Does the scientific community find Organic foodies and Climate change deniers equally ignoble ?

I get it that Climate Change deniers will have a huge impact on Humankind’s future. Maybe the hoax of Organic foods has less impact (it has some impact on increased land and water usage) on the overall eco-system.

Since both the groups are unscientific in their beliefs, do scientists detest both the groups equally ? Should they ?

Maybe detest is strong word. If so, does the scientific community believe that both these groups need more education ? Should they ?

I think you need to define your terms. By “climate change deniers,” are you talking about people who don’t believe it’s happening? Believe it’s happening but isn’t anthropogenic? Accept that it’s anthropogenic but think the net effect will be positive? Or think that it’s happening and will be bad, but believe the economic impact of doing something would be worse?

By “organic foodies,” do you mean people who think organic food tastes better? Is healthier? Is better for the environment? Can exclusively sustain the world’s population?

There’s a wide range of educational deficiencies represented there, and if you want to compare the groups, we need to know what we’re comparing.

I don’t see anything unscientific about weighing the consequences of different errors. I’ve known scientists who happily played along with the Santa Claus story, and that’s even more wrong that climate change denial.

I think those terms are self evident. But if you force me to define it further, I would define each group as rejecting the prevailing scientific consensus on organic foods and climate change respectively.

I’m not sure there is a consensus on organic foods. Certain pesticides (Roundup, I am looking at you) and known carcinogens so why not avoid them. Show me a cite that claims that organic food is nonsense. As it happens, this afternoon I baked a zucchini bread using some that came from an organic community garden and some from the supermarket. Guess which ones I peeled the skin from.

Climate change deniers, on the other hand, are pure scum, IMHO. And dangerous scum at that.

There is basically no question that climate change deniers are deluded and helping to seriously damage the planet by resisting changes to our economy and infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gases.

For organic foods, it’s true that in general there’s no difference and you probably couldn’t feed the planet, but certain organic foods do show a difference. From the wiki page:

These don’t seem to be on the same plane, in terms of scientific certainty. There’s no harm to the individual from eating organic foods and it may have minor ecological benefits:

Basically, I don’t understand your comparison at all.

Some organic farming cycles resources, promotes ecological balance, and conserves biodiversity. And some “chemical” farming does all those things, too, and some organic farming works directly counter to all of those things. “Organic” and “sustainable” are completely unrelated, and if you want the one, you shouldn’t ask for the other.

But organic food is harmless at worst. Climate change denial is extremely harmful.

First, I don’t know what you mean by the prevailing scientific consensus on organic foods. Can you summarize what you think is prevailing, or at least provide a concise link?

Second, I gave several examples of the varying degrees to which someone can reject the scientific consensus. Do you want to compare only those people who reject every bit of it? How should we compare people who reject some parts and not others?

What do you think the organic food position is? That organic foods are better for you? Might be, in a small way. That animals should not suffer? That’s an ethical, not a scientific, position. That all non-organic farming should be banned? Haven’t heard of this as a real position.

If the organic position prevails, the impact on the world would be slightly negative at best. If the climate denial position prevails, you who are younger than me are likely to be in deep shit. And not organic manure.

I understand your point. There’s a spectrum of promoters and detractors on both groups. Sort of like the autism spectrum.

If I could narrow it down to one single issue on either group, I’d post it in GQ.

If it really helps the OP And the debate by boxing me to a corner, I would Quote :

“McManus says she doesn’t recommend organic food to people, but will talk with them about it if they are concerned about pesticides. “At this time, after examining the data, I don’t see any nutritional reasons to choose organic foods over conventional,” she says.” - from Should you go organic? - Harvard Health

So you’re only looking at organic food from an end user nutritional perspective but completely ignoring the entire system of sustainable farming that produces the food? Okay then. I think I’ve seen about enough of this thread to be able to judge its usefulness.

“organic” has a well-defined scientific meaning. see:

organic chemistry: the chemistry of carbon compounds (other than simple salts such as carbonates, oxides, and carbides).

So, speaking scientifically, I would recommend that your food contain lots of complex carbon compounds, and if you avoided all such I would expect you to die of starvation fairly soon.

On the other hand, the “Organic” buzzword on product marketing materials seems to me to have no scientific meaning whatsoever.

I remember coming across a product that claimed to be Carbon-free Organic sugar. It is to laugh at such marketers who were able to write that unironically.

So, you’re comparing a marketing buzzword with an actual scientific claim… why do you think they are similar?

For the sake of this thread consider organic food to mean food that has been certified to be organic per the National Organic Program - National Organic Program - Wikipedia

https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

Your bolded claims are false.

There are detailed documents in the first 2 links explaining what does (and does not) qualify as organic. The wiki article summarizes it.

Primarily, it means no GMO, no artificial fertilizer, and no synthetic pesticides.

With the glycophosphate / lymphoma / general cancer risk evidence, it appears that pesticides are not completely harmless. Unfortunately, banning GMO plants (which can be made to resist pests so pesticide isn’t need) and artificial fertilizer (what known health risk is here? The nitrogen compounds are very similar to the “natural” kind) for the organic label is counterproductive.

So I don’t necessarily agree with the Organic label being a marker of the “best” produce. I wish there were a lesser “minimal pesticides used” label where a farm demonstrates with evidence that they used the latest methods to minimize the amount of pesticide required. (methods include GMO plants and robotic pesticide sprayers that reduce the usage)

Your citations don’t rebut my claim. Take the wiki article - the word science does not appear. The word marketing appears several times.

You appear to be attempting to rebut a strawman who claimed the word didn’t exist or that it had no meaning whatsoever. I made the claim that the word wasn’t scientific, but was instead a marketing term… and you provide cites about how it’s defined for use in marketing materials.

I still don’t get why you chose these two wildly disparate issues. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers I could understand because both groups deny mountains of scientific evidence and endanger many other people in the process. But organic food fans? Who are they harming, exactly? And how does it harm them to buy or grow organic foods?

This. I could maybe see arguing for a (pretty tenuous) parallel between people who deny climate change and people who believe (and make up) alarmist exaggerations about, say, imagined dangers of GMOs.

But even that parallel would be pretty tenuous, because recognizing the food-safeness of GMOs is nowhere near as major and time-critical a public policy issue as recognizing the reality and significance of climate change. (Also, there are actually some valid criticisms to be made of GMOs, not the “deadly frankenfoods” kind but the “probable unforeseen consequences to ecosystems” kind.)

And trying to equate climate-change deniers with people who simply favor organic foods is flat-out ridiculous. I’m a card-carrying member of the scientific community myself, and I buy a lot of organic food. Not because I’m denying any science, but because (a) a lot of the people who grow specialty/heirloom foods I like happen to be organic farmers, and (b) a lot of the people who use sustainable agriculture techniques I like happen to be organic farmers.

I give you Golden Rice. Stupid opposition to GMOs are directly leading to deaths (and blindness) that would otherwise be preventable.

Also, there’s no evidence that organic farming is any more environmental than sustainable farming that uses GMO. E.g. organic farming requires more land (up to a third more) to get the same yield. Being anti-GMO is on par with being a GW denier.

Were you actually replying to Kimstu? My post mentioned nothing about non-GMO foods or organic farming practices.

Golden Rice isn’t such a persuasive example for your point, because what many of its opponents are primarily expressing is not some kind of ill-informed anti-scientific paranoia about genetic modification in and of itself (although such paranoia does exist). Rather, what they’re chiefly concerned about, as your own cite points out, is the high potential for economic exploitation of farmers and the environment for the sake of profit.

I agree that it’s a tragedy for poor people to incur death and disability due to preventable causes. But distrusting the good intentions of corporate agriculture multinationals is not the same thing as denying science.