Organic Food: Nature's Way of Stealing Your Money

[Pennies for Thoughts]

I'd been ignoring the organic food craze until I happened into one of those healthier-than-thou supermarkets for a minor purchase. After checking through, I saw a large bag of organic kitty litter. "Now how in the name of Sweet Baby Jesus did they grow that?" I wondered.

I'd heard that organic food had something to do with not using pesticides and fertilizers and thought it was hype. I'd even searched for "organic pesticides" and received 6M hits which was sufficient to tell me that plenty of pesticides are being used "organically". Google returns 11M hits now.

Later I saw a plastic bottle labeled "organic water" and thought, "Why not?" Come to think of it, deadly nightshade, curare and arsenic must be organic, but I doubt that makes them any healthier. There's also a row of rosemary bushes planted by a busy boulevard in my city. It's growing without pesticides or fertilizers. Is it organic despite being exposed to the exhaust of 60,000-75,000 vehicles and the organic pee from 30-40 dogs every day?

Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" episode on the organic myth is pretty funny.



And the following article from the scientific side is full of forum fodder. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2643-real-scientists-debunk-organic-myths

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There are plenty of good points that foodies make... "organic" mostly fails the smell test. It seems to be mostly yet another way for the snobby upper-middle class to feel "morally" superior while really just feeling superior for spending more money than other people.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I think we had an old organic thread somewhere.

The one that makes my ears bleed is hearing radio commercials for some new diet supplement, and they'll say something to the effect of

"It's all natural, so you know it's completely safe." Try telling that to Socrates.

Anyone had organic milk? My roommate's girlfriend buys it. It's ~ 50% more expensive and tastes like chalk.

Another issue with organic farming is the decreased efficiency, so erosion is much worse and even if they're only using cow manure as fertilizer, they'll be using a lot of it and it will still wash into bays and mess up the ecosystem.

I did have one friend who was really big into organic beef (and didn't care about other organics) because they don't use antibiotics; therefore, don't breed resistant bacteria. I think there's research going both ways as to whether or not there's a significant difference though.

 

[JustBusiness17]

The issue goes well beyond taste...

 

[JustBusiness17]

Actually, this documentary is probably more relevant the GMO vs Organic debate:

Monsanto is the :twisted:

 

[JustBusiness17]

Also, if you don't like those documentaries, NOVA is always a trusted source. This doc supposedly takes an unbiased approach including an an examination of criticisms against the anti-GMO movement. I haven't seen this one but I'll be watching it tonight :geek:

 

[Aught3]

I would make the point that the debate is not organic farming vs. GM crops but one of organic vs. conventional farming. The thing that drives me crazy about organic farming is that it allows dangerous or environmentally damaging practices on the idea that natural is always better.

Take flour for example, one problem with growing wheat is that it is often contaminated by fungus which release mycotoxins. These toxins end up in our wheat-based food products and there is really no safe level of exposure. In order to prevent the fungus growing farmers apply fungicides to their crops. These fungicides aren't particularly nice chemicals but they are less dangerous than the mycotoxins and they help to eliminate pretty much any trace of the fungal toxins. Now along comes organic farming and says that farmers can't use this particular fungicide and have to rely on natural alternatives which don't work as well. The fungus grows better and contaminates the final organic product with more mycotoxins than the conventional alternative. That's why I won't buy organic flour and there are many other examples of dubious organic practices that do more harm than good.

On Monsanto, I'm not going to make excuses for all the crap they've pulled over the years but they are the only company who has managed to put up with the absurd regulations on GMOs and bring products to the market place all over the world. Considering the potential benefits that GM crops could have if allowed to proceed, I have to admire them for keeping that possibility alive.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I would make the point that the debate is not organic farming vs. GM crops but one of organic vs. conventional farming.

"Conventional" sounds like a euphemism to me. How about organic vs industrialized?

The thing that drives me crazy about organic farming is that it allows dangerous or environmentally damaging practices on the idea that natural is always better.

Take flour for example...

Assuming your flour example is correct and there is a positive risk/reward balance, then I fully agree. The problem is transparency and research.

:arrow:

On Monsanto, I'm not going to make excuses for all the crap they've pulled over the years but they are the only company who has managed to put up with the absurd regulations on GMOs and bring products to the market place all over the world. Considering the potential benefits that GM crops could have if allowed to proceed, I have to admire them for keeping that possibility alive.

If I could help you find a new perspective on the matter, have you considered that all of the underhanded political dealings and manipulation of the public through deceptive advertising may have done more harm than good to the GM industry. Granted they managed to purchase political favors to avoid regulations (I won't grant you that they're absurd) and managed to keep RoundUp Ready Soybeans on the market.

Don't try to frame Monsanto as an activist for the hard done by GMO industry. They're an activist for the GMO division of their company and nothing more. It's not like they proved that anything was safe... They proved politicians can be purchased!

As I said above, this is a matter of transparency and research. I can't say whether GMO's, pesticides, fertilizers, corn-fed beef, or super-chickens are healthy or unhealthy ---> but neither can a profit motivated multinational corporation and bribed politicians. Peer reviewed research and campaign finance reform will restore my confidence in the industrialized food industry... NOT clever marketing!

 

[ArthurWilborn]

and managed to keep RoundUp Ready Soybeans on the market.

Out of curiosity, why do you keep mentioning these things? Google's front page on them only had a complaint that they need a bit more testing; nothing substantive and certainly nothing sinister.

 

[Aught3]

"Conventional" sounds like a euphemism to me.

Possibly, but conventional just refers to standard practices that are widespread throughout farming. Organic is also a euphemism because what organic really means is any carbon based compound so actually all foods are organic no matter how they are grown.

How about organic vs industrialized?

You think organic farms aren't part of industrialised farming? Organic farms are owned by the same companies as the conventional farms and there's no difference in the level of industrialisation of harvesting, processing, and transport of the two types. So I would reject this malphemism on the grounds of innaccuracy.

Assuming your flour example is correct and there is a positive risk/reward balance, then I fully agree. The problem is transparency and research.

Good, I'm all for science-based farming. I don't think Monsanto could have hurt GM crops anymore than the environmentalists that killed off most of the research. Even though GM crops aren't substantially different from conventional crops, let alone actually dangerous, there are very few genetic modifications available on the market. Monsato managed to get some of them approved and hopefully once people become more familiar with genetic technology they won't be so opposed.

 

[Aught3]

Btw, I watched that NOVA doco last night, excellent coverage of the topic and very accurate in its treatment of the science.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Interesting responses all. It's nice to see that Penn, Teller and I aren't alone on the organic food as woo-woo bandwagon. Organic food doesn't seem to make any ecomomic, environmental, health or taste sense. It's only value seems to be in feel-good cache. I hope everyone read the eye opening link in the first post which is "full of forum fodder". http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2643-real-scientists-debunk-organic-myths

I've got no problem with this wandering off into GMO and evil corporations territory either. The GMO scare is nonsense in my book. Here's an issue I raise in anti-GMO conversations. Except for water, can anyone name a morsel of food they have ever consumed in their entire life that has not been genetically modified? Never mind that it's all been undergoing genetic modification for over three billion years, because even when humans showed up corn was the size of your little finger, potatoes were the size of peas, etc. Ooooo, but that's not the same as godless scientists splicing a frog gene into a strawberry to make it less susceptible to frost! Huh, why? Estimates vary, but the godless science of GM has saved at least 200 million from starvation so far.

As for the evil of industrial agriculture, we've got nearly seven billion mouths to feed every day, and this isn't going to happen one free range chicken at a time. Fact is that food has never been more plentiful, healthier, more varied and more available at any time in human history than it is right now. That said, I'm all for the raw milk freaks. Natural selection, I say. Let them kick themselves out of the gene pool. And BTW, organic food production and distribution isn't a rapacious industry? That contradicts common sense and what those in the link above tell us.

Perhaps IJ wasn't at his best when he wrote:

There are plenty of good points that foodies make

Can anybody name one?

 

[DTBeast]

one of the problems with the whole Organic Foods movement is that it falls prey to the "Appeal to nature" fallacy, but doesn't really think about important technology for food growing i.e. the Haber Processhttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-haber-bosch-process.htm a method to process fertilizer out of methane and natural gas that feeds 40% of the worlds population. Also, it's not like any food crop we eat is truly "natural" now, we have been selectively breeding Rice, Corn, Wheat, and similar crops for around 10,000 years now. I mean everyone remembers from the Ray Comfort Banana argument, how the precursors of bananas looked nothing like what we eat today. It's not just plants, either, I mean compare the European Auroch to the modern Cow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auroch

while I don't agree with Monsanto's business practices (patenting genes, also terminator genes), the research isn't cheap, and if they weren't sure they could turn a profit there wouldn't be people making these products, like the recent discovery of a way to alter a fungus attached to rice that according to the author of the paper, Ian Sanders, "It turns out we can very simply manipulate their genetics to produce fungi that induce up to a five-fold growth increase in this globally important food plant."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm
http://tinyurl.com/26pzv2w

Now in western countries we don't eat that much rice, but for most of the world it is a staple crop, and if we can produce 5 times more of it, it can really help fight world hunger.

 

[Unwardil]

I look forward to the day when all food is grown in total isolation to the rest of the environment, where nothing in the farming habitat gets in or out without human control, where the heat, light and atmosphere are all perfectly regulated, where the soil composition is artificially composed and in fact, where the plants being grown have been genetically engineered to deliver the most taste without compromising their nutritional value, even possibly fortified with additional nutrients you wouldn't find in naturally grown plants because those plants can only grow in the ultra controlled environments.

Not only will food be healthier but it will be cheaper too because any farming over which you have 100% control of the environment is going to have vastly increased yields AND it will be more environmentally friendly because all the irrigation will be controlled along with the atmosphere and heating. No need for pesticides, no need for fertilizers, no need for deforestation.

While we're at it, we could probably develop cultures of single celled organisms that perfectly mimics the taste and texture of animal tissue. No more cruel farming methods because seriously, how can you BE cruel to a single celled organism? Again you'd see vastly improved yields because you'd be growing cultures instead of complex organisms. No years of waiting to get beef from a cow, just days of regulated growing in a flesh vat.

So, more profitable for everyone, cheaper for the consumer, healthier, better for the environment. Not, of course, the least bit 'organic'.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Well it looks like I'm out-numbered... I must be wrong :roll:

If I had to recommend one more documentary, it would be the one that changed my entire perspective on the reckless speed of technological advancement. Trailer:




The last 100 years of human civilization has progressed at a rate that has far surpassed anything in our 200,000 year lineage. Epistemologically, this is an obvious statement, however many game changing discoveries occurred during this period of time that set us apart from the rest of our ancestors.

Synthetic compounds that have never existed in the history of our planet are now being mass produced to satisfy the (often artificial) demand of a population now exceeding 6 Billion people. These chemicals are aliens to the ecosystem. If we're not cautious, we could easily shift the scales from natural selection to synthetic selection.

Based on the level of corruption that I've seen from the governing bodies supposedly in place to protect us, I can't help but think we're playing with fire. Sure, we have the opportunity to harness that fire and use it propel us into the future... On the other hand, if we're recklessly motivated by greed to push these things onto the market without performing our due diligence, there is always the chance that we'll scorch the earth and human life with it.

If you guys all want to champion the use and development of chemically engineered industrial products, at the very least, stand behind Green Chemistry. Crops that are genetically modified to resist the industrial application of glyphosate seems like a step in the wrong direction for mankind and the planet in general.


====


The point I'm trying to make is that we need to learn how to walk before we can run... Future generations might just appreciate our cautious approach to the stewardship of the Earth :geek:

 

[JustBusiness17]

More on Green Chemistry:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Perhaps IJ wasn't at his best when he wrote:

There are plenty of good points that foodies make

Can anybody name one?

You could have just asked me, because I could have told you one easy one: buying from local growers is a good thing. Farmer's markets are awesome. Getting your food fresh instead of frozen usually tastes better. All sorts of other things about eating good food prepared correctly. There's nothing woo-woo about any of that. There's no promise that the food will have magical healing properties or make you a better human being.

 

[Case]

You could have just asked me, because I could have told you one easy one: buying from local growers is a good thing. Farmer's markets are awesome. Getting your food fresh instead of frozen usually tastes better. All sorts of other things about eating good food prepared correctly. There's nothing woo-woo about any of that. There's no promise that the food will have magical healing properties or make you a better human being.

Yea it seems Aught3's and others' concerns are not targeted at people who actually know how to grow stuff without the use of fungicides and pesticides (use different sorts of wheat), it seems targeted at the hypocrite agricultural companies who just call their food organic to make a buck.

Anyone had organic milk? My roommate's girlfriend buys it. It's ~ 50% more expensive and tastes like chalk.

I don't know what kind of milk you got wherever you may be, but I grew up next to traditional farms and fresh cow milk tastes awesome.
Sadly they have abandoned milk production now and just grow potatoes for our local potato chips factory. :cry:

 

[RichardMNixon]

Anyone had organic milk? My roommate's girlfriend buys it. It's ~ 50% more expensive and tastes like chalk.

I don't know what kind of milk you got wherever you may be, but I grew up next to traditional farms and fresh cow milk tastes awesome.
Sadly they have abandoned milk production now and just grow potatoes for our local potato chips factory. :cry:

It wasn't from a farm, I'm sure that's great. We get our corn from the farmer down the road. This was a carton from a supermarket, only special in that it had an organic sticker on it. My guess* was that they added some kind of (organic) thickener or something to it to make it "feel milkier," so you can "taste the organic" or whatever. I've heard a lot of people swear organic milk tastes better. Didn't do it for me.

* I make such a guess because I can't conceive of any reason why organic milk would taste differently. The only differences are no BHG, no antibiotics, cows have to have a pasture, and no pesticides in their food.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

@ IJ

I don't quite see how two very questionable points adds up to "plenty."

buying from local growers is a good thing.

It benefits locals to contribute to the local economy when buying anything, but the biggest contribution to the local economy from local growers is the money they get from selling their products to non-local places willing to pay more for what can't be grown there. On the consumption side, our ability to buy produce grown in the southern hemisphere during winter is not just good, it's great.

Getting your food fresh instead of frozen usually tastes better.

True enough, but it is more than a stretch to credit this fact, known since the mid-20th century advent of commercial frozen foods, to foodies.

You've yet to give us one, let alone "plenty" of demonstrably good ideas attributable to foodies. Consider too that even if you manage one, it will have to compete with "plenty" of untenable foodie ideas like the organic food craze, raw foods including unpasteurized milk, supplement hype, and corn flakes which were first pronounced to be a miracle food by nut-job, foodie Harvey Kellogg).