What's so special about organic food?

[The Silence and I]

You pay more for a difference that's in your head. Case closed.

Well that was a well thought out and informative response

If the perception of taste is purely a mental thing then you are right. If on the other hand it actually does taste better, either because it is organically grown or prepared in a different way or some other factor, then you have no case. If I offered you a foul tasting but very healthy paste would you eat it? After all, if you are right then I can claim any foul taste is in your head...

do a blind taste test between the two and then tell me you can taste the difference.

I am actually curious about this, and just may do so. For the record I am not convinced it is the organic part that makes the food taste better; I am more of the opinion it is the fewer, more natural ingredients and lack of various preseratives and other crap that make the difference. So if I can get all natural that is fine, but organic is very (but not always) all natural as well, hence my preference for it (and all natural) over regular crap.

[Chmee]

You pay more for a difference that's in your head. Case closed.

Well that was a well thought out and informative response

If the perception of taste is purely a mental thing then you are right. If on the other hand it actually does taste better, either because it is organically grown or prepared in a different way or some other factor, then you have no case. If I offered you a foul tasting but very healthy paste would you eat it? After all, if you are right then I can claim any foul taste is in your head...

do a blind taste test between the two and then tell me you can taste the difference.

I am actually curious about this, and just may do so. For the record I am not convinced it is the organic part that makes the food taste better; I am more of the opinion it is the fewer, more natural ingredients and lack of various preseratives and other crap that make the difference. So if I can get all natural that is fine, but organic is very (but not always) all natural as well, hence my preference for it (and all natural) over regular crap.

Also, the organic is more likely to come from a small local producer or co-op, not a factory farm in Arkansas .... just makes sense it would be fresher.

[Master of Cards]

It tastes better and is bigger (did a side to side)

[General Zod]

It tastes better and is bigger (did a side to side)

have you done a completely blind taste test, or are you just speaking from purely subjective opinion?

[Master of Ossus]

MO -- no, I didn't read it, once you start the post off with more trolling rant, I just skip ahead to the next post ... continue without me.

Find one thing in that in post that violates the terms of service on this board or apologize for slandering me.

[tharkûn]

. For the record I am not convinced it is the organic part that makes the food taste better; I am more of the opinion it is the fewer, more natural ingredients and lack of various preseratives and other crap that make the difference.

Most often organic produce is grown more locally and spends less time between harvest and consumption. There is a reason for that - it hidiously expensive to keep food from spoiling without preservatives.

MoO:
Just a note the two studies I cited were contracted by the WHO and the EU, not the USDA. The EU one was convened to get Europe off the hook in a WTO case and it was an effort to find evidence that would agree with Chmee - it was unable to do so and being composed of ethical scientists they agreed that yes there is no data for "greater risk".

[Broomstick]

Both pesticides and manure can be dangerous if mishandled - dangerous to both the person working with the substances and to the end consumer. We have regulations on the amount of pesticide residue permitted in food for the same reason we have regulations regarding the disposal of human and animal fecal matter. The human body can safely handle small amounts of either category, but not massive doses. And both substances can be used safely in agriculture IF guidelines are followed. So the fair comparison is between agribusiness and organic farming where safety precautions are taken for both.

Next, decide what your criteria will be - nutrition? Taste? Something else?

Taste is a very subjective measurement. However, agribusiness produce, dairy, and meat are bred in part for consistency. Organic products are much more variable in result. So I would expect that sometimes organic exceeds agribusiness in taste tests, and sometimes not. Organic is also more prone to, say, broccoli full of grubs or grain full of weevils which is desirable only if you own pets that eat such things (my parrots love little wormy things, whether noodles or bugs). Back in the days when everything was organically produced folks developed things like salting and drying and pickling to prevent precisely those effects and were glad of such modifications to the all natural diet. The upshot is that sometimes organic will win in a taste test and sometime agribusiness will, but when you buy agribusiness food you are much more likely to get what you expect.

A lot has to do with breeding - some agribusiness items are bred more for appearance than taste or nutrition, or bred because it withstands handling better. As an example, Jonathan apples (an older variety dating from, IIRC, the early 1800's) have a stronger flavor, but are less often offered for sale as a raw snack because they are more likely to bruise than the Red Delicious, which withstand handling and transport better. Jonathans are most frequently used in baked goods like pie filling. The Jonagold apple is an attempt to have the best of both worlds - the more intense flavor of the Jonathan and the better handling qualities of the Gold Delicious. Personally, since folks have been tweaking apples since Roman times (if not earlier) I don't see a sharp line between "organic" and "man made" here.

Nutrition: Again, we're back to breeding in large part. Some food varieties bred for appearance or to withstand transport have suffered from reduced nutritional qualities. However, that does not make them devoid of nutrition, and if you're eating a diet heavy in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains this is unlikely to result in any noticable deficiency. A product with slightly reduced nutrition that arrives intact and edible is superior in many ways to one that may have higher nutrition when first picked but arrives at your doorstep rotten and uneatable. The latter gives you no benefit at all. IF your organic produce is truly locally grown and transported rapidly to market then is might have superior nutrient qualities, but the vegetables and fruits of that sort will be highly seasonal. In some cases impossible to obtain - for example, you will never (barring some truly catastrophic climate change) have locally grown oranges in my area. They just don't grow here. Unless you have a really big greenhouse, maybe that would work, but would that satisfy the organic-hippie types?

So, for locally grown produce, organic may, on a seasonal basis, offer some sort of taste and nutritional advantage - but only for a fraction of the year. There is also the benefit of supporting your local economy (which is forgotten in this age of globalization) which might also be a valid reason for supporting your local, small-scale farmer.

However, it's agribusiness as a whole - the transportation and preservation parts as well as production - that has made fresh, nutritious food available year round. When my parents were kids you only had fresh strawberries for a few weeks a year, then you simply could not obtain them until the following spring, not at any price. Now, it's an unusual day at the grocerers' when I can't get fresh strawberries, regardless of time of year. Apply that to just about everything we eat.

And transportation and preservation are forgotten parts of this equation. Produce picked and flash-frozen is nutritionally superior, and, due to fungus and bacteria not being able to grow under such conditions, safer than fresh produce that took a week to ten days to arrive at the grocer - regardless of whether it's agribusiness or organic in origin. We get fresh, ocean-origin fish in Chicago only because someone invented the airplane. And so on.

One area in which organics might, again, be a valid choice is in the area of heirloom varieties. These are older varieties of vegetables and fruit that have not been cost-effective to commercialize on a large scale, but for which there still exists a demand. These are more likely to be produced on a small scale with organic farming practices (although not always). So, if you desire these vegetables, fruits, and odd varieties of livestock you may be left with either growing your own, or buying from a limited number of small-scale producers.

Above and beyond taste and appearance, there is value in continuing to maintain these heirloom varieties because they are represent genetic diversity within the various species they belong to, which could be valuable in the event of vicious pest gaining a foothold in industrial agriculture. In some cases, heirlooms do have a superior nutritional value than the mass-produced commodity, but not always. Short of laboratory analysis, there's no way to be certain.

It's rather like debating domestic vs. wild varieties of foods. For instance, game meats have a stronger flavor (not always considered desirable) but are more variable in texture, taste, and so forth than domestic meat, not to mention you either have to obtain it yourself, or pay much greater prices for it. Again, there can be benefits locally in reducing over population of certain species, and hunters do have an interest in helping to maintain the ecosystems that their prey requires. On the other hand, there are risks involved in hunting from falling down to shooting oneself to having the prey fight back. And butchering a critter is a nasty, bloody job. With various non-meat items, wild foods can offer variety and taste beyond the domestic species, and some items are simply not obtainable by any other means. There are many varieties of mushrooms, for example, that have never been domesticated such as morrels and truffles. On the flip side, many edible plants have toxic look-alikes, some of which can be fatal. Other edible plants, such as poke sallet or acorns, require extensive processing to make safe or edible. Some wild foods, such as fiddlehead fern or sassafrass, naturally contain toxins that, while never documented to have caused problems in humans before, might be highly toxic in large amounts. When gathered seasonally by the consumer the amounts ingested are low enough for the body to handle safely because there's a limit to how much of anything one person can harvest, but if the consumer is buying the gathered produce of many people and consuming amounts far in excess of the single gatherer there might be problems.

Finally, for people with lowered immune function organic can kill. As pointed out, organic products do contains higher quantities of bacteria and fungus. For that matter, so can tap vs. distilled water. Someone with HIV, cancer, or an organ transplant recipient might be far safer eating agribusiness products with pesticide and hormone residues than organic products with the inevitable fecal and fungal contamination

The upshot of this lengthy post is that there are some good reasons to choose organic over agribusiness, or vice versa, but they often aren't what first comes to mind. But then, that's the real world - sometimes there are many factors to consider when making a choice. Both types of food production can produce safe, nutritious food IF properly done, so to my mind the reasons behind choosing one or the other involve other factors than "can I eat this?"

[Darth Wong]

You know, whoever told you that cussin' more made you look smarter ... they were lieing.

You know, I've had enough of this. On this board, you are not allowed to play the "I dismiss your point because you swore" trick, asshole. If you don't like it, get the fuck out before I kick your ass out of here. I'm sick of that tactic, it is logically fallacious, and in your case, it is one that you have used far too many times in order to ignore far too many points.

[Zero]

Chmee, bit of advice... it may seem unreasonable to you, but you may want to just admit that your position isn't reasonable, and that you can't back it up. Just admit that you can't prove what you're saying, that there's little to no evidence for it, and that you aren't going to change your position anyways. It's alright to be wrong.

[HemlockGrey]

I think "I buy organic food because I like the taste" is a much better justification than "The FDA is conspiring with agribusiness to damage my health."

[Tsyroc]

I've been getting organic milk for about a month now. It has a slightly different after taste than the regular stuff but it has a much longer expiration time when it hits the stores.

I figure that as long as it goes through the same pasteurization process and I can get it from the same store I always go to I'm willing to get it for the sake of having more shelf life when I get it home.

Plus maybe I'm avoiding some of the possible hazards (if they even exist) of the hormones they inject dairy cows with to make them produce more milk.

[Darth Wong]

I've bought both organic and regular food from the grocery store and I don't make a big deal out of it either way, but could someone please explain why I was being lectured a while ago for using antibacterial soap (because it just leads to stronger, meaner bacteria) while I am now hearing that it is an unfettered good thing to drench crops in pesticides?

[Spambot Jedi]

I've bought both organic and regular food from the grocery store and I don't make a big deal out of it either way, but could someone please explain why I was being lectured a while ago for using antibacterial soap (because it just leads to stronger, meaner bacteria) while I am now hearing that it is an unfettered good thing to drench crops in pesticides?

While you bring up a good point with respect to the OP, I'm not sure that anyone is saying that drenching crops in pesticide is an unfettered good thing. The trollfest that began on the first page seems to be largely focused on whether or not ingesting organic food in the short-term is more healthy without regard to the long-term consequences that you seem to be hinting at.

BTW, you have a ton of posts dude

[Master of Ossus]

I've bought both organic and regular food from the grocery store and I don't make a big deal out of it either way, but could someone please explain why I was being lectured a while ago for using antibacterial soap (because it just leads to stronger, meaner bacteria) while I am now hearing that it is an unfettered good thing to drench crops in pesticides?

BTW, you have a ton of posts dude

Uh... he is the owner of the board.

With regards to Mike's point, I've never understood the "antibacterial soap is bad" argument. Why wouldn't it just slowly degrade the effectiveness of antibacterial soap? It's not like they're lacing Irish Spring with Keflex or some hospital-level antibiotic that's potentially saving lives.

[SirNitram]

I've bought both organic and regular food from the grocery store and I don't make a big deal out of it either way, but could someone please explain why I was being lectured a while ago for using antibacterial soap (because it just leads to stronger, meaner bacteria) while I am now hearing that it is an unfettered good thing to drench crops in pesticides?

BTW, you have a ton of posts dude

Uh... he is the owner of the board.

With regards to Mike's point, I've never understood the "antibacterial soap is bad" argument. Why wouldn't it just slowly degrade the effectiveness of antibacterial soap? It's not like they're lacing Irish Spring with Keflex or some hospital-level antibiotic that's potentially saving lives.

Mostly it's alot of fears of creating highly resilient strains in the home. I don't quite follow the logic myself.. While it is bad to create strains resistant to the current methods, all indications is that there will be fewer, allowing us to get them with specialized methods even if generic antibacteral doesn't.

[Spambot Jedi]

Uh... he is the owner of the board.

Just a little newb humor

[Nova Andromeda]

I've bought both organic and regular food from the grocery store and I don't make a big deal out of it either way, but could someone please explain why I was being lectured a while ago for using antibacterial soap (because it just leads to stronger, meaner bacteria) while I am now hearing that it is an unfettered good thing to drench crops in pesticides?

--A. Bugs don't adapt nearly as quickly as bacteria.
B. Bugs that infect people usually aren't the reason pesticides are used on crops.
C. Pesticides aren't the optimal solution to insect problems. The optimal solution is still being worked on, but will probably involve using other animals and/or GM and nonGM crop mixtures to control the pests instead of chemicals.
D. "Organic" foods include things like unpasturized milk which has nothing to do with pesticides.

[tharkûn]

I've bought both organic and regular food from the grocery store and I don't make a big deal out of it either way, but could someone please explain why I was being lectured a while ago for using antibacterial soap (because it just leads to stronger, meaner bacteria) while I am now hearing that it is an unfettered good thing to drench crops in pesticides?

Different harm.

Bacteria have some stress response genes that AB soap set off. Once that gene expression pathway is trigger it takes an order of magnitude higher antibiotic concentration to kill. When you get a bacterial infection it is harder to kill off.

Most argricultural pesticides don't set off the same set of stress response genes. Further by government regulation the vast majority of the chemicals put on have to be washed off. Whatever biological responses the pests have to to the pesticide aren't going to effect your health - unless you start eating insects. The pests will respond, but all that means is that they spoil more crops and reduce productivity.

Yes there is some harm from residual pesticides and back in the day people didn't due enough to remove the pesticide before consumption. Today the residue left on store produce should be low, sometimes lower than that found in your drinking water. To be safer you can wash produce again at home (always a good idea) or discard the surface where most remaining contamination resides.

In the US a good bit of science is done to determine the NOEL (no observed effect level); much of it done on other mammals. After that they no normally divide that value by a factor of 100 and then go on to determine actual residue concentrations and require that the dosage be kept below this overegineered safety level. For carcinogens long term cumulative risks are weighed and if the lifetime risk is greater than 1 in a million persons developing cancer as a result - it the de facto NOEL gets jacked up. Each year around 20,000 reviews are done to ensure that most food meets these guidelines.

Mostly it's alot of fears of creating highly resilient strains in the home. I don't quite follow the logic myself.. While it is bad to create strains resistant to the current methods, all indications is that there will be fewer, allowing us to get them with specialized methods even if generic antibacteral doesn't.

It isn't about creating resilient strains; it is about setting off a stress response mechanism. The anti-bacterial agents in soap aren't useful for internal medicine, the problem is if you try kill the bacteria and fail ALL methods of killing it become more difficult. Remember this isn't a binary issue, there is a continuum between AB soap being useless and killing off the bacteria. Most bacteria on your hands are benign or actually helpful, the ones that aren't ... I'd rather get infected without the stress response going off and making them harder to kill.

[Illuminatus Primus]

To claim that all scientific studies have found that consuming synthetic hormones and steroids over the long-term is safe would be ... well, either a fabrication or ignorance.

And the shitbag posts no proof. Surprise!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Disclosure time: my dad died of prostate cancer. We have an epidemic of this condition in America at the moment and what does the scientific community tell me about why: we don't know. Well ok, I find that unsettling, because as ways of dieing go, that is about the last way I want to go, it's horrifying. If I had to guess, he probably got cancer from working for 35 years in a paper mill exposed to all sorts of environmental hazards before anybody cared much about environmental hazards. But most Americans with cancer didn't work in paper mills, so all these cancers that people didn't used to get at this rate are coming from *somewhere*.

So yeah, I do what I can to take a little extra precaution, because I can. If other people do that, that's their business. The OP asked why some people choose organic, I'm happy to explain my personal choices ... you make a different choice, that's up to you.

Wow, emotional appeal. Typical. Care to post statistical proof that the rate of prostate cancer disregarding changes in life expectancy have changed in the last 40 years for the worse?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Mostly it's alot of fears of creating highly resilient strains in the home. I don't quite follow the logic myself.. While it is bad to create strains resistant to the current methods, all indications is that there will be fewer, allowing us to get them with specialized methods even if generic antibacteral doesn't.

Bacteria go throw hundreds of generations inside a week. The population size on your hand can be in the trillions easily.

Needless to say, they're a lot of fucking bugs, but they don't reproduce as quickly, they're more complex (read: fragile) creatures, and there's even MORE fucking bacteria.

Its much easier for bacteria to adapt to harsh conditions and to breed superbugs than for insects to do so (though it is still possible). And on the antibacterial soap, its not that it itself is oh so bad (though there's been speculation that heavy use of it is responsible for the greater prevelence of allergies amongst humans for having very very easily aggrivated immune systems) but people think you just slop some on and you're good - no. Studies find that it is the taking the minute or two to thoroughly scrub which really counts toward having safe and clean hands, not the content of the soap at all. A good old-fashioned bar is just fine. But scrub like you're about to do heart surgery on someone with immune problems.

[SirNitram]

Mostly it's alot of fears of creating highly resilient strains in the home. I don't quite follow the logic myself.. While it is bad to create strains resistant to the current methods, all indications is that there will be fewer, allowing us to get them with specialized methods even if generic antibacteral doesn't.

Bacteria go throw hundreds of generations inside a week. The population size on your hand can be in the trillions easily.

Needless to say, they're a lot of fucking bugs, but they don't reproduce as quickly, they're more complex (read: fragile) creatures, and there's even MORE fucking bacteria.

Its much easier for bacteria to adapt to harsh conditions and to breed superbugs than for insects to do so (though it is still possible). And on the antibacterial soap, its not that it itself is oh so bad (though there's been speculation that heavy use of it is responsible for the greater prevelence of allergies amongst humans for having very very easily aggrivated immune systems) but people think you just slop some on and you're good - no. Studies find that it is the taking the minute or two to thoroughly scrub which really counts toward having safe and clean hands, not the content of the soap at all. A good old-fashioned bar is just fine. But scrub like you're about to do heart surgery on someone with immune problems.

As I had thought... Everything the CDC has handed down has been about over-prescription of antibiotics(To the point where my fellow surveyors were reminding people not to take 'em for the Flu during Flu season) causing the superbugs, not freakin' hand soap. Thanks for the bit on the studies of more about proper scrubbing rather than the content of the soap.. Don't suppose you have anything I could use to track 'em down for any doubting thomases?

[PainRack]

Its much easier for bacteria to adapt to harsh conditions and to breed superbugs than for insects to do so (though it is still possible). And on the antibacterial soap, its not that it itself is oh so bad (though there's been speculation that heavy use of it is responsible for the greater prevelence of allergies amongst humans for having very very easily aggrivated immune systems) but people think you just slop some on and you're good - no. Studies find that it is the taking the minute or two to thoroughly scrub which really counts toward having safe and clean hands, not the content of the soap at all. A good old-fashioned bar is just fine. But scrub like you're about to do heart surgery on someone with immune problems.

Ahh...... check on the good old fashioned bar.

The old soap bars can and are usually containminated with pathogens, especially if they lie in stagnent water(Perry and Potter, 5th Edition, Fundamentals of Nursing skills).

Invest in powder or liquid soap instead. Also, there's a difference between surgical aespesis and medical aespesis.