Organic food is more costly, wilted, and sad-looking, study finds

[Orrex]

(AP London) Confirming what everyone with eyes had already noticed years ago, a study commissioned by the British Government's Ministry of Culinary Obviousness concluded that so-called "organic" foods are four times more likely to appear blanched, tired, and generally ill-favored. A random sampling of 1,000 people across Britain found that "sallow" was the word most commonly chosen to describe organic produce, followed closely by "expensive."

Indeed, organic foods typically cost between 1.5 and 2 times more than equivalent non-organic foods.

"The whole thing's a ruse," noted Kirsten Smythe, a lead researcher in the study. "'Organic' simply means that the food contains carbon, and that describes nearly everything you're apt to eat, save perhaps an ice cube."

Nonetheless, researchers predicted that eager consumers will still happily pay much more for foods with little or no proven benefit beyond anecdotal testimony.

"I don't mind paying five pounds for an organic banana," said Nigel Sinclair, a London-based commodities broker, "as long as I feel as though I'm getting something more nutritious."

Curiously, sales of the dubious yet aggressively marketed produce have risen in the weeks since the release of the report. Further studies are planned to assess the impact of unpleasant facts upon the purchasing habits of people convinced suspicious of such facts.

[Kali]

1. ...

:rofl:

I just saw an article in linked a "trade" e-mail that WAS something close to this.

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100242535>1=31036

[MineralMan]

2. Wait...let me get my

:popcorn:

[IcyPeas]

3. give me spots on my apples but leave me the birds and the bees

PLEEEEEEEAAASE.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

4. Exactly...

I don't expect more nutrients...I expect fewer pesticides in the air, the water, and my digestive tract.

[Orrex]

6. I certainly don't begrudge you that expectation

My grumble is when advocates of organic food claim that the food is inherently more nutritious (or, more nebulously, "better for you") than evil inorganic(?) food.

[MajorChode]

16. Your expectations are quite misplaced

Organic farmers still use pesticides, but they use less effective ones that haven't been proven safer and in many cases the reverse is true.

Rotenone was a very commonly used organic pesticide until studies found it caused Parkinson's disease in rats and it was found far more harmful to the environment than non-organic alternatives, and it still may be used on some "organic" foods. Nicotine based pesticides are so-called "organic" but are some of the most toxic pesticides on the market today organic or non-organic. Pyrethrum is the most widely used "organic" pesticide and the EPA has said it's a likely human carcinogen.

So the reality is you get far more pesticides in your air, water, and digestive track, especially when you consider more of those pesticides have to be used (since they are less effective), the pesticides you do get are often more harmful, and organic crops take up more resources like land and water. You also get more E. Coli. and other pathogens that live in "organic" fertilizer, but hey, pathogens are essentially "organic", yes? So they must be good for you.

[redqueen]

18. psst

'tract'

[MajorChode]

20. God bless the grammar flamers

Where would we be without them?

[redqueen]

22. I didn't flame you.

I was polite. I guess I should have PM'ed you, oh thin-skinned one.

[MajorChode]

25. And I said God bless you

Was I any less impolite, oh thin-skinned one?

Have a nice day.

[redqueen]

26. No, just wrong,

because as I said, I didn't flame you. I took your word choice there as an indication of some level of upset with my pointing out the mistake.

I certainly wasn't upset by your mistake, or your odd word choice. :hi:

[MajorChode]

30. I'm not at all upset

..but rather amused at someone who feels the need to offer a grammar flame when anyone with at least 2 synapses actively firing would have been able to figure out the intent. And yes, it was a grammar flame, so lets not insult everyone's intelligence and pretend it wasn't. Fair enough? If you feel the burning desire to go around correcting everyone's grammar on DU(or perhaps not everyone but just certain ones), at least have the stones to admit what you're doing when it's painfully obvious.

[redqueen]

31. lol... but you're not upset... right.

Look, it wasn't a flame... I said 'psst' so you could correct it and then I'd go back and erase the connection and then put a smiley there or something. That's what usually happens... but then I guess some people (like you) get upset a little more easily when corrected.

If it was a typo I wouldn't even have said anything... but stuff like that IMO should be corrected so the mistake isn't reinforced for anyone reading it who may not know the correct term. If it bothers you so much, that's on you.

I hope you don't join in with bashing Freeps for their various mistakes on their board. That'd be quite ironic.

[MajorChode]

36. Now who is upset again?

Quite defensive, aren't we?

What is the opposite of upset again? Oh yeah, amused. That's what I am (didn't I already mention this?), and I'm even more amused with each of your posts so please do continue. Soon there won't be a dry eye in the house.

And no, I don't really feel the need for an edit based on the beguilement of a grammar flamer, especially when the intent is quite clear. YMMV.

[redqueen]

38. *roffle*

"beguilement of a grammar flamer" :rofl:

I bet you say intensive purposes, too, don't you?

[MajorChode]

41. No more so than "Idiocracy"

Cheers!

[Obama2012]

24. Wow, you really fell for big agra

[MajorChode]

27. Wow, you really fell for the organic myth

Ah yes, anyone who dares mention inconvenient truths about "organic" is a shill for big agra.

Was anything I said untrue, or is ad hominem all you have?

[Obama2012]

28. I've read all the things you've posted

In Big Agra trade articles.

Mentioning that isn't an ad hominem.

[MajorChode]

32. So now you're accusing me of writing for "Big Agra trade articles"?

Are you high?

And if in some hallucinogenic cloud that were actually true, how exactly would it not be ad hominem?

Welcome to DU, BTW.

[Obama2012]

33. Not of writing them, just of falling for them

And, I'm pretty sure accusing another DUer of being on drugs is a personal attack.

[MajorChode]

39. Not accusing, just asking

Such is not uncommon, especially in the lounge. Stick around long enough, and you'll see.

And no, you accused me of posting in them, which I'm reasonably sure IS a personal attack.

Once more for the cheap seats. Your direct quote:

I've read all the things you've posted...In Big Agra trade articles.

Cheers!

[redqueen]

40. Oh, my...

:spray:

[Obama2012]

45. The "subject" line and "message" box are two different things

Plus, I said, "post in," not "author" or "write." Last time I checked, people author or write articles, but they "post" on internet message boards.

Cheers!

[MajorChode]

47. The best you can say about what you wrote is ambiguity

The first sentence in the message box makes absolutely no sense by itself, but feel free to pretend it doesn't go with the subject line.

But either way you want to read it, you still have nothing better than ad hominem (AKA personal attack), and if you don't think there's an enormous amount of bullshit coming from the so-called "organic" advocates(pun intended), you're much more naive than you realize.

So I suppose it's just a matter of where you want to get your information from. I kinda favor the EPA and agricultural university studies. If that counts as "big agra" in your book, then so be it. I'll accept your personal attack and give the source all the credit it deserves.

Cheers!

[Obama2012]

48. Well, then, you chose an appropriate name

Cheers!

[MajorChode]

49. Thanks for noticing

With your artful delivery of personal attacks, I'm sure you're going to fit in quite well in the lounge.

Have a nice day!

[Obama2012]

50. I'm going to have a spectacular day

Thank you!

[Kali]

42. I mostly agree with you, however the effects on the soil are vastly different.

So that would be MY reason for choosing organic (when it is affordable) - along with the matter that until recently organic often meant it came from a smaller operation and I like to support small family farms. That is less true now that megaAG has discovered the profit in organic marketing and the standards have been codified/diluted.

[MajorChode]

46. I'm not really sure what you mean by effects on the soil

Most farms in the US have been farmed using non-organic methods for decades with no ill effects on the soil, or at least nothing that's any worse than organic farming.

Large, corporate farms employ some of the most socially disadvantaged workers anywhere. Now they may employ less of them as a function of product produced, but that is simply because their methods are more efficient. The tradeoff here is more efficient methods means less land is devoted to farms and more can be left to other plants, trees and wildlife. The same goes for water. Buying from local farmers doesn't insure you're getting so-called "organic" products and as smaller operations are generally less efficient in the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, they may actually be less environmentally friendly in that regard also.

I love to buy from local farmers, but my reasons have nothing to do with social or environmental concerns. I like the freshness available locally and the less handling and transportation involved means a better selection of more tasty varietals that I'm not likely to find at the grocery store.

[Kali]

51. I dissagree that conventional has no ill effects on the soil.

Besides massive soil LOSS due to conventional methods, the simplistic view is that conventional growing looks at it as a medium to hold plants - dirt. Organic works with soil as "living". You can grow plants in anything if you dump enough nutrients into the mix, living soil is different. Because of the increased organic matter it holds more water, the nutrient availability is better, the texture is better and recovers better from weather events. All of the ecological cycles (water, solar, mineral) are enhanced.

Kind of the difference between "mining" the soil and "nurturing" it. Conventional requires ever-increasing amounts of petroleum based inputs.

[MajorChode]

53. I would agree if you're talking about rural Africa

Developing countries can benefit from some aspects of organic farming due to the primitive methods they employ which has a tendency to scorch the earth.

Soil erosion was a big problem in the US at one time, but not so much now. This is because of lots of farm and farming practices that have nothing to do with organic vs non-organic. Proper soil erosion techniques are in the best interest of all farmers as poor techniques result in land that is eventually not suitable for farming.

As far as "petroleum based inputs", you're talking about synthetic nitrogen fertilizers which haven't been proven to be more harmful to the land and plants don't really care if they get their nitrogen from cow shit or ammonium nitrate.

[Kali]

56. the soil cares

I didn't claim petro-inputs were particularly harmful (other than the fact that there are limited supplies and the various other consequences related to that addiction), although some obviously are - rather the increase of organic matter was healthier and what actually transforms dirt into soil.

And aren't most conventional pesticides petro-based either chemically or as the carrier?

Erosion is still a huge problem, yes there have been improvements, but still a big concern.

[MajorChode]

57. synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas

The process is not particularly harmful to the environment and it doesn't take that much. It takes about $100 worth of natural gas to make one ton of ammonium nitrate. One thing to consider is transportation. Ammonium nitrate has a high value of nitrogen per ton compared to a much lower value for composted manure. This equates to more energy needed to move it from one place to another. So it's not as if "organic" solutions don't have a fossil fuel cost associated with them as well.

I have no idea if most conventional pesticides are petro-based, but even if they are, my guess would be that they would be using by-products of crude oil to gas production.

[Kali]

58. Ok perhaps I should have used "fossil fuel" instead of "petro-"

the point remains: non-renewable. Transportation is an issue in the food picture as a whole, true. Another place to be addressing possible energy alternatives.

That wasn't really my point about healthy soil, though. Some things cost more to do but are still not wrong, and obviously just because something is cheap at the moment doesn't mean it is the optimal way to to do it. Functioning soil is a worthy goal.

As I said, I mostly agree with you - conventional ag has fed the world for almost 100 years now. It has also caused its share of problems. It isn't clear how much longer that is going to work though, whether because of fuel costs, water issues, climate change, or plain old consumer preferences. A combo or crisis will likely decide, we seem to have a hard time changing otherwise.

[MajorChode]

61. As a whole the world agricultural system is completely screwed

However the US agricultural system runs pretty well and has for many years. It manages to feed not only the US but a lot of other places as well. The crop yields are the highest in the world and much to the chagrin of those who tout the benefits of "organic" crops, the food produced is not making people unhealthy. The biggest risk to US health is the rising cost of wholesome produce. It's pretty sad when someone can get a big mac cheaper than a grapefruit. I don't think the answer to improving overall health is to make fresh produce more expensive.

There's certainly areas like South America and Africa where innovative approaches can do a lot of good. Personally I don't feel the answer lies in either conventional or "organic" approaches solely and neither should be excluded from consideration. Biotechs have a lot of promise there, but there's a lot of people who don't want to hear that either. If you close your mind to any set of possibilities, you're not really part of the solution.

[appal_jack]

60. You are woefully misinformed

While Rotenone did enjoy a heyday as an organic insecticide in the 1970's, there are at present no commercially-labeled rotenone-based organic insecticides sold in the US. Bonide does still manufacture a rotenone dust that has a home & garden (i.e.- noncommercial, produce may not be sold...) label, but it is inconvenient to apply, and I do not know a single organic gardener who uses it (I work in agriculure, and routinely speak with hundreds of home gardeners and several dozen commercial growers across a five-county rural region).

No nicotine-based insecticides are permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act and National Organic Program. You are just wrong on this point. On the other hand, conventional growers are making widespread use of the 'neonicotinoids,' such as imidacloprid (marketed as Merit and Admire) which are systemic, persistent, and possibly a cause of colony collapse disorder in bees.

While Pyrethrum is a powerful (by organic standards, though mild by conventional standards) insecticide, organic growers may only make use of it as a last resort. Certified organic growers must first take and document steps to avert their insect problems by cultural and preventive methods (such as nurturing habitat for beneficial predators, releasing good bugs such as green lacewings or beneficial nematodes, and/or spraying with milder insecticides such as insecticidal soap. When natural pyrethrum is sprayed, it breaks down into harmless components within 4 hours (unlike the synthetic pyrethrins used by conventional growers which last much longer in the environment).

More E. coli in organic food? Wrong. Conventional growers can spread biosolids/sewage sludge on their lands, organic growers cannot. Organic growers must extensively document all composting procedures, temperatures, and durations. Manures applied to organic fields must be followed by a cover crop and/or a time lapse of 120 days before harvesting any organic produce.

Organic soils are more likely to nurture the 'good' bacteria (Bacillus subtilis, bifidobacteria, etc.) that out-compete the 'bad' E. coli.

So basically MajorChode, your entire thesis is feces: go spread 'em on your chemical fields, but leave my organic farm out of it...

-app

[MajorChode]

63. Let's not spin everything and then pretend I'm misinformed, OK?

While Rotenone did enjoy a heyday as an organic insecticide in the 1970's, there are at present no commercially-labeled rotenone-based organic insecticides sold in the US. Bonide does still manufacture a rotenone dust that has a home & garden (i.e.- noncommercial, produce may not be sold...) label, but it is inconvenient to apply, and I do not know a single organic gardener who uses it (I work in agriculure, and routinely speak with hundreds of home gardeners and several dozen commercial growers across a five-county rural region).

You just basically said the same thing I said and you completely missed the point which was questionable substances that have been used previously in so-called "organic" farming have been used. Many of the currently used products simply haven't been tested as stringently as the more commonly used conventional products, so there's no telling what pitfalls are still out there since people simply assume that if a product is botanical, it's safe. You're also quite misleading with your information. Rotenone was used quite commonly much more recently than "in the 1970's", and was only removed from the NOP list quite recently. The reason it was removed had far more to do with the bad press it received than any actual hazards associated with proper use of the product.

No nicotine-based insecticides are permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act and National Organic Program. You are just wrong on this point. On the other hand, conventional growers are making widespread use of the 'neonicotinoids,' such as imidacloprid (marketed as Merit and Admire) which are systemic, persistent, and possibly a cause of colony collapse disorder in bees.

Heavy emphasis on "possibly". Nobody knows what the cause of CCD is so it would be more than a bit misleading to suggest otherwise, no? Pesticides are way down on the list of possibilities and are almost certainly no where near the primary cause even on the outside chance that they are contributory at all. I made no mention of the NOP list or what is approved or not. Nicotine based insecticides are still being marketed as "botanical" and "organic" and lots of so-called "organic" gardeners are still using them and yes even some that sell to the public.

While Pyrethrum is a powerful (by organic standards, though mild by conventional standards) insecticide, organic growers may only make use of it as a last resort. Certified organic growers must first take and document steps to avert their insect problems by cultural and preventive methods (such as nurturing habitat for beneficial predators, releasing good bugs such as green lacewings or beneficial nematodes, and/or spraying with milder insecticides such as insecticidal soap. When natural pyrethrum is sprayed, it breaks down into harmless components within 4 hours (unlike the synthetic pyrethrins used by conventional growers which last much longer in the environment).

The description of "mild by conventional standards" although accurate is why it's generally not used in non-certified organic agriculture. In order to be effective, you have to use more of it and more often. So the implication that Pyrethrum is safer because it's "mild by conventional standards" is misleading at best. And while the "preventive methods" you describe are simply part of the organic agriculture guidelines, the truth is that the use of Pyrethrum is very common and widespread among "organic" farmers.

More E. coli in organic food? Wrong. Conventional growers can spread biosolids/sewage sludge on their lands, organic growers cannot. Organic growers must extensively document all composting procedures, temperatures, and durations. Manures applied to organic fields must be followed by a cover crop and/or a time lapse of 120 days before harvesting any organic produce.

Let me offer a bit of perspective on so-called "organic" farming which you're probably aware but I'll throw it out there anyway. The NOP which you love to reference has so many employees that you might actually need two hands to count them. The means of certifying so-called "organic" farmers is done by private certifiers which are quite often corrupt to the core. Farmers are free to pick whichever one they want, and if they want to skirt the rules, they need to only pick the one that is the least likely to check them very closely or if they are smart they can pick one that's based 1,000 miles or more away. The result is that few(if any) actually do check very closely and they probably wouldn't be in business for very long if they did. The standards are lax and enforcement is even more lax. So while you might be able to quote rules, regulations, and guidelines, the reality is that many(if not most) so-called "organic" farmers routinely ignore them and face almost no penalties on the extremely remote chance they are ever caught. The vast majority of so-called "organic" produce comes from large corporate farms, and the entire industry is more about producing boutique food items at far higher prices than it is about producing some hippy panacea of so-called "safe" and more nutritious food produced locally by small farmers.

[AllenVanAllen]

55. That' why we buy organic when we can

The overall impact to people, animals and environment is what I look at.

[sakabatou]

5. This just in, water is wet.

[conscious evolution]

7. Compared to food

that is geneticly modified for appearance it should be no surprise that people would think this about organics..

I know the tomatoes,strawberrys,squash,cucumbers,beans,and lettuces I am growing organicly do not look as nice as what the grocery stores sell.What I do know is that the foods I am growing taste a hell of a lot better then anything I get at Kroger.
I also know for a fact that my gardens have no pesticides,herbicides or other man made crap contaminating them.


BTW. Organic is a term that has been hijacked by the corporate food operations and has been turned into a marketing term that has little to do with how the food is actually produced.

[Mopar151]

8. "Dump Trailer Tomatoes"

To be clear, genetically modified includes hybrids and manipulated breeding.....

Anyhoo- Those nasty winter tomatopes are bred to ship without bruising - the breeders have succeded so well they could be shipped to market in a dump trailer, though they might ding an aluminium one. Ain't got enough juice in 'em to stain the aluminium....

[conscious evolution]

11. I have little problem with

with the centuries old practice of selective breeding for hardiness for drought or insects or other local conditions.
Its the recombinant dna modifications that bother me.
When they start tinkering directly with dna for reasons of appearance I see it as a waste of resources.
Fuucking with the dna so that you must buy the seed companys fertilizers or insecticides to get any produce or when they create suicide seeds to force growers to have to buy seeds every year is a crime against humanity,imo.

[Mopar151]

12. I am so with you on the last part n/t

[Strong Atheist]

9. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetic modifications. Corn and

wheat are just two examples of foods that have been genetically modified over thousands of years...

[Obama2012]

13. Which is probably why many people have wheat sensitivies/allergies, but not with spelt

Spelt is wheat without the modifications.

[conscious evolution]

21. I was just introduced

to spelt last week.
Only they called it strawberry shortcake. Yummmyyyy!

[Arkansas Granny]

17. Good point. Those factory-farm fruits and veggies may look great in the grocery store

produce department, but the flavor from home grown, vine ripened crops will generally be far superior. Not mention the added bonus of being free of poisonous chemicals.

[ElboRuum]

54. Well, if you can get your hands on heirloom seeds, sure...

But much of the seeds used for gardening are just strains of much the same sort of appearance-over-flavor you'll find at the store. Simple equation. Here are some seeds. You plant them. They grow but look anemic. You'll buy someone else's seeds next time.

Chemicals, and their inherent "awful" effects continue to be a very non-subject with me. As yet, I've yet to see anything in the way of reasonable linking modern farming pesticide and herbicide usage and specific results as to the effects on the population. Assuming "chemical" equals a skull and crossbones is an interesting concept. And maybe it bears scrutiny. I mean, I just see how much dihydrogen monoxide we consume daily, and I wonder just how we're still living at all.

[Mopar151]

10. Guy Clark says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-QzLIjL1u4

[TexasLady]

14. For me it's about the taste

the taste of a hot from the garden tomato beats em ALL

[MajorChode]

19. Home grown tomatoes are almost always better

Even so-called "vine ripened" tomatoes you get at the grocery store aren't really vine-ripened. Commercially grown tomatoes also are usually varieties that are thick skinned so as to survive transport better. The varieties you can grow at home are far superior.

[redqueen]

15. Idiocracy is real.

[MajorChode]

23. Undoubtedly

We all have our idiosyncrasies, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

[LaurenG]

29. This has been my experience, and it makes me angry

that they want me to pay more for produce that is already nutrient empty. Once the stuff gets to wilted stage I may as well buy canned food. :shrug:

[Shell Beau]

34. I only buy organic if I eat the skin of the fruit or veggie.

I don't have to have organic bananas, oranges, etc. Anything I peel the skin off of doesn't have to be organic for me. But everything else I prefer less pesticide when I can get it.

And LDK gets organic food. It really doesn't cost any more for her organic jar food. Earth's Best is the brand I buy, and it is less money than Gerber for the most part.

[LaurenG]

35. Yeah strawberries I believe are the worst if you are trying to stay away from pesticides.

Our local Kroger seems to think I want to pay for moldy organic grapes and greens etc., I have to go to Whole foods for good produce.

[Shell Beau]

37. Our local Kroger has a decent selection, but I prefer

to go the Fresh Market. They have more variety.

[hippywife]

43. Actually peaches are the worst.

http://www.foodnews.org/EWG-shoppers-guide-download-final.pdf


I buy and grow all organic produce it's the best tasting ever. :9

:hi:

[JitterbugPerfume]

44. I try to buy from local farmers

who at least care about the land. Yesterday I got blueberries and sweetcorn to die for locally .
The strawberries and asparagus were outstanding earlier in the season.

I am sure the farmer used a certain amount of pesticide, But I am also certain that they did it sparingly and responsibly.

There were to many ladybugs and butterflies around to convince me otherwise


Bottom line, if yo live where you can do it , buy locally ,support the small farmer.


My only complaint is the sweet corn was 3.50 a dozen . I got ot for 2.00--2.50 last year. A little one lb box of green beans was 3.00 , but that is ok. When they come on in the garden they will be free.

[qb]

52. I like to buy organic because it fucks with Big Agra.

To me that's worth the risk of contracting organic cancer.

[Kali]

59. they are already deep into it

if you really want to fuck with big ag, just buy local. Or even better grow your own.

[MajorChode]

64. The vast majority of "organic" comes from "Big Agra"

[UTUSN]

62. AND, so are the users!1 n/t