Organic Food Myths

[songbird36]

Here are some widely promulgated myths about organic food and I've decided it's my place to debunk them.

And this thread can serve as a place to have a general rant about other food issues too.

The Myths:

(1) That pesticides are not used on organic food - Not true. Pest specific "soft sprays" are used which target particular pests, rather than organophosphates, which are used in conventional food production and kill everything;

(2) That conventional food contains levels of pesticides that are harmful. The pesticide residue levels in most conventional foods are very low and there is no hard evidence at this point that these are at a sufficient level to be harmful (a recent study by the NZ Food Safety Authority has stated this).

(3) That labelling of organic products is tightly regulated - In this country it is not. Regulations are lax enough to allow producers to use the term "organic" or "spray free" on products which have not been certified by food safety authorities as organic (cases are currently under investigation by the Commerce Commission here).

(4) That organic food is nutritionally superior - There are no studies which conclusively demonstrate this.

[Shai Gar]

damned right. i prefer my steriod inhanced chickens with sidedishes of phosphate celery

[Geoff]

Spot on. I am always amazed by how people assume that just because something is 'natural' it is safe. A natural pesticide could theoretically contain unsafe levels of, say, arsenic, yet it would be happily described by anyone who could get away with it as "organic!".

Here you find producers playing on the edge of organic to try and get reward on other efforts - on the labelling side. Like 'barn or farmyard eggs" because it sounds "better" and nearly like organic.

I am actually for the principle of the organic revolution, but would like to see it handled in a more sensible way, with no particular need to exclude products simply on the basis of using man made substances (for which there is no reason why they should be inherently evil).

Many people buy organic simply through woolly thinking - they dont think about it what it really means and think it is trendy. My sister suffers from that, she also thinks that refined salt and sugar are carcinogenic and very evil. Err right, that's why everyone is dropping like flies...

Personally, I never buy organic, waste of money too. For example a chicken in the UK typically costs 4-5x as much when it is organic. Yeah right....

If more people understood what organic really meant they might not be quite so keen to jump on the bandwagon. Now, 'free range' and the quality of animal lives is a different issue, of course.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

The main benefit of organic farming is crop biodiversity and its environmental benefits (better soil nutrient levels and fewer devastating pests).

And how many of your average trendie lefties in all honesty care too hoots about that?

[Geoff]

The main benefit of organic farming is crop biodiversity and its environmental benefits (better soil nutrient levels and fewer devastating pests).

And how many of your average trendie lefties in all honesty care too hoots about that?

And from a study I saw, that is a matter of opinion. If you allow natural pests to spread as they are less controlled, is that a good thing? Perhaps. Do we want biodiversity of something destructive? Maybe not. If we use very powerful natural pesticides, is this any more friendly? Probably not.

Have enough tests been done on natural pesticides as they are on manmade ones? Probably not... Plenty of natural substances are carcinogenic, for example (like Tobacco.. whoops wrong thread). That's a thought maybe I should market organic cigarattes ;)

-Geoff

[Architectonic]

(2) That conventional food contains levels of pesticides that are harmful. The pesticide residue levels in most conventional foods are very low and there is no hard evidence at this point that these are at a sufficient level to be harmful (a recent study by the NZ Food Safety Authority has stated this).


I would also expect the pesticide residue levels to vary significantly with location. I would expect that NZ foods would tend to have lower levels of pesticides when compared to those in the USA for example.

Anyway, many of these myths seem to be down to a misunderstanding of the definition of "organic".

Revaluating the methods in which our foods are produced is a very good idea. Assuming that a product is superior because it is labeled "organic" is not.

[Shai Gar]

in australia many of the greenies tend to be off at the phosphates in the detergents. morons dont realise that by buying detergents without phosphates they are buying something that is using a surfactant that doesnt biodegrade to the same extent of phosphates. and the eutriphication is certainly caused by phosphates but that is 97% by sewerage and fertilisers and less than .05% detergents.

these morons spend extra money just to pollute the environment. i love it.

[songbird36]

And from a study I saw, that is a matter of opinion. If you allow natural pests to spread as they are less controlled, is that a good thing? Perhaps. Do we want biodiversity of something destructive? Maybe not. If we use very powerful natural pesticides, is this any more friendly? Probably not.

Have enough tests been done on natural pesticides as they are on manmade ones? Probably not... Plenty of natural substances are carcinogenic, for example (like Tobacco.. whoops wrong thread). That's a thought maybe I should market organic cigarattes ;)

-Geoff

There seems to be evidence that crop diversification (which is an organic farming practice) leads to fewer destructive pests because the pests do not become crop specific and therefore are diffuse.

Crop diversification also results in less soil degradation.

We're still of course reeling from the 245T (Dioxin) debacle in New Zealand.

[songbird36]

For those of you who don't know about this 245T was a pesticide manufactured here and widely sprayed until the risks became known in the 1970's. It contained high levels of dioxin - the same chemical present in Agent Orange.

You can imagine the health effects suffered by the local populace here.

[Geoff]

For those of you who don't know about this 245T was a pesticide manufactured here and widely sprayed until the risks became known in the 1970's. It contained high levels of dioxin - the same chemical present in Agent Orange.

You can imagine the health effects suffered by the local populace here.

Is that like the DDT debacle?

-Geoff

[Dman]

Organic is primarily a way for the mom and pop farmers to be able to make a living. The big agriculture conglomerates have just about run them all out, so they come up with a niche product that they can charge a premium for.

Of course, now that organic is "trendy" and there's getting to be some big money in it, the conglomerates are jumping in too. Your best bet is just to buy local whenever possible, organic or not.

Ideally the concept of organic is to create a sustainable, natural system when producing agriculture. This includes using pesticides, but only to the degree necessary rather than routinely mass-spraying large quantities of the stuff everywhere. Also stuff like what songbird mentioned, and a lot more. It's really interesting and although not quite as "safe" or "organic" as you'd think, the systems are far superior than the mass-producing ag farms.

[songbird36]

Organic is primarily a way for the mom and pop farmers to be able to make a living. The big agriculture conglomerates have just about run them all out, so they come up with a niche product that they can charge a premium for.

Of course, now that organic is "trendy" and there's getting to be some big money in it, the conglomerates are jumping in too. Your best bet is just to buy local whenever possible, organic or not.

Ideally the concept of organic is to create a sustainable, natural system when producing agriculture. This includes using pesticides, but only to the degree necessary rather than routinely mass-spraying large quantities of the stuff everywhere. Also stuff like what songbird mentioned, and a lot more. It's really interesting and although not quite as "safe" or "organic" as you'd think, the systems are far superior than the mass-producing ag farms.

Well moving off on a different track for one moment, do you also think the GE-free thing is a marketing have?

I have my suspicions..

[Geoff]

What is GE free? is that the same as GM free? (genetic modification I guess)

GM food is pretty much a non-event here in Europe. We dont want it, the public doesnt want it. There is difficulty in that some countries (like the US) can no longer guarantee GM free on things like wheat.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Why then is it still such an issue here in NZ?

Probably 'cos we have a frisky Green Party here that won't be silenced.

[Geoff]

Why then is it still such an issue here in NZ?

Probably 'cos we have a frisky Green Party here that won't be silenced.

Do you mean it is an issue because they are still trying to market it yet the Green Party is objecting?

I am saying that in the UK the environmentalists have pretty much won. Most locations now quote GM free (restaurants, grocery stores etc).

GM has a terrible press in the UK and is largely dead in the water unless it gets through unnoticed.

-Geoff

[Dman]

Well moving off on a different track for one moment, do you also think the GE-free thing is a marketing have?

I have my suspicions..

Actually on the contrary I think that's a result of the big ag conglomerates. They threw money at researchers to try to engineer resistant strains of produce, higher quality meats, etc. in an effort to bring more "favorable" products to consumers at cheaper costs (no more money spent on pesticides, hormones, etc).

It's a double-edged sword because it reduces pesticides & hormones & all that junk, but nobody knows what the long term ramifications of the genetically modified stuff will have in the natural system (ecology).

[Boneca]

Hm, I don't know what to say. In Sweden, "organic" (which is a really stupid term, we use the word "ecologic") food production is tightly regulated, and the rules also include animal welfare in the case of eggs, dairy and meat.
Do you want to claim that this is still all bunk?

I buy ecological food whenever there is no local choice available (and of course if the ecological option is also locally produced). But it has nothing to do with health concerns. While some pesticide levels might be lower, there is a slightly larger risk of bacterial infections because of the use of natural fertilizers - and as songbird pointed out, there are no more nutrients in the food.
Why do I do it then? Because it promotes small farms with a more diversified production, which in themselves are less harmful to the environment than large farm "factories" that produce most of the food you'd find in supermarkets.
And this is exactly the same reason that everybody else (at least that I know) buys this stuff too...out of concern for the environment.

I don't really know what the purpose of this thread was, but it seems like a case of this:

It's like the "quit smoking" rant thread, there is a lot of hype so that you would think smoking will automatically kill you no matter what. So some people think they're enlightened by saying it's all hype, so there is no harm at all...There is a reason there is such a thing as "organic" food, and it's not just to fool people.

[songbird36]

Appreciate what you're saying Boneca and I agree with the environmental benefits.

But I think people here in NZ have a perception that organic food is somehow healthier and is going to prevent cancer etc etc.

The organic food industry is doing nothing to disabuse people of these false ideas.