| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| cab |
The great organic mythsI don't agree with all of this, and I think his tone is lousy. But this Independent article is a worthwhile read:http://tinyurl.com/6klt7t |
||||||
| Brownbear |
I notice one 'myth' he has not attempted to debunk is that 'organic food tastes better'. | ||||||
| cab |
Perception of quality being such a large part of how we 'taste' food, and organic being so widely believed to be better by adherents... Hard to justify either way really. The tastiest carrot will be one I've pulled out of the ground regardless of whether I used growmore or blood fish and bone. |
||||||
| gil |
I particularly liked his reasoning that if organic food has 1% market share now, and if 60 years ago all food was organic, then demand for organic food has fallen by 99%. 
|
||||||
| orangepippin |
Myth 3 about the use of pesticides is something I have been aware of in apple growing. I'm not a scientist, but on one organic apple conference I attended the level of copper usage to achieve the same effect as a more toxic "inorganic" chemical seemed excessive. There also seems to be less regulation of organic pesticide applications. It may be different in other sectors but I personally don't regard organic apples as necessarily safer than conventionally grown ones when it comes to pesticide residues or the resulting environmental impact of their use.
I agree with Cab on taste - the apple just picked from the tree is always the best. |
||||||
| LynneA |
Seeing as Derris is being withdrawn, and the use of copper based fungicides is being phased out, that myth can be busted.
I think the key is not what there is in organic food, it's what there isn't. |
||||||
| Rob R |
 I almost thought he was serious until I read this.
He has touched lightly upon some good points as to why organic is not necessarily the most important factor but he has dressed it up in such a way that it is of little value to anyone other than the misguided. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
I was not aware of that, but the use of copper sprays on organic apples has been a long-standing practice, so I think "myth 3" is correct. In this particular example you could argue that what is not in the conventionally grown apples, and in the soil around is high levels of toxic copper - compared with the organic regime. The problem is, consumers tend to believe "organic" = "untreated". In the case of apples that is not (or was not) the case. |
||||||
| Erikht |
No citations. Who cares what he thinks. | ||||||
| cab |
Its a newspaper article, on an inside page (in the supplement part). Its not the place to find citations, its the place to find a thought piece, something that alludes to research without ever really discussing it in depth. In the green section of the paper, where it is, its quite a daring piece, which is why I posted it here. Like I said at the beginning, I think he's wide of the mark on some points, but its good to see someone standing up against the rather dogmatic insistence we see in many newspaper columns and other media sources which insists that organic is always better. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Not often we agree Cab, but this time I think you are right. | ||||||
| Slim |
I haven't time to read it all right now, but I would just add that Life Cycle Analysis can be very powerful, and can also rely entirely on who is doing that analysis and what factors they are including. (did you know that you have to use each of your energy-intensively produced ceramic mugs somwhere over 5,000 times - and that's assuming you have the high energy efficiency of a commercial dishwasher - before you can reach the efficiency of just using a new disposable styrofoam cup each time you use it? Use the styrofoam cup twice before throwing it out and you now have to use your mug 10,000 times!
The problem is, there isn't an easy way to put disposal into the life cycle analysis, it's not so much about energy usage...) Also, Rotenone hasn't been allowed over here for quite some time. One of the worst (and maybe best) things to happen to "organic" food over here was the USDA setting up there own standards. California growers can now just switch whatever they were throwing in their sprayers and be certified organic. That to me is not organic. There is a woman that I know that raises beef near me. She occasionally uses antibiotics and wouldn't ever dream of the time or money it would cost her to become certified organic, but she doesn't force corn down their throats and keep them confined in a feed lot. Relatively speaking, that to me is organic! |
||||||
| Rob R |
Agree 100%. You need that knowledge to trust your buying choices, putting all that trust in a label symbol is too much to ask of any consumer IMHO. |
||||||
| ros |
"Also, organically reared cows burp twice as much methane as conventionally reared cattle "
how the heck does he know that? and why on earth would they? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
I would call this "untreated" rather than "organic", and all the better for it. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Interesting article, somewhat spoiled by his deliberate omissions, but thought provoking. | ||||||
| Rob R |
I'm not keen on the word 'organic', it means too little, but not sure I like the word untreated either, as that implies (to me at least) that it required treatment. |
||||||
| sean |
I quite like the word decent. | ||||||
| Rob R |
I think that concentrating on the product & not the word is the way to go. 
|
||||||
| gil |
Pardon ? Not a particular devotee of organic, but come on.... Hard to take statements like this seriously. |
||||||
| sean |
It's fashionable to give 'Organic' a kicking at the moment amongst journalists. Easy way to get something published. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
... as it was fashionable a while ago to plug it. Build it up then knock it down. Then re-evaluate it!
Organic seems to be on the downside of the slope at the moment, now that some of the initial hype has worn off. Hopefully the true value of it will come through, as the market matures. |
||||||
| ros |
If articles like this make folks chose in-season british PSB over "organic" Keynan green beans then maybe it's a good thing? | ||||||
| Rob R |
Definitely, if it does it's a great thing. Unfortunately it seemed like a poor attempt to justify questionable food practice, rather than any move forward in either direction though, I don't think it painted either 'side' in a good way. 
|
||||||
| vegplot |
It provides an escape route for people's conscience when they don't buy organic or home grown.
S'right bloke in the paper says organic's just manure. |
||||||
| Rob R |
He doesn't quite use the phrase but the three words that I really can't stand as justification by anyone (organic or otherwise) are feed the world. I mean what a stupid & unfounded statement, we can't feed the world, this will feed the world, that won't feed the world... As soon as you hear that phrase you know the argument is taking a dodgy area. Most of our food is produced by businesses & most of the technology is developed by businesses who need to make money. Each have different strategies with which to achieve this aim but not one of them can or will set out with the intention of feeding the world. If a technique can feed the world but doesn't make any money it will not even be sniffed at. Any technique that professes to feed the world & has a patent is making a false statement. |
||||||
| Jamanda |
All cows burp methane. The bacteria in their guts produce methane as a by product of breaking down cellulose. The fact that cows have bacteria that can do this means they can live off grass. Maybe the stuff they feed "conventionally" reared cattle contains less cellulose? Do you know Rob? |
||||||
| Slim |
This is probably in reference to beef raised in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operation). It's the way almost all beef is raised in America today. They are fed a mix that can even be as high as 90% corn or corn products, which they are of course ill suited to digest being ruminants. Because they begin to develop a condition called acidosis (I think) the feed also has a bit of antibiotics mixed in. This keeps the microbial environment in their guts "in check" and therefore there's no bugs to be producing the methane. This is also the system that allows us to raise calves to slaughter weight in 14-16 months. Which is good because they would die if fed that diet for much longer. I sort of assumed everyone here has read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, but I suppose I shouldn't have.... Please do give this older article of his a read. These books of his are stellar. (I haven't read in defense of food yet.) King Corn is also a great documentary concerning Industrialized Agriculture. |
||||||
| sean |
It's a fascinating use of the word 'conventional' too. 
|
||||||
| Slim |
Yes, amazing that systems and technologies and chemical discoveries that have only been around since world war II are the ones being called conventional... |
||||||
| Rob R |
Yeah, he's a real nice chap.  
I can't say much more than cpg03, and I haven't read OD but I'm familiar with it & Michael Pollan. I did read the 'Death of British Agriculture' and I have just got 'All Flesh is Grass' by Gene Logsdon, yet to be read. |
||||||
| sean |
It just ties in with the general thrust of the article. By calling factory farming conventional you can imply that organic is weird without bothering to say it.
(I've bugger all time for 'Organic' labelling/certification personally but the arguments against/about it aren't the one's that he's making.) |
||||||
| Erikht |
Yeah, I know. But it is still just a newspaper article. I try not to believe what I read in newspapers. I am no 100% organic guy, as you know, and I could also agree with quite a bit of what he is saying, but I find his tone offensive. |
||||||
| ros |
Thank you for the answer. I'm sorry to say that I didn't know beef was reared that way in the states Just assumed that since you are not as strapped for space as we are that cowboys were still the order of the day  But have never knowingly bought American beef either though.
Do we raise cattle in that manner in the UK? I knew ruminants burped methane, just had no idea why there would be a difference so thanks for the explanation
so now we need a clever way to harness the methane for power 
|
||||||
| bagpuss |
I now have a vision of cows wrapped in old fashioned diver suits but without the helmet and pipes trailing of the field to collect all the methane |
||||||
| Rob R |
Yes, more so for the calves from dairy cows, calves with mothers of beef breeds tend to be raised more outside, although it is still common for a lot of those to be either kept inside after weaning or finished on corn at grass. The Americans do it on a lot bigger scale than we do over but the principles are the same. |
||||||
| Slim |
Vermont has a lot of dairies and we have bio-gas digesters at a lot of the farms harvesting methane from the manure before it gets spread back out on the fields to generate electricity. The power company brands it "cow power" | ||||||
| gnome |
the article is more interesting for what it doesn't say than what it does say. for instance, it makes no mention of the harm that is done by "conventional" farming when rain washes all the artificial chemical fertilizers into the water supply. if intensive farming can feed the world, why doesn't it? maybe i am from an parallel dimension or something, but i remember not so longago that whilst Ethiopia was starving, the whole of europe had a huge problem with food mountains because we were producing far more than we could consume.
organic farming has a few teething problems at the moment because a) not all "organic" food is truly organic - there are a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon and exploiting the consumer. b) we have forgotten how to farm. the West has been using intensive farming methods for so long, that the old skills have been lost. c) we don't have the same social infrastructure that we had in the pre intensive days. in short, organic farms are now out of context, and society needs to adapt. but to me, the arguement for organic is - it tastes better. there are many other considerations that you can argue for or against, but you will never change that one solid fact. given that, i cannot believe that IF food is better for me than organic. given that organic farming worked well enough for thousands of years, i cannot believe that IF is better for the environment. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
That's a bit like saying "I cannot believe the world is round" ... some day someone will prove you wrong! The article sets out to debunk some myths about organic. I don't think it is making any pretence to be a balanced argument of the pros and cons - it is just pointing out that organic regimes are not necessarily all they have been cracked up to be. The style is probably deliberately provocative, but *some* of the points ring true to me. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Some of the points are good & valid, shame he had to dress it with so much claptrap though. It may achieve his aim, but I don't think he's good for either the organic or non-organic proponents, he's just adding to the masses of confusion & mis-information there is out there already.
|
||||||
| cab |
Thats rather what newspaper articles do I'm afraid. I used to expect better of the Indy. But as you say, he raised some good points, and its an interesting discussion piece. |
||||||
| gnome |
Well the world is not round - not perfectly, it bulges at the sides - more satsuma shaped. i stil maintain that his arguement is false, because he misses out anything that does not back up his claims. you can't take half the facts and then claim that leads to a complete conclusion. it is unscientific and therefore has no scientific value. that means for all his pretensions, his report is nothing more than a biased opinion. he may have one or two good points - but his unprofessional approach to the subject just makes them null and void, because he has given us no reason to actually believe what he says - he ruins his own credibility by failing to be objective. |
||||||
| Rob R |
True. Must be the reason I don't read newspapers.
|
||||||
| orangepippin |
It's just a newspaper article designed to elicit a reaction, not a scientific treatise. From my own limited experience relating to organic apple growing, some of the myths he is exploding are accurate. I don't think "Organic" vs "conventional" is a black and white good vs evil thing, although some might like to pretend it is. It definitely has a bad side to it, and it is useful that this article highlights some of them. Perhaps he should now do a similar article on conventional farming ! |
||||||
| gnome |
i hardly think it likely he will - that would defeat the object of his previous article. besides, it's already been done by many others. that's why people have gone back to organic farming - because of the negative reports on what has become "conventional" farming methods.
that organic farming is not as efficient as intensive farming is of no surprise to anyone - that is not the issue. it is unfortunate that decades of intensive farming has harmed the environment so much that by now organic farming is even less practical now than it was 50 years ago. for instance, ladybirds have been almost wiped out, thus we no longer have the benefits of their pest control. that is just one small example. that the UK does not have enough land to support organic farming is a myth - the old rotation crop farming can be made to work again, and if people come to their senses and start using natural compost again, the land will become rich and fertile. thousands of achres of good farmland were turned into golf courses towards the end of the last century - they will be available again once doctors make the connection between playing golf and heart attacks. |