Maybe another thread would be a better spot for that – the main point I wanted to explore was the measurable, provable differences between “organic” and “standard” (for lack of better words, since as Der Trihs correctly points out, all food is organic).
Does anyone in the thread wish to defend the notion that the “better taste” of organic food is something that a blind test can substantiate?
That’s a pretty fatal blow to my claim.
I never thought organic food would taste better or be “safer” or healthier to consume. I buy it because I want to encourage healthier farming practices and the cost is insignificant to me. Same reason people buy organic cotton shirts, I suppose.
I’m venturing into IMHO territory rather than strictly factual, but I would guess that most or (more likely) all of the perceived taste benefits from organic foods come from factors other than the organic growing process. As more than one person has already said, “organic” food tends to get conflated with locally-grown, small-farm produce, which can be (and usually is) fresher, and may be a different variety that isn’t bred for easy transport.
For example, I buy a lot of our produce from our local Saturday-only market. The market is in the middle of Detroit’s wholesale district, and the vendors are a mix of local farmers (who tend to advertise their organic wares) and enterprising middlemen who buy wholesale from the nearby distributors and sell retail in the market (who tend to advertise lower price, hence rarely if ever organic). So, yeah, I’ll bet I can taste the difference between the organic heirloom tomatoes picked yesterday and the cardboard tomatoes trucked in from California, but it’s not because they’re organic, it’s because they’re heirloom tomatoes picked yesterday.
That’s not a fair comparison on the merits of organic methods, but (IMO, as I said), it does reflect how organic foods are marketed. Point being here that, at the market I go to, the organic foods available at the market really do taste better (not always, but often enough) than the non-organic foods available at the market, and I’m betting that’s similarly true in other places. I’ll tend to look for the organic stuff preferentially, at least in part on the assumption that it’s fresher and tastes better.
I can certainly imagine some circumstances where (as mangetout mentions) organic farming practices affect the stress on the plant, producing a different taste even when the produce is of the same variety and age. I imagine that would be in only some specific cases, though, and the change in taste may be more or less desirable, so I would be skeptical that organic farming proctices in isolation would in general produce better-tasting food.
All food is organic only if you falsely equivocate the term with the recognized standard for the classification. I tend to think that food is too easily labeled “Organic” but there is a standard and not all food meets it.
I will defend the notion that organic food tastes better, in some cases. My only evidence is my kids and what they tend to gravitate towards.
I buy free range organic eggs. Why? Because I don’t like the idea of massive fields of chickens growing in tiny cages in terrible conditions. I would buy grass fed beef but members of the family don’t like the taste.
I shop at Whole Foods when I can. There are a number of reasons why:
[ul]
[li]Better selection of some types of food[/li][li]Fresher, better tasting food, for some things[/li][li]Better service[/li][li]Friendlier employees[/li][li]I like the way the sell meat - the butcher can get any quantity for you. Same with the seafood.[/li][li]They give free snacks to my kids when we shop at the customer service desk[/li][li]They will sample any item in the store for you[/li][li]Try their rotisserie chicken. Seriously, try it. Costco’s version is $5 and Whole Foods is $10, but it is worth it. It’s not organic, but it’s air chilled and makes all the difference.[/li][li]They have certain standards for the products they carry - you wont find products with high fructose corn syrup for example.[/li][li]They support local growers, often offering financing to local statups to encourage buying local.[/li][li]They inspect their suppliers regularly, ensuring ethical and humane treatment[/li][/ul]
I thought Penn & Teller’s examples were telling – most especially when the cut a banana in half and offered the halves as a taste comparison between organic and non-organic.
But a fair distinction has been raised between “locally grown” and “organic.”
SO I’ll ask: is anyone aware of a double-blind test to substantiate the claim that “locally grown” produce tastes better than “standard” produce?
“Better food” might be too glib a term for the actual situation. We have an extreme situation developing in our society in which poor people are getting hooked on processed foods high in salt and fat and overall calories and scientifically engineered to be addictive.
Below is a link to a blind taste test (not double-blind).
Not very surprising. Food that’s locally grown is more likely to be picked closer to ripeness and reach one’s lips quicker and fresher food is generally more tasty and appealing overall.
I avoid it as much as I possibly can. Although they do have good produce, and I generally agree with their sustainability and fair wage stuff (even if I don’t give a damn about organic or not), the way they actively promote and embrace any and every sort of idiotic, non-scientific woo that comes down the pipe makes me gag.
I go there because my local one has a very good beer selection, and their bakery makes good cookies.
YMMV, but when I’m in the grocery store the regular produce looks
colorful, fresh and attractive. The organic stuff looks lifeless, faded, and weak. People have been eating fruits and vegetables that are non-organic for a long time with no ill effects I can tell of. Plus it’s cheaper.
Plus you can have a drink while you’re shopping.
Every grocery store should have a bar in it!
This is a point that gets skipped over.
Fruit and vegetables are good for you (duh). People buy more of stuff that is cheaper and less if it is more expensive. This effect is more marked at the lower end of the income scale. Therefore cheap produce benefits poorer people more than the general public, and reduced availability or increased price (which is what organic food does) harms them disproportionately.
Therefore encouraging demand for organic is an act against charity.
Regards,
Shodan
This would be true if (and ONLY IF) encouraging demand for organic actually decreases the supply of cheap produce. Where’s the evidence for that?
It seems to me more logical that increasing demand for organic decreases the demand for non-organic, which therefore ought to reduce the price wholesalers can obtain for the non-organic produce.
Having gourmet cookies available doesn’t seem to have reduced the supply or increased the price of cheap mass-produced cookies; where’s the evidence that gourmet produce (which is a good chunk of what organic produce is) will have a different effect?
Yeah, me too!
Well, I think we can all agree that the theoretical basis of homeopathy is bunk, whereas the idea that if indeed things like pesticides can get into the food supply, that could be a bad thing for very simple reasons (they’re nasty chemicals, for the most part). So, the scientifically valid question is whether the undesirable chemicals (pesticides and antibiotics, etc.) can show up in foods, or can significantly alter the chemical nature of the foods.
On the other hand, it does seem to me that people who buy into homeopathy also tend to buy into organic foods. But the converse isn’t the case, in my experience. No doubt there’s some correlation.
But, what do we mean by “more nutritious”? The simple definition is “has more nutrients”. Using that definition, we can get more nutrition per dollar buying non-organic foods, since organic is so much more expensive.
Now, we might mean “more nutritionally diverse”, as in, more likely to contain omega-3 fatty acids (which is true for organic milk, if I can believe a study I heard about on NPR).
But we also might mean “less nasty stuff”. IMHO, that’s not “more nutritional” but rather “less detrimental.”
Personally, I wouldn’t bother. I’m convinced all the dioxin I ingested growing up in Saginaw Michigan (and even getting into the water in the Saginaw River!) will protect me from some future bioweapon, but offset any advantage of switching to organics at age 57.
That said, I do believe organic free-range eggs look different, cook different, and taste better. Even way back in 1976, when I was single and joined a food co-op because I saw pretty girls shopping there. I’d been cooking and eating a lot of eggs, living alone for the first (and only) time. I saw the signs about free-range chickens with no pesticides etc., and thought “sheesh, what bunk” but bought them. When I got home and cooked them, I was amazed at the obvious difference in color, texture, and taste. But that might just be the difference of locally grown on small farms, as mentioned above.
I didn’t end up meeting any girls at the co-op. Oh well. At the time, that was the more important data point.
Your descendents will see many Years of the Red Bird.
Are you under the assumption that “organic” means no pesticides have been used?
Coupled with this one, it’s one of my favorite bubble busting efforts by P&T on the whole organic foods issue. I remember showing it to my sister and her husband (basically they are similar to the couple in the second video…they spend all of their extra money on organic foods and similar products), and both of them were actually angry because it was SUCH a put on and probably financed by Big Agro(tm…arr), etc etc. 
More or less true. The “exact same nutrient composition” is likely not true. Organic does seem to have more micronutrients, such as antioxidants. But still, both are tomatoes.
I actually usually avoid organic. It’s not worth the price difference to me. As for locally grown, there are two fruits/vegetables where it makes a big difference to me (I’m sure there are others, but this is my personal preference): tomatoes and strawberries. Generally, I simply do not buy tomatoes or strawberries at the market, organic or not, because they suck. They are just terrible if you know what a backyard tomato or strawberry tastes like. Local farmer’s produce–that I will pay a premium for. Otherwise, I just grow my own. I’ve heard others say similar things about corn, but I don’t really care about corn, so I don’t notice a difference. But tomatoes? Big difference. Eggs, too, but that’s going beyond just the “organic” label.
I haven’t heard about nutritional value between organic and non-organic produce. There is a difference between grass fed and corn fed beef.
I think the advantage is fewer pesticides, fewer hormones, no preservatives and potentially fresher if locally grown.
I can see why a conservative would not want to consume organic foods. Just being around all those hippies when buying it might undermine the moral fiber of uptight trolls like George Will, fouling their bodily fluids and rendering them unable to tell the difference between real rape and attention seeking rape.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
I think the advantage is fewer pesticides, fewer hormones, no preservatives and potentially fresher if locally grown.
[/QUOTE]
You should seriously click on those Penn & Teller links above.
This irony of this is pretty much off the charts.