Organic...
Options
Replies
-
I used to be one of those organic, non-GMO people
then I learned a lot of things, like about the unsustainability of organic farming, in that it is much more harmful to farmland than modern agricultural practices
or that it feeds far less people for the same acreage
or that it often uses a higher quantity of pesticides, which are not proven to be safer than "chemical" pesticides
or that organic foods have not been proven safer or healthier, only more expensive
or that the organic foods industry is in the range of tens of billions of dollars annually, and is far from some sort of environmentally-conscious grassroots movement0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I used to be one of those organic, non-GMO people
then I learned a lot of things, like about the unsustainability of organic farming, in that it is much more harmful to farmland than modern agricultural practices
or that it feeds far less people for the same acreage
or that it often uses a higher quantity of pesticides, which are not proven to be safer than "chemical" pesticides
or that organic foods have not been proven safer or healthier, only more expensive
or that the organic foods industry is in the range of tens of billions of dollars annually, and is far from some sort of environmentally-conscious grassroots movement
The bolded one is where I get stuck. One of my friends insists organic fruit tastes infinitely better than other fruit and will only buy organic fruit from now on. I've tasted it. Meh. I'll pay less and be fine I think.
Veblen goods always taste better than normal.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I used to be one of those organic, non-GMO people
then I learned a lot of things, like about the unsustainability of organic farming, in that it is much more harmful to farmland than modern agricultural practices
or that it feeds far less people for the same acreage
or that it often uses a higher quantity of pesticides, which are not proven to be safer than "chemical" pesticides
or that organic foods have not been proven safer or healthier, only more expensive
or that the organic foods industry is in the range of tens of billions of dollars annually, and is far from some sort of environmentally-conscious grassroots movement
The bolded one is where I get stuck. One of my friends insists organic fruit tastes infinitely better than other fruit and will only buy organic fruit from now on. I've tasted it. Meh. I'll pay less and be fine I think.
Are they buying local organic fruit? Organic or not, the fresher the fruit the better it usually tastes. There is quite a difference in taste between the apples I pull from my trees to eat immediately and apples trucked to my local grocer.0 -
The local organic farm ships in quite a bit of the produce it sells at its farm stand, which I find weird.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »I used to be one of those organic, non-GMO people
then I learned a lot of things, like about the unsustainability of organic farming, in that it is much more harmful to farmland than modern agricultural practices
or that it feeds far less people for the same acreage
or that it often uses a higher quantity of pesticides, which are not proven to be safer than "chemical" pesticides
or that organic foods have not been proven safer or healthier, only more expensive
or that the organic foods industry is in the range of tens of billions of dollars annually, and is far from some sort of environmentally-conscious grassroots movement
The bolded one is where I get stuck. One of my friends insists organic fruit tastes infinitely better than other fruit and will only buy organic fruit from now on. I've tasted it. Meh. I'll pay less and be fine I think.
Are they buying local organic fruit? Organic or not, the fresher the fruit the better it usually tastes. There is quite a difference in taste between the apples I pull from my trees to eat immediately and apples trucked to my local grocer.
This. Fresher definitely tastes better when it comes to produce, especially fruit. That has nothing to do with if it's organic or not though.
0 -
The local organic farm ships in quite a bit of the produce it sells at its farm stand, which I find weird.
It will just depend on the area I guess. The farmers market I go to only sells locally produced goods (it's one of their policies). The bigger one in our area has a mix, but the ones who are local growers get a special sign that they get to display on their booth.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »The local organic farm ships in quite a bit of the produce it sells at its farm stand, which I find weird.
It will just depend on the area I guess. The farmers market I go to only sells locally produced goods (it's one of their policies). The bigger one in our area has a mix, but the ones who are local growers get a special sign that they get to display on their booth.
This is similar to one and only farmer's market in my area. There is no special sign, but the local farms put the name and county of their farm to distinguish from those sellers who ship stuff in.
Road side stands in front of small farms (or big gardens) are common though. In those cases, I think the produce has to come from that specific place or else they need a permit.0 -
I don't think eating all organic is that important but I do try to buy organic if the organic produce is just a little bit more than the conventional.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Food doesn't need to be local to be organic. In fact, I doubt local food is more likely to be organically grown than commerical.
Totally agreed. I made the mistake of asking a dude running his produce stand if his food was organic/non GMO. Boy did that ever set off a tirade! LOL. (Short answer, no, and he had very strong opinions about the subject.)
I did buy come cantaloupes.
0 -
Certain organic food tastes much better to me, Lettuce, bananas, blueberries, onions. I can tell the difference. Because I like it better I buy it. I don't notice a big taste difference in anything else.0
-
FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Far more energy goes into the differential of growing crop location A vs crop location B?
I'm having a hard time believing that blanket statement. Especially when lots of local crops are available, it's not just a demand question. It's about seasonal and location sensitivity.
And let's not confuse economic costs vs environment costs.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.0 -
No. It doesn't make you healthier.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.0 -
OP- I am a price shopper first and foremost. Sometimes organic produce/products are less expensive than conventional, sometimes local produce is cheaper. Either way, I buy as much good ripe stuff as I can afford and feast like a brontosaurus.0
-
hm this thread is still going but I already wonned it
wut gives0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.
Ok. That still requires that there is an actual a) +15% difference in energy to grow locally b) doesn't take into account produce loss in transport/distribution versus local. Plus some of food stuff in the US comes from outside of the US. I'd think there is additional costs/loss there.
Given that food distribution includes rail, trucking, water and even air transport I think that cost to ship can likely vary greatly.
Possibly worse, sure. Not clear to me that it's probably worse. Still need to show that growing locally is environmentally 15% costlier.
Or (environmentally speaking) does it make sense to buy Florida oranges in a California supermarket? Knowing that there are also highly efficient local growers that supply national markets?
It's going to be case by case.
In any case - and let me put on my hippy dippy hat to say this - our energy intensive farming styles have developed because energy is cheap - a more self sufficient, small plot farming (produce for me and those around me) tends to be labor intensive (cheap when you do it as an exercise activity, expensive as a market competition) and lower cost on energy. Obviously not suggesting we replace one with the other - but it does make sense to do a little of your own and to have policies that support city/local plot farming, especially if being active also has an influence on healthier living.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.
Ok. That still requires that there is an actual a) +15% difference in energy to grow locally b) doesn't take into account produce loss in transport/distribution versus local. Plus some of food stuff in the US comes from outside of the US. I'd think there is additional costs/loss there.
Given that food distribution includes rail, trucking, water and even air transport I think that cost to ship can likely vary greatly.
Possibly worse, sure. Not clear to me that it's probably worse. Still need to show that growing locally is environmentally 15% costlier.
Or (environmentally speaking) does it make sense to buy Florida oranges in a California supermarket? Knowing that there are also highly efficient local growers that supply national markets?
It's going to be case by case.
In any case - and let me put on my hippy dippy hat to say this - our energy intensive farming styles have developed because energy is cheap - a more self sufficient, small plot farming (produce for me and those around me) tends to be labor intensive (cheap when you do it as an exercise activity, expensive as a market competition) and lower cost on energy. Obviously not suggesting we replace one with the other - but it does make sense to do a little of your own and to have policies that support city/local plot farming, especially if being active also has an influence on healthier living.
I'd definitely agree that the picture would be far more clear if our energy prices reflected the negative externalities in them.
As Freakonomics admits, it is hard to get comparisons of input differences between regions, which is oddly because the differences clearly do exist, or else farmers would tend to grow whatever they predict will be in consumer demand. The big step is you have to accept that you can't just use off the cuff intuition that transit is the only source of pollution. Ignoring the costs of inputs to growing is part of how we end up with things like droughts in California.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions