Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Do you think there is any nutritional advantage to eating organic foods to justify the higher cost?

JustRobby1
JustRobby1 Posts: 674 Member
Or is it mainly just marketing and advertising?
«1345678

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2017
    In the US the choice being local/small farm and organic are two different things. You can focus on small farm and local and get all conventional produce and you can get everything in the grocery store from far, far away and get all organic.

    I get local and in-season and small agriculture when possible (this is in part about taste, in part about supporting small farms, in part about animal treatment/knowing my farmer for meat/eggs/cheese, in part just because I enjoy it). My main sources tend to be organic farms (I think a lot of smaller farms tend to know they have a niche market where they can do better if they can appeal to those who want organic), but I don't care about that bit. I do find that local and in-season tastes different, and better (it's the only way I buy strawberries, other than frozen, tomatoes, other than canned, corn at all, quite a lot of fruit). When I buy in the grocery store, however, which is not an insignificant part of the year as I'm in Chicago (a northern climate) so local produce would often leave me with little, I don't care a whit about organic and don't think it's worth the extra cost.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    I live in the UK and the regulations governing organic vs. Conventional are very close. There is not the huge difference that you see in the US. This also means there isn't much of a price difference. In fact, there are several items I buy which are organic AND cheaper than the conventional choice. I don't buy all organic because the UK regulations are so good. When I lived in the US, I did buy organic. The meats because of the higher animal welfare standards and veg/fruit because organic is more environmentally sustainable than conventional. It's not true that organic us the least sustainable form of farming, it is actually the most sustainable. Only ONE study was able to show it as equally sustainable to conventional IF you add land use as a criteria for environmental impact and also split out farm animals into subcategories...of course it will use more land because the animals are free ranging and not cooped up in cages wallowing in feces their entire lives. ALL other studies have shown that organic is more sustainable than conventional.
    As for GMOs, they are not sustainable in and of themselves. Sustainability refers to farming practices and methods not how you made the seed. It us technically ( although not legally) possible to organically farm with GMOs. So to say GMOs are "sustainable" is marketing woo pretty much because it's not been studied or used long term. By long term I mean at least a century because sustainability is all about working with the ecosystem such that we can be assured of continued food production for centuries to come.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    "When I lived in the US, I did buy organic. The meats because of the higher animal welfare standards..."

    I think in the UK that's a thing. In the US, it's not really. There are separate labels that relate to animal welfare (some of which are misleading and don't mean much -- and you have to decide what you trust, which is why I personally would trust more a local farm I knew something about, conventional or not, vs. organic).
    These things do often overlap, but not always, and buying meat labeled "organic" in a US supermarket doesn't tell you anything about welfare.

    Here's a proposal that would change that (at least somewhat), but as you can see it's not currently in effect.
    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-09/ag-dept-delays-animal-welfare-standards-for-organic-meats
  • kristen8000
    kristen8000 Posts: 747 Member
    I have a friend who goes to a Chiropractor that preaches eating organic, grass fed animals, etc. He basically told her if it's Organic, it's healthy. He's helped her leaps and bounds (58 years old, back surgery in 2015, and just completed a 100 mile bike race and lost 30lbs). She still eats processed foods, if they are labelled organic. She feels that's her "safety zone" and when I told her I recently lost 10lbs just by reducing how much I ate, she frowned on the fact that it wasn't done "right" because I don't believe Organic food is worth it. We will always argue this...but one thing is for sure, it's helped her (even if it's a combo of doing healthy things, not just the food part).
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    edited September 2017
    Omega-3 fatty acids.
    The feeding requirements for organic livestock farming, such as the primary use of grass and alfalfa for cattle, result in generally higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a kind of fat that is more heart healthy than other fats. These higher omega-3 fatty acids are found in organic meats, dairy and eggs.

    Eggs don't have to be organic to be high in omega-3 fatty acids. Including flax seed in the chickens feed will increase the omega-3 content of eggs regardless of organics.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    "When I lived in the US, I did buy organic. The meats because of the higher animal welfare standards..."

    I think in the UK that's a thing. In the US, it's not really. There are separate labels that relate to animal welfare (some of which are misleading and don't mean much -- and you have to decide what you trust, which is why I personally would trust more a local farm I knew something about, conventional or not, vs. organic).
    These things do often overlap, but not always, and buying meat labeled "organic" in a US supermarket doesn't tell you anything about welfare.

    Here's a proposal that would change that (at least somewhat), but as you can see it's not currently in effect.
    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-09/ag-dept-delays-animal-welfare-standards-for-organic-meats
    Thank you for posting this. Yes, you bring up a good point. The organic label by itself isn't a marker of higher welfare standards in the US...I know I also looked for "free range" labels and bought from researched farms/sources. The two did often happen to overlap...so your article is a good add because I did not realise the animal welfare standards I found were purely voluntary and had (wrongly) thought some of it was due to the organic rules. I didn't know it was so bad until I read the article you posted lemurcat. I hope the law gets finalised.
  • JustRobby1
    JustRobby1 Posts: 674 Member
    edited September 2017
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.

    No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.

    That's what they said about cigarettes.

    Are we going to hear a GMO conspiracy theory now? Let me grab some popcorn.