NationStates Jolt Archive

How many of you have tried organic foods? What's your opinon on them? I say that they're a HUGE FRICKEN WASTE OF MONEY! They're more expensive, they taste the same(At least to me, then again, I think frozen food is delicious, so I might be a little off there), and studies show they're no healthier:
(CNN) -- Growth hormones in cows, pesticides on produce and antibiotics in poultry -- these are among the reasons many Americans are turning to organic foods. In fact, sales of organics have surged more than 20 percent each year in the past decade. According to the Food Marketing Institute, more than half of Americans now buy organic food at least once a month.

But whether organic chicken or pesticide-free lettuce represent "healthier" alternatives has long been a subject for debate.

Proponents, such as Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, cite the fact that organics are grown under strict standards of purity based on the elimination of toxic agricultural chemicals.

DiMatteo says even the soil is better: "The soil that organic is grown in is healthier. This comes from the fact that the soil has nutrient value. Healthy soil, healthy plants."



But any suggestion organic food is somehow superior doesn't sit well with Alex Avery, director of research at The Hudson Institute Center for Global Food Issues.

"Organic foods have never been shown to be healthier, more nutritious or more safe than conventional foods," said Avery, "despite dozens of scientific studies. There is no weight that organic is better or healthier for you."


Avery's institute is funded in part by companies that profit from the sale of pesticides, such as Monsanto, DowElanco and Ag-Chem Equipment Company.

Avery said some organics can make you sicker than conventional food.

"Because organic foods use pathogen-laden manure as their primary fertilizer, organic foods may pose a higher risk of foodborne-illness than conventional foods," he said, adding that damage from pests is likely to be greater, as well, and that could translate to more fungal growth, or colonization by molds. Some of these organisms produce toxins. One of them, aflatoxin, is considered highly carcinogenic.


Carefully wash all produce
DiMatteo said manure is used -- but that restrictions and procedures are used in handling it. Plus, it's only part of the overall soil plan.

"The organic system for soil fertilization includes crop rotation, cover crops, composted vegetable matter and manure," she told CNN.Com.

That's fine, according to the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, provided the manure is properly composted.

"Uncomposted or improperly composted manure that enters surface waters many contain pathogens and subsequently contaminate produce," the association warned.

Food safety experts say organic or not, consumers have to observe the same rules if they want to avoid getting sick. Thoroughly wash -- even scrub -- all produce. And, if the skin won't come clean, peel it off.

Organic livestock may have had the run of the farm and eaten pesticide-free grain, but that doesn't mean they won't come to slaughter loaded with bacteria. Just like conventional chickens, organic birds can harbor salmonella, E. coli and campylobacter. These can cause anything from a mild intestinal illness to a life-threatening infection. To avoid that, organic chickens (or any organic meat) should be handled the same as a regular product -- observing cleanliness rules in the kitchen and making sure they are cooked to the proper temperature: 180 degrees for poultry, 160 degrees for beef.



What about genetically modified foods?
The other major argument around organic food is whether or not it is more nutritious. Even DiMatteo hedges on this controversial point, telling CNN.Com that there is no difference in nutrient value with regular foods.

If, in fact, organics have nothing much to offer beyond a higher price -- they often cost more than conventional items -- why bother with them at all? Taste is one reason. Some insist that organic products are more flavorful than other foods.

DiMatteo said there are broader reasons to go organic: "Environmental pollution does have an impact on the health of humans. We can definitely see a connection between chemical pest control and the potential for disease."

Plus, those who fear bio-engineered foods may be able to put their minds at ease by buying organic -- not that there's necessarily anything to fear in the first place say proponents of genetically modified foods. However, the Organic Trade Association supports a moratorium on genetically modified foods, known in the trade as GMOs.

The OTA fears that interspecies movement of DNA might one day lead to unwarranted effects on the environment and/or human health. But that is far from the intent.

"Food (might) be modified to provide enriched vitamins, nutrients, improve food quality, make food last longer and eventually decrease the cost of food," said plant biotechnologist Sivramiah Shantharam, with the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Some examples of bioengineering: increasing the protein content of potatoes, making oils healthier and increasing nutrient levels in rice. Shantharam says the benefits don't end with food: "In China, cotton fields are sown with seeds that are genetically implanted with a bacterium that is toxic to bollworms, the larval stage of boll weevils. Without these seeds, the crop would be wiped out."

Organic producers have waged a vigorous fight to keep bio-engineered foods from being included in the government's new organic standards. Some GMOs were included the first time the government proposed those standards, in 1997. They were withdrawn after criticism they included non-organic components-such as food irradiation and the use of sewage sludge fertilizer.

Until the USDA announced its standards, 'certified organic' labels meant a food had been recognized as such under a particular program or law. For example, the California Organic Foods Act has been in place since 1990.

"Sometimes it will be certified by a private program and sometimes by a state program," said DiMatteo.

But no matter how the product is labeled, Avery said the message should be clear: "The label does not imply organic food is healthier, safer or better for you in any way. It's purely a marketing label."

So my fellow NSGers, what's your opinon on Organic foods?

i dont pay extra for "organic" food. now and then ill end up buying some for reasons other than how it was grown/processed.

i do buy whole grain foods, avoid processed food, skip any product containing high fructose corn syrup and in general try to concentrate on good nutrition.

I can taste the difference in organic tomatoes and apples, but other stuff I just get what's ripe.

I'd buy organic if I could afford to. I don't especially trust frankenfood.

Meh, I prefer to get organic food if available and not too expensive. I also avoid high fructose corn syrup like the plague and eat whole grain and yada yada yada.

But here is the line that I think you should have highlighted (since it brings up suspicion about the validity of the anti-organic argument):

Avery's institute is funded in part by companies that profit from the sale of pesticides, such as Monsanto, DowElanco and Ag-Chem Equipment Company.

Organic veggies do taste better. I buy free range organic eggs too.

I eat organic produce when I can afford to because much of it actually comes from small farms in California, and I support local growers. I buy organic dairy products not because I think they're healthier for me, but because I think they're healthier for the cows.

I eat organic produce when I can afford to because much of it actually comes from small farms in California, and I support local growers. I buy organic dairy products not because I think they're healthier for me, but because I think they're healthier for the cows.

I buy organic dairy because my friends sell it, and they need money. It's a bit more expensive than going to the grocery store, but I like it enough.

Meh, I prefer to get organic food if available and not too expensive. I also avoid high fructose corn syrup like the plague and eat whole grain and yada yada yada.

But here is the line that I think you should have highlighted (since it brings up suspicion about the validity of the anti-organic argument):

Exactly. We should trust them why? I'd rather avoid the pesticides and frankenfoods and take my chances with fruit and veggies that potentially have bugs and mold in them.

I buy organic foods whenever I can afford it, partly because they generally taste better, but largely because they're significantly more environmentally responsible (and thus better for me, and everyone else, in the long run).

By the way, I love how that article makes a special point of saying that organic foods can still contain bacteria (and how the OP actually bolds this overwhelmingly obvious factoid). Go figure, farming without pesticides doesn't magically kill microorganisms! Wow! ;)

I buy organic foods whenever I can afford it, partly because they generally taste better, but largely because they're significantly more environmentally responsible (and thus better for me, and everyone else, in the long run).

Enviromentally responsible? How so? Organic farming needs more land to get the same crop yeilds. Many people cut down forests to get this land, destroying entire ecosystems. Inorganic farming uses less land, thus helping the enviroment.
By the way, I love how that article makes a special point of saying that organic foods can still contain bacteria (and how the OP actually bolds this overwhelmingly obvious factoid). Go figure, farming without pesticides doesn't magically kill microorganisms! Wow!
I've heard that argument before, as strange as it was. I bolded it in case there was anyone else who touted that same illogical argument.

I don't have a problem with organic food. I just can't afford it. I also don't have a problem with technology, which makes food affordable.

I'm surprisingly conscientious where food is concerned; I buy my meat from our friends small farm, or, when at university, proper butchers, and my vegetables, fruit and other such items either from grocery stalls, or the organic areas of supermarkets. Oh, and free range eggs; supporting the use of battery hens is profoundly immoral.

i buy organic milk, though i'm not 100% sure why. other than that i like to buy local foods, but don't care too much about organic. i'm not so sure its a big con - its good to have an alternative (even if it costs more) - but it just doesn't really speak to me.

free range, however, i do always buy in preference. i voted "i buy organic because it tastes better" as that's probably closest to my vague reasons for occasionally going organic :P

I'm not all that convinced nature needs all this modification and I certainly don't trust monkeys in white coats with my garlic especially if you look at the history involved (its just a little cancer nobody will mind:p)

plus its far more supportive of small farmers who will then go out and buy keys leading to a boom in key finding industry demand thus funding mans war against the hiding goblins :) (seriously can you imagine just pushing a button and knowing exactly where X thing is!)

Enviromentally responsible? How so? Organic farming needs more land to get the same crop yeilds. Many people cut down forests to get this land, destroying entire ecosystems. Inorganic farming uses less land, thus helping the enviroment.

less land is used however pollution and particularly hormonal chemicals causing havoc trends such as higher proportions of female fish and early puberty in humans etc

nevermind the fact that it further decreases disease receptiveness in crops which as the tequila crisis has proven can be disastrous to me

other: it's a con.

I'm surprisingly conscientious where food is concerned; I buy my meat from our friends small farm, or, when at university, proper butchers, and my vegetables, fruit and other such items either from grocery stalls, or the organic areas of supermarkets. Oh, and free range eggs; supporting the use of battery hens is profoundly immoral.

Agreed, I eat as much organic and free range food as possible, both for animal rights reasons and because I still find it hard to believe that organic food is somehow just as healthy as food that has chemicals crawling all over it.

That, and with produce, I can taste the difference.

How many of you have tried organic foods? What's your opinon on them? I say that they're a HUGE FRICKEN WASTE OF MONEY! They're more expensive, they taste the same(At least to me, then again, I think frozen food is delicious, so I might be a little off there), and studies show they're no healthier:

So my fellow SNGers, what's your opinon on Organic foods?

I usually go for it. Not cause I think it's healthier for me, but because I think it's overall more sustainable, with less impact on the environment.
Most of the time I would get it on farmer's markets. Yes, it does cost more, which is ridiculous considering it traveled far less, but I find there's more variety, and the veg look like real veg, not like and artist's impression.

I'm not fussed about organic food, if anything I think we need to be producing more food with a rising global population, rather than less. Having said that, I always try and get free range produce wherever possible (battery farming is completely immoral) and buy from small grocers, butchers and bakers wherever possible, although it's quite hard to get hold of one in Sheffield.

I must say that I am sorely disappointed with all those that said they at least try to buy organic.

No credible study has shown organic food to be better for you. Organic farming uses inefficient backward practices of yesteryear; it spreads disease, depletes soil, creates more waste, produces smaller yields, and is killing people in the third world. All of you nostalgic, ignorant, arrogant neo-hippies make me sick.

Fucking Luddites!

Fucking Luddites!

Damn those artisans trying to maintain their ownership of the means of production!

Damn those artisans trying to maintain their ownership of the means of production!
In this case I'm using it to refer to those that fear and oppose technology. Which is what people who support Organic are.

It's not sustainable, it's subsistence.

No credible study has shown organic food to be better for you.It seems to me that the studies should be done to show that frankenfood is as good for you as organic food; the burden of proof is on GM food. After all, humans have been eating organic food for the vast majority of our existence.

I must say that I am sorely disappointed with all those that said they at least try to buy organic.

No credible study has shown organic food to be better for you. Organic farming uses inefficient backward practices of yesteryear; it spreads disease, depletes soil, creates more waste, produces smaller yields, and is killing people in the third world. All of you nostalgic, ignorant, arrogant neo-hippies make me sick.

Fucking Luddites!

I'm curious... how does it spread disease, deplete soil and create more waste? And most importantly, how on earth buying stuff from your local farmers rather than Tesco's killing people in the 3rd world?

In this case I'm using it to refer to those that fear and oppose technology. Which is what people who support Organic are.

It's not sustainable, it's subsistence.

*roflmao

You might want to inform yourself about people's motives for buying organic food before you accuse them of being scared of technology.

I'm curious... how does it spread disease, deplete soil and create more waste? And most importantly, how on earth buying stuff from your local farmers rather than Tesco's killing people in the 3rd world?

Ever heard of things like Shop and Support (http://www.shopandsupport.ca/s_index.html)? It's the same for local farmers, only they donate 20% of their profits to arms smugglers.

Ever heard of things like Shop and Support (http://www.shopandsupport.ca/s_index.html)? It's the same for local farmers, only they donate 20% of their profits to arms smugglers.

I don't see Tesco's participating :D

I'm curious... how does it spread disease
Bugs, molds, manure isn't good if not heated properly...
deplete soil and create more waste?
It dosen't deplete soil as Indri claims, but it does create more waste as in more wasted by being eaten by insects.
And most importantly, how on earth buying stuff from your local farmers rather than Tesco's killing people in the 3rd world?
I think he meant that organic farming is less healthy, and the excess of bugs and the sort lead to deaths in the third world.
Ever heard of things like Shop and Support? It's the same for local farmers, only they donate 20% of their profits to arms smugglers.
Like me!...
Why are you looking at me like that?

Bugs, molds, manure isn't good if not heated properly...

Last time I checked, farmers here weren't really spreading manure on their lettuce... :confused:


It dosen't deplete soil as Indri claims, but it does create more waste as in more wasted by being eaten by insects.

Not exactly most profitable, but then again not exactly a bad thing either. Bugs get eaten by birds, and my cats likes eating birds. It's win-win.


I think he meant that organic farming is less healthy, and the excess of bugs and the sort lead to deaths in the third world.


And you lost me again. How does that guy over in Rathduff growing his carrots without fertiliser and pesticide kill people in the 3rd world?

It seems to me that the studies should be done to show that frankenfood is as good for you as organic food; the burden of proof is on GM food. After all, humans have been eating organic food for the vast majority of our existence.
I'm sick of that word. Frankenfood. Every commercial GM crop has been cleared as safe for people and the environment by the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA if it gets sold in the United States. These things go through millions of dollars and years of testing before they ever get sent to the feds for their approval. GM foods are disease resistant so they are safer, they are more efficient, and they are saving lives. GM foods are the latest step in agriculture and the irrational fear of them is getting poor people killed.

A Greenpeace anti-GMO campaign in Africa tragically convinced the leaders of some African nations to deny their starving people donated corn because according to GP the GE corn was poisonous and would destroy existing farmland. Zambia's ban went into effect in 2002 but was lifted in 2005 because of mounting international pressure over mounting piles of bodies.

Last time I checked, farmers here weren't really spreading manure on their lettuce...

That's what "Natural fertilizer" is.
Not exactly most profitable, but then again not exactly a bad thing either. Bugs get eaten by birds, and my cats likes eating birds. It's win-win.

Those are some fast(And hungry) birds you've got flying around to get all the bugs. May I, perchance, have a few to keep the bugs away from me?
And you lost me again. How does that guy over in Rathduff growing his carrots without fertiliser and pesticide kill people in the 3rd world?
He's saying that the third world uses organic farming and that their organic farming methods (Completly organic...Just not by choice;)) cause deaths. From the bugs and molds and other assorted goodies that come with Organic farming.

Last time I checked, farmers here weren't really spreading manure on their lettuce... :confused:

What's the point of anything organic if you aren't going to put manure on it?

And you lost me again. How does that guy over in Rathduff growing his carrots without fertiliser and pesticide kill people in the 3rd world?

Ever heard of Africanized bees? The next terror is Irishinated Root Knot.

I'm sick of that word. Frankenfood. Every commercial GM crop has been cleared as safe for people and the environment by the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA if it gets sold in the United States. These things go through millions of dollars and years of testing before they ever get sent to the feds for their approval. GM foods are disease resistant so they are safer, they are more efficient, and they are saving lives. GM foods are the latest step in agriculture and the irrational fear of them is getting poor people killed.

A Greenpeace anti-GMO campaign in Africa tragically convinced the leaders of some African nations to deny their starving people donated corn because according to GP the GE corn was poisonous and would destroy existing farmland. Zambia's ban went into effect in 2002 but was lifted in 2005 because of mounting international pressure over mounting piles of bodies.

And that's got what exactly to do with what food NSGers prefer to eat? :confused:

Those are some fast(And hungry) birds you've got flying around to get all the bugs. May I, perchance, have a few to keep the bugs away from me?

Sorry, no can do. The cat ate them all....


He's saying that the third world uses organic farming and that their organic farming methods (Completly organic...Just not by choice;)) cause deaths. From the bugs and molds and other assorted goodies that come with Organic farming.

Ah. Completely different topic to the OP, then.
As to that, I generally have no problem with Africans planting whatever crops they want. What I do have a problem - a massive problem - with is Western companies who created the crops trying to patent them and making a big profit from starving Africans. THAT I don't like.

I'm sick of that word. Frankenfood. Every commercial GM crop has been cleared as safe for people and the environment by the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA if it gets sold in the United States. These things go through millions of dollars and years of testing before they ever get sent to the feds for their approval. GM foods are disease resistant so they are safer, they are more efficient, and they are saving lives. GM foods are the latest step in agriculture and the irrational fear of them is getting poor people killed.There are plenty of things that have been given approval by government bodies that have been shown to be unsafe. Given the vast increases in cancer rates that we're seeing, it's certainly possible there's a link there.
Furthermore, 'organic' doesn't refer to just crops, organic beef exists (for instance), too, which is made from cows that haven't been given bovine growth hormone. Have there been long-term studies done to show the effect of growth hormone on humans?

A Greenpeace anti-GMO campaign in Africa tragically convinced the leaders of some African nations to deny their starving people donated corn because according to GP the GE corn was poisonous and would destroy existing farmland. Zambia's ban went into effect in 2002 but was lifted in 2005 because of mounting international pressure over mounting piles of bodies.Regardless of the veracity of Greenpeace's claims, current food needs are more vital than potential food needs, so I agree that they were wrong to persuade the Zambian government to not take the food.

And that's got what exactly to do with what food NSGers prefer to eat? :confused:

We're destroying the world and killing innocent people because we don't want to eat corn modified with frog genes and filled with pesticides.

There are plenty of things that have been given approval by government bodies that have been shown to be unsafe. Given the vast increases in cancer rates that we're seeing, it's certainly possible there's a link there.
Furthermore, 'organic' doesn't refer to just crops, organic beef exists (for instance), too, which is made from cows that haven't been given bovine growth hormone. Have there been long-term studies done to show the effect of growth hormone on humans?

Yes. Increased risk of cancer.

Yes. Increased risk of cancer.

Infertility as well. I remember that hitting the headlines in Germany way back in the 80s....

There are plenty of things that have been given approval by government bodies that have been shown to be unsafe. Given the vast increases in cancer rates that we're seeing, it's certainly possible there's a link there.
Furthermore, 'organic' doesn't refer to just crops, organic beef exists (for instance), too, which is made from cows that haven't been given bovine growth hormone. Have there been long-term studies done to show the effect of growth hormone on humans?

Cancer rates aren't rising because of unorganic foods. People living longer = More people get cancer. Cancer has a higher chance of happenning in older people, not that it dosen't happen to some young people.
Also, I am HORRIBLY underweight. I NEED those growth-hormones! :p

Cancer rates aren't rising because of unorganic foods. People living longer = More people get cancer. Cancer has a higher chance of happenning in older people, not that it dosen't happen to some young people.
Also, I am HORRIBLY underweight. I NEED those growth-hormones! :p

there are some links between between Bovine Somatotropin and IGF-1 with cancer in some studies. however the majority of studies do not show correlation. Likewise some studies show a correlation between organic food and cancer or soy bean products and cancer. More then likely it is just really easy to get cancer correlations in a study if you don't make it large enough.

I grow vegetables.

But I still need to purchase some and I can't say I lean heavily one way or the other.

there are some links between between Bovine Somatotropin and IGF-1 with cancer in some studies.
And Rotenone, a broad-spectrum organic insecticide, piscicide, and pesticide, causes Parkinson's. Nicotine is also used as an organic pesticide. Organic food is not safer. The poisons and fertilizers used just occur naturally. Not everything produced by nature is good for you. Nature produces Arsenic, Lead, and a shitload of other toxic chemicals.

I'm not all that convinced nature needs all this modification and I certainly don't trust monkeys in white coats with my garlic especially if you look at the history involved (its just a little cancer nobody will mind:p)

plus its far more supportive of small farmers who will then go out and buy keys leading to a boom in key finding industry demand thus funding mans war against the hiding goblins :) (seriously can you imagine just pushing a button and knowing exactly where X thing is!)



less land is used however pollution and particularly hormonal chemicals causing havoc trends such as higher proportions of female fish and early puberty in humans etc

nevermind the fact that it further decreases disease receptiveness in crops which as the tequila crisis has proven can be disastrous to me

True. Pesticides wreak havoc with natural ecosystems. Just because they're used on a farm, doesn't mean they stay there.

So my fellow NSGers, what's your opinon on Organic foods?


I prefer organic foods for personal health and political reasons. These reasons are actually tied together around a single substance: high-fructose corn syrup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup). The organic foods I consume exclude high-fructose corn syrup, typically using organic cane sugar instead. Since switching to a largely (but not completely) organic diet, I've lost over 20 pounds of weight and now fall within the "normal" BMI range. I eat the same kinds of foods, in the same amount. Just take out the high-fructose corn syrup and replace with actual sugar. Insta-weight loss.

Of course, by eliminating high-fructose corn syrup from my diet, I have also ceased contributing to the manufacturing of the United States' single most widely used and highly subsidized agricultural product. The amount of welfare that agricultural corporations receive from the United States government is patently criminal. Archer Daniels Midland alone spends huge resources on constantly lobbying the federal government to maintain tarrifs and other trade controls on sugar in the United States. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html) Why? Because Archer Daniels Midland wants to force you to buy its product: high-fructose corn syrup. Naturally, I'm perfectly happy to tell Archer Daniels Midland and the federal government where they can stick it. Also, Organic foods are often fair trade foods. Thus, not only is my food healthier, but more of the money I spend is going toward defending agriculture in the developing world from rather spoiled corporate welfare queens here at home. I consider organic/fair trade agriculture a necessary and natural response to the corporate welfare state. "Organic" isn't just an environmental or health movement; it is a political movement in response to a very real problem.

"Libertarian"-types thus ought to be embracing organic/fair trade, but too often they seem perfectly happy to defend the corporate architects of statist welfare and centralized planning. I may be a "luddite," but at least I'm not a vulgar (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html) two-faced hypocrite. </Op-ed>

Health and social benefits, through market-based trade. What's not to like here?

The only non-organic food that I eat is paper and analytical-grade scandium metal.

I prefer organic foods for personal health and political reasons. These reasons are actually tied together around a single substance: high-fructose corn syrup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup). The organic foods I consume exclude high-fructose corn syrup, typically using organic cane sugar instead. Since switching to a largely (but not completely) organic diet, I've lost over 20 pounds of weight and now fall within the "normal" BMI range. I eat the same kinds of foods, in the same amount. Just take out the high-fructose corn syrup and replace with actual sugar. Insta-weight loss.

to be organic you have to give up Cola.
If you do not, then you are not on a organic diet.
you know why ? Because in order to use cane sugar in soda they have to Invert it. inverted sugar becomes about 50/50 glucose and fructose basically high fructose corn syrup. except derived from sugar cane via a more expensive process. In which case that is likely the source of your weight loss. and if you didn't give up soda you maybe gave up 15% of your high fructose corn syrup.
for some reason i doubt you counted calories.


"Libertarian"-types thus ought to be embracing organic/fair trade, but too often they seem perfectly happy to defend the corporate architects of statist welfare and centralized planning. I may be a "luddite," but at least I'm not a vulgar (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html) two-faced hypocrite. </Op-ed>


fair trade artificially encourages production even when there is a lack of demand resulting in workers applying their efforts toward unproductive activities.
to quote Cato Institute's vice president for research Brink Lindsey “(fair trade is a)well intentioned, interventionist scheme...doomed to end in failure."

to be organic you have to give up Cola.


Well, I have to give up non-organic soft drinks. Not that I drink soda, anyway. Empty calories (I can count! :eek:) are empty calories, organic or not.


fair trade artificially encourages production even when there is a lack of demand resulting in workers applying their efforts toward unproductive activities.




While in theory, higher Fair Trade prices might incent farmers to increase production, in practice we have often seen the opposite. Fair Trade farmers invest Fair Trade revenues into improving their homes, sending their children to school, and on farming methods and equipment that improve crop quality -- rather than on increasing production. In fact, many Fair Trade farmer groups have successfully implemented crop diversification and income generation projects in order to reduce their dependence on a single crop as their primary source of income. Fair Trade revenues provide a safety net that allows farmers to explore alternative income generation projects such as beekeeping, ecotourism, and handicraft production.

Another reason Fair Trade does not lead to overproduction is that most Fair Trade farmer groups are currently only able to sell a fraction of their production on Fair Trade terms; they must sell the rest to conventional buyers and local traders at lower prices. In other words, most Fair Trade farmers have no incentive to increase production only to sell the majority of their harvest at low prices. As demand for Fair Trade grows, certified farmer groups will be able to sell a larger share of their production on Fair Trade terms and extend the benefits of Fair Trade to a greater number of farmers.

Nor is there any evidence that Fair Trade prices have any effect on world prices or depress prices for non-Fair Trade farmers. In fact, studies show that when Fair Trade markets are operating in rural areas, prices paid to non-Fair Trade farmers actually increase. This is because Fair Trade makes accurate market information more widely available to previously isolated farmers, and forces local intermediaries to compete with prices paid to farmers by Fair Trade cooperatives.

Fair Trade addresses the problem of asymmetric market information that renders classical "free trade" a fiction. Commodity prices can fluctuate wildly, and isolated, poor growers are often unable to take advantage of the sophisticated financial instruments employed by buyers to lower risk and volatility. The Fair Trade floor price gives farmers market information, financial stability, and access to credit.



http://www.transfairusa.org/content/resources/faq-advanced.php#oversupply



to quote Cato Institute's vice president for research Brink Lindsey “(fair trade is a)well intentioned, interventionist scheme...doomed to end in failure."



Perhaps most importantly, Fair Trade is a voluntary, market-based model of trade: farmers only receive Fair Trade minimum prices and premiums if they have a buyer willing to pay them. Unlike government mandated pricing or subsidies, any producer, company or consumer can opt in or out of Fair Trade. The Fair Trade system enables companies to take advantage of growing consumer demand for sustainable products; that's why over 600 U.S. companies have chosen to participate in the Fair Trade certification system, helping to make Fair Trade the fastest growing segment of the 11 billion dollar specialty coffee industry.


http://www.transfairusa.org/content/resources/faq-advanced.php#oversupply



Is the CATO Institute really arguing that the free market constitutes doomed "interventionism?" Really?

fair trade artificially encourages production even when there is a lack of demand resulting in workers applying their efforts toward unproductive activities.
to quote Cato Institute's vice president for research Brink Lindsey “(fair trade is a)well intentioned, interventionist scheme...doomed to end in failure."
Sad but true. A more effective way to save the poor might be to encourage biotech companies in the developed world to invest in those poor nations and work out a payment plan where they can skim some of the excess until the technology is paid for and then leave the people as self-sufficient.

Well, I have to give up non-organic soft drinks. Not that I drink soda, anyway. Empty calories (I can count! :eek:) are empty calories, organic or not.


there is no such thing as a non high fructose syrup soda.
Cane sugar must be inverted ,aka turned into high fructose syrup, or it crystallizes and sinks to the bottom when stored in a soda can or any liquid.
the difference is the source, corn Versus cane sugar, chemically they are the same. Sort of like plastics from corn as opposed to petroleum, still plastic just different sources.
non carbonated beverages can use cane sugar, you just need to shake it before opening.

I enjoyed working at the organic supermarket in my area. Wonderful, humanizing experience. I also like having local food.

I like organic food.

there is no such thing as a non high fructose syrup soda.


If this is true, then my general aversion to soda brings yet another benefit in addition to not financially supporting corporate capitalist welfare agriculture.

A more effective way to save the poor might be to encourage biotech companies in the developed world to invest in those poor nations and work out a payment plan where they can skim some of the excess until the technology is paid for and then leave the people as self-sufficient.

An even better approach would be ending government welfare, tariffs, and other trade protections for corporate agriculture. These are what motivate large agricultural companies to overproduce and dump on foreign markets, which is what depresses and destroys foreign markets to begin with. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_%28pricing_policy%29)

Of course, one's biotech companies want to maintain government welfare, tariffs, and other trade protections for corporate agriculture because otherwise self-sufficient markets in the developing world would have no need for their products. A self-sufficient developing world would mean reduced or eliminated demand for said biotech companies' products. A self-sufficient developing world is not in the profit seeking interests of said biotech companies. This is why fair (or actually free) trade exists; to do what biotech companies will not do.

I'm not a fan of welfare of any kind but you have to admit that when a people's most advanced farming technology is dumping their shit, collected in the same bowl they drink from, on their crops in the hopes that they'll grow enough to feed them another week then those people aren't really self-sufficient. The problem is not that they don't have water, sun or soil; they lack the technology and hybrid plants to cultivate enough food to feed themselves and the rest of their village. That's why I say the best solution is probably one of investment rather than charity and a pipe dream.

The fact is that in the past people died a hell of a lot more from starvation and disease than they do today because they didn't have the agricultural or sanitary technology we have today. I say that tech should be given to those that don't have it and that a payment plan be worked out because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If the current farmland were converted to 100% organic we would only be able to feed about 2/3 of the world's current population enough to keep them alive. That means that about 2 billion people would have to volunteer to disapear and I don't see that happening. And if you think I'm making that up then let me tell you, that comes from Norman Borlaug and he has studied this issue a hell of a lot more than you and done more than anyone to fight world hunger.

Fact is that you are probably lucky enough to have never had to go hungry and that if you had to live in the relative misery of developing world for a few weeks you'd be demanding equipment, fertilizer, irrigation and higher yeild seeds. Most everyone here is probably in a glass house on this issue. I'd say let he who is without understanding cast the first stone but quite a few already have.

I'm not a fan of welfare..


Neither am I.

...but you have to admit that when a people's most advanced farming technology is dumping their shit, collected in the same bowl they drink from, on their crops in the hopes that they'll grow enough to feed them another week then those people aren't really self-sufficient.
...
The fact is that in the past people died a hell of a lot more from starvation and disease than they do today because they didn't have the agricultural or sanitary technology we have today.


OK, but one has to wonder why part of humanity was able to develop the technology needed to prevent starvation or disease on it's own, while another part could not. As you said, it's not differences in soil or sun. Rather, one has to wonder what is actively keeping the second part from developing these things on its own.

The problem, as you put it, is the manipulation of the global market by the developed world in order to keep the developing world dependent on it.


That's why I say the best solution is probably one of investment rather than charity and a pipe dream.


Skimming off biotech company profits, as you suggest, is not charity? Expecting corporate agriculture to willingly act against its own profit interests is not a pipe dream?

The solution is indeed investment. This is what one does every time one bypasses corporate agriculture, and its government stooges, by buying fair trade. With each fair trade purchase, one directly invests extra money in the farmers and producers who need it the most. Investment is the whole point and purpose. Granted, fair trade still represents a very small portion of total trade, and the combined force of government and exploitative business is daunting. But the fair trade market is growing, and increasingly many consumers are choosing.


...there is no such thing as a free lunch.


And yet one expects corporate agriculture and its government to provide exactly that.


If the current farmland were converted to 100% organic...


I'm actually perfectly happy with non-organic or even bioengineered food (assuming necessary safety/regulatory standards are met, of course). What I'm not OK with is market manipulation and economic dependence masquerading as "feeding the poor with biotech." If the non-organic market would convince me that it also opposed market manipulation and supported self-sufficiency for the developing world, most of my support for organic food would actually be gone. But, for the moment, organic is the market stronghold of fair and actually free trade. Thus, organic is where my loyalty must be.


...we would only be able to feed about 2/3 of the world's current population enough to keep them alive. That means that about 2 billion people would have to volunteer to disapear and I don't see that happening.


Or the conversion to organic takes place over an extended period of time, and the people who currently live continue to do so but simply have less children. Birth rates decline, populations levels decrease naturally until a sustainable level is reached again, and nobody has to be "disappeared." The only people I've heard suggest an instant over-night conversion to 100% organic, necessitating some kind of population thinning program, are those inventing ad hominem nonsense.


Fact is that you are probably lucky enough to have never had to go hungry and that if you had to live in the relative misery of developing world for a few weeks you'd be demanding equipment, fertilizer, irrigation and higher yeild seeds.


I probably would be demanding equipment, fertilizer, irrigation and good crops. I would probably also be rather pissed off at the foreign corporations and governments destroying my local economy, and keeping it woefully underdeveloped, so they can force me to buy their products whether I want to or not. Doing so in the name of "helping" me would be especially insulting.

Skimming off biotech company profits, as you suggest, is not charity? Expecting corporate agriculture to willingly act against its own profit interests is not a pipe dream?
You misunderstand. I mean that the ag companies providing the tech would skim from the people they provide to so that they can have the immediate benefit of the tech provided and pay it off over time. After that they'll be self-sufficient.

The solution is indeed investment. This is what one does every time one bypasses corporate agriculture, and its government stooges, by buying fair trade. With each fair trade purchase, one directly invests extra money in the farmers and producers who need it the most. Investment is the whole point and purpose. Granted, fair trade still represents a very small portion of total trade, and the combined force of government and exploitative business is daunting. But the fair trade market is growing, and increasingly many consumers are choosing.
Fair trade isn't. It's just something that sounds nice. A marketing ploy. It exploits the people that its supports claim it helps like any other. Instead of getting paid 5 cents a week to till the fields with grandpa's femur they get 7 cents. Meanwhile, the folks running the op go from making $2 off a cup of coffee to raking in $8.

And yet one expects corporate agriculture and its government to provide exactly that.
Not me.

Or the conversion to organic takes place over an extended period of time, and the people who currently live continue to do so but simply have less children. Birth rates decline, populations levels decrease naturally until a sustainable level is reached again, and nobody has to be "disappeared." The only people I've heard suggest an instant over-night conversion to 100% organic, necessitating some kind of population thinning program, are those inventing ad hominem nonsense.
Birthrates decline when a country becomes developed, not when the infant mortality rate is so high that folks have to have 12 kids just to see 3 make it to 30. That's done by moving forward with technology. Organic is a backward step down anachronism avenue.

I probably would be demanding equipment, fertilizer, irrigation and good crops. I would probably also be rather pissed off at the foreign corporations and government destroying my local economy, and keeping it woefully underdeveloped, so they can force me to buy their products whether I want to or not. Doing so in the name of "helping" me would be especially insulting.
It's self-centered, arrogant neo-hippies like yourself that are standing in the way of that equipment, fertilizer, irrigation and high-yeild crops because you either hate big business or fear new technology. People like you are getting people with less money and darker skin killed.

You misunderstand. I mean that the ag companies providing the tech would skim from the people they provide to so that they can have the immediate benefit of the tech provided and pay it off over time. After that they'll be self-sufficient.


How is this better than consumers choosing to pay higher prices directly to farmers and producers, so that farmers and producers can purchase what they need directly from whoever they choose? How is some centralized development scheme involving governments and corporations better than simple market choice?


Birthrates decline when a country becomes developed, not when the infant mortality rate is so high that folks have to have 12 kids just to see 3 make it to 30.


Indeed. Now, if we could get corporations and their governments out of the way (as would occur with a large scale transition to fair trade/organic), these countries could develop, and people wouldn't have to have 12 kids just to see 3 make it to 30. But a self-sufficient country isn't a desperately paying customer, is it?


It's self-centered, arrogant neo-hippies like yourself that are standing in the way of that equipment, fertilizer, irrigation and high-yeild crops because you either hate big business or fear new technology. People like you are getting people with less money and darker skin killed.

Actually, if you go back and read my post again, you'll find that I have no problem with biotechnology. I'll save you the time:



I'm actually perfectly happy with non-organic or even bioengineered food (assuming necessary safety/regulatory standards are met, of course).



Instead, what I've been focusing on is artificial market manipulations, government protectionism, and corporate complicity in both. I only "hate big business" to the extent that "big business" works against free choice and the market. But you choose to ignore that, and instead make statements about my beliefs that are clearly untrue. Why is that? If "big business" is so concerned about "people with less money and darker skin," why does it consistently bend over backwards in the halls of Congress to get international trade policies that sink those very same people into abject poverty?

And Rotenone, a broad-spectrum organic insecticide, piscicide, and pesticide, causes Parkinson's. Nicotine is also used as an organic pesticide. Organic food is not safer. The poisons and fertilizers used just occur naturally. Not everything produced by nature is good for you. Nature produces Arsenic, Lead, and a shitload of other toxic chemicals.

Again, it may not be better or worse for humans. But nature tends to be better for nature, overall. Which is a good enough reason for me.

fair trade artificially encourages production even when there is a lack of demand resulting in workers applying their efforts toward unproductive activities.
to quote Cato Institute's vice president for research Brink Lindsey “(fair trade is a)well intentioned, interventionist scheme...doomed to end in failure."

No demand for sugar, coffee, tea and chocolate? What planet do you live on?

Sad but true. A more effective way to save the poor might be to encourage biotech companies in the developed world to invest in those poor nations and work out a payment plan where they can skim some of the excess until the technology is paid for and then leave the people as self-sufficient.

Which biotech companies are not very likely to be interested in. C'mon, that would be like trying to encourage the music industry to promote file sharing. Biotech companies make their living by patenting crops and charging everyone who uses it, so instead of getting grain once, growing it and keeping surplus for next year's crop farmers will have to pay for their seeds every year.

I'm sick of those frankentomatoes - they all taste like plastic. I'll have the traditional cultivars, and raised the traditional way too, whenever I can afford them.

Anyway, I don't eat rocks or other minerals (except dihydrogen monoxide, sodium chloride, and sodium iodide), so everything I eat qualifies as "organic".

So my fellow NSGers, what's your opinon on Organic foods?



Bwahahahah organic foods? Can anybody please show me the food which is not organic?

Bwahahahah organic foods? Can anybody please show me the food which is not organic?

Salt?

Salt?

Damn you!:D

when i was born, the only thing edible that WASN'T "organic" was olio and some of the preservatives they were starting to put in canned goods.

do i willingly pay extra for the word organic on the label some obviously manufactured packaged food product? sometimes. if its produced more or less locally.

will i pay as much or a little more, at a farmer's market or food co-op, for some really straingely deformed looking item of produce that tastes a million times better then its more cosmetic cousins in the produce isle of a major super market chain? you betcha!

and so, appearantly would and do a lot of other people, and yes, i consider that to be a very good thing and sign.

will i prefer to cook from scratch with locally, organically or not, but organically even better, produce, then micro-wave a prepaired food product or open a can, or subsist on macgreaseburgers and reconstituted oil saturated deep fried ...? you betcha again. i do it all the time.

noodles and broth are the staples of my diet. to which i often add meat and shrooms. i'm not food prejudiced. i like the gratification of protien, though not the way domestic agricultural animals are treated by big agrabussiness.

there are people who put comodification, in the false assumption they get something out of it, ahead of real people and real conditions we all experience. it is they, not we, who raise and make false issues, attempting to trivealize the bennifits of honest dealings with reality, that do not begin and end with symbolic value.

organic food, isn't something seperate and exotic. it is the foundation of life our species evolved with.

so gimmi a break with this nonsense of trying to pretend comodifying everything, trying to make everything have to begin and end with symbolic value, is either natural or gods gift to the universe.

a real, wild tomatoe, grown in compost, that has never known pesticide, but is bug free, because it wasn't monocultured but companion planted with other vegitation that repel its natural preditors, is more real then all the political arguments in favor of large scale centralization of everything.

bite into one and you wonder why you ever ate those cold storage artificially 'ripened' things in the store, that by comparison taste like a styrofoam coffee cup.

so yes to organic, more yes to locally grown, and even more yes, to organically grown yourself.

but no to the for profit pretentious abuse of the concept, as unfortunately also occasionally happens, and which, those who wish to trivialize anything worth a dam, try to make happen more.

=^^=
.../\...

Bwahahahah organic foods? Can anybody please show me the food which is not organic?

What foods haven't been genetically modified? Maybe some fish and other aquatic products.

So of course when people say organic foods vs. genetically modified foods we are talking about specific definitions.

What foods haven't been genetically modified? Maybe some fish and other aquatic products.

So of course when people say organic foods vs. genetically modified foods we are talking about specific definitions.

Heh it just makes me laugh, I'm a fairly old bloke now, and not getting younger, when the label 'organic food' first hit, I thought it, and still do really, a sad indicment at the state of things when we have to invent what is essentialy a meaningless label to differicate how food is grown.

Shit man, all food, yes even GM food is organic is it not?

I don't think organic is healthier, but I prefer that Monsanto and their ilk don't get a strangle hold over food production. I try and buy things that are seasonal and local. I do think some organic products taste better - cucumbers for example - and in my experience tend to keep longer.

Bwahahahah organic foods? Can anybody please show me the food which is not organic?

As I stated above:

dihydrogen monoxide
sodium chloride
sodium iodide
carbon dioxide

are the most common non-organic things you eat/drink.

Salt?

salt doesn't have calories it is not food. it is a dietary mineral

salt doesn't have calories it is not food. it is a dietary mineral

Celery has negative calories. It's food, though.

Calories aren't the only "things" a living being needs. You need also some other things for your metabolism to work.

Heh it just makes me laugh, I'm a fairly old bloke now, and not getting younger, when the label 'organic food' first hit, I thought it, and still do really, a sad indicment at the state of things when we have to invent what is essentialy a meaningless label to differicate how food is grown.

Shit man, all food, yes even GM food is organic is it not?

Meh. By Organic they, whoever coined and popularized the word, probably were trying to convey a kind of "naturalness" possessed by organic food. Given the haphazardness of language I do not see why this definition should garner scorn.

Celery has negative calories. It's food, though.

Calories aren't the only "things" a living being needs. You need also some other things for your metabolism to work.

there is no such thing as a negative calorie(unless you count food made of anti matter).
celery has calories, it just takes more calories to break it down.
all food takes energy to break down, celery being high in fiber just takes more effort to break down then you get out of it.

Yes you need more then food or calories to survive, it is still not food unless it has calories.

Meh. By Organic they, whoever coined and popularized the word, probably were trying to convey a kind of "naturalness" possessed by organic food. Given the haphazardness of language I do not see why this definition should garner scorn.

Heh and again, it still makes me laugh. Am I belive that Carrot A is less organic than Carrot B?

For the record though, 'organic' is always the better option.

Again, it may not be better or worse for humans. But nature tends to be better for nature, overall. Which is a good enough reason for me.
Nature is inefficient and in the way. We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom. But in all seriousness, whether a chemical compound is produced naturally or artificially doesn't change what it is or how it works. Natural is not better and "organic" is just a marketing ploy.

Which biotech companies are not very likely to be interested in. C'mon, that would be like trying to encourage the music industry to promote file sharing. Biotech companies make their living by patenting crops and charging everyone who uses it, so instead of getting grain once, growing it and keeping surplus for next year's crop farmers will have to pay for their seeds every year.
You ever hear of the Green Revolution? That was a period from the 40's to the 60's and a little after where what is considered primitive biotech was distributed to the poorer nations so that the people wouldn't starve. When doom prophets were hoppin' around saying we'd all starve in a Malthusian disaster guys like Norman Borlaug were tinkering with genes to create new super-crops that saved a billion people from death by starvation. Norman is the greatest man to have ever walked the planet because he led the charge to save a billion people.

But even with all that work there are still people starving in poor parts of the world. Our technology has advanced since then and it makes sense to use the newer tech to further reduce hunger. The tech should be distributed to the developing world and the companies can work out a payment plan that will let everyone go home a winner.

Odds are that most everyone who's posted in this thread, hell most on this forum are in a glass house on the issue of world hunger. Quite a few are throwing rocks without realizing it. It's fine to feel with your heart but you've got to use your head for everything else.

Nature is inefficient and in the way. We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom. But in all seriousness, whether a chemical compound is produced naturally or artificially doesn't change what it is or how it works. Natural is not better and "organic" is just a marketing ploy.


You ever hear of the Green Revolution? That was a period from the 40's to the 60's and a little after where what is considered primitive biotech was distributed to the poorer nations so that the people wouldn't starve. When doom prophets were hoppin' around saying we'd all starve in a Malthusian disaster guys like Norman Borlaug were tinkering with genes to create new super-crops that saved a billion people from death by starvation. Norman is the greatest man to have ever walked the planet because he led the charge to save a billion people.

But even with all that work there are still people starving in poor parts of the world. Our technology has advanced since then and it makes sense to use the newer tech to further reduce hunger. The tech should be distributed to the developing world and the companies can work out a payment plan that will let everyone go home a winner.

Odds are that most everyone who's posted in this thread, hell most on this forum are in a glass house on the issue of world hunger. Quite a few are throwing rocks without realizing it. It's fine to feel with your heart but you've got to use your head for everything else.



QFT

if we were to go to a 100% world wide organic food production system large segments of the 3rd world would starve. the organic food marketing ploy is simply people feeling that by some how eating pregreen revolution style food they are making things better. when if such a strategy were forced world wide millions or billions would starve.

All I gotta say is, if your food isn't organic, you have a problem.

People should stop trying to eat rocks.

How many of you have tried organic foods? What's your opinon on them? I say that they're a HUGE FRICKEN WASTE OF MONEY! They're more expensive, they taste the same(At least to me, then again, I think frozen food is delicious, so I might be a little off there), and studies show they're no healthier:
Yes, you're right, Monsanto say they're utter crap. What a terrible surprise.
So my fellow NSGers, what's your opinon on Organic foods?
Organic food is great. Anything non-GM is fine, mind.

You ever hear of the Green Revolution? That was a period from the 40's to the 60's and a little after where what is considered primitive biotech was distributed to the poorer nations so that the people wouldn't starve.
Yep, that was alright for a bit.
When doom prophets were hoppin' around saying we'd all starve in a Malthusian disaster guys like Norman Borlaug were tinkering with genes to create new super-crops that saved a billion people from death by starvation. Norman is the greatest man to have ever walked the planet because he led the charge to save a billion people.

But even with all that work there are still people starving in poor parts of the world. Our technology has advanced since then and it makes sense to use the newer tech to further reduce hunger. The tech should be distributed to the developing world and the companies can work out a payment plan that will let everyone go home a winner.

Odds are that most everyone who's posted in this thread, hell most on this forum are in a glass house on the issue of world hunger. Quite a few are throwing rocks without realizing it. It's fine to feel with your heart but you've got to use your head for everything else.
You get more food available, then you'll get more people being born in those areas. You might think that's a superb thing, but just remember that whilst you can create GMOs which you can pour weedkiller on and survive to increase crop yield, you can't modify water to make it more thirst-quenching in the same fashion - something people often forget in their hurry to claim that GMOs are the answer to all of our problems in the third world.

There was a time once when organic had a very definite and tangible advantage over non-organic food. That time (and place) was Britain during the BSE crisis. There has never been any recorded incidence of BSE on organic farms.

Another thing I remember is that organic does not mean no pesticides. All it means is that certain types of pesticides are used. I seem to remember that there is (was maybe) one pesticide that organic farms were allowed to used which was actually extremely toxic to mammals. A quick google points me to rotenone which is a neurotoxin. Not sure if rotenone is the right one, but it sounds familiar.

Oooh, some more googling shows that Copper Octanoate is an organic pesticide, and that Copper is extremely damaging to the environment.

Give me fair trade over organic any day. *nods*

Yep, that was alright for a bit.
Glad you agree...sort of.

You get more food available, then you'll get more people being born in those areas. You might think that's a superb thing, but just remember that whilst you can create GMOs which you can pour weedkiller on and survive to increase crop yield, you can't modify water to make it more thirst-quenching in the same fashion - something people often forget in their hurry to claim that GMOs are the answer to all of our problems in the third world.
Actually when a place gets developed the birthrates decline because people won't have to have lots of kids just to see a couple grow up. Have you seen the birthrates in Europe?

Developing a country not only makes it self-sufficient in the modern world but it also means an end to sweatshop labor. America and Europe both had a lot of sweatshops way back in the good ol' days but we went through a process of development and transitioned to assembly lines and then to office jobs as manufacturing became more automated. Now we have an abundance of food even though less than 5% of the population is involved in food production. We also have easier lives than we did 100 years ago because now you do more at a computer terminal controlling mechanical minions instead of doing all the work yourself.

I for one love organic food.

I also picked "other," because it has superior taste, has less bad stuff in it, and doesn't come from destructive and untrustworthy government supported corporate monoculture.

I also picked "other," because it has superior taste, has less bad stuff in it, and doesn't come from destructive and untrustworthy government supported corporate monoculture.
And just what bad stuff does modern food have in it that organic doesn't? It can't be the pesticides because the organic variety will give you cancer and degenerative neurological disorders. It can't be the fertilizers because the organic variety transmit stuff like intestinal parasites, e. coli and cholera. And how exactly are government chemists, biologists, doctors, etc. suddenly untrustworthy? If we can't trust scientists on matters of food then who should we? Professional Greenpeace activists?

there is no such thing as a non high fructose syrup soda. Diet soda. ;)

Nature is inefficient and in the way. We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom. But in all seriousness, whether a chemical compound is produced naturally or artificially doesn't change what it is or how it works. Natural is not better and "organic" is just a marketing ploy.

Well, call me spoilt and picky, but I do taste a difference between tomatoes from Tescos and ones from my back garden.
I also taste a difference between wild strawberries and supermarket ones.
Natural is not "better" in the sense that it does produce less, and requires more effort, but when it comes to taste natural beats industrial by miles.


You ever hear of the Green Revolution? That was a period from the 40's to the 60's and a little after where what is considered primitive biotech was distributed to the poorer nations so that the people wouldn't starve. When doom prophets were hoppin' around saying we'd all starve in a Malthusian disaster guys like Norman Borlaug were tinkering with genes to create new super-crops that saved a billion people from death by starvation. Norman is the greatest man to have ever walked the planet because he led the charge to save a billion people.

But even with all that work there are still people starving in poor parts of the world. Our technology has advanced since then and it makes sense to use the newer tech to further reduce hunger. The tech should be distributed to the developing world and the companies can work out a payment plan that will let everyone go home a winner.

Odds are that most everyone who's posted in this thread, hell most on this forum are in a glass house on the issue of world hunger. Quite a few are throwing rocks without realizing it. It's fine to feel with your heart but you've got to use your head for everything else.

Hey, I'm all for giving poorer countries every opportunity to increase their crops and prevent starvation.
However, from what I've seen and heard from the biotech companies, they don't really see it that way. A starving person should not be a business opportunity, no matter what way you look at it. And my problem is not with the genetically modified food, if that grows better fair play to them. My problem is with those companies coming in and effectively making poor farmers depend on their products, while charging an arm and a leg for them.
They're being fucked either way, the normal crops not yeilding enough for the growing population, and the enhanced versions prohibitively expensive.

QFT

if we were to go to a 100% world wide organic food production system large segments of the 3rd world would starve. the organic food marketing ploy is simply people feeling that by some how eating pregreen revolution style food they are making things better. when if such a strategy were forced world wide millions or billions would starve.

You love attacking strawmen, don't you?
Nobody here ever promoted enforcing organic production everywhere. Some people here simply choose to eat food that wasn't mass-produced and supermarket-bought, for a variety of reasons. Both yourself and Indri keep attacking an opinion that wasn't voiced even once. You're starting to look rather ridiculous right about now...

And just what bad stuff does modern food have in it that organic doesn't? It can't be the pesticides because the organic variety will give you cancer and degenerative neurological disorders. It can't be the fertilizers because the organic variety transmit stuff like intestinal parasites, e. coli and cholera. And how exactly are government chemists, biologists, doctors, etc. suddenly untrustworthy? If we can't trust scientists on matters of food then who should we? Professional Greenpeace activists?

Well, guess what? The organic stuff from my garden has none of the above...

QFT

if we were to go to a 100% world wide organic food production system large segments of the 3rd world would starve. the organic food marketing ploy is simply people feeling that by some how eating pregreen revolution style food they are making things better. when if such a strategy were forced world wide millions or billions would starve.

If developed countries stopped wasting food in huge quantities - enormous amounts of food are thrown away - it wouldn't be a problem. The 3rd world starves because the US (and other developed countries to a lesser extent) take more than their fair share of the worlds resources - not because of organic agriculture.

What foods haven't been genetically modified?

So of course when people say organic foods vs. genetically modified foods we are talking about specific definitions.

About modified food:

Of course, most of the crops and most of the animals we feed on are different from the original varieties - that is, previous to human intervention. Take tomatoes. Originally tomatoes were YELLOW - hence the italian name, "pomodoro" = "pomo d'oro" = golden apple - and were cultivated as ornamental plants. It was in the second half of the XIX century that the edible red cultivar was developed.
Same goes for maize, corn, rice, beef, pigs...
Some of the best varieties of rice are developed via irradiation of the seeds, a technique called accelerated mutation. The irradiated seeds are then planted in greenhouses, and the most beneficial shoots selected for further trial and, eventually, for mass production.
So, the question about modified food isn't "is modified food is good or evil". It's more like this:
1.what aspects of the species are you modifying?
2.what do those modifications allow? if it's "more resistant to pesticides so we can use a lot more of them", then somewhat is amiss. if it's "more resistant to pests so we'll need less pesticides" maybe it's ok.
3.who controls the modifications, and who decides about what varieties should be used, and where? is it the FAO, or is it Monsanto? i'd trust FAO more than Monsanto to come up with something that is beneficial to the whole humanity: after all, Monsanto CEOs have a duty to raise the incomes of the Monsanto shareholders, not to create better global lifestandards.

If developed countries stopped wasting food in huge quantities - enormous amounts of food are thrown away - it wouldn't be a problem. The 3rd world starves because the US (and other developed countries to a lesser extent) take more than their fair share of the worlds resources - not because of organic agriculture.
We have more than our fair share because of our advanced technology and wealth. Spreading that to the rest of the world would mean that everyone could worry about having too much food instead of trying to get any.

Well, call me spoilt and picky, but I do taste a difference between tomatoes from Tescos and ones from my back garden.
I also taste a difference between wild strawberries and supermarket ones.
Natural is not "better" in the sense that it does produce less, and requires more effort, but when it comes to taste natural beats industrial by miles.
But that's a matter of opinion. How do you know you aren't biased? You certainly sound it. Have you ever conducted a double-blind study to determine which tastes better or if you can really taste the difference at all when you don't know which is which? Doubtful.

I have a pretty good sense of taste and I can tell you right now that I can turn a TV dinner, some stale bread, a can of diced tomatoes, potato flakes, and a can of tuna into fine dining that will fool almost anyone. It's all in the presentation and the preperation of the food.

Hey, I'm all for giving poorer countries every opportunity to increase their crops and prevent starvation.
However, from what I've seen and heard from the biotech companies, they don't really see it that way. A starving person should not be a business opportunity, no matter what way you look at it. And my problem is not with the genetically modified food, if that grows better fair play to them. My problem is with those companies coming in and effectively making poor farmers depend on their products, while charging an arm and a leg for them.
They're being fucked either way, the normal crops not yeilding enough for the growing population, and the enhanced versions prohibitively expensive.
But that's the thing. Terminator genes, while developed, haven't been introduced yet.

Charity is like a crutch, something to lean on but it's not a solution to a bad knee. It's like the old saying goes, give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day but set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. The reason that big companies are doing this is because governments won't do it and the humanitarian scientists often don't have the resources that the big companies do. Saving the world also makes for one hell of an ad campaign which is why the big companies are willing to fund the humanitarian scientist's research.

You love attacking strawmen, don't you?
Nobody here ever promoted enforcing organic production everywhere. Some people here simply choose to eat food that wasn't mass-produced and supermarket-bought, for a variety of reasons.
If you guys want to spend extra money on food that isn't better than mass-produced food, knock yourself out.

I'll be over here being more efficient.

Plus, it's apparently now possible to buy Organic Salt.

Think about that, for a second. I've long complained about the Organic designation for being redundant, as all food consists of organic chemicals.

Except salt. Salt is an inorganic chemical. Marketing Organic Salt really demonstrates how incredibly silly the entire movement is.

You love attacking strawmen, don't you?
Nobody here ever promoted enforcing organic production everywhere. Some people here simply choose to eat food that wasn't mass-produced and supermarket-bought, for a variety of reasons. Both yourself and Indri keep attacking an opinion that wasn't voiced even once. You're starting to look rather ridiculous right about now...
Well...not really. Turns out that there are people, some with more famous organizations than others, which do want to see the world go 100% organic. There are also people that want to make paper recycling mandatory even though it's damaging to the environment and produces lower quality paper.

Charles Margulis is Greenpeace's genetic engineering specialist but doesn't seem to really know much about the topic of GMOs because he made the erronious claim that GE crops are not tested by any government agency and destroy the environment. He's also in favor of the whole world going 100% organic. And he's not alone.

Simon Harris and the Organic Consumers Association also push for strictly organic food. Hell, they're even against irradiation of food to kill food borne illnesses before they cause an outbreak of some horrible shit-transmitted disease.

Organic fertilizer is bullshit. And so is organic farming in general. Well that's not really fair. There was a time when the methods of organic farming were considered high-tech and were the best way to produce a lot of food to feed a lot of people. That time has passed but like astrology, ghost stories, and so much other bullshit it has lingered. Be kind, don't rewind. We shouldn't be going backward and you sure as hell shouldn't call that backtracking progressive.

So, Indri, are you saying that the better taste of organic food is purely psychological?

Oh, and another question: most of what you've been arguing has to do with vegetables and fruits. What about free-range/organic chickens/chicken broth/other meat products? What about organic milk? That stuff okay, or are they too raised with cancer and neurological-disease causing stuff?

So, Indri, are you saying that the better taste of organic food is purely psychological?
In most cases it probably is. Same goes for bottled water. If you put a cup of bottled water in front of most people and set another cup of New York City tap next to it most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Expectation can play a huge role in how something wil taste.

Oh, and another question: most of what you've been arguing has to do with vegetables and fruits. What about free-range/organic chickens/chicken broth/other meat products? What about organic milk? That stuff okay, or are they too raised with cancer and neurological-disease causing stuff?
I do not trust organic meat to the point that I will actively avoid it if I can. I have nothing against free-range but when the word "organic" gets slipped in there it means that the animal probably didn't recieve any medical attention when it was alive and that the meat was most likely not irradiated after slaughter. That meat could contain bateria and parasites that could cause illnesses. Now it's true that cooking an organic steak till it's well done will almost certainly make it safe to eat but not if it isn't prepared correctly then there may be a higher likelyhood that you could get sick from eating it.

Modern farming is all about reducing the risks of food-borne illnesses while increasing yeilds. Part of that means giving animals proper medical treatment and plenty of food. Another part is making sure that plants get fertilizer, proper irrigation and pesticides to keep bugs off. Irradiation is also a big one because that will kill a lot of bacteria that may get into the food before it hits the shelf.

It's all about risk mitigation and higher yeilds so that the fod you eat is safer and everyone can worry about which of the latest diets they'll be trying instead of wondering where and when their next meal will be. If you want to eat organic that's ok, just know that it isn't good for the environment, that it probably doesn't taste any better, that it's overpriced, a marketting ploy, that it's an outdated method of farming, and that it is not safer and may even be a little more risky than regular food and modern farming.

Okay then.

What about the possible long-term health effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff put into food? What about preservatives and artificial ingredients, such as dyes?

These days, it seems as if I straddle a wall. On one side is organic food with all of its potential problems. On the other side is the normal stuff which has its own possible perils.

I'd really like it if we didn't have this problem. Hopefully genetic modification in the future will eliminate the need for pesticides and whatnot, thus allowing us to sidestep that issue.

So, Indri, are you saying that the better taste of organic food is purely psychological?

Oh, and another question: most of what you've been arguing has to do with vegetables and fruits. What about free-range/organic chickens/chicken broth/other meat products? What about organic milk? That stuff okay, or are they too raised with cancer and neurological-disease causing stuff?

For the most part it is.
however there are two real sources of taste as well.
Less preservative in organic food.
Normally I pick up on this with organic wine which does not have sulfides in it.
However you can buy sulfide free non organic wine at a much cheaper price.

another issue is vegetables factory farming they often pick vegetables before they are ripe then what i think is a propane treatment to ripen them artificially. organic foods don't have this issue because they are often locally harvested, and are not treated to artificially ripen them.
Again this is not tied organic food specifically, any locally produced produce will taste better visit a farmers market if you have them in your area. Also there are genetically modified vegetables that will have both a long shelf life and superior taste because they have be designed to stay ripe for a long time.



cancer. seriously everything has a link to cancer if you do enough studies on it. Such studies are being over reported and taking attention away from dangerous cancer agents such as tobacco.

For the most part it is.
however there are two real sources of taste as well.
Less preservative in organic food.
Normally I pick up on this with organic wine which does not have sulfides in it.
However you can buy sulfide free non organic wine at a much cheaper price.

another issue is vegetables factory farming they often pick vegetables before they are ripe then what i think is a propane treatment to ripen them artificially. organic foods don't have this issue because they are often locally harvested, and are not treated to artificially ripen them.
Again this is not tied organic food specifically, any locally produced produce will taste better visit a farmers market if you have them in your area. Also there are genetically modified vegetables that will have both a long shelf life and superior taste because they have be designed to stay ripe for a long time.



cancer. seriously everything has a link to cancer if you do enough studies on it. Such studies are being over reported and taking attention away from dangerous cancer agents such as tobacco.

I'd like to believe what you're saying but given that you've got a very bad reputation on credibility(hydrogen will melt your face off...:D) I'd like some links to back up your statement.

Yours too, Indri. Should've asked for that from the start.

hydrogen will melt your face off...:D
Since when does it do that? I mean when it isn't rapidly oxidizing.

Yours too, Indri. Should've asked for that from the start.
Not all of my sources will fit in a URL. A lot come from text books from school and my local library and I have some personal experience in agriculture because my grandparents used to operate their farm instead of rent out their land and I got to work on that farm as a kid during the summer. There is video evdence of Simon Harris saying that he wants the world to go organic on Penn&Teller: Bullshit! and both the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace have been spouting the same basic message since it's been fashionable to do so. I will also occassionally paraphrase a little Norman Borlaug on this issue because I too "want to see science serve a useful purpose".

And now for a little Hamlet because no villain is complete without at least one Shakespear quote and I do tend to take the unpopular side.

What he might say with irony, I say with conviction. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god."

Since when does it do that? I mean when it isn't rapidly oxidizing.
Exactly. He claimed hydrogen would melt people's faces off in one post where he was posting an anti-alternative energies argument. (Hence my comment about his credibility being rather...strained.)


Not all of my sources will fit in a URL. A lot come from text books from school and my local library and I have some personal experience in agriculture because my grandparents used to operate their farm instead of rent out their land and I got to work on that farm as a kid during the summer. There is video evdence of Simon Harris saying that he wants the world to go organic on Penn&Teller: Bullshit! and both the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace have been spouting the same basic message since it's been fashionable to do so. I will also occassionally paraphrase a little Norman Borlaug on this issue because I too "want to see science serve a useful purpose".

And now for a little Hamlet because no villain is complete without at least one Shakespear quote and I do tend to take the unpopular side.

What he might say with irony, I say with conviction. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god."

Ah, okay then.

Keep in mind I'm not saying I disbelieve you out of spite or anything here. I just want to make sure I'm getting accurate information, especially when it concerns one of the most important things in my--or anyone else's--life.

Somewhere between THIS...

I'm sick of that word. Frankenfood. Every commercial GM crop has been cleared as safe for people and the environment by the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA if it gets sold in the United States. These things go through millions of dollars and years of testing before they ever get sent to the feds for their approval. GM foods are disease resistant so they are safer, they are more efficient, and they are saving lives. GM foods are the latest step in agriculture and the irrational fear of them is getting poor people killed.

A Greenpeace anti-GMO campaign in Africa tragically convinced the leaders of some African nations to deny their starving people donated corn because according to GP the GE corn was poisonous and would destroy existing farmland. Zambia's ban went into effect in 2002 but was lifted in 2005 because of mounting international pressure over mounting piles of bodies.

...and THIS...

I prefer organic foods for personal health and political reasons. These reasons are actually tied together around a single substance: high-fructose corn syrup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup). The organic foods I consume exclude high-fructose corn syrup, typically using organic cane sugar instead. Since switching to a largely (but not completely) organic diet, I've lost over 20 pounds of weight and now fall within the "normal" BMI range. I eat the same kinds of foods, in the same amount. Just take out the high-fructose corn syrup and replace with actual sugar. Insta-weight loss.

Of course, by eliminating high-fructose corn syrup from my diet, I have also ceased contributing to the manufacturing of the United States' single most widely used and highly subsidized agricultural product. The amount of welfare that agricultural corporations receive from the United States government is patently criminal. Archer Daniels Midland alone spends huge resources on constantly lobbying the federal government to maintain tarrifs and other trade controls on sugar in the United States. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html) Why? Because Archer Daniels Midland wants to force you to buy its product: high-fructose corn syrup. Naturally, I'm perfectly happy to tell Archer Daniels Midland and the federal government where they can stick it. Also, Organic foods are often fair trade foods. Thus, not only is my food healthier, but more of the money I spend is going toward defending agriculture in the developing world from rather spoiled corporate welfare queens here at home. I consider organic/fair trade agriculture a necessary and natural response to the corporate welfare state. "Organic" isn't just an environmental or health movement; it is a political movement in response to a very real problem.

"Libertarian"-types thus ought to be embracing organic/fair trade, but too often they seem perfectly happy to defend the corporate architects of statist welfare and centralized planning. I may be a "luddite," but at least I'm not a vulgar (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html) two-faced hypocrite. </Op-ed>

Health and social benefits, through market-based trade. What's not to like here?

...the truth lies.

This is why I seldom get into this kind of argument. Both sides have sound arguments and links beyond links to back them up. There must be some kind of common ground or hybrid approach that takes into account the horseshit that is corporate welfare/crop dumping and the horseshit that is unenlightened hippie-speak about organic food and the evils of corporations.

Until someone can reconcile those opposing viewpoints, I take both extremes with not a grain, but an entire lick's worth of salt. Otherwise, it's a game of we-said/they-said tennis. And I don't care for tennis.

The truth isn't democratic. We shouldn't have to try to reconcile astronomy with astrology in a lame and stupid attempt to satisfy everyone. When you want to know about agricultural technology you have to go to an expert like Norman Borlaug. When you want to learn about magic you have to go to an expert like James Randi.

Makes sense, doesn't it? When you want to know about something it's a good idea to consult an expert in the field.

Organic food makes my job harder, since it's one more number to punch in in front of the code. F*ck codes! I've only memorized the ones for plastic bags and Bartlett Pears. Nobody can buy anything else. Hmm...donuts might be 1051. I'll have to look that one up.

I'd buy organic if I could afford to. I don't especially trust frankenfood.Oh, you just say that because it's green and got a bolt through it's neck.
Ok, admittedly it's a bit odd for vegetables to have a neck, but at least the colour is right.

Plus, it's apparently now possible to buy Organic Salt.

Think about that, for a second. I've long complained about the Organic designation for being redundant, as all food consists of organic chemicals.

Except salt. Salt is an inorganic chemical. Marketing Organic Salt really demonstrates how incredibly silly the entire movement is.

Words can have more than one meaning - organic in the food sense was never meant to be the same as the technical sense in chemistry of a carbon containing compound. Do you not put 'gas' in your car because it is actually a liquid?

If you guys want to spend extra money on food that isn't better than mass-produced food, knock yourself out.

I'll be over here being more efficient.

Guess what? I'm being far more economical than that, I grow my own veg. :p

This way, I get far more variety than any supermarket, spend less money and get tomatoes that actually taste of tomatoes.

Well...not really. Turns out that there are people, some with more famous organizations than others, which do want to see the world go 100% organic. There are also people that want to make paper recycling mandatory even though it's damaging to the environment and produces lower quality paper.

Charles Margulis is Greenpeace's genetic engineering specialist but doesn't seem to really know much about the topic of GMOs because he made the erronious claim that GE crops are not tested by any government agency and destroy the environment. He's also in favor of the whole world going 100% organic. And he's not alone.

Simon Harris and the Organic Consumers Association also push for strictly organic food. Hell, they're even against irradiation of food to kill food borne illnesses before they cause an outbreak of some horrible shit-transmitted disease.

Organic fertilizer is bullshit. And so is organic farming in general. Well that's not really fair. There was a time when the methods of organic farming were considered high-tech and were the best way to produce a lot of food to feed a lot of people. That time has passed but like astrology, ghost stories, and so much other bullshit it has lingered. Be kind, don't rewind. We shouldn't be going backward and you sure as hell shouldn't call that backtracking progressive.


And yet, nobody in this thread has made the argument that the world should go 100% organic tomorrow. Didn't stop you from arguing against it...

My problem with the fertilisers is not what germs they do or don't carry (I tend to wash stuff thouroughly and in many cases cook it as well). My problem lies in the way it's produced and effective waste management. I've seen the damage done by chemical fertilisers in my native country, and for what? To be able to produce enough to compete with the ridiculously cheap produce from 3rd world countries...
Hi-tech's got things arseways, if you ask me.

[QUOTE=Indri;13695923]

I do not trust organic meat to the point that I will actively avoid it if I can. I have nothing against free-range but when the word "organic" gets slipped in there it means that the animal probably didn't recieve any medical attention when it was alive and that the meat was most likely not irradiated after slaughter. That meat could contain bateria and parasites that could cause illnesses. Now it's true that cooking an organic steak till it's well done will almost certainly make it safe to eat but not if it isn't prepared correctly then there may be a higher likelyhood that you could get sick from eating it.


QUOTE]

Who would WANT to eat meat that was 'irradiated' after slaughter? Not me!!
I prefer my meat (whichever animal) to have had a healthly life, been humanely slaughtered and been hung for a few days to improve flavour. I would rather risk the odd bug than eat irradiated meat

Guess what? I'm being far more economical than that, I grow my own veg. :p

This way, I get far more variety than any supermarket, spend less money and get tomatoes that actually taste of tomatoes.

You also get to be out in the fresh air :)

Do you have a bit of garden set aside or something like an alottment (if you even have them in Ireland/Cork)

I have to say though, I do find "Organic" a bit of a swizz. Here it seems to be a brand regulated by the Soil Association to help compaines (Cadbury's, Tesco's et al) that can afford the label to appear more moral and price the product at a premium.

I do tend to care more about fair trade and local produce. Wether or not it is organic.

In most cases it probably is. Same goes for bottled water. If you put a cup of bottled water in front of most people and set another cup of New York City tap next to it most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Expectation can play a huge role in how something wil taste.

You know what? You come over here, I'll blindfold you and let you try one of my tomatoes, one from the farmer's market, and one from Tescos.
If you can't taste the difference, I'll pay for the doctor to check out your sense of smell/taste.


I do not trust organic meat to the point that I will actively avoid it if I can. I have nothing against free-range but when the word "organic" gets slipped in there it means that the animal probably didn't recieve any medical attention when it was alive and that the meat was most likely not irradiated after slaughter. That meat could contain bateria and parasites that could cause illnesses. Now it's true that cooking an organic steak till it's well done will almost certainly make it safe to eat but not if it isn't prepared correctly then there may be a higher likelyhood that you could get sick from eating it.

Modern farming is all about reducing the risks of food-borne illnesses while increasing yeilds. Part of that means giving animals proper medical treatment and plenty of food. Another part is making sure that plants get fertilizer, proper irrigation and pesticides to keep bugs off. Irradiation is also a big one because that will kill a lot of bacteria that may get into the food before it hits the shelf.

THIS is complete and total bollocks.
If you produce and sell meat, it has to meet the same health and safety standards as any other meat. If you keep animals, you are obliged to give them regular health checks (which is in your own interest anyway). There is no higher risk of infection from organic meat than there is from mass-produced meat, they both have to adhere to the same standards.


It's all about risk mitigation and higher yeilds so that the fod you eat is safer and everyone can worry about which of the latest diets they'll be trying instead of wondering where and when their next meal will be. If you want to eat organic that's ok, just know that it isn't good for the environment, that it probably doesn't taste any better, that it's overpriced, a marketting ploy, that it's an outdated method of farming, and that it is not safer and may even be a little more risky than regular food and modern farming.

So, all in all you're saying you're not quite sure if it might taste better, but go right ahead and make the assumption that it doesn't.
Based on that assumption, you declare it overpriced.
You further assume that organic animals don't get medical attention, and that their meat isn't checked for infections before being sold. Based on that assumption and nothing else, you declare it risky to eat.
And you've also yet to show that organic farming harms the environment to the same extend or more than industrial farming does.

Basically, you've got nothing to go on apart from your idea that modern = better, and therefore organic is teh ebil...

You also get to be out in the fresh air :)

Do you have a bit of garden set aside or something like an alottment (if you even have them in Ireland/Cork)

Yep, good bit of excercise as well ;)
I've got a bit of a garden, and a lot of things growing in pots. With the climate here, all you really need to do is put the seeds out and then keep the weeds down.

Not sure if there are allotments in Cork, but I know there are a good few in Dublin.

Words can have more than one meaning - organic in the food sense was never meant to be the same as the technical sense in chemistry of a carbon containing compound. Do you not put 'gas' in your car because it is actually a liquid?

Which is exactly why the term is now not only a misnomer it's a canonized misnomer. Slapping the word 'organic' on the packaging allows the producer to charge more money for it.

If you really want a word that means something useful, buy kosher.

Which is exactly why the term is now not only a misnomer it's a canonized misnomer. Slapping the word 'organic' on the packaging allows the producer to charge more money for it.

If you really want a word that means something useful, buy kosher.

Agreed - it is a shame they didn't choose a better word to start with, and had done more to prevent the concept from being devalued.

Agreed - it is a shame they didn't choose a better word to start with, and had done more to prevent the concept from being devalued.

I have a really awesome cookbook that was written by a couple that wanted to create a sort of all-American recipe book, using taste tests to determine the best way to go when choosing your ingredients. In the case of roast chicken, they were looking for a way to roast the chicken that would result in a nice crispy skin yet juicy, tender white meat and non-burnt darkmeat. Very difficult balance to achieve.

So anyway, in choosing the chicken, they tested a bunch of different chickens from a variety of sources. The lest flavorful turned out to be Perdue, because Perdue chickens are bred for maximum meat to bone ratio, but not necessarily flavor. The most flavorful turned out to be the kosher chickens, because apparently the kosher ones tend to be pre-brined and so on...

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that organic doesn't mean much, and neither does brand name.

(Incidentally when I tried the recipe I couldn't find a kosher chicken on short notice so I bought the generic Giant brand chicken and brined it myself according to the recipe... Roasted it using a glaze from the book and OHMYGOD that chicken was good... I found a kosher market and I'm gonna try one of those next time...)

I have a really awesome cookbook that was written by a couple that wanted to create a sort of all-American recipe book, using taste tests to determine the best way to go when choosing your ingredients. In the case of roast chicken, they were looking for a way to roast the chicken that would result in a nice crispy skin yet juicy, tender white meat and non-burnt darkmeat. Very difficult balance to achieve.

So anyway, in choosing the chicken, they tested a bunch of different chickens from a variety of sources. The lest flavorful turned out to be Perdue, because Perdue chickens are bred for maximum meat to bone ratio, but not necessarily flavor. The most flavorful turned out to be the kosher chickens, because apparently the kosher ones tend to be pre-brined and so on...

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that organic doesn't mean much, and neither does brand name.

(Incidentally when I tried the recipe I couldn't find a kosher chicken on short notice so I bought the generic Giant brand chicken and brined it myself according to the recipe... Roasted it using a glaze from the book and OHMYGOD that chicken was good... I found a kosher market and I'm gonna try one of those next time...)

I have an Anthony Bourdin cookbook and he says a similar thing about chickens - try and by kosher or halal ones as they will taste better.

Part of the reason I am wary of agro-business is the UK experience - Mad Cow disease started out because they fed sheep on feed made from dead sheep infected by scrapie. How they could not see that that would lead to problems is beyond me...

And yet, nobody in this thread has made the argument that the world should go 100% organic tomorrow. Didn't stop you from arguing against it...

My problem with the fertilisers is not what germs they do or don't carry (I tend to wash stuff thouroughly and in many cases cook it as well). My problem lies in the way it's produced and effective waste management. I've seen the damage done by chemical fertilisers in my native country, and for what? To be able to produce enough to compete with the ridiculously cheap produce from 3rd world countries...
Hi-tech's got things arseways, if you ask me.

Not only that, fertilizers and pesticides are petrochemical based. We eat oil as well as mold plastic from it and burn it.

Which is exactly why the term is now not only a misnomer it's a canonized misnomer. Slapping the word 'organic' on the packaging allows the producer to charge more money for it.

If you really want a word that means something useful, buy kosher.The word 'organic' is legally regulated, you can't just put the word on your label - you need to have organic certification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

Okay then.

What about the possible long-term health effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff put into food? What about preservatives and artificial ingredients, such as dyes?
What about the long-term health effects of parasites left on the food because someone didn't use pesticides?

If you're going to apply the precautionary principle, you have to do it both ways.

Who would WANT to eat meat that was 'irradiated' after slaughter? Not me!!
So you like intestinal parasites chewing away at you colon and spreading to your thighs, heart, liver, and brain? You like e. coli? You really like contracting and spreading infectious disease?

I prefer my meat (whichever animal) to have had a healthly life, been humanely slaughtered and been hung for a few days to improve flavour. I would rather risk the odd bug than eat irradiated meat
I don't think you understand the process or the reason for this. They flash the meat with a burst of ionizing radiation to kill anything that can cause disease. It doesn't make the meat radioactive and it doesn't alter the flavor, it just makes it safer and cleaner.

Oh yeah, for an animal to stay healthy while alive it'll probably need medical care. That means regular inspections, antibiotics and a proper diet. Organic farming tends to discourage the use of antibiotics.
---
And yet, nobody in this thread has made the argument that the world should go 100% organic tomorrow. Didn't stop you from arguing against it...
You are arguing against biotech by making erronious claims that it destroys the environent and produces inferior food. Your's is a war on science no different than creationism. You are not a agricultural scientist or a geneticist and the scientists disagree with you.

My problem with the fertilisers is not what germs they do or don't carry (I tend to wash stuff thouroughly and in many cases cook it as well). My problem lies in the way it's produced and effective waste management. I've seen the damage done by chemical fertilisers in my native country, and for what? To be able to produce enough to compete with the ridiculously cheap produce from 3rd world countries...
More like to produce enough so that people in your neck o the woods have the luxury of worrying about getting fat rather than trying to save up enough money to buy a loaf of bread for breakfast every morning.

And what's the deal with attacking chemical fertilizers? All fertilizers are chemicals. That's how organisms work, they store and release energy with chemical reactions. Even your organic fertilizers are chemical fertilizers. Now if you're talking about artificial fertilizers there is still a bit of a problem. Any damage they do probably has more to do with using more than is recomended or using them improperly in which case the farmer is at fault. And the whole point of biotechnology is to reduce the amount of fertilizer and pesticide required to grow bountiful crops. That means fewer chemicals are used and less land has to be put to plow which is generally agreed to be good for the environment.

Hi-tech's got things arseways, if you ask me.
Why don't you go tell that to some of those people in the 3rd world whose produce you're complaining about. I'm not so sure they're going to praise you for bashing the technology that can and hopefully is feeding their families.
---
You know what? You come over here, I'll blindfold you and let you try one of my tomatoes, one from the farmer's market, and one from Tescos.
If you can't taste the difference, I'll pay for the doctor to check out your sense of smell/taste.
I call bias on this. I have serious reason to doubt your objectivity.

THIS is complete and total bollocks.
If you produce and sell meat, it has to meet the same health and safety standards as any other meat. If you keep animals, you are obliged to give them regular health checks (which is in your own interest anyway). There is no higher risk of infection from organic meat than there is from mass-produced meat, they both have to adhere to the same standards.
Except that organic meat may not be getting the germ killing radiation flashes and the message that we get from the organic food industry is that it is pesticide- and antibiotic-free. Well the pesticide-free part is bullshit so maybe the cows are getting some herbs, mushrooms and other "natural cures" that are placebos at best and maybe some penicillin.

So, all in all you're saying you're not quite sure if it might taste better, but go right ahead and make the assumption that it doesn't.
No, I'm saying that people who buy organic because they think it tastes better are probably biased. It's pretty easy to fool people into thinking that a TV dinner is the pinical of Le Cordon Bleu cooking if you dress it up and serve it in the right way.

Based on that assumption, you declare it overpriced.
I say that it's overpriced because it's much more expensive and there isn't a proportionate increase in quality.

You further assume that organic animals don't get medical attention, and that their meat isn't checked for infections before being sold. Based on that assumption and nothing else, you declare it risky to eat.
Organic producers and fans alike have proclaimed that their outmoded farming doesn't irradiate meat and doesn't involve antibiotics like modern farming does.

And you've also yet to show that organic farming harms the environment to the same extend or more than industrial farming does.
This one should come as no shock to you but if you want to produce something that requires a certain amount of land and you go with the inefficient method you'll either have to settle for the lower quantity or use more land. Even organic farming uses pesticides and fertilizer so that means more of each. And that means more waste from the production of the pesticide and a greater impact on the local environment. Makes sense, doesn't it? Inefficient industrial organic farming is worse for the environment than more efficient regular farming.

Basically, you've got nothing to go on apart from your idea that modern = better, and therefore organic is teh ebil...
Modern is better and the current biotech is just the latest step. I hope to make vertical farming the next.

Modern is an advancement. It's feeding more people and making more money because it's more efficient and generally better. People tend to look back with a bit of nostalgia on stuff like downtown shops and organic farming but a lot of the consumer activity moved to malls and farming became high-tech because people decided they wanted more affordable things and didn't want to have to go all over town to get it. We, as a society, made a choice to stick places of business together and reduce the cost of production and demand greater production. That's not a bad thing.

You're living in the past man, contemporize!

Oh yeah, for an animal to stay healthy while alive it'll probably need medical care. That means regular inspections, antibiotics and a proper diet. Organic farming tends to discourage the use of antibiotics.

Wrong. Antibiotic growth promoters are not allowed in organic food, but antibiotics to fend off infections are perfectly fine and legal.


You are arguing against biotech by making erronious claims that it destroys the environent and produces inferior food. Your's is a war on science no different than creationism. You are not a agricultural scientist or a geneticist and the scientists disagree with you.


Again with the strawman... you might want to actually read what I'm saying. I'm not claiming that industrial farming is destroying the environment. I'm saying it's doing more damage than organic farming would. I've got no problem at all with science.


More like to produce enough so that people in your neck o the woods have the luxury of worrying about getting fat rather than trying to save up enough money to buy a loaf of bread for breakfast every morning.

Unlikely. Farmers here can currently only stay in business with massive EU subsidises, as food imports from poorer countries are so much cheaper. Prices are being kept up artifically, and food is actually bought up and simply destroyed.
From the very countries with those starving populations. And if you ask me, that just doesn't make the least bit of sense.


And what's the deal with attacking chemical fertilizers? All fertilizers are chemicals. That's how organisms work, they store and release energy with chemical reactions. Even your organic fertilizers are chemical fertilizers. Now if you're talking about artificial fertilizers there is still a bit of a problem. Any damage they do probably has more to do with using more than is recomended or using them improperly in which case the farmer is at fault. And the whole point of biotechnology is to reduce the amount of fertilizer and pesticide required to grow bountiful crops. That means fewer chemicals are used and less land has to be put to plow which is generally agreed to be good for the environment.

I'm an 80s child. I've seen rivers literally dying after industrial strength fertiliser got into them, spurring the plant life to grow out of all proportion, toppling the pH and killing off every oxygen-breathing life form in them.
Only after stict legislation and outright bans on fertilisers were introduced did the situation get somewhat better.


Why don't you go tell that to some of those people in the 3rd world whose produce you're complaining about. I'm not so sure they're going to praise you for bashing the technology that can and hopefully is feeding their families.


Whose produce am I bashing? I've never once claimed that 3rd world countries all should go organic... you fighting windmills again?


I call bias on this. I have serious reason to doubt your objectivity.

Ok, take my neighbour's tomatoes.


Except that organic meat may not be getting the germ killing radiation flashes and the message that we get from the organic food industry is that it is pesticide- and antibiotic-free. Well the pesticide-free part is bullshit so maybe the cows are getting some herbs, mushrooms and other "natural cures" that are placebos at best and maybe some penicillin.

Of course it doesn't get radiated. That's illegal in the EU.
And the meat will NOT be free of antibiotics. The use of anti-biotics in organic animals is restricted for fighting infection, not as preventative and not to stimulate growth.


No, I'm saying that people who buy organic because they think it tastes better are probably biased. It's pretty easy to fool people into thinking that a TV dinner is the pinical of Le Cordon Bleu cooking if you dress it up and serve it in the right way.

Which leads me to conclude that you simply have no taste buds. Or meybe you just never tried it?


I say that it's overpriced because it's much more expensive and there isn't a proportionate increase in quality.

Well, I can tell the difference in quality, and am willing to pay for it.


Organic producers and fans alike have proclaimed that their outmoded farming doesn't irradiate meat and doesn't involve antibiotics like modern farming does.

Again, irradiation is illegal for ALL kinds of meat, and organic animals do get treated with antibiotics. You might want to get some information, before going on to sound this uninformed.


This one should come as no shock to you but if you want to produce something that requires a certain amount of land and you go with the inefficient method you'll either have to settle for the lower quantity or use more land. Even organic farming uses pesticides and fertilizer so that means more of each. And that means more waste from the production of the pesticide and a greater impact on the local environment. Makes sense, doesn't it? Inefficient industrial organic farming is worse for the environment than more efficient regular farming.

So? Almost all land here is farm land anyway, but it's disappearing. And if I get to choose between another golf resort and a farm next door, I'll take the farm, thanks.


Modern is better and the current biotech is just the latest step. I hope to make vertical farming the next.

Modern is an advancement. It's feeding more people and making more money because it's more efficient and generally better. People tend to look back with a bit of nostalgia on stuff like downtown shops and organic farming but a lot of the consumer activity moved to malls and farming became high-tech because people decided they wanted more affordable things and didn't want to have to go all over town to get it. We, as a society, made a choice to stick places of business together and reduce the cost of production and demand greater production. That's not a bad thing.

So... since the rest of society decided what they want to eat, I have to have the same? What happened to choice?


You're living in the past man, contemporize!

Man? :confused:

Again, irradiation is illegal for ALL kinds of meat, and organic animals do get treated with antibiotics. You might want to get some information, before going on to sound this uninformed.

Maybe someone can help me here because I might be wrong. I thought irradiatiating food was meant to slow down decomposing by killing the bugs. i.e. it was a method to extend shelf life rather then reducing hazard for the consumer.


So? Almost all land here is farm land anyway, but it's disappearing. And if I get to choose between another golf resort and a farm next door, I'll take the farm, thanks.

Golf courses. I've always found them to be the most environmentally damaging wastes of space around.

Man? :confused:

I think he is trying to show how modern he is by using 60s hippy-lingo.

Though I'm confused too. Maybe I am too young.

Maybe someone can help me here because I might be wrong. I thought irradiatiating food was meant to slow down decomposing by killing the bugs. i.e. it was a method to extend shelf life rather then reducing hazard for the consumer.

It is. It's also illegal.



I think he is trying to show how modern he is by using 60s hippy-lingo.

Though I'm confused too. Maybe I am too young.

No, he was quoting the Simpsons. Badly.

Maybe someone can help me here because I might be wrong. I thought irradiatiating food was meant to slow down decomposing by killing the bugs. i.e. it was a method to extend shelf life rather then reducing hazard for the consumer.
It does both. And there's exactly zero down-side, so there's no reason not to do it.

Most meat sold in Canada is irradiated, and we don't have labelling requirements, so most food we export to the US has also been irradiated and there's no way for American importers or consumers to know.

It is. It's also illegal.

Well that's good. Didn't realise it was illegal


No, he was quoting the Simpsons. Badly.

Wow. Is my finger that far off the cultural pulse that I didn't get a Simpsons reference?

Am I officially old now? :p :)

Wow. Is my finger that far off the cultural pulse that I didn't get a Simpsons reference?

Am I officially old now? :p :)

It even was one of the older episodes... the one where Mr Burns and Lisa start a recycling business. ;)

It even was one of the older episodes... the one where Mr Burns and Lisa start a recycling business. ;)

Dagnammit!

Golf courses. I've always found them to be the most environmentally damaging wastes of space around.
Well landfills aren't full of bedrock so there really isn't much else you can put on top of them when they're filled and capped. It's either a golf course or a park.

What about the long-term health effects of parasites left on the food because someone didn't use pesticides?

If you're going to apply the precautionary principle, you have to do it both ways.Well, yes, but we already understand the long-term health effects of parasites.

Indri, please answer my question in relation to this:

What about the possible long-term health effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff put into food? What about preservatives and artificial ingredients, such as dyes?

As you said, natural doesn't always mean good. Neither does modern. We've created plenty of utterly worthless crap in modern times.

So please answer my question.

Well, yes, but we already understand the long-term health effects of parasites.
Yes we do. They cause rapid weight loss and potentially deadly intestinally-based illnesses. That's bad.

Indri, please answer my question in relation to this:

What about the possible long-term health effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff put into food? What about preservatives and artificial ingredients, such as dyes?
That depends on the individual stuff. What pesticides? Some are safer than others. Same goes for certain hormone treatments and antibiotics and everything else that goes into food. I guess what I'm saying is that it'd be stupid to condemn modern farming with a couple of blanket statements that really only apply to one or two brands of pesticide.

A lot of the produce you'll find in a US grocery store has been cleared by the FDA and USDA as safe. Keep in mind that isn't always enough because people are not infallible but since those agencies employ teams of scientists to test the food and what goes into it, it's probably a safe bet that the food is safe to eat.

As you said, natural doesn't always mean good. Neither does modern. We've created plenty of utterly worthless crap in modern times.
Yes we have made some pretty worthless crap. Like VX. But that's no longer used as a pesticide and production and stockpiling of it as a WMD is illegal. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

I don't like organic farming is because I see it as outdated and ineffecient at its best and potentially dangerous at its worst and the denial of new technology has hurt a lot people. The way I see it, life is about moving forward and if you're gaze is fixed in the rear-view mirror as you cruise down the freeway then you're running a huge risk of getting in a serious accident.

I used to be really into nostalgia. Some people still are.

Organic veggies do taste better. I buy free range organic eggs too.

But the BEST veggies are the ones you grow yourself. A friend of mine had a bumper crop of cherry tomatoes one year and literally gave me gallons of them -- and I ate them as if they were candy. Sweet, tart... delicious.

I used to be really into nostalgia. Some people still are.

Nostalgia? Hardly.
Producing meat organically means giving the animal enough space, fresh air, excercise and good food (i.e. not feeding herbivores food produced from other animals). That is hardly nostalgic, it's actually a very new and modern approach. Traditional farming was about getting the most out of every investment, meaning that animals were kept in pens and stables that would be considered way too small today to qualify for organic production.
Organic fertilisers are not just manure, they are in fact modern products, but they avoid petrochemicals as far as possible.

Organic farming isn't about tradition, it's a way of trying to farm in a way that is best for the animals farmed, best for the environment (short transport distances with local produce, no potentially harmful fertilisers, no unnecessary antibiotics, no mistreatment of animals), and best for the farmers (being paid in accordance to the time and effort they invest).
It's easy to claim that organic farming is backwards. But if you take a short look back, you'll see that a concept like "organic" is in fact a thouroughly modern phenomenon.

Wanted to post this earlier but I had other stuff to do.

Nostalgia? Hardly.
Producing meat organically means giving the animal enough space, fresh air, excercise and good food (i.e. not feeding herbivores food produced from other animals). That is hardly nostalgic, it's actually a very new and modern approach. Traditional farming was about getting the most out of every investment, meaning that animals were kept in pens and stables that would be considered way too small today to qualify for organic production.
Organic fertilisers are not just manure, they are in fact modern products, but they avoid petrochemicals as far as possible.

Organic farming isn't about tradition, it's a way of trying to farm in a way that is best for the animals farmed, best for the environment (short transport distances with local produce, no potentially harmful fertilisers, no unnecessary antibiotics, no mistreatment of animals), and best for the farmers (being paid in accordance to the time and effort they invest).
It's easy to claim that organic farming is backwards. But if you take a short look back, you'll see that a concept like "organic" is in fact a thouroughly modern phenomenon.
I'm pretty sure that throwing shit on your crops to make them grow is a pretty old concept. It's the oldest fertilizer.

Organic farming means that you'll need to have more land for crops to feed the same number of people and animals which means that you'll need to have more room for the animals' grazing pastures. Using more land less efficiently is bad for the environment. You'll need more meat because by not irradiating it, it'll rot on the shelf so you'll need more supply. That means more animals that require more food and more animal waste that eeks out methane gas. Hydrocarbons like methane are greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2. That means that organic farming exacerbates global warming, wastes land and so requires that more be put to plow and that means deforestation, and it isn't as nutritous or as safe as modern food. It is and old way of doing things and there are better ways of doing most of what is involved in farming.

Spreading out agriculture is like power generation. Giving everyone their own coal furnace for electricity would mean more coal would be burned, not less, because having a few big powerplants means that you can churn out more power with less materials being consumed. Just 1 35mi x 35mi landfill would handle 1,000 years of United States trash and it would be safer and more efficient than having everyone turn their backyards into their own personal dumps.

You should try to find the most efficient way of doing things because that will save you time, materials and energy, and the environment. That's why I support stuff like nuclear power and GE foods and vertical farming. Better to have a few tons of radioactive waste in canisters under a guarded mountain than millions of tons of ash and smoke. Better to have a few million acres being used for food production than a few hundred million.

We have over 6 billion people to provide for. That means about 1/2 an acre per person for food. We need to get the most out of it.

Organic veggies do taste better. I buy free range organic eggs too.

thats because of the process they use to quickly ripen vegetables when they are factory farmed.
Farmers markets will produce similar quality vegetables as will growing it them yourself.

also genetically modified vegetables will also taste better as they have been modified to rot very slowly, meaning they can be left o ripen on the vine instead of picked before ripening and then quick ripened to be put on store shelves.

Okay then.

What about the possible long-term health effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff put into food? What about preservatives and artificial ingredients, such as dyes?


pesticides similar substances are made in produce for instance apples have a small amount of arsenic in them. when treated according to regulations eating a pesticide treated produce is similar to eating a apple, aka the dose is extremely small and unavoidable if you plan on eating.

Hormones exist in all food we eat, hormones do not survive the digestion process unless they are artificially alkylated. If your very concerned about hormones I suggest you stop eating Soy that stuff has so many estrogen analogues that it makes modern beef look like it is competing in a steroid free body building competition.

antibiotics you eat a orange recently ? penicillin comes from orange mold you likely got an extremely small amount of penicillin, from microscopic mold already on that organic orange, in fact especially because it is a organic orange which means the mold will grow more quickly. Antibiotics exist naturally in a large amount of microscopic organism we inadvertently eat. The dose is however so small that if any survives the digestion process it does not have an effect on anything in the body.

Standards exist in the US so that all of the above are only present in levels one would find more or less in natural food.

dyes no scientific study has conclusively found major health risk with dyes. there is a small portion of society that is allergic but no need to ban something to appease .1% or less.

Organic food makes my job harder, since it's one more number to punch in in front of the code. F*ck codes! I've only memorized the ones for plastic bags and Bartlett Pears. Nobody can buy anything else. Hmm...donuts might be 1051. I'll have to look that one up.

4011.

What is it?

TELL ME NOW!

It's an easy one.

Organic food makes my job harder, since it's one more number to punch in in front of the code. F*ck codes! I've only memorized the ones for plastic bags and Bartlett Pears. Nobody can buy anything else. Hmm...donuts might be 1051. I'll have to look that one up.

well it is obvious that organic food is about oppressing the working class.

I cooked scrambled eggs today and I was reminded that organic eggs tend to be far superior to eggs from battery hens, even free range as well. They just have a much better colour and consistency.

I cooked scrambled eggs today and I was reminded that organic eggs tend to be far superior to eggs from battery hens, even free range as well. They just have a much better colour and consistency.

I find it convincing that you can taste and see the difference between organic chicken eggs and factory farmed eggs, but I’m a little dubious to your claim that you can taste or see the difference between free range chicken eggs and organic eggs. I suspect that you are tasting the difference between chicken breeds and chicken diet, not organic vs. all natural free range… just my 2 cents

I find it convincing that you can taste and see the difference between organic chicken eggs and factory farmed eggs, but I’m a little dubious to your claim that you can taste or see the difference between free range chicken eggs and organic eggs. I suspect that you are tasting the difference between chicken breeds and chicken diet, not organic vs. all natural free range… just my 2 centsYou could be right, But I seem to remember there is considerable difference between free-range and organic in terms of space that the hen is allowed. I found one old newspaper article saying that only 10-15% of free-range hens ever make it outside of the barn. And so won't get such a varied diet or exercise. It said something about large flocks and more aggressive birds guarding the entrances/exits of the barn, so that could be adding to the stress of other birds and effecting the eggs they produce.

However, I doubt the taste difference was psychosomatic as by taste I referring to the texture of the eggs. Something much more discernible than flavour. The organic eggs just produced much more firmer and less curdled-cream-looking scrambled eggs. There's no flavour difference, but there eating experience is considerably different.

Maybe next time I go to the supermarket I will buy all three types of eggs and take pictures to show the difference in the finished product.