not only just as tender (or more), it also tastes wonderfully and requires fewer spices for the same flavor.

There's a difference between organic and free range. Organic means nothing more than that all the correct rituals have been followed exactly in accordance with holy liturgy. Free range means that the cattle feed on grass instead of grains.

[Fiona]

Has anyone made such an argument here?

[GreNME]

But it isn't a strawman, that's the point. Many of the people who are big fans of organic farming, live in deathly fear of GM "frankenfoods", etc. are basically swayed by the same sort of emotional, illogical arguments that are satirized in my post. Merely claiming something is used by "big industry" or by "evil corporations" is often enough to make people irrationally hate it. Merely having a funky, "chemical" sounding name is enough to make many people believe it is some sort of poison. Many of the organizations that want to curtail use of a specific substance will resort to tactics that are not that far removed from breathlessly claiming that the substance "has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients" as the DHMO.org website satirizes for water.

What's sad is how many people are like this. I can tell you as a former pesticide applicator that people are incredibly stupid about anything called a "chemical" and I experienced multiple cases where people responded with severe psychosomatic symptoms.

I'm calling to inform you that yet again I became deathly ill when you treated my neighbor's house with your evil pesticides. Wait, what do you mean that even though you called last night to let me know that you would be treating today, you didn't actually spray because you couldn't make it out? Then why did I develop this horrible rash and have to go to the emergency room for shortness of breath, the same reaction I always get when you spray your evil poisons?

The problem is that there really are logical and rational criticisms of the use of pesticides, the widespread dominance of GE plants in agricultural use, and the general domineering and monopolistic behavior of large corporations. Using the extreme irrational behaviors to ignore or belittle the rational and valid concerns is nothing more than a strawman.

[Safe-Keeper]

Are you referring to that evil industrial solvent Dihydrogen-Monoxide? It's apparently present in high levels in every lake, river, and stream in the country, probably because it is used as a coolant in nuclear power plants and as a medium for the distribution of almost all pesticides.

:eye-poppi

It would be much better for an actual conversation to not persist in these ridiculous strawmen. It's a Flying Spaghetti Monster-style consciousness-raising argument, and judging by how many people automatically view some medicine or food as dangerous just because its name is a scary Latin phrase, or is a "chemical", it's necessary to bring it up.

People love to claim they don't know what {insert latin name here} does to your body when consumed, but these same people forget that {insert herb or other natural remedy or food ingredient here} can, and often does, have side-effects just as much as the scary Latin phrases. Read an article in my town's local paper (yes, ironically the same paper referred to in the OP), where it listed some herbs used by pregnant women use, their side-effects, and what conventional remedies should be used in their place. I translated the article and posted it here, so I can find it if anyone's interested. Either way, I have a feeling many who came across the article had never considered that herbs could be as dangerous as "real" remedies.

You may see the dihydrogen-monoxide argument as meaningless and rude. Maybe it is. But like Richard Dawkins' "Christian child/child of Christians", or the feminists' "one man, one vote/one citizen, one vote", it's meant not to ridicule, but to make you think about the way you speak and think. The fact that dhmo.org almost caused the city council of an American city to ban a product (styrofoam cups, I believe) because it contained water, speaks novels about how important it is to raise peoples' consciousness about this issue.

Please use other members' correct name, especially when quoting them

[madurobob]

There's a difference between organic and free range. Organic means nothing more than that all the correct rituals have been followed exactly in accordance with holy liturgy. Free range means that the cattle feed on grass instead of grains.

I don't think this is the case. Have you seen the FDA definition of "free range" for beef? IIRC, its very soft and makes no mention of feed. In fact, I think the term "free range" is far more of a marketing term than it is any real definition of how the cows are treated.

ETA: SORRY, I meant USDA, not FDA... Free_range
The USDA has no specific definition for "free-range" beef, pork, and other non-poultry products. All USDA definitions of "free-range" refer specifically to poultry.[5] No other criteria-such as the size of the range or the amount of space given to each animal-are required before beef, lamb, and pork can be called "free-range". Claims and labeling using "free range" are therefore unregulated.

[MikeMangum]

Has anyone made such an argument here?
"I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals."

[GreNME]

It's a Flying Spaghetti Monster-style consciousness-raising argument, and judging by how many people automatically view some medicine or food as dangerous just because its name is a scary Latin phrase, or is a "chemical", it's necessary to bring it up.

People love to claim they don't know what {insert latin name here} does to your body when consumed, but these same people forget that {insert herb or other natural remedy or food ingredient here} can, and often does, have side-effects just as much as the scary Latin phrases. Read an article in my town's local paper (yes, ironically the same paper referred to in the OP), where it listed some herbs used by pregnant women use, their side-effects, and what conventional remedies should be used in their place. I translated the article and posted it here, so I can find it if anyone's interested. Either way, I have a feeling many who came across the article had never considered that herbs could be as dangerous as "real" remedies.

You may see the dihydrogen-monoxide argument as meaningless and rude. Maybe it is. But like Richard Dawkins' "Christian child/child of Christians", or the feminists' "one man, one vote/one citizen, one vote", it's meant not to ridicule, but to make you think about the way you speak and think. The fact that dhmo.org almost caused the city council of an American city to ban a product (styrofoam cups, I believe) because it contained water, speaks novels about how important it is to raise peoples' consciousness about this issue.

Trying to describe a strawman in more detail makes it no less a strawman. No one has been making that argument in this thread. Yes, the fact that there are loonies out there is noted, but that does jack and squat to address valid criticisms-- thus strawman.

[Safe-Keeper]

Trying to describe a strawman in more detail makes it no less a strawman. No one has been making that argument in this thread.As Mike says, we have precisely this line of reasoning in this thread:

"I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals."

Sure, no one's been making the exact argument that DHMO/water should be banned, but that's satire for you.

[Cavemonster]

A nice side effect that flows from the culture of organic farming (but not the literal guidelines) is the availability of heirloom fruit and veg.

First selective breeding and then genetic engineering of produce selected for the lowest common denominators in flavor, ease of shipping and storing, and stereotypical good looks (the bright shiny red apple)

Personally I can't stand most standard apples except for the Granny Smith, the only one that retained a little bite. Large scale farms can't afford to grow crops that don't have large scale demand, and those ugly but delicious heirloom tomatoes don't have the "packaging" for large scale demand. Many of them also wouldn't be up for long transport.

Technically these are luxury items, but through my local small farm's community supported agriculture program (meaning we pay ahead of time and then get produce based on their yield) I pay about the same or less for heirloom tomatoes, potatoes and more as I would for conventional bland stuff. If they have a bad year, I'll get less produce for my money. But in six years of a couple different CSA's in different cities, there hasn't been a bad year.

Now, could local farms like this provide for the food needs of the whole country? No, but the whole country doesn't want what they're selling. Only the most naive local foodists would ever imagine that local farms would displace factory farms. What they do is increase the economic diversity and our food source diversity, both good things. They allow for a system where I can get my tasty, lumpy looking tomatoes, and you can get your shiny red bland ones and we both pay about the same and go home happy to our salads.

[GreNME]

Please stop dimunizing my name when you quote me. It's annoying and distracting.

The statement is still a strawman because it's not addressing any argument in favor of organic. Quote-mining a post that actually does not advocate organic food and claiming that's the reason for the strawman is disingenuous. The actual post in question (in full):I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals. But paying a premium for "organic" produce is just silly.

Emphasis mine.

I've made two rather long posts so far, one addressing what were probably the most salient points against organic agriculture in the entire thread, and linked several scientific studies that support the case for organic. The only real response to my longer posts has been Wildcat's attempt to divert the topic into the problems with HFCS and accusing me of equally hating both "big business" as well as the "little guy" farmers, which is unnecessary non-sequitur in order to avoid the valid points in favor of organic farming over conventional farming.

I've put forth my attempt at a serious discussion. A few people have responded rationally and I addressed those responses with citation. So far no one has been able to support a factual case against organic farming, and instead are focused on the ignorance of the extreme responses. That's no more rational and logical than the people who make uneducated comments about "chemicals" and other nonsense.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a good point. You could say that it's more a matter of supporting sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately, that's also reached buzz-word status.

Yeah, sadly it is linked to the "organic" nonsense.

Of course, every farmer I know (including those who farm for our family) engage in sustainable agriculture ("conventional farming" as the woos would call it). Mostly because they kind of want to still be in business 10-20 years from now.

[GreNME]

Yeah, sadly it is linked to the "organic" nonsense.

Of course, every farmer I know (including those who farm for our family) engage in sustainable agriculture ("conventional farming" as the woos would call it). Mostly because they kind of want to still be in business 10-20 years from now.

That's a complete mischaracterization, not only of what constitutes "organic" but what constitutes "sustainable." There is no certification or degree of activity that qualifies one practice as "sustainable" while another is not. Many farmers do try to rotate crops, and many still try to use cover crops if they have parts of fields they're not using in a given season. Sure, those sorts of things qualify as "sustainable" and they're techniques that have been around since before mankind had writing. However, as I've already pointed out there are many new techniques out there that have been shown to produce more useful soil even after a crop harvest using methods that qualify as "organic." There are a number of scientific studies that have confirmed this in a number of situations, including inside the US.

Calling something "woo" even though there has been confirmed testing to establish its veracity does very little to establish credibility behind your dismissal.

[WildCat]

There is a finite amount of viable arable land-- This is absolutely true, and the amount of viable land seems to be shrinking (example (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/348200_dirt22.html?source=mypi)) in at least small increments (and, apparently, in larger increments in the SouthWest).The problem with current methods and arable land is that our current methods tend to cause nutrient leaching of soil, which requires even more artificial treatment (and more time) to get the levels back (or requires more expensive fertilizers).
There is no reason at all for non-organic farming to deplete the land any less than organic farming does. The wind and rain doesn't know nor care whether or not you dumped chemical fertilizers on your soil or cow manure. If you don't drain and cover your soil properly it will wash and blow away. Again, this has everything to do with good farming poractices and nothing at all to do with organic farming. You can lose all your topsoil even though you farm organically, just like non-organic farming.

The difference is that by farming non-organically you can grow crops on marginal land and grow more of them on better land. All other things being equal, organic crops means lower yield. It may make you feel better, but if every farmer decided to go organic famine would surely follow.

Organic farming is less efficient so more land and more water would be needed just to keep production comparable to current levels let alone account for future increased needs-- This is something that's often claimed, but rarely quantified (and usually false). Quite the opposite, long-term studies like this (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html) have shown that 'organic' farming techniques use less water and leave more in the soil than conventional methods, while still producing the same crop yields.
Not so fast. That study compares organic farms which also practice good soil conservatiuon to a non-organic farm that doesn't. Sorry, it's not a valid comparison. There is no reason you can't practice good soil conservation growing non-organically. Again, all other things being equal an organic farm will not yield as great as a non-organic farm.

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious and are generally more expensive-- I would not agree with so general a statement, because it certainly depends on what you're talking about as far as "healthier, safer or more nutritious" and which foods you're referring to. Most of the time when I see this sort of thing come up, I tend to read various emotional screeds (http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/hypocrisy.html) (all of which in that link can be pointed out as misdirection, falsehood, or overblown claims) about how 'organic' farming needs more land (it doesn't necessarily, but this link (http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/organic/) explains how 'organic' certification requirements can lead to such conclusions), uses more water (which it doesn't, as I pointed out above), is no better for the environment (which has been studied (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304) and the opposite conclusion drawn) and is no more healthy than conventional farming. Now, to that (last) point, there have been studies that questioned general healthiness factors between organic food and conventionally-grown food (example (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10408690490911846)), but the comparisons that were done were vague and general, not focusing on different types of crops. There have been studies, both in the US (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114202162/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) (article on the study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070326095806.htm)) and in Europe (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/organic-food-is-healthier-and-safer-fouryear-eu-investigation-shows-395483.html) that have found certain crops that do, indeed, not only have more nutritional value in terms of vitamins existent in the crop yields, but also have greater numbers of antioxidants in the yields. Other articles (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/health/nutrition/17nutr.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=603daa59326e0bf6&ex=1190260800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1191140034-/6y) on other studies have also pointed out that certain vegetables and fruits grown organically produce crops of a higher nutritional quality, based on a number (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf020635c?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jafcau) of studies (http://organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126) that show precisely those results. That isn't to say that there haven't been people who have written in opposition to such claims, but often when those individuals are placed under scrutiny (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/17/dining/eating-well-anti-organic-and-flawed.html) they are not found to being completely honest with the reader.
Sorry, but I'm reluctant to accept studies doen by organic agriculture advocacy groups. I'm calling pure woo until you find some unbiased studies performed by unbiased researchers. Particularly when unbiased research can find no differences wrt nutrition. Example: http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/14/32520/organic-food-offers-no-extra-nutrition.html

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods-- If 'organic' foods were merely a fad, I'd agree with you. However, since organic farming has demonstrable and appreciable benefits over conventional farming with the same levels of crop yields,
Nope, it doesn't. Sorry.

[GreNME]

There is no reason at all for non-organic farming to deplete the land any less than organic farming does. The wind and rain doesn't know nor care whether or not you dumped chemical fertilizers on your soil or cow manure. If you don't drain and cover your soil properly it will wash and blow away. Again, this has everything to do with good farming poractices and nothing at all to do with organic farming. You can lose all your topsoil even though you farm organically, just like non-organic farming.

You're being disingenuous. The "good farming practices" you're talking about have been a staple of what qualifies as "organic" farming from the very beginning. The fact is that this quality of organic farming has contributed to changes made in conventional strip-tilling over the past 30+ years, especially with regard to increases in cover crops among smaller, less-commercial farmers still operating. This means that while there are still fewer designated "organic" farms in operation than "conventional" farms, based on a 1981 report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/211/4482/540) that stated how "[c]ompared to conventional methods, organic methods consume less fossil energy and cause less soil erosion," more of the methods of soil protection developed over the last nearly 30 years have originated from organic farming techniques. The "good farming practices" you claim are common sense among farmers today owes in large part to the growing education from universities or the government to farmers (like this (http://organic.colostate.edu/documents/Thilmany_paper.pdf) [PDF] or this (http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/pdfs/time_to_act_1998.pdf) [PDF]) on methods to preserve soil integrity while still maintaining productivity. There are even companies that are now existing to provide methods for nitrogen injection using organic methods (like this (http://www.intxmicrobials.com/education.html)) that exist and profit from the service they provide.

The difference is that by farming non-organically you can grow crops on marginal land and grow more of them on better land. All other things being equal, organic crops means lower yield. It may make you feel better, but if every farmer decided to go organic famine would surely follow.

Yet more of the common lazy assertions without substantiation, which is easy for opposition because they don't have to support their position while demanding regular evidence for others. Meanwhile, study (http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/3/600) after study (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304) has been released showing exactly the opposite of this ridiculous claim.

Not so fast. That study compares organic farms which also practice good soil conservatiuon to a non-organic farm that doesn't. Sorry, it's not a valid comparison. There is no reason you can't practice good soil conservation growing non-organically. Again, all other things being equal an organic farm will not yield as great as a non-organic farm.

That's completely BS on your part. You supply absolutely no information backing up your accusation that the study was imbalanced. As is common parlance at the JREF: this is a skeptics forum, so if you're going to make a claim be prepared to back it up. I've backed it up with not only a long-term study (like the Cornell study), but also shorter-term studies by the Cambridge University Press and the Agronomy Journal (from the American Society on Agronomy) above.

As for "all other things being equal," what the heck does that mean? Agriculture doesn't operate in a vacuum, and organic sustainability techniques have been increasingly used even in non-organic agriculture techniques for at least 20+ years now. As I already pointed out, since the early 1980's even the UDSA has been re-evaluating techniques from organic farming, and as I stated in an earlier post techniques are still being developed to increase crop yields-- not only growing techniques like the rice production in India, but also cross-breeding produce to create bacteria-resistant (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/090413.htm) and insect-resistant (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2008/081201.htm) crops (both evaluated by the USDA). Frankly, your "all other things being equal" sounds more like a cop-out to avoid the existent scientific data for no good reason.

Sorry, but I'm reluctant to accept studies doen by organic agriculture advocacy groups. I'm calling pure woo until you find some unbiased studies performed by unbiased researchers. Particularly when unbiased research can find no differences wrt nutrition. Example: http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/14/32520/organic-food-offers-no-extra-nutrition.html

More BS. The FDA has conducted zero studies one way or the other. You're accusing the Newcastle University School of Agriculture and the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (who designed the EU study), Harokopio University (who held this study (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10408690490911846)), and the University of California (in this study (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114202162/abstract)) of being biased producers of woo. Instead, you cite a study (of a collection of studies) that did an "[a]nalysis of thirteen nutrients" as being more conclusive to specific studies on specific types of food and specific nutrients and antioxidants.

Your accusation of bias has no basis, and your calling it woo is just attacking conclusions you don't (seem to) like with no substance.

Not everyone has lots of expendable cash they can blow on fad foods-- If 'organic' foods were merely a fad, I'd agree with you. However, since organic farming has demonstrable and appreciable benefits over conventional farming with the same levels of crop yields,
Nope, it doesn't. Sorry.

Chopping up a sentence of mine and making a snarky remark does not an argument make. If organic farming techniques didn't have demonstrable benefits, farmers wouldn't already be using them even more often than there are certified organic farms. You're just calling techniques that have been adapted over the past nearly 30 years "good farming practices" and ignoring the science.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Bucolia.

[JihadJane]

Bees.

[Safe-Keeper]

If organic farming techniques didn't have demonstrable benefits, farmers wouldn't already be using them even more often than there are certified organic farms.They do have benefits - they allow you to develop less produce, and sell it at a higher price. It's akin to exclusive restaurants that sell small portions of highly expensive food.

ETA: Let's say you know a car manufacturer. She can sell cars made of the latest, and most expensive, composite materials for $20 000, or smaller, easy-to-assemble "organic" cars made out of ultra-cheap wood for $35 000. If she chooses the latter (less work, higher profit), is it really that far-fetched to believe she might be doing it out of sheer greed;)?

[GreNME]

They do have benefits - they allow you to develop less produce, and sell it at a higher price. It's akin to exclusive restaurants that sell small portions of highly expensive food.

ETA: Let's say you know a car manufacturer. She can sell cars made of the latest, and most expensive, composite materials for $20 000, or smaller, easy-to-assemble "organic" cars made out of ultra-cheap wood for $35 000. If she chooses the latter (less work, higher profit), is it really that far-fetched to believe she might be doing it out of sheer greed;)?

As long as you continue to completely ignore the scientific evidence, you might even have a point (not unlike truthers and creationists).

[WildCat]

You're being disingenuous. The "good farming practices" you're talking about have been a staple of what qualifies as "organic" farming from the very beginning.
It's also quite common on non-organic farms, do you think non-organic farmeres don't mind if their topsoil washes away, blows away, or is otherwise degraded?

Yet more of the common lazy assertions without substantiation, which is easy for opposition because they don't have to support their position while demanding regular evidence for others. Meanwhile, study (http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/3/600) after study (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304) has been released showing exactly the opposite of this ridiculous claim.
Your first study did not use organic farming, in fact it says right there on the abstract that synthetic fertilizer was used. The next one looks good, but uses words like "potential", "could" and "suggests" rather than more affirmative language. It's enough to make me skeptical.


As for "all other things being equal," what the heck does that mean?
It means you don't get to compare yields of organic crops grown on prime farmland to crops grown conventionally on marginal land. And it's not like these studies are blinded after all, the researcher knows which crop is which. It would be easy to bias the results, for example planting the organic crop on a farmer's best land while planting the conventional crop on the part that floods frequently.

Frankly, your "all other things being equal" sounds more like a cop-out to avoid the existent scientific data for no good reason.
I'm not avoiding it, I'd like to see more of it and preferably not done by an advocacy group.

More BS. The FDA has conducted zero studies one way or the other. You're accusing the Newcastle University School of Agriculture and the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (who designed the EU study), Harokopio University (who held this study (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10408690490911846)),
That study found no significant differences.

and the University of California (in this study (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114202162/abstract)) of being biased producers of woo.
This was one study on one farm. I don't know if it was blinded or not (did the researcher know which group was which when selecting fruit for testing?). Like I said, more data is needed.

Instead, you cite a study (of a collection of studies) that did an "[a]nalysis of thirteen nutrients" as being more conclusive to specific studies on specific types of food and specific nutrients and antioxidants.

Your accusation of bias has no basis, and your calling it woo is just attacking conclusions you don't (seem to) like with no substance.
I'm saying I'm skeptical. The USDA does not claim any differences in nutritional quality of organic foods.

Chopping up a sentence of mine and making a snarky remark does not an argument make. If organic farming techniques didn't have demonstrable benefits, farmers wouldn't already be using them even more often than there are certified organic farms. You're just calling techniques that have been adapted over the past nearly 30 years "good farming practices" and ignoring the science.
I never said they don't have demonstrable benefits, indeed I noted that giant agricultural corporations are also farming organically for the benefit that is most apparent. That benefit being that consumers are willing to pay 30% more for organic produce.

[JihadJane]

Organic foods are not healthier, safer or more nutritious

Industrial, petrochemical-based agriculture is unsustainable because it is dependent on depleting natural resources. Organic farming, though also unsustainable operating within the current energy-hungry infrastructure, is more sustainable if practiced in a more localized way. That means that, in the long term, it is healthier, safer and more nutritious for the human race.

[tyr_13]

Industrial, petrochemical-based agriculture is unsustainable because it is dependent on depleting natural resources. Organic farming, though also unsustainable operating within the current energy-hungry infrastructure, is more sustainable if practiced in a more localized way. That means that, in the long term, it is healthier, safer and more nutritious for the human race.

Than why are fertilizers derived from nitrogen captured from the air and phosphorus from sea water specifically forbidden by organic standards? Is air and sea water unsustainable?

Organic is still an ideology. It's equivalent to kosher. To whatever level good farming practices are tied to it is happenstance. Good farming practices are not limited to organic ideology and I don't think it good farming practices should ever be limited by organic ideals.

[JihadJane]

Than why are fertilizers derived from nitrogen captured from the air and phosphorus from sea water specifically forbidden by organic standards? Is air and sea water unsustainable?

Organic is still an ideology. It's equivalent to kosher. To whatever level good farming practices are tied to it is happenstance. Good farming practices are not limited to organic ideology and I don't think it good farming practices should ever be limited by organic ideals.

Because they are inorganic.

Organic farming isn't an ideology. It's an agricultural method. Perhaps it looks like an ideology to you because it's different to your ideology.

[Safe-Keeper]

Because they are inorganic. So is water:p. /me ducks

Organic farming isn't an ideology. It's an agricultural method. Perhaps it looks like an ideology to you because it's different to your ideology. I actually agree with you here, in part. Both methods of agriculture certainly could be said to have ideologies behind them. To be honest, I'm getting a little tired of references to organic "evangelism" and other implications that it's some sort of religion. It annoys me when it's AGW "deniers" doing it, so I'd be a hypocrite not to complain now, too;).

[tyr_13]

Because they are inorganic.

Organic farming isn't an ideology. It's an agricultural method. Perhaps it looks like an ideology to you because it's different to your ideology.

You're kidding right? They don't use those methods because they are contrary to the ideology that organic farming is. Organic farming isn't based on the most efficient, safe, or sustainable methods attainable, but on the ideology of 'organic'.

It is ideology. Your first sentence there kind of, sort of, totally shows that. Alright, perhaps you want to be completely accurate in which case it is true that 'organic farming' isn't an ideology. It is an agricultural method based on an ideology.

Nice, 'I know you are but what am I?' try there though.

[JihadJane]

The reasons for rejecting inorganic fertilizer aren't ideological, however much and however often you say they are! They are to do with maintaining the health of the living soil.

[tyr_13]

The reasons for rejecting inorganic fertilizer aren't ideological, however much and however often you say they are! They are to do with maintaining the health of the living soil.

That's a nonsense statement and you know it. Organic fertilizer caries the same chemical load as non-organic. The 'health' of the soil is unchanged by using one instead of the other.

Besides, my point was the rejection of fertilizer derived from sea water and sequestered from air. You call them 'inorganic' even though they are the same chemicals as your 'organic' ones, yet have the nerve say it isn't based on ideology.

[JihadJane]

That's a nonsense statement and you know it. Organic fertilizer caries the same chemical load as non-organic. The 'health' of the soil is unchanged by using one instead of the other.

Mind-reading alert!

You are wrong. Do you know it?

Besides, my point was the rejection of fertilizer derived from sea water and sequestered from air. You call them 'inorganic' even though they are the same chemicals as your 'organic' ones, yet have the nerve say it isn't based on ideology.

They are isolated, unbuffered chemicals.

[GreNME]

You're being disingenuous. The "good farming practices" you're talking about have been a staple of what qualifies as "organic" farming from the very beginning.
It's also quite common on non-organic farms, do you think non-organic farmeres don't mind if their topsoil washes away, blows away, or is otherwise degraded?

Why do you seem to be implying that I think non-organic farmers are stupid? You did this in your first post in the thread as well. They're obviously not stupid since plenty of farming organizations are regularly working on techniques to conserve, rejunvenate, and effectively use arable land. Since so many farmers have adopted methods that were initially considered useless and unnecessary (as recently as the late 1960's and early 1970's), which have for the most part originated under organic farming, it's also obvious that many of the methods in organic farming are useful toward the ends of conserving, rejuvenating, and effectively using the land.

Your first study did not use organic farming, in fact it says right there on the abstract that synthetic fertilizer was used. The next one looks good, but uses words like "potential", "could" and "suggests" rather than more affirmative language. It's enough to make me skeptical.

Using synthetic fertilizer (or pesticides) isn't forbidden in organic farming, it's limited. The term "low external input farming (http://tinyurl.com/lthybc)" is another way of discussing sustainable organic farming without using the word "organic" (without the obvious baggage), though it doesn't fall under the 1990 certification designation as "organic" farming.

As for "all other things being equal," what the heck does that mean?
It means you don't get to compare yields of organic crops grown on prime farmland to crops grown conventionally on marginal land. And it's not like these studies are blinded after all, the researcher knows which crop is which. It would be easy to bias the results, for example planting the organic crop on a farmer's best land while planting the conventional crop on the part that floods frequently.

You seem to have no understanding of what blinds in studies are used. A researcher's supposed bias-- which I've already disputed in your accusation, unless you're asserting that universities and government funds constitute "advocacy groups"-- is not going to alter the actual numbers because 1) they are taking the results from farms who have agreed to supply the data, and 2) whatever bias the researchers may supposedly have can't affect the actual data (which are presented in the studies).

I'm not avoiding it, I'd like to see more of it and preferably not done by an advocacy group.

BS. You are avoiding it by calling it "pure woo" and calling universities and international studies "organic agriculture advocacy groups." I've pointed out that your accusations are baseless and the "advocacy groups" aren't advocacy groups at all-- unless, again, you're attempting to assert that the universities and international study groups are, in fact, advocacy groups.

That study found no significant differences.

Except for higher antioxidant levels in organic produce.

This was one study on one farm. I don't know if it was blinded or not (did the researcher know which group was which when selecting fruit for testing?). Like I said, more data is needed.

Again you show complete ignorance as to what blinds are for. The study was with one fruit, and again supposed researcher bias can't affect the hard data results. So, your accusations essentially amount to calling the people conducting the study liars for no good reason.

I'm saying I'm skeptical. The USDA does not claim any differences in nutritional quality of organic foods.

Repeating what I've already said and putting a different spin on what it's supposed to mean is not an effective argument. The USDA and FDA has not ever conducted any tests to check the nutritional quality of organic and non-organic foods.

I never said they don't have demonstrable benefits, indeed I noted that giant agricultural corporations are also farming organically for the benefit that is most apparent. That benefit being that consumers are willing to pay 30% more for organic produce.

More disingenuous BS. There exist studies (http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ugeofs/16650.html) (again, from a Georgia university, not some "advocacy group") on the apparent benefits for pest resistance, the USDA maintains organizational materials (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/) for promotion and education of organic farming to those who wish to "lower input costs" and "conserve nonrenewable resources" (last I knew, the USDA doesn't count as an "advocacy group"), and agricultural organizations (like the Western Agricultural Economics Association (http://waeaonline.org/), again not an "advocacy group") have conducted studies (http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/waeasa/36319.html) examining factors that contribute to successful conversion to organic farming.

The reality is that organic farming is not only a viable farming alternative to conventional practices, and it isn't the woo-ish and backwards farming practice that the nonsense hyperbole and sarcastic attacks try to make it out as being. Conversely, organic farming isn't the end-all, be-all solution to the world's soil and farming problems that some over-enthusiastic groups try to make it out to be, and neither does organic farming products make for magical health foods. There's a great deal of misinformation out there about organic farming and the food produced, both by the overzealous opposition to the techniques (which tends to be as fervent as the open-source vs. proprietary software debates) as well as by those who seem to have overblown expectations about what organic farming can accomplish and the products it can supply.

[GreNME]

Than why are fertilizers derived from nitrogen captured from the air and phosphorus from sea water specifically forbidden by organic standards?

They're not. That's false.

[GreNME]

Industrial, petrochemical-based agriculture is unsustainable because it is dependent on depleting natural resources. Organic farming, though also unsustainable operating within the current energy-hungry infrastructure, is more sustainable if practiced in a more localized way. That means that, in the long term, it is healthier, safer and more nutritious for the human race.

For the record: this is unnecessarily overblown hyperbole in the other direction.

[tyr_13]

They're not. That's false.

You're right. My reading of the organic standards was mistaken. They aren't specifically forbidden. However, they still are forbidden. This is still nonsense and still represents a good farming practice that is taboo for no logical reason.

[tyr_13]

Mind-reading alert!

You are wrong. Do you know it?



They are isolated, unbuffered chemicals.

As are the vast majority of of organic fertilizers used.

Even when organics have 'buffered' chemicals, so what? You're supposed to 'buffer' the fertilizer with the soil you already have. It's kind of the point. All that 'buffering' does is waste energy during transportation.

Personally, I'm against the unneeded burring of fuel.

This isn't to say that I don't think organic fertilizer is useful. It is. So is synthetic. It's the same stuff after all, from a different source.

[tyr_13]

Bees.

Missed this one. Sabadilla is an organic pesticide and is highly toxic to honey bees.

[johnny karate]

"I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals."

As Mike says, we have precisely this line of reasoning in this thread:

"I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals."

Sure, no one's been making the exact argument that DHMO/water should be banned, but that's satire for you.

The statement is still a strawman because it's not addressing any argument in favor of organic. Quote-mining a post that actually does not advocate organic food and claiming that's the reason for the strawman is disingenuous.

I have to wonder if I had stated "I prefer apples to oranges" if I wouldn't then be characterized as an anti-orange extremist. :rolleyes:

[tyr_13]

I have to wonder if I had stated "I prefer apples to oranges" if I wouldn't then be characterized as an anti-orange extremist. :rolleyes:

LoL, thank you for showing what a real straw man argument is. :p

You evil anti orange person. Wait. I just bought a dozen apples. Dangit. I must be anti-orange too.

[HansMustermann]

I would still say you are. Omg.... Toxins!!!!! Its a stupid argument namely because a toxin does not necessarily hurt you.

You don't even know what toxing it is, but you are already derriding me? On what base, pray tell? :p

Just for reference, the toxin is hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), which according to some studies may be a (weak) genotoxin/mutagen and as such a carcinogen. The keyword is "weak", and it's a bit hard to avoid entirely since traces of it exist in most heat-treated foods and IIRC in cigarette smoke. But it's nevertheless not entirely harmless either.

And again, it hardly justifies derision (A) against people who prefer to minimize their exposure to carcinogens, in as much as possible, and (B) based on little more than faith and assumptions. Just being on the side of modern stuff doesn't automatically equal critical thinking, ya know? ;)

[GreNME]

You're right. My reading of the organic standards was mistaken. They aren't specifically forbidden. However, they still are forbidden. This is still nonsense and still represents a good farming practice that is taboo for no logical reason.

Again, this is disingenuous. Nitrogen fertilizers are allowed, but there are restrictions on what kinds of fertilizer may be used. The "no logical reason" you're talking about has to do with the integration (or lack thereof) into the soil-- don't mistake what I'm saying, plants can take it up as nutrients just fine, but many "synthetic" industrial fertilizers also tend to run off or sink into the water table. Whether this has a direct health risk or not is another story, the problem is that it doesn't stay in the soil. It's an issue of sustainable maintenance of the topsoil, and not some "no logical reason" woo that gets attributed to it.

[tyr_13]

Again, this is disingenuous. Nitrogen fertilizers are allowed, but there are restrictions on what kinds of fertilizer may be used. The "no logical reason" you're talking about has to do with the integration (or lack thereof) into the soil-- don't mistake what I'm saying, plants can take it up as nutrients just fine, but many "synthetic" industrial fertilizers also tend to run off or sink into the water table. Whether this has a direct health risk or not is another story, the problem is that it doesn't stay in the soil. It's an issue of sustainable maintenance of the topsoil, and not some "no logical reason" woo that gets attributed to it.

Organic fertilizers have the exact same problems. All fertilizer, organic or synthetic, needs to be stored properly and applied correctly. Nitrogen in the water is generally bad, and it doesn't matter if that nitrogen came from worm castings or from air extraction.

Organic fertilizer is processed differently but the end products are nearly identical to synthetic. Same problems with run off.

[GreNME]

Organic fertilizers have the exact same problems. All fertilizer, organic or synthetic, needs to be stored properly and applied correctly. Nitrogen in the water is generally bad, and it doesn't matter if that nitrogen came from worm castings or from air extraction.

Organic fertilizer is processed differently but the end products are nearly identical to synthetic. Same problems with run off.

Since fertilizer isn't the main component in putting nitrogen into the soil with organic farming, the problems are not the same. This is a problem when it comes to opposition arguments to organic farming-- they tend to demand that the comparisons be framed strictly in the framework of conventional farming.

ETA: in other words, the operations differ, but the production is either comparable or better, depending on circumstances.

[tyr_13]

Since fertilizer isn't the main component in putting nitrogen into the soil with organic farming, the problems are not the same. This is a problem when it comes to opposition arguments to organic farming-- they tend to demand that the comparisons be framed strictly in the framework of conventional farming.

ETA: in other words, the operations differ, but the production is either comparable or better, depending on circumstances.

This is a moving of the goalposts, as the claim was that organic fertilizer, and the restrictions on the source, were not driven by ideology but by the product being safer.

I take it that you now contend that better soil management though more aggressive crop rotation is the main driver of nitrogen replenishment in organic agriculture. This begs the question, 'why not use aggressive crop rotation and synthetic fertilizer?' Again, the line of reasoning comes back to why the restriction to organic sources and how are they good.

Organic agriculture, like modern agriculture, is a collection of specific practices. Those specific practices may or many not stand up on their own. The ones that do I urge be used. 'Organic' however restricts this based on an ideology. It doesn't matter if 75% of organic practices are good, they are rejecting some good methods based on shaky grounds. Even if 75% of current modern agriculture is overall harmful, it can change and improve, and still be modern agriculture. Modern agriculture can take the good parts of organic and still be modern agriculture. Organic can't and still be organic.

I'm all for reform of modern agriculture. There are some pretty big problems with it. That isn't support of organic standards in total though.

[GreNME]

This is a moving of the goalposts, as the claim was that organic fertilizer, and the restrictions on the source, were not driven by ideology but by the product being safer.

Nope. The claim is that organic methods for introducing the nutrients into the soil are meant to keep more of the nutrients in the soil after what has been leached off by the crops. It's not a moving of the goalposts, it's pointing out that the goalpost you originally used was focused more on the process than the goals, and claiming the difference in process was arbitrary. That's not true.

I take it that you now contend that better soil management though more aggressive crop rotation is the main driver of nitrogen replenishment in organic agriculture. This begs the question, 'why not use aggressive crop rotation and synthetic fertilizer?' Again, the line of reasoning comes back to why the restriction to organic sources and how are they good.

Complete strawman. That's not what I'm saying at all (and, as far as I know, there is no one "main" driver). You're making that contention so that you can bring up the point about using crop rotation along with synthetic fertilizer. You could have simply proposed that. The USDA tends to call it "integrated farming (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902terms.shtml)" techniques. Care to make a guess as to why?

Organic agriculture, like modern agriculture, is a collection of specific practices. Those specific practices may or many not stand up on their own. The ones that do I urge be used. 'Organic' however restricts this based on an ideology. It doesn't matter if 75% of organic practices are good, they are rejecting some good methods based on shaky grounds. Even if 75% of current modern agriculture is overall harmful, it can change and improve, and still be modern agriculture. Modern agriculture can take the good parts of organic and still be modern agriculture. Organic can't and still be organic.

I'd almost agree with you, except you're accusing organic farming of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you reject the reasons given for organic farming eschewing certain practices. As I already said, the issue with certain types of nitrogen fertilizers are due to their run-off and seepage (though, as I already said, there are allowances in the form of limitations in fertilizer usage, some mentioned here (http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2009am/webprogram/Paper53080.html)), while their rejection of GM seeds tends to mostly focus on criticisms to claims about their efficacy as well as the risks of GM seeds accidentally cross-pollinating with other plants in the flora and causing unintended consequences.

However, the point you're making about possible benefits of organic practices as well as possible benefits of conventional practices has merit-- though your false dichotomy of calling conventional farming "modern" and implying that organic farming is not seems to be propagating the myth that organic farming practices are simply attempts to farm like those 100+ years ago, which is about as rational as the "death panels" nonsense-- I've already pointed out more than once that for the last 20-30 years conventional farms have been adopting some of the successful practices in organic farming, and as I also pointed out successful cross-breeding of insect and disease resistant crops are being used in organic farming, as well as pointing out that new techniques are being developed still with organic farming to reduce necessary resources while still improving yields. As I pointed out to WildCat earlier, and in my comment about "integrated" techniques above, it's not like plenty of farmers aren't already using some of the techniques that have shown efficacy.

I'm all for reform of modern agriculture. There are some pretty big problems with it. That isn't support of organic standards in total though.

That's cool. I don't have a problem with that. While I tend to support organic farming practices that doesn't necessarily mean I think everyone needs to be doing it exactly the same. I see nothing wrong with the many farmers who might take only one or two things that work for them, if they're choosing to because that's what works for them. What I've criticized in this thread so far is the tendency to ignore or claim exactly the opposite of what scientific study tends to show, as well as those using 50-year-old arguments against organic farming that have long since been debunked but remain because stupid hyperbole doesn't just go away because the facts don't support them. Hell, if facts were all that were needed to make stupid behavior and fanaticism go away, more than a few subforums here at the JREF would be completely empty.

[tyr_13]

Nope. The claim is that organic methods for introducing the nutrients into the soil are meant to keep more of the nutrients in the soil after what has been leached off by the crops. It's not a moving of the goalposts, it's pointing out that the goalpost you originally used was focused more on the process than the goals, and claiming the difference in process was arbitrary. That's not true.

The organic certification is about the process though. In case you missed it, the thing I was responding to...

Industrial, petrochemical-based agriculture is unsustainable because it is dependent on depleting natural resources.

...to which I pointed to non-petrochemical based agricultural practices also banned in organic practice. You claimed that these products were banned because of the danger of leaching. Your new claim is that while organic fertilizer, which is allowed in organic agriculture, is alright because it isn't used much.

Why is organic fertilizer allowed at all then?



Complete strawman. That's not what I'm saying at all (and, as far as I know, there is no one "main" driver). You're making that contention so that you can bring up the point about using crop rotation along with synthetic fertilizer. You could have simply proposed that.

I have proposed that, at the same time pointing out that organic agriculture forbids it on fallacious grounds.

I made that contention, with the careful qualifier 'I take it', because it's one of the only other sources of nitrogen enrichment that I know of. What were you referring too?

The USDA tends to call it "integrated farming (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902terms.shtml)" techniques. Care to make a guess as to why?

They call it that because it isn't limited by organic standards, kind of the thing I've been arguing for.




I'd almost agree with you, except you're accusing organic farming of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you reject the reasons given for organic farming eschewing certain practices. As I already said, the issue with certain types of nitrogen fertilizers are due to their run-off and seepage (though, as I already said, there are allowances in the form of limitations in fertilizer usage, some mentioned here (http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2009am/webprogram/Paper53080.html)), while their rejection of GM seeds tends to mostly focus on criticisms to claims about their efficacy as well as the risks of GM seeds accidentally cross-pollinating with other plants in the flora and causing unintended consequences.

Nitrogen fertilizer (which is allowed under organic practices) needs regulation. This is in no way support for organics. Organic agriculture rejects synthetic nitrogen, as if the fish cared where the nitrogen came from.


However, the point you're making about possible benefits of organic practices as well as possible benefits of conventional practices has merit-- though your false dichotomy of calling conventional farming "modern" and implying that organic farming is not seems to be propagating the myth that organic farming practices are simply attempts to farm like those 100+ years ago,

You're seriously going to argue about the use of the term 'modern' instead of 'conventional' when you're defending a practice that labels itself 'organic'? I'm propagating no such myth; I'm using the terms I'm used to. Would you prefer 'factory farming', 'conventional agriculture,' 'synthetic farming,' or 'industrial agriculture'?

We know what we're talking about here.


which is about as rational as the "death panels" nonsense--

And I find the term 'organic agriculture' in about the same light.

I've already pointed out more than once that for the last 20-30 years conventional farms have been adopting some of the successful practices in organic farming, and as I also pointed out successful cross-breeding of insect and disease resistant crops are being used in organic farming, as well as pointing out that new techniques are being developed still with organic farming to reduce necessary resources while still improving yields. As I pointed out to WildCat earlier, and in my comment about "integrated" techniques above, it's not like plenty of farmers aren't already using some of the techniques that have shown efficacy.

Which I don't think anyone is arguing against. I know I'm not.



What I've criticized in this thread so far is the tendency to ignore or claim exactly the opposite of what scientific study tends to show, as well as those using 50-year-old arguments against organic farming that have long since been debunked but remain because stupid hyperbole doesn't just go away because the facts don't support them. Hell, if facts were all that were needed to make stupid behavior and fanaticism go away, more than a few subforums here at the JREF would be completely empty.

But the point I was making wasn't one of those 50 year old myths.

[GreNME]

The organic certification is about the process though. In case you missed it, the thing I was responding to...

Industrial, petrochemical-based agriculture is unsustainable because it is dependent on depleting natural resources.

...to which I pointed to non-petrochemical based agricultural practices also banned in organic practice. You claimed that these products were banned because of the danger of leaching. Your new claim is that while organic fertilizer, which is allowed in organic agriculture, is alright because it isn't used much.

Why is organic fertilizer allowed at all then?

That's not my "new claim" at all, and again you're arguing a strawman. First, the certification process differs depending on the country, though there are concepts that run through all of them, but that's neither here nor there. Second, at this point I'm repeating myself in clarifying that there is no one single thing that's done to prevent leaching-- it's not just rotations, cover crops, planting legumes with the crops, organic fertilizer, (aerobic) composting, and other methods, it's all of them or some of them in conjunction with each other. Reduced leaching is the goal, and the use of the various methods is dependent on the soil and the environmental conditions. This is considered more effective than just using fertilizer in both organic farming and non-organic farming, but these other practices were largely dismissed as nonsense prior to the 1981 report I mentioned in an earlier post and the 1990 adoption of national certification practices (after which adoption grew well into the early 2000's).

Yes, JJ's anti-corporation and anti-US ranting is irrational and flawed. That doesn't validate criticisms against organic farming that misunderstand the process by assuming a superimposed conventional process structure.

I have proposed that, at the same time pointing out that organic agriculture forbids it on fallacious grounds.

And I've pointed out that the fallacious grounds you're accusing are incorrect. I recognize that you reject the reasons on the basis that you don't see how organic fertilizer is any different, but I'm pointing out that since the method in organic farming doesn't rely primarily on fertilizer, the comparison you're asserting as the basis is misdirected.

I made that contention, with the careful qualifier 'I take it', because it's one of the only other sources of nitrogen enrichment that I know of. What were you referring too?

The various organic methods that are used as opposed to relying on fertilizer to do the majority of the supply: rotations, cover crops, legumes or other plants, organic fertilizer, composting, and other stuff. There's a crapload of misinformation and lack of information about organic farming, despite lots of documentation on the USDA website, in university published literature, and farmer organizations. That's what I was referring to (and thanks for requesting clarification, much appreciated).

They call it that because it isn't limited by organic standards, kind of the thing I've been arguing for.

I think it's a reasonable thing to argue for. I know plenty of farmers (here in TX and when I lived in NJ) who have talked about doing the same. Seems logical to me, especially considering the administrative and management changes needed to switch whole hog (which plenty can't afford to do).

Nitrogen fertilizer (which is allowed under organic practices) needs regulation. This is in no way support for organics. Organic agriculture rejects synthetic nitrogen, as if the fish cared where the nitrogen came from.

Organic agriculture requires meeting certain standards for sustainability. Nitrogen replenishment is not contingent on fertilizer in organic farming, so whether the fish care where the nitrogen came from isn't the point-- the point is which of the various methods keeps more nitrogen out of the water table. I agree with you that nitrogen fertilizer application needs (better) regulation.

You're seriously going to argue about the use of the term 'modern' instead of 'conventional' when you're defending a practice that labels itself 'organic'? I'm propagating no such myth; I'm using the terms I'm used to. Would you prefer 'factory farming', 'conventional agriculture,' 'synthetic farming,' or 'industrial agriculture'?

We know what we're talking about here.

It does make a difference, because one of the popular myths promoted by critics of organic farming is that organic farming simply hails back to old practices and outdated methods.

which is about as rational as the "death panels" nonsense--
And I find the term 'organic agriculture' in about the same light.

Which I'm calling irrational and baseless.

I've already pointed out more than once that for the last 20-30 years conventional farms have been adopting some of the successful practices in organic farming, and as I also pointed out successful cross-breeding of insect and disease resistant crops are being used in organic farming, as well as pointing out that new techniques are being developed still with organic farming to reduce necessary resources while still improving yields. As I pointed out to WildCat earlier, and in my comment about "integrated" techniques above, it's not like plenty of farmers aren't already using some of the techniques that have shown efficacy.
Which I don't think anyone is arguing against. I know I'm not.

WildCat did, which is why I mention his posts. Considering you "find the term 'organic agriculture'" to be "in about the same light" as death panel nonsense, I'd say that at the very least you're sending mixed signals.

What I've criticized in this thread so far is the tendency to ignore or claim exactly the opposite of what scientific study tends to show, as well as those using 50-year-old arguments against organic farming that have long since been debunked but remain because stupid hyperbole doesn't just go away because the facts don't support them. Hell, if facts were all that were needed to make stupid behavior and fanaticism go away, more than a few subforums here at the JREF would be completely empty.
But the point I was making wasn't one of those 50 year old myths.

But it's using similar structures as the 50-year-old myths. The "modern" comment, for example, while seeming like a small or innocuous thing to you, is the result of decades of myth-perpetuating against organic farming. The argument comparing organic and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers as if it refutes organic methods of soil enrichment, for example, is an over-narrow definition for what organic farming techniques do to accomplish the goal of nitrogen enrichment of the soil-- which is an argument made about both fertilization as well as pesticide spraying since at least the 1960's. I'm not saying that you're intentionally using old arguments, but that you're (unintentionally) using the same pattern. I don't think you're (personally) irrational, and I don't think that a comparison between organic and conventional farming is an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I do think that it's analogous to using a bridge to cross a river as opposed to using a ferry-- the methods behind the two have the same goal (produce a crop harvest), but go about them in fundamentally different ways where a 1::1 comparison often doesn't work.

[JihadJane]

Industrial, petrochemical-based agriculture is unsustainable because it is dependent on depleting natural resources. Organic farming, though also unsustainable operating within the current energy-hungry infrastructure, is more sustainable if practiced in a more localized way. That means that, in the long term, it is healthier, safer and more nutritious for the human race.


For the record: this is unnecessarily overblown hyperbole in the other direction.

Are you able to support this assertion?

Oil is set to become an increasingly scarce and expensive resource. Continued dependence on it therefore threatens the health and nutrition of the human race.


Mind-reading alert!

You are wrong. Do you know it?



They are isolated, unbuffered chemicals.

As are the vast majority of of organic fertilizers used.

Even when organics have 'buffered' chemicals, so what? You're supposed to 'buffer' the fertilizer with the soil you already have. It's kind of the point. All that 'buffering' does is waste energy during transportation.

Personally, I'm against the unneeded burring of fuel.

This isn't to say that I don't think organic fertilizer is useful. It is. So is synthetic. It's the same stuff after all, from a different source.

Applying “unbuffered” nitrogen to soil stimulates microrganisms to digest organic matter in the soil, progressively reducing the soil’s ability to “buffer”.



Yes, JJ's anti-corporation and anti-US ranting is irrational and flawed. That doesn't validate criticisms against organic farming that misunderstand the process by assuming a superimposed conventional process structure.




I’d contend that my crticicsm of the actions of US ruling elites and transnational corporations is neither irrational nor flawed. However, I don’t not know why you are bringing this up on this thread so will not respond to your comment further.

[JihadJane]

Missed this one. Sabadilla is an organic pesticide and is highly toxic to honey bees.

The cause of the mass die-offs of honey bees in many countries has yet to be discovered but there is speculation that it may be the cocktail of chemicals used in farming today rather than a single toxin that has undermined their immune systems and, possibly, their ability to navigate.

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, we do know that sabadillo, which according to skeptoid is used as an organic pesticide, is highly toxic to honey bees. I looked it up and, after wading through countless homeopathy sites:rolleyes:, found this: http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/ipr/i4159_829.html

Skeptoid's podcast on organic food also listed a couple other pesticides, one of which was carciogenic, and another which was known to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. The idea that an unregulated pesticide should somehow be safe and healthy just because it's organic has no backing neither in logic nor in reality. Pesticides are pesticides, and it should go without saying that they wouldn't be used as such if they were not toxic.

The cause of the mass die-offs of honey bees in many countries has yet to be discovered but there is speculation that it may be the cocktail of chemicals used in farming todayOrganic chemicals, mayhaps;)?

[tyr_13]

That's not my "new claim" at all, and again you're arguing a strawman. First, the certification process differs depending on the country, though there are concepts that run through all of them, but that's neither here nor there. Second, at this point I'm repeating myself in clarifying that there is no one single thing that's done to prevent leaching-- it's not just rotations, cover crops, planting legumes with the crops, organic fertilizer, (aerobic) composting, and other methods, it's all of them or some of them in conjunction with each other. Reduced leaching is the goal, and the use of the various methods is dependent on the soil and the environmental conditions. This is considered more effective than just using fertilizer in both organic farming and non-organic farming, but these other practices were largely dismissed as nonsense prior to the 1981 report I mentioned in an earlier post and the 1990 adoption of national certification practices (after which adoption grew well into the early 2000's).

(snip)


GreNME, I think you're missing the point of my criticism here. Organic agriculture claims to be better for the environment because it, among other things, uses organic sourced products. The only thing in your list there that differs significantly from good agriculture practices and organic agricultural practices is the organic fertilizer and pesticides. It isn't that organic fertilizers and pesticides are the primary drivers of soil enrichment or crop protection, but that they are the way they differ from conventional agriculture. Organic farms use some of the better methods more because they have to to retain organic certification.

Because it is the key difference, although not the primary driver, is the reason I've focused on them and criticized them.

It is the same difference as chiropractic and physical therapy. Many chiropractors are actually giving good physical therapy, and actually are helping their patients. However, the key claim is still wrong.

As for my finding 'organic agriculture' in the same light as 'death panels', which you find somehow illogical and irrational, I'll explain. They are both alarmist terms made to frighten. Yes, people have to make decisions about when to stop wasting money on someone who is going to die anyway. 'Death panel' is a terrible way to describe it. In the same light, 'organic agriculture' implies that the 'other guys' are 'non-organic'. To describe any type of farming as 'non-organic' is stupid. Plants and animals are all organic. If, as you have contended here, the use of organically derived fertilizers and pesticides are not the key point of organic agriculture, then their name is even more misleading.

[WildCat]

GreNME, I think you're missing the point of my criticism here. Organic agriculture claims to be better for the environment because it, among other things, uses organic sourced products. The only thing in your list there that differs significantly from good agriculture practices and organic agricultural practices is the organic fertilizer and pesticides. It isn't that organic fertilizers and pesticides are the primary drivers of soil enrichment or crop protection, but that they are the way they differ from conventional agriculture. Organic farms use some of the better methods more because they have to to retain organic certification.

Because it is the key difference, although not the primary driver, is the reason I've focused on them and criticized them.

It is the same difference as chiropractic and physical therapy. Many chiropractors are actually giving good physical therapy, and actually are helping their patients. However, the key claim is still wrong.

As for my finding 'organic agriculture' in the same light as 'death panels', which you find somehow illogical and irrational, I'll explain. They are both alarmist terms made to frighten. Yes, people have to make decisions about when to stop wasting money on someone who is going to die anyway. 'Death panel' is a terrible way to describe it. In the same light, 'organic agriculture' implies that the 'other guys' are 'non-organic'. To describe any type of farming as 'non-organic' is stupid. Plants and animals are all organic. If, as you have contended here, the use of organically derived fertilizers and pesticides are not the key point of organic agriculture, then their name is even more misleading.
Well said, it's what I had been trying to say but you did it much better.

[JihadJane]

Organic chemicals, mayhaps;)?

Unlikely, considering how widespread their use is.

[GreNME]

GreNME, I think you're missing the point of my criticism here. Organic agriculture claims to be better for the environment because it, among other things, uses organic sourced products. The only thing in your list there that differs significantly from good agriculture practices and organic agricultural practices is the organic fertilizer and pesticides. It isn't that organic fertilizers and pesticides are the primary drivers of soil enrichment or crop protection, but that they are the way they differ from conventional agriculture. Organic farms use some of the better methods more because they have to to retain organic certification.

Because it is the key difference, although not the primary driver, is the reason I've focused on them and criticized them.

It is the same difference as chiropractic and physical therapy. Many chiropractors are actually giving good physical therapy, and actually are helping their patients. However, the key claim is still wrong.

I think that's very well said. I also happen to disagree, and I'll explain.

You state what "[o]rganic agriculture claims," but when taking a look at pretty much the most "official" definition of organic agriculture (http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/definitions/doa/index.html), I don't agree that the actual claims match up with what you're saying they are: "Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved." If you want to argue that this statement is vague, I think that's fair criticism. However, the goal of organic agriculture is to further sustainable farming with less resources. Even in the more official "arguments for (http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/arguments_main_page.html)" section of the IFOAM website states: "We must focus on the positive contribution of organic and common points of interest instead of criticizing the current policies of institutions and organizations"-- hence my earlier mention of JJ's statements being unnecessary hyperbole. While organizations that officially advocate for organic farming are obviously situated toward promoting organic farming, but also for furthering options of integrated techniques.

What you're criticizing-- and very rightly, in my opinion-- are those who make overblown and outrageous claims about what organic farming is or does in order to make their own screeds against more conventional farming. However, that criticism is misdirected against organic agriculture, which has contributed to conventional farming "good practices" over the past ~30 years and has grown significantly over the last ~20 years. The science behind organic agriculture is modern, beneficial, and to a very large degree applicable in conventional farming as well (as you've pointed out). If there are certain claims to object to, what I'm opposing is tying the overblown and ridiculous claims to the organic agriculture groups out there who aren't.

As for my finding 'organic agriculture' in the same light as 'death panels', which you find somehow illogical and irrational, I'll explain. They are both alarmist terms made to frighten. Yes, people have to make decisions about when to stop wasting money on someone who is going to die anyway. 'Death panel' is a terrible way to describe it. In the same light, 'organic agriculture' implies that the 'other guys' are 'non-organic'. To describe any type of farming as 'non-organic' is stupid. Plants and animals are all organic. If, as you have contended here, the use of organically derived fertilizers and pesticides are not the key point of organic agriculture, then their name is even more misleading.

As I point out above, what I object to is conflating 'organic agriculture' with those who make the extreme statements like those of JihadJane and similar woo like was pointed out in the OP. This isn't just a "no true Scotsman" defense, and similar to those pulling the "death panels" BS the woo claims are as far removed from the valid science as the "death panel" yahoos are from the valid arguments in opposition to current healthcare proposals. I don't disagree with criticizing those who take political extremism and emotional irrationality to strange degrees.

And remember: the "death panel" BS is just that-- BS. There are no panels, committees, or anything else that decide on when letting people die is more feasible. It's complete fabrication with its only basis in a mention of providing counseling to families on their end-of-life options after they (the families and individuals) have reached no other recourse.

[tyr_13]

It seems like we are actually in agreement. Sweet.

[JihadJane]

As I point out above, what I object to is conflating 'organic agriculture' with those who make the extreme statements like those of JihadJane and similar woo like was pointed out in the OP.

Can you explain what is "extreme" about my statement, please.

[GreNME]

It seems like we are actually in agreement. Sweet.

Cool. :)

This is why I like discussion. Finding out where we agree is far more productive.