
The case against organic food does not stand up - tvon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/28/organic-food-health-benefits
======
teilo
Perhaps someone might say the same of me, but my initial reaction to the FSA
study was that it sounded cherry-picked, based on the very language that was
cited in this response, that nutritional differences were found in certain
cases, but were overlooked as "insignificant". I believed this was cherry-
picking because I have read a number of very good, highly controlled studies
(NOT meta-studies), which contradicted the FSA report. If one has an agenda,
it is ridiculously easy to "invalidate" this or that study, and exclude it
from your pool of research.

And pardon me for paranoia, but I also know that the Monsantos and Cargills of
the world spend mega-bucks lobbying against organics in the halls of
government. But one must ultimately set such suspicions aside and deal with
the report upon its own merits.

Meta-studies are damn hard to do and get right. But they are next to worthless
if there is an agenda behind the study, which this article appears to imply.

~~~
cwan
I suspect the Monsanto's and Cargill's of the world spend mega bucks moving
the classification of organic. If that's where the money is, they would be
developing products that would fit within the constraints of how organic was
defined which to date is still a fairly nebulous definition.

The problem is that we're all losers if we're wrong about organics and we get
lower yields from land, this will ultimately reduce food security, increase
food costs and increase prices for everyone - rich and poor alike. I think you
also assume that those who are for organics (which in its own right is
becoming a significant business) don't have an agenda of their own to
encourage consumers to pay a premium for their product.

~~~
teilo
The definition of organic is fairly stringent. The USDA standards are well
formed. There are other certification bodies, of course, such as Oregon
Tilith, which have more stringent requirements yet.

I make no such assumption about organic producers not wanting to keep prices
high, because this is not really a problem. The market will set the price of
organics to be appropriate and sustainable regardless of any nefarious plot by
organic producers to keep prices high.

Also, you make in incorrect correlation between organic farming and low yield.
That is a myth (<http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778>). Organic farming does
not equal low yield. The high yield of today's crops does not come from
chemical fertilizer, but from producing high-yield varietals via selective
breeding, something that is completely in keeping with organic farming
methods.

~~~
cwan
There remains considerable controversy over whether nanotech/GMO should play a
role. Currently the former is allowed, the latter is not.

Another interesting article here:
[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/...](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic/)

I note the irony of citing Rachel Carson's Silent in the article you linked to
what with her assertions debunked in subsequent years not to mention the
resulting increase in deaths from malaria - at least some of which was
preventable.

Additional thoughts here: <http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html>

~~~
teilo
Yes, Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked. But I'm more interested in
the University of Michigan studies cited in the article I linked.

~~~
evgen
Having no time to check up on the sources, I would say that my only objection
to the overview of the study is the comparison of "what 'organic' _might
eventually_ be able to produce" with conventional agriculture as if it were a
static target and presenting current production as if it were a sufficient
long-term target. Organic production methods might be able to provide a
theoretical caloric output that is equal to 180% of current conventional
agriculture caloric output? Well done, but if global population is going to
increase by 50% within 50 years this approach is not good enough.

------
philwelch
What about yield? Norman Borlaug has been quoted multiple times saying organic
agriculture simply doesn't have the yield necessary to feed the world.

~~~
mcantelon
There's really nothing controversial about organic food. It's a time-tested
method and, due to the higher cost, it poses no risk of monopolizing the
marketplace.

World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world
by _any_ method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to
provide an alternative.

If one is concerned about yield, it would seem to me that corporate genetic
engineering would be the concern. Monsanto and others wish to use genetic
engineering to control our food supply via genetic use restriction technology.
Their experimentation seems a much realer threat to the food chain than
anything else.

~~~
netsp
_World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world
by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to
provide an alternative._

Have you thought about the method which this ceiling will impose itself?

~~~
mcantelon
Disease, famine, and war seem to be the methods nature favors.

The end result of working to support an excessively large population of humans
is an increase in the severity of these methods when they take effect.

The _logical_ way to avoid nature's culling methods would be to decrease
population by providing cheap/free birth control and encouraging a two-child
limit.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
_"encouraging a two-child limit"_

I intend a self-imposed 2 child limit, we have 2 boys now. However, for those
families or groups who appear to espouse drowning out other genetic variations
by prolific reproduction how do you suppose we "encourage". That's kinda the
hard part isn't it.

For me, in the UK, I'd stop any improved child allowances beyond the 2nd
child. Give council tenants triple-bunkbeds (2 to a room if necessary) rather
than a bedroom for each child (! which means having lots of kids can get you a
huge house payed for by the taxpayer) - that may suck but reproducing beyond
your means to support is socially irresponsible.

One might consider limiting to 2 maternity leave periods, child taxation (!?
eg to account for education costs), ceasing all state sponsored IVF, ... what
else?

~~~
mcantelon
These are good ideas. Child taxation could be combined with an allowance given
to those who, when below a certain age, _don't_ reproduce.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I'm not sure they're all good ideas(!); if you give a "non-reproduction" bonus
you'd need to have a system to retrieve it. Perhaps an additional element
could be given in old-age pension to those without offspring?

I'm not sure we (as a society) want to reward not having offspring in the long
term, just not having too many.

------
hughprime
Every time I hear the word "organic" it bothers me. All food is organic!
Whoever heard of inorganic food? If it were inorganic, we damn well couldn't
digest it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Presumably you think that a woman described as "foxy" has red fur and a bushy
tail? Or if someone tells you a UI needs spicing up then you hang some chilli
peppers on the monitor?

You may think it's pedantry you're practising - other people seem to cope with
the dual meanings, personally I think you know exactly what is meant and are
just being facetious (my father is just the same; in this instance he attempts
to use the apparent absurdity as an attack against the intellectual standards
of those espousing Organic, I think that attack fails and makes him look
foolish, ditto for yourself).

~~~
hughprime
It's not pedantry, it's a protest against a stupid, ill-defined marketing
neologism. The use of the word "organic" to mean "pertaining to living beings"
dates back to the 18th century, and attempts to label a tiny subset of organic
material as "organic" are a recent invention which really bugs me, as much as
it would bug me if people started referring to a small subset of food as
"edible food" for marketing purposes.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It's only ill-defined if you ignore accepted definitions.

"Organic" is not purely used in marketing but describes the method of
production and indicates the specifics of the husbandry and nutrition of
animals and the type of fertiliser and conditions of growth of plants. The
specific definition is left to particular standards bodies.

Compare: Use of the word "judge" to mean "someone who determines what's right"
dates way back, attempts to label a tiny subset of the population as "judges"
[simply because they determine a specific type of judgement] is a more recent
invention that bugs me.

