5 ms·

Organic food is pseudoscience. The only good reason to buy organic is that it is often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true.

Organic food is pseudoscience. The only good reason to buy organic is that it is often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true. Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation.

biehl 10y ago
> organic is [...] often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true. Agree. > Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation. Most certainly false! By reducing meat consumption or increasing labor intensity organic agriculture could easily support the whole world. For many of the places where food security is needed the most, increased soil quality, as supported by organic agriculture, would help a lot. http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf
finid 10y ago
Organic food is pseudoscience. Really? Care to elaborate on that? The article lists the many reasons why organic foods are better than non-organic ones. You should read it.
- TheMagicHorsey 10y ago
  Listen to this podcast by the NPR Planet Money guy's Gimlet Media: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  It's a propaganda article on a food-hipsterism advocacy website. Do the research for yourself. Very quickly though, their points about organic food being more efficient, tastier, healthier, non-GMO, and pesticide-free are either wrong, conflating correlation with causation (as overpriced luxury food is more likely to be organic), or misleading (as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe).
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe Pesticides, yummy. It doesn't inspire much confidence on the other hand that the pushers of GMOs are huge conglomerates that control seeds (similarly to IP rights and DRM), would sell any BS for a quick buck, and are not that dissimilar to the tobacco industry that testified that "smoking is not harmful" and sponsored tons of studies in the 70s and 80s (with real scientists, universities et al) to prove that point.
    - splawn 10y ago
      It doesn't inspire much confidence that the pushers of Organic food are huge conglomerates that push people into buying needlessly expensive food.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        That would be relevant if I particularly cared for Organic food. But there is tons of food that is neither Organic (certified and pushed by Whole Foods etc) nor GMO. You know, it's just food. And it's what we've been having for years, and 100% of what we do have now (I never buy Organic anyway, except if it's something not available as general foodstuff).
    - pi-rat 10y ago
      > Pesticides, yummy. Organic doesn't mean pesticide free, far from it. Organic farms (especially big factory farms) use pesticides very liberally - "natural" pesticides. They don't have to be safer than synthetics in any way, you don't have to use less, they just have to be natural. So we spray crops with stuff like Copper or (mostly in the past) Rotenone[1]. We've stupidly classified all natural poisons as "non-toxic" and all synthetics as "horribly dangerous". Nature is full of stuff you don't want to spray on your food. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
- splawn 10y ago
  None of the reasons listed in the article are backed with published science.
- foenix 10y ago
  Point #3 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss... “The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world's waterways from conventional agriculture are, it's a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether.”
coldtea 10y ago
>Organic food is pseudoscience. Organic food is a misnomer. Or rather, it's a label that comes with extra guarantees besides non-GMO, that not all make sense, and is there to make a quick buck on the upper middle class and the hippy types. What's actually neither GMO nor Organic is plain food stuff, you know, the plain food that the planet produces, maybe with a few pesticides or some treatment that's a-ok, but doesn't qualify as Organic. Of this (and of its Organic sibling) some of it is evolutionary created and consumed by humans for 10s of thousands of years, and other is cross-bread in a slow and limited process (e.g. not being able to do stuff like take fruit-fly genes to put into bananas) by farmers -- and still tested and consumed over centuries. GMOs, on the other hand, are not "science" in the same way that while Donald Knuth or Djikstra is Computer Science, J2EE or the latest foobar.js some company pushes are not. They are of course backed by science, but what they really are is applied technology as driven by business interests. And often the same business interests that could (and some would) put poison in kid's milk, if it made for a cheaper product and higher margin. I'd rather have food stuff that passed evolutionary tests, than the latest gene-mix from the inventors and pushers of HFCS and several other crappy quality food chemistry substances that increase their margins... Then there's the whole seed-control with IP rights and forcing farmers to rebuy them (and not save them) year over year can of worms...
- joatmon-snoo 10y ago
  A lot of misconceptions here, unless I'm misreading your post. The seed control stuff is really just Monsanto being incredibly shitty at PR. See NPR[1]; also, in the past 10, 20 years or so, there's only been one lawsuit between Monsanto and farmers[2] (news flash: it was the farmers that sued Monsanto). Also, organic seeds get patented too, it's not just GMO seeds[3]. I also highly suggest you read William Saletan's article on GMO's[4] Another fun fact: organic doesn't mean evolution-based. Mutagenesis and specially-grown cultivars have become an increasingly popular way to produce foods that get the organic label; it's only really transgenesis (gene splicing) that you can't say is organic. To be clear: I'm not denying that there are despicable business practices out there (hell, did you know that there's actually a black market for stuff like olive oil and fish?), and that there is definitely something to be said for the US-EU split on the proper way to regulate GMO's, but organic is generally just a stupid concept. [1] (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...) [2] (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1298.Opinion.6-6-2013.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...) [3] (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challenging-myths-yes-seeds-that-grow-organic-food-are-often-patented/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challengin...) [4] (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...)
batmansmk 10y ago
This is highly incorrect. The french experiment "ferme du bec" did some really important studies in that field going well beyond simply "organic". Using the latest bio tech of permaculture, (combining different plants completing each other instead of monoculture); they showed higher per square meter production rate, and sustainable income for farmers, without subsidies. They don't even use a truck, as the tools are not there yet for their approach. The experiment has been since reproduced, expanded, repeated with success in other European countries and under different climate. http://www.fermedubec.com/inra/ENGLISH%20-%20Ferme%20biologique%20du%20Bec%20Hellouin.pdf http://www.fermedubec.com/inra/ENGLISH%20-%20Ferme%20biologi...
- splawn 10y ago
  That study shows that organic farmers make money, not that organic farming can keep up with world demand on food. So Im not sure that this demonstrates that GP was "highly incorrect".
  - batmansmk 10y ago
    More production per square feet, per worker. Sustainable margin.
    - splawn 10y ago
      More than what? Anyone that clicks on your link will see that the paper doesn't compare organic farming to any other type of farming. It just says that organic farming can be a "full-time activity"..... yay? Edit: words
ptaipale 10y ago
>* The only good reason to buy organic is that it is often a proxy for higher quality in general* I also favour "organic" eggs, because the chicken are treated better, even if that is not detectable in the quality of the eggs themselves. But I agree that mostly "organic" is just a scam.

biehl 10y ago

> organic is [...] often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally true. Agree. > Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass starvation. Most certainly false! By reducing meat consumption or increasing labor intensity organic agriculture could easily support the whole world. For many of the places where food security is needed the most, increased soil quality, as supported by organic agriculture, would help a lot. http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf http://www.unep.org/pdf/SmallholderReport_WEB.pdf

finid 10y ago

Organic food is pseudoscience. Really? Care to elaborate on that? The article lists the many reasons why organic foods are better than non-organic ones. You should read it.

TheMagicHorsey 10y ago
Listen to this podcast by the NPR Planet Money guy's Gimlet Media: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/
marcoperaza 10y ago
It's a propaganda article on a food-hipsterism advocacy website. Do the research for yourself. Very quickly though, their points about organic food being more efficient, tastier, healthier, non-GMO, and pesticide-free are either wrong, conflating correlation with causation (as overpriced luxury food is more likely to be organic), or misleading (as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe).
- coldtea 10y ago
  >as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe Pesticides, yummy. It doesn't inspire much confidence on the other hand that the pushers of GMOs are huge conglomerates that control seeds (similarly to IP rights and DRM), would sell any BS for a quick buck, and are not that dissimilar to the tobacco industry that testified that "smoking is not harmful" and sponsored tons of studies in the 70s and 80s (with real scientists, universities et al) to prove that point.
  - splawn 10y ago
    It doesn't inspire much confidence that the pushers of Organic food are huge conglomerates that push people into buying needlessly expensive food.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      That would be relevant if I particularly cared for Organic food. But there is tons of food that is neither Organic (certified and pushed by Whole Foods etc) nor GMO. You know, it's just food. And it's what we've been having for years, and 100% of what we do have now (I never buy Organic anyway, except if it's something not available as general foodstuff).
  - pi-rat 10y ago
    > Pesticides, yummy. Organic doesn't mean pesticide free, far from it. Organic farms (especially big factory farms) use pesticides very liberally - "natural" pesticides. They don't have to be safer than synthetics in any way, you don't have to use less, they just have to be natural. So we spray crops with stuff like Copper or (mostly in the past) Rotenone[1]. We've stupidly classified all natural poisons as "non-toxic" and all synthetics as "horribly dangerous". Nature is full of stuff you don't want to spray on your food. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
splawn 10y ago
None of the reasons listed in the article are backed with published science.
foenix 10y ago
Point #3 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss... “The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world's waterways from conventional agriculture are, it's a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether.”

coldtea 10y ago

>Organic food is pseudoscience. Organic food is a misnomer. Or rather, it's a label that comes with extra guarantees besides non-GMO, that not all make sense, and is there to make a quick buck on the upper middle class and the hippy types. What's actually neither GMO nor Organic is plain food stuff, you know, the plain food that the planet produces, maybe with a few pesticides or some treatment that's a-ok, but doesn't qualify as Organic. Of this (and of its Organic sibling) some of it is evolutionary created and consumed by humans for 10s of thousands of years, and other is cross-bread in a slow and limited process (e.g. not being able to do stuff like take fruit-fly genes to put into bananas) by farmers -- and still tested and consumed over centuries. GMOs, on the other hand, are not "science" in the same way that while Donald Knuth or Djikstra is Computer Science, J2EE or the latest foobar.js some company pushes are not. They are of course backed by science, but what they really are is applied technology as driven by business interests. And often the same business interests that could (and some would) put poison in kid's milk, if it made for a cheaper product and higher margin. I'd rather have food stuff that passed evolutionary tests, than the latest gene-mix from the inventors and pushers of HFCS and several other crappy quality food chemistry substances that increase their margins... Then there's the whole seed-control with IP rights and forcing farmers to rebuy them (and not save them) year over year can of worms...

joatmon-snoo 10y ago
A lot of misconceptions here, unless I'm misreading your post. The seed control stuff is really just Monsanto being incredibly shitty at PR. See NPR[1]; also, in the past 10, 20 years or so, there's only been one lawsuit between Monsanto and farmers[2] (news flash: it was the farmers that sued Monsanto). Also, organic seeds get patented too, it's not just GMO seeds[3]. I also highly suggest you read William Saletan's article on GMO's[4] Another fun fact: organic doesn't mean evolution-based. Mutagenesis and specially-grown cultivars have become an increasingly popular way to produce foods that get the organic label; it's only really transgenesis (gene splicing) that you can't say is organic. To be clear: I'm not denying that there are despicable business practices out there (hell, did you know that there's actually a black market for stuff like olive oil and fish?), and that there is definitely something to be said for the US-EU split on the proper way to regulate GMO's, but organic is generally just a stupid concept. [1] (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...) [2] (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1298.Opinion.6-6-2013.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...) [3] (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challenging-myths-yes-seeds-that-grow-organic-food-are-often-patented/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/07/challengin...) [4] (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...)

batmansmk 10y ago

This is highly incorrect. The french experiment "ferme du bec" did some really important studies in that field going well beyond simply "organic". Using the latest bio tech of permaculture, (combining different plants completing each other instead of monoculture); they showed higher per square meter production rate, and sustainable income for farmers, without subsidies. They don't even use a truck, as the tools are not there yet for their approach. The experiment has been since reproduced, expanded, repeated with success in other European countries and under different climate. http://www.fermedubec.com/inra/ENGLISH%20-%20Ferme%20biologique%20du%20Bec%20Hellouin.pdf http://www.fermedubec.com/inra/ENGLISH%20-%20Ferme%20biologi...

splawn 10y ago
That study shows that organic farmers make money, not that organic farming can keep up with world demand on food. So Im not sure that this demonstrates that GP was "highly incorrect".
- batmansmk 10y ago
  More production per square feet, per worker. Sustainable margin.
  - splawn 10y ago
    More than what? Anyone that clicks on your link will see that the paper doesn't compare organic farming to any other type of farming. It just says that organic farming can be a "full-time activity"..... yay? Edit: words

ptaipale 10y ago

>* The only good reason to buy organic is that it is often a proxy for higher quality in general* I also favour "organic" eggs, because the chicken are treated better, even if that is not detectable in the quality of the eggs themselves. But I agree that mostly "organic" is just a scam.