But fancy-pamby growers (be they fairtrade, organic, or just non-industrial-scale) are less likely to all end up growing the same variety.
The enormous difference between strawberries from a small vegetable garden in La Mejana vs strawberries from the Plastic Sea of Almeria is due to them being different varieties, but the people at the Sea all grow the same variety. You can’t get the varieties I get from Mejana growers in a 4-kilo box, because the people selling 4-kilo boxes don’t grow them.
Same as I am currently having to buy “organic” pasta in order to get “whole wheat” pasta, simply because nobody where I am seems to sell “non-organic whole wheat” pasta, sometimes you need to buy organic or fairtrade or whathaveyou simply in order to get that specific variety you happen to like.
And while Mejana strawberries aren’t more nutritious than the same variety grown under a plastic sheet, they sure taste a hell of a lot better than the varieties grown under the sheets. They’re not so big or so pretty, though.
Fresh tomatoes are really affected by variety, shipping time, etc. as well. If you buy a conventional tomato in an American supermarket, they’re of a variety that is typically grown at least partially to ship well, survive decent impacts during shipping and processing, etc. If you buy one elsewhere - farmer’s market, organic market, roadside stand - you’re more likely to get a variety bred for things other than durability.
Admittedly that’s more of a condemnation of “industrialized farming” than a support of organic produce, but organically-grown tomatoes tend towards the “grown for flavor” end of the spectrum.
In order to receive the organic label in the USA, the product must have at least 95% of its ingredients be organically produced.
The rule of thumb I’ve heard when it comes to buying organic is that produce that generally has a high level of pesticide on the skin and you eat the skin is worth buying organic. Other foods, not so much. Personally, there’s a particular brand of organic milk that I think tastes a little sweeter. I don’t remember the name, but it comes in a red carton and has a cartoonish cow on the label. It could very easily be in my head that it tastes better. I’m no longer the person who does the grocery shopping, so I no longer drink that brand of milk and it isn’t that big of a deal.
In a smaller-scale market like that, you’re also likely to get produce that ripened in situ longer before picking and has never been subject to chilled storage - for some things (tomatoes are a good example), that makes a big difference to the eating experience.
I’m also pretty certain, but cannot yet prove, that tomato plants produce tastier fruit when they are stressed by pests and suboptimal growing conditions such as they might be subject to in a smaller, less industrial setting (the yields are lower in total, but the flavour is better).
Waste of what? And “arable land used per unit” is only one measure, and not necessarily even a bad one. If the land use is less destructive, it may be better to use more land in such a less destructive way than toi use less land destructively.
What’s the runoff from that land like, pesticide-wise? How many bees were killed by indiscriminate use of pesticides even before runoff into the water supply? How’s the habitat for migrating animals?
Many of your claims have merit, but this one is at best weak.
.
There’s not meant to be a nutritional benefit. People that want to pay extra for organic food generally do it because they feel that the method of production is more sustainable and less damaging to the environment, not for any health benefit.
It’s like “green” energy - nobody claims that the electricity you get from solar or wind is better than the electricity you get from coal, but the users of it may have a cleaner conscience.
Except that The Surb’s argument has subsequently been shown somewhat less than ‘truthy’. MissMossie provided a citation for organic labelling the US - here’s mine for the EU.
That may (or may not) be true, but any clued-up consumer is going to know which definition of “organic” is the kosher one (as it were).
E.g. here in the UK, for food to be considered organic it has to meet the Soil Association standards. People look for that logo, they’re not going to be fooled by
AgroChem Organic* Weeto-Flakes
Certified organic by AgroChem plc. May contain traces of PCB and dioxin.
Bingo, but you have to be a wise consumer. Organic chickens are not necessarily treated better than non-organic chickens (if you are going for the ‘happy chicken’ reason to eat organic). Nor are free range chickens (which may mean they have access to a door. If you are looking for free trade, its better to look for free trade than organic.
I usually buy local, small farm over organic. And I’ll generally buy non-organic big store stuff over organic big store stuff (I trust my coop to responsibly source, but I don’t trust the big grocers to do the same). But since I do a lot of produce shopping at the coop or farmers market in the summer, I tend to get a lot of produce that is organic (and not much more expensive, coops are great).
There is a lot more weird variety in organic (believe it or not) at the coop. So I can get three kinds of beets. And golden beets taste different. It isn’t because they are organic, but its because some varieties of food are more readily available from organic farmers.
The exception is milk. I don’t want hormones in my milk. I’m not sure if its better or worse, but I’d just rather that they not be there with growing kids because I suspect long term they aren’t great. So the milk in the house is organic.
I like my beef grass fed. That often means I have organic beef, but usually it means I buy straight from the farmer, and neither of the guys I buy a side from is certified organic.
I’m also gluten intolerant, and the health food/organic/allergy market is someone convoluted. So I’m often buying organic processed foods because they are often gluten free where the mainstream version isn’t. (Amy’s rice crust frozen pizza, for example).
TimeWinder, I don’t accept your arguments. This isn’t a thread in which people have made extravagant claims about the virtues of organics. In fact, the OP asked for impartial information and he was followed by a number of posters who said at most that organics may have some limited advantages, but not to the level of the claims made by ardent supporters. So where do you get off saying that “they” have to post their supporting claims first? “They” don’t exist in this thread.
Other posters have also made the important distinction between organic foods and organic ingredients, in the common, although not official or legal, definition of them. Organic foods are whole items - fruits, vegetables, meats. Organic ingredients are used as part of industrial recipes for cereals, or chicken pot pies, or crunchy power bars. Not surprisingly, most of the claims for better taste are made for whole foods and most of the outrage against overpriced organics are their use in products like cereals, where taste is hardly present in the first place.
Ferret Herder mentioned industrialized farming and that’s key to this discussion. Organic foods are overwhelmingly local products of local farms that can be bred, harvested, and marketed without the need to be picked before ripening, stand up to shipping and bruising, be visually unblemished, and stay unrotted in the store for longer periods. Blind testings are imperfect at best because they are not the same products. (Interestingly, many people reject organics because they don’t have the visual perfection of foods bred and farmed to be visually perfect.) Local non-organic farms can match the taste just because of these advantages, but I would need proof that they are regularly lower in price. I’m sure many consumers mix local and organic as modifiers.
The cost differential against organics is almost entirely due to the economies of scale of mass farming. I can’t see any way around this. We are moving to a two-tiered food system. Organic foods, which in my experience do have a taste advantage, for those willing to pay the premium, and industrial-farmed foods for those who aren’t. Organic products, though, are mostly a passing phase. They’ll either disappear or come up with real advantages in order to justify their extra cost.
I have heard that there is scientifically no difference, I do personally believe that the care that goes into the production matters even if it can’t be scientifically measures, and organic food usually has more care IMHO.
If there is no financial issue for you (if the organic food is not going to break you), then the above should be your concern IMHO. Is this something you want to be between the 2 of you? It seems like a small price for her feeling like you are caring for her.
As other posters have noted, these are the weak points in the “organic’s no different from conventional” argument. They are disingenuously focusing only on a couple of vaguely stated disadvantages, and deliberately ignoring the issues where organic agriculture does have an advantage.
“Much more waste” is meaningless unless you define what you mean by it and why it counts as an environmental negative. If it only means, for example, that some organic crops produce more non-food matter per plant (leaves, stems, etc.) than their conventional counterparts and are thus more “wasteful”, you have to consider what’s being done with that “waste”: if the leaves and stems are being composted to improve soil quality and thus cutting down on the need for chemical fertilizers, that can be a net plus for the environment.
Likewise, the environmental impact of using more arable land to grow a given quantity of food depends partly on how the land is used. Farming one acre of land with high concentrations of pesticides that kill insects and birds, for example, is not necessarily more eco-friendly than farming two acres without pesticides and consequently killing less wildlife. Moreover, organic farmers use more land partly because they rely more on crop sequencing or crop rotation including fallow periods (seasons where no crops are grown on a particular field). Leaving fields fallow helps reduce soil erosion and provides wildlife habitat.
All the arguments about organic food not automatically being better-tasting or more nutritious or more humane to animals or workers are valid. (Some organic produce does outperform its conventional counterparts in these categories, but that depends on the individual farmer, not on the “organic” label per se.)
However, claiming that organic agriculture in general doesn’t have some significant environmental advantages over conventional agriculture is much less supportable. I’ve never seen an argument for that position that wasn’t either outright dishonest or extremely weak.
Note that it just talks about labelling stuff organic in general, not specific use of the USDA organic logo.
Likewise, in the EU regulations:
So you can’t just use the label ‘organic’ on anything you want - regardless whether it’s a certified logo or just the word, and there really are regulations about this.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen organic produce touted as being more nutritious - that is, having greater quantities of vitamin A/B/C, riboflavin, iron, etc. - than the same variety produced by industrial farming methods. Other benefits/drawbacks of organic are of course hotly debated, but typically without much evidence.
If she’s not talking about nutrition when she claims organic is “better,” then there may be something to discuss.
I recently read Stewart Brand’s book, “Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto”, recently and came away with a sour feeling about about the whole organic farming movement. Their resistance to genetically modified crops is making sustainable agriculture harder, not easier and leading to millions of people dying from starvation and malnutrition.
In Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he talks about how some vegetables (I think his example may have been carrots) DO in fact contain more nutrients if they are grown in healthy, rich, organically managed soil, as opposed to having their growth unnnaturally supported by the N-P-K of artificial fertilizers. I believe he cited studies and everything, but I’m at work and don’t have the book handy in front of me, sorry.
(That would be the nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium, for all you black thumbs!)
As far as the OP’s questions, IMHO the issue is not whether the organic veggies are better for you personally, it’s whether they’re better for the planet as a whole. For the most part, they are, although there certainly are also differences and distinctions, and YMMV and yadda yadda.
So it comes down to financial concerns vs. ethical concerns, at least for me. Sustainably-grown food fits in with my personal sense of morals.
As far as pesticide residues, most folks don’t worry about residues on bananas and other things where you don’t eat the peel or other wrapper. Citrus is another good example, unless, like me, you often use the zest or candy the peel or whatever. (Yum!)
JoelUpchurch, I agree with you. My general feeling is that “organic” where it relates to sustainability and using fewer chemicals is good, but “organic” where it relates to blocking out any genetic modification at all is bad, silly, a bunch of overhyped scare tactics. (Frankenfoods, anyone? :rolleyes:) I took enough basic science courses in my education to be able to follow a conversation about genetics, and I wish people could talk about genetic modification in a sensible fashion, without immediately thinking “Super-freaky mutations, aaahhh! Mutants!! Frankenstein!! Aaah!”
But I’m a gardener at heart, and I know full well that you can grow food without resorting to artificial fertilizer, huge quantities of pesticides, etc. Really, you can.
You might argue it’s not worth the difference in price. But to say there is “no difference” is just either disingenuous or really ignorant. Also ignorant is saying that “organic” means nothing. It does mean something. Did you not look at some of the links to EU and US-FDA standards? Those standards are real.
The main argument in favor of “organic” is not that it tastes better, or even that it is necessarily more nutritious (although there is evidence that it is*), but rather than it advocates better sustainable practices and tries to minimize the presence of some pretty nasty chemicals. It’s true that some “organic” food is produced on an industrial scale and really is little better than conventional food–it pays to be educated about where you food comes from–but that can hardly be said of all organic producers.
