Skeptoid Podcast: Organic Food

[Jeff Wagg]

GREAT episode on organic stuff, and yes, I'm saying that because it agrees completely with my point of view. :)

One small quibble though.. I find Trader Joes to be less expensive than supermarkets, not more expensive. For example, their noodle bowls are half the price of the same product at the supermarket. Their nuts and chocolate are also much cheaper.

And no, I don't buy their produce.

[TsarBomba]

One small quibble though.. I find Trader Joes to be less expensive than supermarkets, not more expensive. For example, their noodle bowls are half the price of the same product at the supermarket. Their nuts and chocolate are also much cheaper.



I agree. Trader Joes is not your typical "Organic Foods" store like Whole Foods or Wild Oats. Their business model appears to allow them to sell their products for about 50% less than the traditional "Organic" stores. The best news in the Podcast was the huge amount of money that Trader Joes makes. A Trader Joes on every street-corner, I say!

[Loss Leader]

For a fantastic discussion of what "organic" food really is and isn't, read Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."

It's not a panacea, but it is one way to get some of the petrolium out of our food.

[Jeff Wagg]

For a fantastic discussion of what "organic" food really is and isn't, read Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."

It's not a panacea, but it is one way to get some of the petrolium out of our food.

Hmm, my understanding is that because it must be trucked a long way, organic food actually increases the use of petroleum.

[Loss Leader]

Hmm, my understanding is that because it must be trucked a long way, organic food actually increases the use of petroleum.

Your understanding is incomplete. The fertalizer that is used to grow non-organic crops is made from petrolium. In fact, it takes two calories of petrolium energy to grow one calorie of corn energy. And when our petrolium-soaked corn is fed to cows and chicken and pigs, it turns out most of our calories come from Saudi (and other) oil fields. In fact, the agriculture industry accounts for a third of America's petrolium consumption.

Another problem is that petrolium-based fertilizers deliver the bare minimum to keep plants alive - nitrogen, phosphorus and potasium. Crops grown with organic fertilizer pick up a lot more vitamins and minerals and use them better.

Did you know, for instance, that grass-fed beef has a better Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio than corn-fed salmon?

"Organic" isn't the whole answer. As your comment suggests, eating locally is also important. However, it is a whole lot better than non-organic. And with the right government incentives, it would be equally cheap, too.

[Jeff Wagg]

I'll have to take what you say at face value. It seems reasonable.

I'm not sure what the problem is with using petroleum for fertilizers though. Are you saying that petro-chemical fertilizers contribute to global warming more than cows do? Or is it just the supply/demand of oil that concerns you?

The reason I ask is that cows are known producers of CO2, where as petro-chemical fertilizers would seem to me to be carbon sinks, as the carbon ends up in the food.

On the whole, I think the Skeptoid article pointed out that much of what we hear about "organics" is pure hype. It promulgates the "natural = good" fallacy.

[Jeff Wagg]

Actually, something you said intrigued me.. "Organic isn't the whole answer..."

What is the question?

[Loss Leader]

I'll have to take what you say at face value. It seems reasonable.

I'm not sure what the problem is with using petroleum for fertilizers though. Are you saying that petro-chemical fertilizers contribute to global warming more than cows do? Or is it just the supply/demand of oil that concerns you?

Of the two choices, my concern is primarily with our dependence on oil - a non-renewable and foreign energy source. However, you have created a false dichotomy. I am not arguing for fewer cows. Whatever amount of CO2 cows produce, it would be unchanged regardless of their diet. So, whatever savings in CO2 organic fetilizers provide would be all positive. It wouldn't add more cows or increase cow carbon emissions.

The reason I ask is that cows are known producers of CO2, where as petro-chemical fertilizers would seem to me to be carbon sinks, as the carbon ends up in the food.

Actually, fertilizers deliver nitrogen. They are not generally the source of carbon for plants. That still comes from the soil. However, using organic fertilizers and not growing in monoculture allow the soil to remain rich in carbon instead of becoming depleated.

On the whole, I think the Skeptoid article pointed out that much of what we hear about "organics" is pure hype. It promulgates the "natural = good" fallacy.

The "organic" label does not guarantee that food was not grown in monoculture. It does not guarantee that animals were fed a diet similar to what they would eat on their own. It does not guarantee that chickens are not kept in cages or even that chickens, in their 57 day lives, ever set foot outdoors. It does not guarantee that we are supporting local or even American farms. And it does not guarantee that the naturally derived chemical insecticides are any less toxic than their manufactured cousins.

A lot of "organic" is just marketing and confusion on the part of the consumer. However, on balance, I've found that the "organic" label is at least a place to start. I eat organic because of the truth about it, not because of the lies.

[Jeff Wagg]

Of the two choices, my concern is primarily with our dependence on oil - a non-renewable and foreign energy source. However, you have created a false dichotomy. I am not arguing for fewer cows. Whatever amount of CO2 cows produce, it would be unchanged regardless of their diet. So, whatever savings in CO2 organic fetilizers provide would be all positive. It wouldn't add more cows or increase cow carbon emissions.

You're right, I'm guilty as charged. Me culpa. Cows do produce CO2, but there's no reason to think that organic farming will increase the number of cows.

A lot of "organic" is just marketing and confusion on the part of the consumer. However, on balance, I've found that the "organic" label is at least a place to start. I eat organic because of the truth about it, not because of the lies.Perhaps you're right and I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but man, that's some dirty water.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps you're right and I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but man, that's some dirty water.

Is there anything that does not have at least some "dirty water" to throw out?

[Loss Leader]

Perhaps you're right and I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but man, that's some dirty water.

You know, the interesting thing about this is that you live in Vermont, Jeff. It's one of the greenest states in the union. You would have it ten times easier if you decided to eat local, pasture-raised meats and organic vegetables than I do here near New York City.

If this topic holds any interest for you, pick up the very readable "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan. Then, when spring comes, try some pasture-raised chicken, eggs and produce and make your own decision. Trust me, you won't have the least trouble finding them.

[Jeff Wagg]

Actually, that's not true. There are very few places to buy food at all. We have no Whole Foods or Trader Joes. There's one co-op but it's in the city and they sell so much woo-stuff that I can't bear to go in. There is a tiny organic store, and their stuff comes from California. The organic section in the supermarkets is small and from out of state.

Our green-ness is talked about, but I don't think it's real. We have no public transportation. Our recycling program, like most of them, contributes more pollution than it saves. We do get a lot of our power from hydro-electric, but that's questionably a good thing. We've voted down wind farms...the dairys are closing up fast, and many people still burn their trash. Many people use wood and coal for heat. Oh, and the rivers are too polluted to eat fish from them.

We have a lot of people who give lip-service to green, but they're doing it because it's trendy, not because it's smart. I love Vermont, by the way.

I'll consider Ominivore's Dilemma as my mother just picked it up. I watched the book review with Bill Maher, and it looks like a left-wing hatchet job, but I'll need to see it before I make that proclamation.

You know, the interesting thing about this is that you live in Vermont, Jeff. It's one of the greenest states in the union. You would have it ten times easier if you decided to eat local, pasture-raised meats and organic vegetables than I do here near New York City.

If this topic holds any interest for you, pick up the very readable "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan. Then, when spring comes, try some pasture-raised chicken, eggs and produce and make your own decision. Trust me, you won't have the least trouble finding them.

[Jeff Wagg]

Is there anything that does not have at least some "dirty water" to throw out?

Is there any thread you won't besmirch with off-topic comments like this? Please, Claus, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

[tkingdoll]

The "organic" label does not guarantee that food was not grown in monoculture. It does not guarantee that animals were fed a diet similar to what they would eat on their own. It does not guarantee that chickens are not kept in cages or even that chickens, in their 57 day lives, ever set foot outdoors.



It does in the UK - in fact the standards for 'organic' eggs and meat are much, much stricter than 'free range' - if you want a truly free range egg then the only way to guarantee one is to buy organic.

There was a really long and interesting thread on organic a while back, I'll see if I can find it, some good info was posted there.

[Loss Leader]

Actually, that's not true. There are very few places to buy food at all. We have no Whole Foods or Trader Joes. There's one co-op but it's in the city and they sell so much woo-stuff that I can't bear to go in. There is a tiny organic store, and their stuff comes from California. The organic section in the supermarkets is small and from out of state.

Our green-ness is talked about, but I don't think it's real. We have no public transportation. Our recycling program, like most of them, contributes more pollution than it saves. We do get a lot of our power from hydro-electric, but that's questionably a good thing. We've voted down wind farms...the dairys are closing up fast, and many people still burn their trash. Many people use wood and coal for heat. Oh, and the rivers are too polluted to eat fish from them.

We have a lot of people who give lip-service to green, but they're doing it because it's trendy, not because it's smart. I love Vermont, by the way.

I'll consider Ominivore's Dilemma as my mother just picked it up. I watched the book review with Bill Maher, and it looks like a left-wing hatchet job, but I'll need to see it before I make that proclamation.

I'm surprised to hear Vermont described that way. Burlington looked so much more "granola" than it's New York twin, Plattsburg. I'm sure there are some good farm stands in the summertime but you'd know better than I would.

Omnivore is anything but a left-wing anything. Unlike Fast Food Nation, Pollan investigates all types of food systems - industrial, organic-industrial, organic, sustainable and even hunting and foraging. His insights into all of them are amazing. It's important to step back and consider how the things that we encounter every day get into our hands. That's all he does.

The only way you would find this book political is if you believed that even knowing how our food supply works is somehow anarchistic. And, of course, I don't think that you believe that learning about our world can be anything but beneficial.

[CFLarsen]

Is there any thread you won't besmirch with off-topic comments like this? Please, Claus, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

My point is that I doubt you can find any area within the food industry where we cannot find "dirty bathwater". Regardless of whether the food is organic, ecological, genetically modified, or just plain old-fashioned meat full of Trichinella spiralis.

Dismissing organic food because of "dirty bathwater" makes no sense. We have had food scandal after food scandal in Denmark the past couple of years, where the "dirty bathwater" was, so to speak, overflowing. Scandals in the "ordinary" food sector, mind you. Meat, 5-10 years old, marketed as "fresh". Widespread fraud. Political crisis. I'm sure you have your own scandals.

Even if it is fresh, you don't want to know what is in your wiener. You really don't.

[brodski]

It does in the UK - in fact the standards for 'organic' eggs and meat are much, much stricter than 'free range' - if you want a truly free range egg then the only way to guarantee one is to buy organic.

There was a really long and interesting thread on organic a while back, I'll see if I can find it, some good info was posted there.

here are the UK standards for the "soil association", the major approved organic certification body (there are others working to similar standards).
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/4042794258a20f4280256a680046b77e/389b373f825f68e180257149004c2a1c!OpenDocument
They do have some good policies, however they have some bad ones to, for example they tend to favor farmers using homeopathic remedies over antibiotics.

[tkingdoll]

here are the UK standards for the "soil association", the major approved organic certification body (there are others working to similar standards).
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/4042794258a20f4280256a680046b77e/389b373f825f68e180257149004c2a1c!OpenDocument
They do have some good policies, however they have some bad ones to, for example they tend to favor farmers using homeopathic remedies over antibiotics.

Agreed - I was referring specifically to eggs as there is a real misconception in the market that 'free range' means the chickens run around outdoors all day and sit in nice roomy perches at night to lay cosy eggs, when in fact the closest you'll get to that is from Organic standards. Sometimes 'free range' is little better than battery conditions.

The REAL question is, in a blind taste test, is there any damn difference? Myself, I think not, although there are differences in mouthfeel and colour. The only real way to get the best egg is to get the freshest, which usually means going to a local farm and buying today's. And little local farms which sell direct to the public are usually the organic cosy free-roaming bird type.

I can wax about eggs all day, it's one of my pet subjects, bizarrely. Ask me anything, from their chemical composition to storage and cooking methods. I'm like an eggcyclopedia.

[brodski]

I can wax about eggs all day, it's one of my pet subjects, bizarrely. Ask me anything, from their chemical composition to storage and cooking methods. I'm like an eggcyclopedia.
Ah, a challenge.
How do you successfully "boil" an egg in a microwave?

[tkingdoll]

Ah, a challenge.
How do you successfully "boil" an egg in a microwave?

Why would you want to? :eek:

That's like food murder.

However, if you must, then crack it into a microwaveable egg-cup and pierce the yolk (else it'll a-splode). Cook it on a medium heat for blasts of 15 seconds for a max of about a minute and a half.

Then take it out and put it in the bin and boil one properly with a pan of water :D

[brodski]

Why would you want to? :eek:

That's like food murder.

However, if you must, then crack it into a microwaveable egg-cup and pierce the yolk (else it'll a-splode). Cook it on a medium heat for blasts of 15 seconds for a max of about a minute and a half.

Then take it out and put it in the bin and boil one properly with a pan of water :D

I don't want to really,
I just remember an episode of "Tomorrow's world" where they showed a device that you could put an egg in, and then place in the microwave for a a few seconds and then get (apparently) the perfect soft boiled egg.
Like most things on "tomorrow's world" it doesn't seem to have materialized.

I was wondering if your knowledge of eggs extended to brief plugs of obscure inventions on early 90's BBC science shows. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Why would you want to? :eek:
...
(else it'll a-splode).

That's why! ;)

[brodski]

That's why! ;)

no the "successfully" qualifier in my post was meant to show that I didn't want to cause an eggsplosion.

[CFLarsen]

no the "successfully" qualifier in my post was meant to show that I didn't want to cause an eggsplosion.

You're no fun. :p

[Loss Leader]

Agreed - I was referring specifically to eggs as there is a real misconception in the market that 'free range' means the chickens run around outdoors all day and sit in nice roomy perches at night to lay cosy eggs, when in fact the closest you'll get to that is from Organic standards. Sometimes 'free range' is little better than battery conditions.

The REAL question is, in a blind taste test, is there any damn difference? Myself, I think not, although there are differences in mouthfeel and colour. The only real way to get the best egg is to get the freshest, which usually means going to a local farm and buying today's. And little local farms which sell direct to the public are usually the organic cosy free-roaming bird type.

I can wax about eggs all day, it's one of my pet subjects, bizarrely. Ask me anything, from their chemical composition to storage and cooking methods. I'm like an eggcyclopedia.

My research indicates that, at least in the US, "organic" means that the chickens have access to the outdoors. As I learned in "Omnivore's Dilemma," that means that the chickens can have access for as little as 2 of their 7-week lives and that the vast majority of the chickens never venture outdoors even when given the oportunity.

Free range, on the other hand, means that they actually go and kick the chickens outside. However, this does not mean that the chickens are fed a different diet. They could be free-ranging around eating feed that is the same as that given to industrial chickens at worst and organic chickens at best.

The best way to raise chickens is not in monoculture. When the chickens are made part of an ecosystem and given access to grasses, bugs, larvae and other nasties, they are finally eating the diet that they evolved to. They are also breaking up cow manure, pooping all over the place and mixing the elements of the soil around to create better fertilizer for the grasses. Chickens raised in this manner (and their eggs) do taste appreciably different than those raised in monoculture.

But there is now no government standard one can look to in order to ensure that the chicken meets these requirements.

N.B. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms is my primary source for the above.

[tkingdoll]

I don't want to really,
I just remember an episode of "Tomorrow's world" where they showed a device that you could put an egg in, and then place in the microwave for a a few seconds and then get (apparently) the perfect soft boiled egg.
Like most things on "tomorrow's world" it doesn't seem to have materialized.

I was wondering if your knowledge of eggs extended to brief plugs of obscure inventions on early 90's BBC science shows. ;)

You know, that rings a bell. However, I can confirm that current technology doesn't allow for the creation of perfectly soft-boiled eggs in a microwave.

Damn those lazy scientists!

[brodski]

However, I can confirm that current technology doesn't allow for the creation of perfectly soft-boiled eggs in a microwave.


I bet it does, but the government covered it up!
Damn those evil conspiriton reptioids!

[tkingdoll]

My research indicates that, at least in the US, "organic" means that the chickens have access to the outdoors. As I learned in "Omnivore's Dilemma," that means that the chickens can have access for as little as 2 of their 7-week lives and that the vast majority of the chickens never venture outdoors even when given the oportunity.

Free range, on the other hand, means that they actually go and kick the chickens outside. However, this does not mean that the chickens are fed a different diet. They could be free-ranging around eating feed that is the same as that given to industrial chickens at worst and organic chickens at best.

The best way to raise chickens is not in monoculture. When the chickens are made part of an ecosystem and given access to grasses, bugs, larvae and other nasties, they are finally eating the diet that they evolved to. They are also breaking up cow manure, pooping all over the place and mixing the elements of the soil around to create better fertilizer for the grasses. Chickens raised in this manner (and their eggs) do taste appreciably different than those raised in monoculture.

But there is now no government standard one can look to in order to ensure that the chicken meets these requirements.

N.B. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms is my primary source for the above.

Here's the difference in the UK (these are actually EU rules of course):

Barn

The barn system has a series of perches and feeders at different levels. The maximum stocking density is 9 birds per square metre and there must be at least 250cm square of litter area/bird. Perches for the birds must be installed to allow 15 cm of perch per hen. There must be at least 10cm of feeder/bird and at least one drinker/10 birds. There must be one nest for every 7 birds or 1 square metre of nest space for every 120 birds. Water and feeding troughs are raised so that the food is not scattered.

Free range
In free-range systems, the birds are housed as described in the barn system above. In addition birds must have continuous daytime access to open runs which are mainly covered with vegetation and with a maximum stocking density of 2,500 birds per hectare.

In all systems the birds must be inspected at least once a day. At the end of each laying period the respective houses are completely cleared and disinfected.

Organic

Organic systems are similar to those of free range however the guidelines for the birds and their feed are more stringent. The pullets must be raised by certified organic production methods from birth. The layers are required to have outdoor access all year round, or be fed sprouted grains for the period when indoors and all feed must be certified organic. No antibiotics or meat by-products are allowed in the feed and each bird is required to have 2 square feet of floor space.

The minimum requirements for organic farming in the UK are set out in the "Compendium of UK Organic Standards". In very brief terms housing conditions for organic animals must meet the animals behaviour needs as regards freedom of movement and comfort. Poultry must be reared in open-range conditions and cannot be kept in cages. The buildings must meet certain requirements set out in the Compendium. Poultry must have access to open air runs whenever the weather conditions permit and wherever possible must have such access for at least one third of their life. The land that the poultry range is on must be organic. These are the very basic husbandry requirements of organic poultry in the UK. Annex 1B Section 8 of the Compendium refers.


I didn't include the description for battery cause it's not very nice.

The MAJOR difference is that organic standards are enforced where the free-range aren't as much.

[rudar]

well, yeah. Chickens are, well, chicken. they're descended from Burmese Jungle Fowl, and big open spaces are really not their bag, baby. So a ``free range'' system that boots them out into an open yard whether they want it or not, is probably not going to be the best choice ever, from the chicken's point of view. Whether it's less bad or more bad than any specific cage is debatable, of course, I'm not saying the smallest battery cages out there are not also problematic.

[Darat]

well, yeah. Chickens are, well, chicken. they're descended from Burmese Jungle Fowl, and big open spaces are really not their bag, baby. So a ``free range'' system that boots them out into an open yard whether they want it or not, is probably not going to be the best choice ever, from the chicken's point of view. Whether it's less bad or more bad than any specific cage is debatable, of course, I'm not saying the smallest battery cages out there are not also problematic.

I have heard (so this is very much anecdotal) that many free-range birds never leave the indoor area so may on average be at least as densely reared as barn hens (since the free-range density includes both the indoor and outdoor space).

[Loss Leader]

I have heard (so this is very much anecdotal) that many free-range birds never leave the indoor area so may on average be at least as densely reared as barn hens (since the free-range density includes both the indoor and outdoor space).

This is true of many "organic" chickens in the US. "Organic" chickens must have access to the outdoors. Industrial-organic producers keep the chickens in enclosed coops (no cages) for the first five weeks of their lives. Then they open the doors for the last two weeks. Unfamiliar with the idea that there even is an outside, none of the chickens actually leave the coop.

This is fine with the Organic growers because, not able to use antibiotics, they don't really want the chickens to go outside and take the chance of becoming sick.

In that way, the Organic label is nothing but a marketing ploy. Still, if you are concerned about chickens being fed beef and pork by-products as well as (gulp) other chickens, Organic helps ensure that this does not happen.

[tkingdoll]

I have heard (so this is very much anecdotal) that many free-range birds never leave the indoor area so may on average be at least as densely reared as barn hens (since the free-range density includes both the indoor and outdoor space).

I too have heard this, which is one of the reasons I became interested in the difference between organic and free range eggs.

I'm lucky enough to live 10 miles from a farm at which you can get today's eggs and see the chickens at play. They have great lives - I'm not convinced 'happiness' transfers to the taste of an egg but their diet certainly does, and most importantly, the freshness. The fresher the egg, the better it tastes and the firmer the white will be. That's true of a battery egg or your best organic.

Loss Leader - it seems there's a huge difference between what organic is allowed to mean in the US and in the UK. Here it's the strictest legal term and woe betide anyone breaching guidelines.

Does USA organic food have an official organic certification stamp or sticker?

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader - it seems there's a huge difference between what organic is allowed to mean in the US and in the UK. Here it's the strictest legal term and woe betide anyone breaching guidelines.

Does USA organic food have an official organic certification stamp or sticker?

The USDA has strict guidelines that must be met to consider meats, milk, eggs, whole and prepared food "organic." These strict guidelines still allow growing crops and keeping animals in monoculture and still allow animals to be fed diets they would not naturally encounter. It also allows a small amount of non-organic ingredients in prepared food. And, of course, none of it has anything to do with how workers are treated.

Some states have their own Organic certification. Of all the states, California is (IIRC) the strictest. So, some food will boast the seal of California rather than just the USDA.

Also, is anyone else having trouble deciding between puting the word organic in quotation marks or capitalizing it. I did both in this post and I have to tell you I don't feel good about it.

[Loss Leader]

Here it's the strictest legal term and woe betide anyone breaching guidelines.

Yeah, you don't want to anger the United States Department of Agriculture or in eight months they might send you a letter.