Organic Food

[borrofburi]

Thoughts?

In my mind it doesn't taste better and isn't sufficient to feed the current population...

 

[Aught3]

Define organic food.

 

[borrofburi]

Dunno. Seems to be a hot topic though. I don't really seem to know very much about it.

 

[Aught3]

Well I think fertilisation is the big problem for large scale organic farms. Currently we don't really have any other way to produce large amounts of fertilisers apart from using fossil fuels.

 

[carterburke]

Thoughts?

In my mind it doesn't taste better and isn't sufficient to feed the current population...

The principle advantage to organic food is the lack of pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers and hormones, etc., common in the industrial food supply, many of which have been tied directly to adverse health effects in humans. Organic standards generally do not make any claims to anything more, whether it be taste, nutritional content, ecologically sustainability, etc., although proponents of organic food will claim that has benefits in these areas as well (and I would tend to agree).

The main question for buying organic is this: are you willing to pay more to not consume toxins? Many people are saying "yes". If you are willing to take your chances with those chemicals, or if you simply don't care about your health, or if you can't afford to pay more -- the answer will of course be "no".

Whether organics can feed the current population -- this is likely impossible to prove one way or the other. It is also irrelevant. So long as heavily processed industrial foods remain profitable, they will be produced.

 

[kenandkids]

1) It costs 1.5X - 3X what the non-organic costs
2) Low production amounts per acre
3) Lower yields per plant
4) And it is a term that is quickly losing any meaning, much like "green" products.

 

[Aught3]

The principle advantage to organic food is the lack of pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers and hormones, etc., common in the industrial food supply, many of which have been tied directly to adverse health effects in humans.

Well actually organic food growers do use pesticides, fungicides, fertilisers, and herbicides (don't know about hormones never heard of them being used here). They just use different types.

 

[carterburke]

The principle advantage to organic food is the lack of pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers and hormones, etc., common in the industrial food supply, many of which have been tied directly to adverse health effects in humans.

Well actually organic food growers do use pesticides, fungicides, fertilisers, and herbicides (don't know about hormones never heard of them being used here). They just use different types.

Well, that's true, but the types they are permitted to use are quite restricted and are intended to be safe for human consumption. And in comparison to what is sprayed on conventional crops, at least in the US, the difference in health hazard is night and day.

 

[Aught3]

Well, that's true, but the types they are permitted to use are quite restricted and are intended to be safe for human consumption.

You could say the same thing about conventional sprays. They are quite restricted and are intended to be safe for human use.

And in comparison to what is sprayed on conventional crops, at least in the US, the difference in health hazard is night and day.

I don't really buy this statement. Round-up is an incredibly safe herbicide, for example. Farmers aren't trying to kill people.

 

[aeritano]

Organic food can be potentially bad for you
by saying organic, im assuming no pesticides / herbacides were used..

what people dont realize, is that there are poisonous bacteria and fungi that live on veggies and nuts. pesticides and herbacides usually kill the nasty stuff that grows on our food that simple washing cant remove.

Example: The dreaded Aflatoxin found in organic peanut butter and carrots

Aflatoxin, just to let you know is a high carcinogenic substance produced by a fungi, its one of the most carcinogenic substances known (1) and is a causal agent of Liver Cancer

Its normally found growing on cereals (millet rice wheat), oilseeds (peanuts), Spices, or any friut of veggie that is grown underground in damp moist soil.
The key fungus that produces the aflatoxin is Aspergillus flavus an is found in common ground soil all over the US (1)

Even though the levels of Aflatoxin are really low, and well below a dosage that can cause issues (2)

Even though its a relative risk issue, im just saying.. commercial organo-sulfate fungicides/herbicides are capable of killing these fungi.

So on a relative level: A person who eats more organic food (ie organic peanut butter) has a RELATIVE higher risk of getting Liver caner when compared to a person who didnt east organic food (ie. non organic peanut butter).. before you jump on me by saying that there are other factors involved with getting cancer.. because i do acknowledge there are numerous factors involved in getting cancer.. this situation is presented under the guidelines of "ceteris paribus" or all things being held equal.

This is just an example of a counter argument of why organic is bad.. i happen to eat organic food all the time

(1) Hudler, George. 1998. Magical Mushrooms, Mischievous Molds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
(2) Quantity can range from 0ppb-20ppb for direct human consumption, although feedlot food for finishing beef cattle/swine/poultry can acceptably reach 300ppb; Scientificteaching.wis.edu

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

It was fun trashing the organic food craze in the earlier thread.
http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=4769&sid=9be6dc0bf92040002954c3fccd731c33.

Here in California, organics have been elevated to a 21st century religion founded of course on the grand myth that no pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or petroleum products are used during production. Those who believe a word of this nonsense are under-informed about the realities of commercial food production.

As in the original thread, I invite believers and non-believers alike to search the words organic and pesticide for an education, starting with the mind-boggling number of hits this search returns.

We also know about religion's penchant for claiming to be good while actually being quite evil; well, the Church of Organic Farming and its lobbying priesthood are no different. Petroleum pesticides, by law, have to break down within days of their use; organic pesticides, like the deadly poison in oleander, are exempt.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

My biggest argument against organic food is that it cannot feed the world. Norman Borlaug claimed that at a maximum, organic food can only feed 4 billion people. Seeing that we have about 7 billion, I do not see 3 billion people volunteering their lives as to have an all organic food industry.

 

[Krpi]

I like the way organic food production is controlled. At least controlled around here. If I want to check which pesticides are allowed for organic farming, I have a .pdf list available to me. If I want to know who supplied the food for the cows which became my organic ground beef, there's a list for that too.

That being said, I don't go for many organic products. For one organic flour doesn't interest me. I like to buy organic beef because it's more likely been fed the right stuff (better fat profile), it doesn't have all those unnecessary additives (like substances that make the meat suck up more water, giving it more weight) and it's not much more expensive. Then there's organic fair trade coffee that I drink. In abundance.
On the other hand I don't buy organic eggs because I want my omega-3 eggs. So I tend to prioritize according to the nutritional content.

As for fertilizers, two things: they're ridiculously expensive, especially here since we pay huge taxes. Opting not to use them and switching to organic (thus receiving more support from EU) can be very beneficial to the farmer. Depends on what sort of a farm you run. Secondly, the world is about to run out of phosphor anyway so when it comes to feeding those 7 billion people fertilizers aren't going to carry us very far.

EDT: Oh and forgot, while this one's not too close to my heart, the ethical treatment of animals is a pretty big plus.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Well, that's true, but the types they are permitted to use are quite restricted and are intended to be safe for human consumption.

You could say the same thing about conventional sprays. They are quite restricted and are intended to be safe for human use.

This. "Toxins" is a pseudoscience buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.

Even more signficant is topsoil erosion. It doesn't get much attention for some reason but it's a big deal. Since organic farming has lower yields, it needs more farmland and thus erodes more soil. This is far better for the environment than swapping out ammonia fertilizers for organic ones (which can still just cause algal blooms and such just as easily). Organic produce is BS.

I can see merits to organic meat though. The animals are often treated better, they aren't shot up with artificial hormones, and they aren't breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

 

[Unwardil]

This. "Toxins" is a pseudoscience buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, if you wanted to get right down to it, pretty much everything you could possibly eat would fall loosely under the category of toxin for the simple fact that we eat other organisms and those organisms have evolved defense mechanisms against being eaten.

This is my primary beef with the notion of organic food, is that it's inevitably falsely connected with some kind of stupid 'natrual farming' idea. Which is complete oxymoronical horseshit for very very obvious reasons, but beyond that, I honestly don't see the appeal. There's this notion that "artificial" is somehow bad. Oh, not when it comes to the house you live in or the car you drive or basically anything else that means you're living in civilization and not in a cave, but when it comes to food, oh no, that has to be "natural".

Bollocks say I. With the proper study, we could create food products that a) were never ever alive, thus, negating that whole ethical dilema of killing semi cognizant farm animals for our own sustenance and b) is far healthier than anything nature can provide for the simple reason that it's food designed to be eaten by humans, rather than things which humans have evolved in order to be able to eat.

The only problem of course is producing the stuff. The great advantage of eating living things is that they self replicate all on their own.

 

[carterburke]

This. "Toxins" is a pseudoscience buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.

Even more signficant is topsoil erosion. It doesn't get much attention for some reason but it's a big deal. Since organic farming has lower yields, it needs more farmland and thus erodes more soil. This is far better for the environment than swapping out ammonia fertilizers for organic ones (which can still just cause algal blooms and such just as easily). Organic produce is BS.

I can see merits to organic meat though. The animals are often treated better, they aren't shot up with artificial hormones, and they aren't breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

I joined this site less than 24 hours ago.

I just want to say that the comments I've seen in this thread have been so remarkably and universally uninformed with regard to modern science that I'm deleting my account immediately. Any website, group, or organization that can produce so many people so willing to expound on a topic about which they clearly possess absolutely no factual knowledge should, I think, be alarming to anyone reading these forums.

 

[kenandkids]

I joined this site less than 24 hours ago.

I just want to say that the comments I've seen in this thread have been so remarkably and universally uninformed with regard to modern science that I'm deleting my account immediately. Any website, group, or organization that can produce so many people so willing to expound on a topic about which they clearly possess absolutely no factual knowledge should, I think, be alarming to anyone reading these forums.

...aaand another person is upset that his personal sacred cow is not so universally sacred...

 

[Giliell]

Well, what follows is entirely your fault, you had to get me started on this...

What I see as the biggest problem is that we're lacking an option that I would call "sensible farming". It's either conventional farming with high use of fertilizers, pesticides and fughicides in unsafe amounts, meat production that is highly unethical and dangerous for human health (antibiotics or agressive E-coli), fragile monocultures, obesity on side of the world and hunger on the other, or organic farming that has some principles that are good, and some that are treated too religiously.

Let me first elaborate on the problems of conventional farming:

-Unsafe amounts of chemicals:
In the EU, there are upper limits for each pesticides, fungicide and so on. The problem is, there's no "total maximum", so what you usually get is a chemical cocktail with 5,10, 20 differnent substances, each within its specific allowance, but in total a very high number, and, without any data to see whether the combination is posing a health hazard or not. Think about medication, which is only chemicals, too, after all: One substance might be reasonably safe to take according to the prescription, another one, too, but to take both of them in combination can be very dangerous and deadly.
In third world countries, workers are poisoned, hurt, blinded, rendered infertile, suffer miscarriages and brith defects because of dangerous chemicals they have to apply without protective gear.

-Meat production
Animals in conventional farming are often treated in a way that's disgusting and cruel with no concern for the animal welfare. It's not only because of the animals, but also for the human consumer. Over-use of antibiotics leaves us vulnerable for diseases, beef is infected with agressive E-coli has killed people and it's something that can be avoided if the cows get feed grass for the last weeks of their lives.

-Fragile Monocultures
Large monocultures and a high dependency on a few types of grain leaves us vulnerable. Evolution happens and being so dependent may cause another "potato famine", only this time it could be global.

-The lunacy of what we produce
The way our subsidises work we have made bad food cheap and good food expensive. A choclate bar is cheaper than an apple, people feel it's cheaper to feed their kids from the Dollar Menu at McD's than cooking something healthy. We're producing so much "bad" energy that we're dying of it.
On the other side of the world, people go hungry. And one reason they're doing it is because we kill their local economies with our highly subsidized produce. In parts of Africa, European chicken, onions, milk powder is cheaper than the local stuff, meaning that the little money they have goes directly to Europe.

-Unsustainable in the long run
Most of the fertilizers are based on oil and we're running out of it. Rising prices are making them also unavaible for third world farmers.
They are either out of business or run large debts they're never going to be able to pay back, the social consequences are devastating.

And now for the woes of organic farming:

- rules that are often more based on ideology than reason and science

-overall lower productivity

-quite a lot of hype that makes things look better than they really are. European regulations set standards for animal welfare that often miss certain points.

-the hype surrounding organic farming have let a market grow into the same bad direction as the conventional market already is. Most convenience stores offer organic produce alongside conventional stuff, but I highly doubt that the ecobalance of organic carrots shipped over from Israel is better than that of conventional carrots produced 100 km from the supermarket.


One factor that's often NOT dicussed when arguing whether organic food can feed the world is the question of consumption. A hell lot of food ends up inside of animals which end up on our plates. The average American consumes about 200lbs of meat per year, that's more than half a pound a day.
So, if the first world would reduce its meat consumption, there would be a lot of resources we could use for other things.

What I'd consider ideal would be a kind of sensible, sustainable farming that would combine the best of both worlds:
-local, diverse farming
-animal welfare regulations that really hold water
-sensible regulations for safe food based on actual data on the use of pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, drugs...
-total change of subsidize policy
-better education about healthy eating

Now, since I can't have that I have largely switched our food to local organic food that's high in fresh, seasonal produce and I have drastically cut our meat consumption. Our grandparents had meat on Sundays, and that was a rather good thing. I don't want people in the third world to die for my pineapple. I'm not dogmatic, I know I can't change the world all by myself and I don't deny us the occasional treats in life, but I really want them to be treats.
Organic food is lower in chemicals which is why it's less a burden for the kidneys. Since my daughter has only one kidney, I pay a lot of attention to it. I try to avoid highly processed food where the ingredients list is larger than a sonett and less intelligeble. That's another advantage of organic food where ingredients lists are usually rather short.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

I joined this site less than 24 hours ago.

Welcome aboard.

Any website, group, or organization that can produce so many people so willing to expound on a topic about which they clearly possess absolutely no factual knowledge should, I think, be alarming to anyone reading these forums.

So in summary, your post is "Hey there. You guys are wrong, therefore, I'm deleting my account."? :roll: Don't you think it's silly to characterise a forum by the contents of a single thread?

Would you like to contribute to the discussion? Correct us where we're wrong? It's far better than this temper tantrum you've displayed.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

This. "Toxins" is a pseudoscience buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.

Even more signficant is topsoil erosion. It doesn't get much attention for some reason but it's a big deal. Since organic farming has lower yields, it needs more farmland and thus erodes more soil. This is far better for the environment than swapping out ammonia fertilizers for organic ones (which can still just cause algal blooms and such just as easily). Organic produce is BS.

I can see merits to organic meat though. The animals are often treated better, they aren't shot up with artificial hormones, and they aren't breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

I joined this site less than 24 hours ago.

I just want to say that the comments I've seen in this thread have been so remarkably and universally uninformed with regard to modern science that I'm deleting my account immediately. Any website, group, or organization that can produce so many people so willing to expound on a topic about which they clearly possess absolutely no factual knowledge should, I think, be alarming to anyone reading these forums.

The lack of presented basis from your side for making such bold statements clearly suggests you aren't much different than what you apparently despise. Ironic, isn't it?

Now I don't mean to be rude... but hypocrisy isn't our most beloved thing here in LoR.