Is organic food really any better than conventional?

In theory, I like the idea of organic food.

In practice, I can't afford it.

I have never noticed a difference in flavor. Ever.

hard to say but i do go organic meat and certain produce. whether or not it makes a difference who really knows unless you farm it yourself!

ndj1979 wrote: »

SallyinIL wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Depends how you define better.

Good point. By "better" I'm meaning better for my health.

No doubt the organic tomato my husband grows in the back yard tastes worlds better than the conventional one I buy in the store.

Interesting thoughts. Thank you.

why would the tomato from the garden be better from the one in the store??? Please explain the difference...

You must not have ever had a home grown tomato! Nutrition wise...I don't know if there is a difference but as the other poster said...the taste is certainly different.

Here is one article that explains why...

http://web.extension.illinois.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=6816

To make a long story short...it is about when harvested. Commercially grown tomatoes are harvested while still green and then artificially ripened before shipping. Home grown ripens on the vine.

Also...the concern of the producer is more about disease and pests than they are taste.

I do like to buy local produce when I can.

I buy organic apples because I bought regular ones and just couldn't get over the weird aftertaste that the skin had (a bit more bitter I guess?).

If people really cared about your health when selling organic, it would be cheaper. Buying organic is nice in theory, but if you really want organic food... grow it yourself. I just can't stomach buying a $2 apple just because some guy slapped an organic label on it. It is a money making scheme, taking advantage of health- and welfare-minded individuals. That is wrong, and I won't support something like that.

Now when I get my own place, I fully intend to start a garden of my own. But until then, I'm too poor to pay $2 for an apple.

I have a friend with an organic garden. It's not huge, but it feeds him all year round and it supplies another half-dozen or so people with periodic meals, as well as veggies and such for canning. He is very proud of his garden and there are definite differences in the veggies he produces and those sold in local stores, at least in my opinion. Even he, a huge proponent of organic gardening, will say that foods sold commercially as "organic" are not, in reality, organic by his definition. He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible. It's good on a small scale, so if everyone had a small garden and a few chickens, it might work for produce and eggs. However, there will always be a need for large commercial farmers and ranchers as long as we have as large a population as we do in the world.

wizzybeth wrote: »

In theory, I like the idea of organic food.

In practice, I can't afford it.

I have never noticed a difference in flavor. Ever.

Huge flavor difference and the market will be chalk full soon and cheaper than the box stores....follow the seasons and find a farm.

neanderthin wrote: »

wizzybeth wrote: »

In theory, I like the idea of organic food.

In practice, I can't afford it.

I have never noticed a difference in flavor. Ever.

Huge flavor difference and the market will be chalk full soon and cheaper than the box stores....follow the seasons and find a farm.

In some areas that is much easier said than done. And I'm not talking about just organic produce but organic everything. Makes no sense to eat organic veggies but conventional dry and canned goods and meats. Organic meat is more than double the cost of regular meat in my area and no I'm not giving up meat.

Not to mention you cannot be 100% certain that product with the organic label is 100% organically produced.

This content has been removed.

Until we grew our own, I didn't like tomatoes; when I tasted the ones straight out of our garden, I was pleasantly surprised. Home-grown is definitely best. So I do believe in supporting legitimate local farmers. My sister and brother, who are both acquainted with hunting, confirm that an animal killed quickly will have fewer stress-related chemicals racing through its system and this also affects taste. Also, I believe that an animal raised fairly naturally on open ground, eating what it should eat, is healthier than one raised in tiny, unsanitary spaces and artificially stuffed with chemicals and medication. An animal raised in a healthy condition would, I think be healthier for the consumer.

Since true organic farming is, indeed, impossible on a large-scale (almost by definition), we all need to develop a more reliable way to ensure that the techniques used in large-scale consumer farming is not ruining the environment while feeding nations-at-large; in the long-run, harmful techniques will backfire.

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

GuitarJerry wrote: »

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible.

I saw something the other day indicating something like 20% of waste, accounting for that would make a significant difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, one thing he was referencing was the ease with which an organic crop can be wiped out, in comparison with a conventionally raised crop. Yes, organic farmers can and do use some pesticides, but they are often less effective than those used by conventional farmers. Heirloom seeds are also more expensive and tend to be less hardy than seeds developed to grow in certain areas or to have certain resistances. He's developed a tomato that grows insanely well in his tiny micro-environment, but it's not doing nearly as well at my home, where the soil is different, even though we barely live 10 miles from each other.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect industries to grow, change, and improve over time. Every industry except farming. If a lawyer or a steel mill or an army or a teacher used 18th or 19th century practices, then we'd say that person or group was behind the times and lacking credibility. Farming and ranching practices have improved with the advent of science and learning--why in the world do we expect these industries to remain rooted in times that fed fewer people and that had less safe practices when so much new and better technology makes our food safer and more abundant?

Because keeping chickens in an area so small they can't even stand up, much less turn around is not humane. I know where talking about vegetables, but you just expanded the discussion into farming. Profit is the wrong motivation in this industry for many reasons. We want to know what is in our food and how it is being processed. Small local farm are trying to do the right thing in that area, but it costs more and is difficult to compete with the McFarms that don't care about food quality or proper treatment of animals, but rather only seek to increase profit at all costs to their customers (us), the environment, other living creatures, and damn the rest.

Other people mentioned beef before me, so no, I expanded nothing. Your argument is an emotional one, not a factual one. Chickens don't utilize a lot of space and prefer to crowd together. Yes, they should be able to stand up, but you're exaggerating the issue. It is a fact that over 90% of all farms are still family-owned, but they have contracts with larger organizations to produce food for them. As to profit, what is wrong with profit? Farmers and ranchers still need to feed their own families and pay their bills. When you can argue from facts instead of emotions, maybe you'll realize that the egg industry is all-but dead in California because of the new "humane" rules and that emotions will eventually destroy the food sources we rely on. Please, though, plant your own Victory garden and feel free to raise your own cows, goat, chickens, or whatever to feed your own family instead of making up restrictions that will raise prices and reduce food availability for everyone else.

ejbronte wrote: »

Until we grew our own, I didn't like tomatoes; when I tasted the ones straight out of our garden, I was pleasantly surprised. Home-grown is definitely best. So I do believe in supporting legitimate local farmers. My sister and brother, who are both acquainted with hunting, confirm that an animal killed quickly will have fewer stress-related chemicals racing through its system and this also affects taste. Also, I believe that an animal raised fairly naturally on open ground, eating what it should eat, is healthier than one raised in tiny, unsanitary spaces and artificially stuffed with chemicals and medication. An animal raised in a healthy condition would, I think be healthier for the consumer.

Since true organic farming is, indeed, impossible on a large-scale (almost by definition), we all need to develop a more reliable way to ensure that the techniques used in large-scale consumer farming is not ruining the environment while feeding nations-at-large; in the long-run, harmful techniques will backfire.

Have you been to a modern farm or are you relying on animal rights/anti-farming propaganda for your assumptions on the spaces and drugs? (By the way, you're stuffed with chemicals, too. Especially if you just ate food.)

I suspect your a creature of a city, just a guess.

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible.

I saw something the other day indicating something like 20% of waste, accounting for that would make a significant difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, one thing he was referencing was the ease with which an organic crop can be wiped out, in comparison with a conventionally raised crop. Yes, organic farmers can and do use some pesticides, but they are often less effective than those used by conventional farmers. Heirloom seeds are also more expensive and tend to be less hardy than seeds developed to grow in certain areas or to have certain resistances. He's developed a tomato that grows insanely well in his tiny micro-environment, but it's not doing nearly as well at my home, where the soil is different, even though we barely live 10 miles from each other.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect industries to grow, change, and improve over time. Every industry except farming. If a lawyer or a steel mill or an army or a teacher used 18th or 19th century practices, then we'd say that person or group was behind the times and lacking credibility. Farming and ranching practices have improved with the advent of science and learning--why in the world do we expect these industries to remain rooted in times that fed fewer people and that had less safe practices when so much new and better technology makes our food safer and more abundant?

Apologies, a symptom of having a similar discussion elsewhere. As far as yields are concerned, where consumer waste is at 20% and the level of waste in a supply chain that's predicated on uniformity and size, the difference isn't that great. There is a difference, but is that a bad thing?

I'm not suggesting a wholesale movement to an organic industry is viable. The disruptive change in the shape of both production and distribution industries would be significant, and painful. I do acknowledge hat the industries in the US and the UK are heavily state supported, and driven by demand. While the state could influence the industry I personally wouldn't support that. The state plays too large a part as it is in my view.

To address your point about the movement in the industry as our understanding and technology evolves. Is uncritical adoption of techniques desirable, or should our understanding be applied in a range of different ways. Some people want food produced in vast monocultures that require a significant amount of intervention to assure uniformity of produce, others see the application of our understanding being more appropriately deployed in a lower impact way.

I've alluded upthread to some of the principles of the Soil Association standards, aimed at a sustainable system that minimises the need for interventions. Yes it's more complex, and it can be vulnerable. The actions of neighbouring farms have the potential to destabilise the system. The application of understanding means that organic farming moves on as well. I wouldn't recognise your assertion that organic means being rooted in the 18th or 19th centuries.

I've also mentioned upthread the farming co-operative that I buy from. I don't find it any more expensive than buying from the supermarket. One of the benefits of supporting them is, as well as understanding the supply chain I also know that their employees are well treated, with decent wages, conditions and employee ownership in the wider business. That's no bad thing as well.

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »

He's also among the first to admit that feeding an entire nation entirely on organic produce and organically-raised animals would be impossible.

I saw something the other day indicating something like 20% of waste, accounting for that would make a significant difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, one thing he was referencing was the ease with which an organic crop can be wiped out, in comparison with a conventionally raised crop. Yes, organic farmers can and do use some pesticides, but they are often less effective than those used by conventional farmers. Heirloom seeds are also more expensive and tend to be less hardy than seeds developed to grow in certain areas or to have certain resistances. He's developed a tomato that grows insanely well in his tiny micro-environment, but it's not doing nearly as well at my home, where the soil is different, even though we barely live 10 miles from each other.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect industries to grow, change, and improve over time. Every industry except farming. If a lawyer or a steel mill or an army or a teacher used 18th or 19th century practices, then we'd say that person or group was behind the times and lacking credibility. Farming and ranching practices have improved with the advent of science and learning--why in the world do we expect these industries to remain rooted in times that fed fewer people and that had less safe practices when so much new and better technology makes our food safer and more abundant?

Apologies, a symptom of having a similar discussion elsewhere. As far as yields are concerned, where consumer waste is at 20% and the level of waste in a supply chain that's predicated on uniformity and size, the difference isn't that great. There is a difference, but is that a bad thing?

I'm not suggesting a wholesale movement to an organic industry is viable. The disruptive change in the shape of both production and distribution industries would be significant, and painful. I do acknowledge hat the industries in the US and the UK are heavily state supported, and driven by demand. While the state could influence the industry I personally wouldn't support that. The state plays too large a part as it is in my view.

To address your point about the movement in the industry as our understanding and technology evolves. Is uncritical adoption of techniques desirable, or should our understanding be applied in a range of different ways. Some people want food produced in vast monocultures that require a significant amount of intervention to assure uniformity of produce, others see the application of our understanding being more appropriately deployed in a lower impact way.

I've alluded upthread to some of the principles of the Soil Association standards, aimed at a sustainable system that minimises the need for interventions. Yes it's more complex, and it can be vulnerable. The actions of neighbouring farms have the potential to destabilise the system. The application of understanding means that organic farming moves on as well. I wouldn't recognise your assertion that organic means being rooted in the 18th or 19th centuries.

I've also mentioned upthread the farming co-operative that I buy from. I don't find it any more expensive than buying from the supermarket. One of the benefits of supporting them is, as well as understanding the supply chain I also know that their employees are well treated, with decent wages, conditions and employee ownership in the wider business. That's no bad thing as well.

I'm still not following you, since you seem to write a lot and not make your point totally clear. However, I do have a couple of points I can address.

First, I'm still not clear on the "waste" aspect. There is "waste" in the conventional farming/food manufacturing process due to uniformity or the lack of it in natural foods. We're agreed on that, since consumers expect consistency in their food. However, generic foods can absorb some of the inconsistent produce, as do sauces and other items that do not require perfect produce. However, the "waste" that comes with organic foods, particularly those based on less-hardy heirloom seeds, comes even before the produce starts to form. Many crops fail, due to the lessened hardiness of the crop, the greater likelihood of loosing plants, buds, and forming produce to pests, and other factors controlled in conventional farming. However, organic farmers are just as likely to grow their produce year round, rotate crops, use natural methods to replenish soil nutrients, and plant a diversity of crops not typically found in big box stores.

Next, a large number of GMO crops are developed to lessen the impact of the farmer on the environment. We all know how that particular battle is going and I'm not prepared to fight it here, but it bears mentioning.

Third, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that new practices be "uncritically" accepted. Many studies exist on a wide variety of farming-related practices and many farmers now have degrees in agriculture-related fields. To imply that farmers and agriculture are not based in science is a specious argument. Returning to the animal argument again, scours was treated in pigs for years by feeding some of the intestines from affected animals mixed with feed to their dams, to "inoculate" them against the disease. There was no vaccine. Now, to my understanding, there is. Will it raise the price of pork? Maybe. But the cost of the vaccine may be no greater than the cost of losing entire litters of piglets to scours. I can tell you that most people would prefer to eat pork that has been vaccinated to prevent scours over those fed intestines, but there is a huge contingent that says not to use any drugs on food animals at all. When does science "win" in food production?

Finally, I am not equating organic farming to farming in previous centuries. I am saying, however, that most people seem to have the expectation that, in order be "good" farms/farmers, they have to have the red barns with the hex sign and rooster weathervane, free-range chickens scratching in the dust, and dozens of row crops in dozens of varieties in the fields. Plus scores for overalls, straw hats, and sitting in the fields at night armed with a shotgun to ward off varmints.

In a lot of blind taste tests, people can't tell the difference. In the one that Buzzfeed did, the people guessed about half right only because the organic ones were smaller. A couple of them actually said that the organic one (without knowing which was which, still) tasted worse. I've bought organic accidentally and can't personally taste a difference. If you can, fine, but it might be psychological.

As for nutrition, there isn't a difference. Your wallet being empty might make you weigh less, though