The above study and the stories that reported it several months ago are quite disingenuous
I think a lot of people are buying organic because they think it has less residue of pesticides and other chemicals than conventional fruits and vegetables, not because they think organic has more Vitamin A or Iron or whatever.
From this article from the BBC on the same subject we see
So these guys set up a strawman, then set out to debunk it, ignoring the “pesticide residue” issue, which is a huge worry for people.
Note:
[ul]
[li]It is posible that even when the pesticide residue issue is looked at, there may be no difference to human health in organic vs non-organic, but this is not the study that shows that.[/li][li]It is possible, as people in this thread have stated, that what is labeled “organic” may be far from what people expect when they see the label, but I consider that more of a scam in the “implementation” of the organic movement’s ideas than a fundamental scam in the ideas themselves (there would be a fundamental scam if it is proven, taken everything into account, including pesticide residue, that organic poses no health benefits whatsoever)[/li][/ul]
High soil nutrient status =/= good soil health. The best way to get minerals and nutrienst into the soil is through synthethic fertilisers. As a result soil nutrient status has absolutely no bearing on soil health. Soil can be biologically sterile, leached and eroded and still have perfect nutrient levels with correct fertiliser applications. Hell, you can have achieve perfect nutrient status in a pure sand medium if you wish.
Good soil health =/= good soil nutrient status. Soils can be perfectly healthy and incredibly nutrient deficient. A typical sandy, acid, swamp soil is incredibly mineral deficient, to the extent most won’t even support crop plants without synthetic fertiliser. Yet such soils contain the highest soil flora and fauna diversity and counts on the planet, have excellent structure, negative erosion rates and rank highly on every single measure of soil health
The health of livestock and crops is dependent on a multitude of factors at least as important as soil health. Water regime, pest and disease control, sunlight and appropriate genetic material are all at least as important as soil.
Your claim that “the health of your produce is a reflection of the health of your soil” is a total load of crap.
Healthy soils can and do produce shitty crops. Unhealthy soils can and do produce highly nutritious crops. There is simply no correlation between soil health and crop quality. There are far too many there are far too many other factors at play.
There’s basis of fact in the term “the empty can rattles the most too”.
A strawman is a mischaracterisation of a position.
“Organic food is more nutritious” is a perfectly accurate representation of the position adopted by many organic advocates. You only need to read emacknight’s last post to see someone advocating organic foods on the basis that they are more nutritious.
So there is no strawman involved.
The study set out to test one very widely held belief about organic foods: the belief that organic foods are more nutritious.
The fact that the same study did not set out to test the thousands of other beliefs concerning organic foods does not make it a strawman.
So long as large number of people do in fact argue that “organic food is more nutritious”, it can never be a strawman to attack that position. It can only be a strawman if you wish to claim that nobody/very few people hold that position.
Is that what you are claiming? If so I can easily rebut the claim. If not then it is provably not a strawman.
I can tell you two things from growing up in Saskatchewan, a province that arguably feeds a vast percentage of the world: the first is that agriculture is a science, and a quite complicated one at that, as Blake points out (I think people have a perception of farmers as being stupid, illiterate people who can’t figure anything out), and second, that farmers farm for profit, and bad land and animal husbandry eventually eliminates profit. Traditional farming methods are the current whipping boy, but they have been worked on and figured out for generations, and farmers are as interested as anyone in sustainability.
Uh, what? ‘You are what you eat’ has a lot of truth to it, and it applies to both plants and animals. Fairly important things such as the vitamin content of a vegetable and the Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acid content of animal products are directly related to what nourishes them. Foods grown today really ARE different than the foods from 50 or 100 years ago, and both farming practices and the depletion of nutrients from soil that we are seeing due to modern farming practices are the main cause.
The reason USDA organic foods are fairly scammy IMO is that both conventional and organic farmers are farming in soil that has very few nutrients left in it (because they use synthetic liquid fertilizer rather than decayed plant and vegetable matter) and feed livestock grains and soybean meal rather than the diet they are suited to, leading to good weight gain and extra fat but compromised general health.
I had no position coming into the debate, but just want to give my applause and appreciation to Blake for clearly, logically, and succinctly laying out and defending his arguments. This is the kind of traffic GD can always use.
Bullshit. Crops are different now because we grow them to ship long distances, store well, have high yield, or to be easily picked by mechanical harvesters.
And 50 years ago produce sucked. All you had in the chain stores were tomatoes in those plastic sleeves and iceberg lettuce. Produce today is getting better as a result of more savvy consumers.
IMHO, the emphasis on organic and local hides the more important point that we should just demand good food. If they can ship a strawberry across the country and still have it taste good that’s fine with me. Right now though, my local Oregon strawberries taste best. They have a limited shelf life so are either eaten or processed locally.
It’s the “magic” stuff that dives me nuts: the idea that the nutrients in the local soil are somehow more suited to my health or that plants see the difference between minerals from mulch and factory-made fertilizer.
The other thing that drives me nuts is the idea that food from Farmers’ Markets is cheaper. No, it’s not. But it is better, and more of the money goes to the farmer, so I go to them.
I actually meant to post this in the other thread, in which the 7 foods “experts” never eat was being discussed, but my point still stands: Atlantic salmon sucks compared to wild Alaskan. It is “only an opinion” to the same extent that evolution is “only a theory.” I wouldn’t have replied on this topic in the wrong thread again other than the fact that this reply was so snarky.
I think this is super weird. I’m an enviromentalist and I pretty much always buy ecologically grown (organic) food when available and keep somewhat up to date. The reason is because of the way it is produced, not because of any difference in quality. It’s never been marketed as “more healthy” AFAIK, although I guess some people may assume it is.
The only way for it to be a ‘scam’ in my mind is if the way it was produced had a larger negative impact on the enviroment than the ‘non-organic’ counterpart.
I buy organic meat and eggs purely for the animal welfare-factor, just like Rune. And yes, at least in the Netherlands there is a huge difference in animal welfare between the different categories of farming. And the diffences are very exactly described, and are controlled by an independent organization, called SKAL. ,
You have to decide what you are eating and why. Organic might not be the best label for your purposes (or it might be). You might want to eat local over eating organic. You might want to support humane treatment of animals - which may or may not be organic. You might want to support small scale farming. You might want to support your local coop. You might want to minimize chemical pesticides. Or …
We eat a lot of “small farm” foods - often local - and often organic. We aren’t going for organic because its “healthier” - we go for small local farmers sold at our co-op or farmer’s market over big corporations - which often means organic. Likewise, I’m not huge on having my beef be humanely treated - I am big on having my beef be grass fed and finished. To me it tastes better. Same with dairy - organic dairy from the local dairy tastes better. But my beef/chicken/pork is almost never “organic” because the farmer I buy from isn’t certified.
We get more variety (in the summer months - in the winter I’m at the big corporate grocery store because its Minnesota). I think it tastes better. And we support small local farmers.