14 ms·

Here is the study mentioned in the second main paragraph: http://saveoursoils.com/userfiles/downloads/1351255687-Changes%20in%20USDA%20food%20composition%20dat

• afpx 9y ago
  To my knowledge, organic farming employs just as much, if not more, pesticide and fertilizer. If this is true, I would love to see your source. I buy a lot of organic because I expect it to have less pesticide (and other potentially 'bad' things). And, if that's not the case, I will change my buying habits. I do understand that there is a fraud issue in organics. I have seen examples of farmers owning organic certified farms and then buying produce from the distribution market to resell as organic. Also, I have seen examples of people doing similar things at farmers markets.
  • orclev 9y ago
    In most places in order to qualify as "organic" they're only allowed to use a certain subset of pesticides (generally ones derived from natural sources such as bugs or other plants). They aren't pesticide free, and there's no requirement on the quantities of pesticides used, only the kinds of pesticide. There's also no requirements around fertilizer used as far as I'm aware. Like most of the health buzzword fads, organic doesn't really mean what most people think it means, and in truth what it means is highly variable depending on who's using the term.
    • bobthechef 9y ago
      Certainly, the term "organic" is abused, much like the term "natural" (which also doesn't mean what people think it means). However, surely the kind of pesticide you use matters. And while nothing in principle guarantees that naturally-sourced pesticides are guaranteed to be non-toxic (except the pests in question, etc), the ones that are generally used[0] are undoubtably safer than "conventional" pesticides. [0] http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-organic-approved-pesticides-factsheet.pdf http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-orga...
      • jasallen 9y ago
        "Ubdoubtably"... because... Well because by definition we don't doubt articles of faith right?
      • toasterlovin 9y ago
        It's the dose, not the substance, that makes the poison.
        • gowld 9y ago
          The substance determines the dose that makes the poison.
    • afpx 9y ago
      After reading through USDA certification and compliance material, I do see limitations on what chemicals can be used. Approved chemicals may be allowed in some cases, but the producer must have a plan that limits the use of them and have a documented multi-step process to ensure that they are only used as a last resort. Plus, they must have detailed documentation available when and if they were used. Here’s the list of allowed chemicals. It’s a short list. And, I’m ok with more being used, since most look harmless (e.g. ethanol, lye). http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10... Organic seems good to me.
  • calvinbhai 9y ago
    As a price and 'fresher/tastier veggie' conscious buyer, I'm not a strong pro/anti organic consumer.But my belief (no sources) is that organic farming using organic pesticide and organic fertilizer, is legit organic.
  • marcoperaza 9y ago
    Organic just means that that the pesticides and fertilizers are organic as opposed to inorganic. So while a nonorganic farm will fertilize with a mixture of nitrogen/phosphorus/potassium compounds (scary-sounding "chemicals"), an organic farm will fertilize with organic (previously/currently living) material that contains high levels of those chemicals.
    • orclev 9y ago
      That's not what organic means. Technically organic can mean derived from something that is/was living, but it can also mean anything that contains hydrocarbons. Similarly inorganic can mean either something not contained within anything that is/was living (which honestly with how varied life is doesn't cover much), or else something not containing carbon. That however is the actual definition of organic as opposed to how it's used in marketing material. When talking about marketing, organic just means that a particular subset of approved pesticides and possibly fertilizers, was used in growing the produce. It has no particular meaning beyond that when used as a marketing term. In particular what pesticides are or are not approved is at the discretion of the organization providing the organic certification, so depending on where you are and what group is certifying a product as organic will determine what was used in growing it.
      • marcoperaza 9y ago
        Just to clarify, I was referring to the meaning of “organic” specifically in “organic food”. The way the regulations have defined it is “grown with only non-synthetic or exempted synthesized fertilizers/pesticides/etc.” This is a totally different meaning than “organic” in “organic chemistry” or “organic compounds.”
      • marcoperaza 9y ago
        I don't think 'organic' in "organic food" includes synthesized "organic compounds".
        • kokey 9y ago
          It doesn't, but it does make it fun to say things like kerosene and plastic are organic.
  • chiph 9y ago
    There's "FDA Organic" which meets the government standards (which are somewhat weak) and then "Real Organic" from farmers who hold themselves to the original meaning of being pesticide and GMO-free. The problem is that as a shopper, you can't tell the difference, unless you sign up with a CSA and get to know your food supplier personally.
    • gbrown 9y ago
      Well put.
      • SlowBro 9y ago
        There's another way to tell: Switch to organic for the "dirty dozen" fruits and veggies[1] for three weeks. Then try conventional again. In my own experience I couldn't tolerate conventional anymore, and the difference is more than placebic: Headaches and yuck feeling. Prove it for yourself. [1]https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty_dozen_list.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty_dozen_list.php Also in my experience, organic tastes WAY better. For example I never liked the taste of conventional celery; some bitter aftertaste (pesticide residue?) and just bland. But organic celery really pops, with no aftertaste. Baby carrots are noticeably tastier as well. The difference is so stark I think I could validate these on a double-blind test any day.
        • perseusprime11 9y ago
          When I eat Non organic beetroot, it just feels like I am eating some pesticides. Same with non-organic corn. Try keeping in this mind when you eat these vegetables next time and I am sure you will catch the aftertaste.
          • slavik81 9y ago
            If they're thinking about pesticides and their taste while eating, it might be hard to seperate the thought from the reality. Like, thinking about maggots while eating your rice. I'm sure your rice doesn't contain maggots, but do you really feel like eating rice right now? Try a double-blind test and ask a series of questions. Some of the questions about taste should be the things you're looking for. Others should be irrelevant, just to set a baseline. Perceptions of taste are very subjective and easily influenced. Experimental rigour is necessary to mitigate that.
  • gascan 9y ago
    Organic allows pesticides- but the list of approved pesticides is full of things like ethanol and soap. It passes the sniff test that a farmer controlling pests with ethanol might use more than a farmer using, e.g. neonicotinoids. As for fertilizer, I wonder if compost is considered fertilizer. I use lots of compost on my garden.
  • sbenitoj 9y ago
    I still believe it’s worth buying organic, here is a good article summarizing studies on using baking soda to remove pesticides from fruits and vegetables, and a key quote from the article: “Even with bicarbonate, buying organic may still be worth it! One thing this article should not be abused is as evidence in an argument against buying organic. Yes, you can reduce the pesticide load on the peel of your favorite produce to almost zero and yes, even the latest (highly pro-organic) review of the literature highlights that pesticides are where the major differences are, but you're (a) still left with the pesticides beneath the skin and will (b) not benefit from the other potential benefits Tiziano Gomiero highlights in his latest paper in Applied Soil Ecology (see Figure 4).” http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-soda-washes-all.html?m=1 http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/10/nahco3-aka-baking-so...
  • Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
    The reality is that you don't know for sure. 'Good' organic growing practices are perfectly safe. They'll minimize pesticide application, and ensure they do it at the correct times, i.e. away from harvest time. They'll apply Bt toxin (yes, the same stuff in the GMOs, just exogenously applied) and neem oil, as well as some soaps with potassium salts. There are some 'dangerous' organic pesticides. As far as I know Rotenone isn't used anymore, but it is dangerous to humans and was once employed as an organic pesticide. Copper sulfate is a fairly big issue. It's definitely toxic to humans and has been found to accumulate in soils. It's a fairly big deal in Napa and the vineyards have moved away from it because of the accumulation. This copper definitely makes it's way to consumers, so the question is how much, and how much is too much? This is an interesting anecdote about brewing beer with fruit, and needing to pay attention to copper levels. http://scottjanish.com/peaches-and-quinoa-sour/ http://scottjanish.com/peaches-and-quinoa-sour/ ______ Ultimately, at the scale of the modern organic industry, you're not always going to get good stuff. There are certainly potential dangers, just as there are with conventional agriculture. I would contend that both are perfectly safe when done appropriately.
    • tropo 9y ago
      Copper is a required micronutrient. You need copper. Copper sulfate used to be used to induce vomiting. It turned out to be more toxic then we'd like in that usage... but that usage was feeding people spoonfuls of it!
• scott_s 9y ago
  There also have been studies on the nutritional differences between conventional farming and organic farming, and most of the meta-analysis of these studies concludes there is none: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-farming-meta-analysis-what-does-it-really-show/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-fa...
• 7sigma 9y ago
  > The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings I would take whatever the OCA says with a huge mound of salt, given their antivax and anti fluoride in the water stance.
  • stevenh 9y ago
    Please enlighten us, what are the health benefits of swallowing sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid? Edit: Just to be clear, you shouldn't assume that my comment being gray means it was unanimously downvoted. I saw it losing three points for every two gained, meaning roughly 40% of HN shares my curiosity.
    • babygoat 9y ago
      You know what fluoride is for and you’re being obtuse.
      • stevenh 9y ago
        Imagining sinister ulterior motives behind an innocent question seems like something a conspiracy theorist would do.
        • delecti 9y ago
          Replying to the phrase "anti fluoride in the water" with the specific chemicals that are added to the water while pretending to have no clue why they're there is more like something a conspiracy theorist would do.
          • stevenh 9y ago
            It sounds like you know the reason we should swallow those specific chemicals? Perhaps you'll be the first here to answer the question.
    • logfromblammo 9y ago
• NikolaeVarius 9y ago
  I had to reread a few times to try and separate the authors opinions and whatever the paper was stating. This article was an opinion piece based off a misreading of the original paper
• Dwolb 9y ago
  Personally I’d like to dig in to know which varieties have the most nutritional content. Sounds like a good opportunity for growers to begin to differentiate among themselves.
  • roel_v 9y ago
    It's not so much the variety, but the way it's grown. If you grow one tomato in circumstances with insufficient light (or light of certain wavelengths) with lots of nitrogen but insufficient minerals, and planted at the wrong time of the year (something to do with the length of the days and radiant heat - so this varies by location), you'll get different nutritional content from that same seed if it were grown under better circumstances. Some say there is a relationship between nutritional value and Brix readings of the juice of a plant/vegetable; Brix is essentially a measure of the amount of solids in a fluid. I can't find reliable literature confirming this, and the soil/plant/nutrition scientists I work with don't know either (but they don't dismiss it quackary either - it just seems there's not enough research). Either way, a Brix meter is cheap from Ali Express, and I can sort of (meaning: not properly verified, not sure how it would look when properly statistically analyzed) detect patterns in Brix readings from cheap supermarket lettuce, farmers market lettuce and home grown lettuce (and some other vegetables). So if this is something you're in to, it's well worth it spending $15 on a refractometer and playing with it yourself. Oh and if you're going to make your own wine, you can use it for that, too :)
• pratyushag2 9y ago
  Thanks for your well researched comment!
• chrisseaton 9y ago
  > for example, a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation What's wrong with that? Is mutation not an organic process?
  • emiliobumachar 9y ago
    The chemical definition of "organic" would include pretty much anything edible except water and salt. The term is commonly used to refer to foods made using more natural-ish processes. Irradiating seeds goes very much against that vibe.
    • dekhn 9y ago
      organic rules allow mutation breeding.
  • n4r9 9y ago
    The problem is defining a notion of "organic" which is meaningful, consistent and acceptable to / understandable by the public. Many people are shocked by the idea that radiation-induced genetic changes count as both non-GMO and organic. I was, when I learned about it. It seems absurd that food produced this way should fall into a category that gets pushed as "better for you and the planet", when it's a process that's almost as artificial and surely less controllable than GM.
  • 7sigma 9y ago
    I think he might be referring to the fact that Organic Standards don't allow for transgenic modification of varieties, or what is commonly know as GMOs, due to safety concerns On the other hand, they allow for varieties made by using radiation induced mutations, which is way less precise and much less tested. Basically its an ideological position and not based on the scientific consensus.
    • hackerman12345 9y ago
      They also conveniently ignore that pretty much everything is transgenic, the viruses and such that Monsanto uses have existed for a few million (?) years and love to throw DNA around.
• zxcb1 9y ago
  Another explanation/hypothesis is rising CO2 levels https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
  • shawn-butler 9y ago
    This is a much more likely and testable hypothesis than the linked article.
  • joecool1029 9y ago
    Earlier HN discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15253127
• samirillian 9y ago
  You're right that the label "certified organic" is somewhat arbitrary. But it's a moot point for most sellers at organic farmers markets because they usually can't afford certification anyway. And many of them do not use pesticides of any kind, and if they do use something like Neem oil, they will tell you. This does not solve the systemic issue, but knowing the person who knows your food definitely seems like it would be better than anonymous food at a grocery.
  • true_religion 9y ago
    The human element can serve to add trust in the place of verification, but shouldn't take its place. People lie. Industry "standards" change commonly accepted definitions. People buy what's cheap, and effective even if it may not exactly be what's on the tin (e.g. farmer buys an 'organic' fertilizer which isn't, thus 'contaminating' the organic nature of the goods going to your table). That said, I don't see why higher yield with lower nutrition goods are bad in general. It seems malnutrition is from people not eating enough, not from being stuffed with poorly nourishing food.
    • hashkb 9y ago
      If the farmers at local markets are lying about using conventional methods but still growing smaller, tastier fruits and veggies with shorter shelf lives despite still having dirt and rocks on them... then we're totally fucked anyway.
      • hackerman12345 9y ago
        I've seen personal stories here about those farmers market people stopping by Walmart before hand... probably can get a nice discount on dirty fruit.
        • Reedx 9y ago
          Yep, check out CBC's undercover investigation on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYwB63YslbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYwB63YslbA Some don't even bother to take the stickers off!
• mtgx 9y ago
  > in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content. Aren't GMO crops most likely to make that trade-off? I think it's not just fruits and veggies, but everything else, too, that has a much lower nutrient content, from "low-fat" foods to non-grass-fed meat, eggs, and so on. I saw somewhere that eggs from non-grass-fed chickens have about half the nutrients of eggs from grass-fed chickens. Humans also eat meat because they get nutrients from meat. But if the animals only eat a certain type of low-nutrient food, then the humans aren't going to get too many nutrients from meat, either. Add to that the processing of foods, too, which tends to destroy a lot of the nutrients, as well. But somehow people still say that taking vitamins is not necessary if you have a "balanced diet". First off, 8/10 of those who talk about balanced diets probably still don't have a balanced enough diet, if they think that drinking kale shakes and some carrots and tomatoes is all they need for that balanced diet. If you're not tracking your daily micronutrients, then you don't have a balanced diet. Period. Second, the above shows that eating food may become increasingly less effective at giving you the nutrients you require.
  • Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Aren't GMO crops most likely to make that trade-off? No. Like most things, it depends on the desired outcome of the product. In fact, some GMOs are specifically designed to be more nutritional rather than less. See golden rice, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice Additionally, "processing food" isn't actually bad. Humans gained quite a bit with the most common food processing: Cooking. Some foods are more nutritious that way, and it made meat a whole heck of a lot safer to eat. Freezing and various types of drying kept us alive during winters and off-seasons. Some highly processed foods might not be the best things to eat, sure, but processed food itself isn't such a big deal. And that bit about not needing to take vitamins? Yeah, that's true. I personally need to take Vitamin D from September through April, which partially comes from moving to a northern location. The rest of the year I need to get outside in daylight at least 15 minutes a day. No supplements. My diet is pretty balanced: I won't drink smoothies or shakes except as an ice cream dessert. I eat my fruit, I eat fish, eggs, and dairy but no other meats, and cook at home (sometimes freezing for a later date). I have had bloodwork to check for these things. You don't even need to track your daily micronutrients any more than you need to track your daily calories. Balanced doesn't equal perfect, after all, and you don't need to eat every micronutrient every single day. Simply get informed about the sort of things you need, and check that against your local variety of foods. Eat said variety of foods during the day and week. Add in the little extra things that might have healthy stuff. And there you go: A balanced diet.
• codeulike 9y ago
  a lot of so-called organic produce is the product of radiation-induced mutation Citation needed for that.
  • Symmetry 9y ago
    It's totally true. Efforts to produce shorter stemmed wheat that were also resistant to rust[1] used induced mutations from x-rays in some cases. So if you feel like you want wheat that's been mutated to be a good crop via good old fashioned solar UV rays rather than scary artificial cyclotron x-rays you should look for heirloom crops rather than organics. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_leaf_rust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_leaf_rust
    • codeulike 9y ago
      The article you quote describes how resistance came about via selective breeding and other such mundane techniques and makes no mention of x-rays. Comment above mine was specifically saying that radiation based mutation is widespread in organic agriculture.
      • Symmetry 9y ago
        Sorry, I just put in the link because I figured people might be confused by me saying "rust" without it. I'm basing my comments on reading The Wizard and the Prophet which gets into the nuts and bolts of the Green Revolution and the various research programs involved. I don't have an online source on hand better than what either of us could Google.
  • n4r9 9y ago
    See the cited Wikipedia page, which in turn cites a large number of published papers. It's not a controversial fact.
    • codeulike 9y ago
      The cited page explains about radiation mutation and lists some of the varieties created, apart from noting that organic standards don't forbid their use it doesn't offer much info on how widespread use is in organic agriculture. That's the bit that needs the citation.
• kakarot 9y ago
  I've worked on an organic farm and we used pesticides in combination with a multi-stage bacteria compound. All "organic" stuff that touched live plants, but we were allowed to spray glyphosate on anything we weren't growing. Wind carries small particles very far, though...
• andrei_says_ 9y ago
  The nutrients in the fruits and vegetables must come from the soil. Proper care of the soil is expensive and labor intensive. Industrial farming optimizes for efficiency and rarely goes to the lengths necessary for maintaining rich soil and healthy environment for the plants. You may want to look up biological farming.
  • 52-6F-62 9y ago
    I rather wish that subject was approached. As I understand it (coming from rural Ontario—5th largest agri-region), farms and especially large farms (around there) are required to—or at least make it a habit of best practice—strategically rotate crops every n seasons to allow the soil to replenish. It's not so simple as that, but I'm no biologist or farmer—just a former country boy. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable could enlighten or expand.
    • randomdata 9y ago
      As a farmer (also in rural Ontario, coincidentally) that is definitely something we try to do. It is not required by law, but anytime I've watched someone not rotate their crops, it isn't long before they are out of business. To extent that, on my farm, we consider it well worth growing unprofitable crops through that rotation to ensure that the ground will grow something profitable next year. It has also become quite popular to grow a second cover crop over the winter to improve soil health even further. But what concerns me most about modern farming is the separation of animal production from plant production. I'm the sixth generation on my family's farm, and I'm the first generation to not also have animals. I do worry about the long-term effects of that. When I get into ground away from the historic family farm, that hasn't seen animals for decades or longer, you really notice a difference in the quality of soil vs. the home farm that has had animals for centuries as part of that crop rotation. Rotation is important, but rotation with animals seems to give the very best results. It is the model that agriculture grew up on and something we have lost (somewhat) recently.
      • ramphastidae 9y ago
        What are the animals’ role? Fertilization?
• alisson 9y ago
  We should be focusing into building soil and edible forest to harvest multiple floors instead of just that usual monoculture one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE If we look closely forest's soil usually gets better and better, I see some people replicate this and seen some 'agroforest' with more then 5 years old and its stunning how productive there lands are, how diverse and how the soil just get better without adding external stuff like fertilizer, its a process type of agriculture instead of an input one.
• api 9y ago
  Nothing you read in the media can be trusted at all. Everything is grossly wrong or propaganda. This is likely propaganda for the organic food industry. Whole Foods was just bought by Amazon and organic is higher margin, so expect a lot more now that Amazon's muscle is behind convincing higher earning people to spend more on food.
• drdrey 9y ago
  I remember reading a study in the NY Times maybe 5 years ago that found no difference in nutrients (between organic and conventional produce) but lower levels of pesticides in organic produce. So while not pesticide free, it is unfair to say they use "just as much if not more"
  • delecti 9y ago
    It's not that the pesticides are more likely to end up in the produce, just that more is used while growing.
    • drdrey 9y ago
      Why would you have less pesticides in the end product if more is used when they are growing?
  • halfjoking 9y ago
    I remember reading in the LA Times that there are more antioxidants/polyphenols in organic food[1], and since those types of nutrients have been shown to decrease inflammation and neutralize free radicals[2] I want to increase my intake of them. [1] http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715-story.html http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055983/
• rmrm 9y ago
  I believe the root (pun intended) issue is the soil biology. In a no till environment where bacteria and funghi are present and healthy, they make soluable the micronutrients needed by the plant. In an unhealthy soil environment where bacteria and funghi are depleted, the plants are dependent on being fed soluable forms of all nutrients. The fertilization regime likely isnt incorporating them all.
  • bryanlarsen 9y ago
    In my experience, no till farmers tend to use much more herbicides and pesticides than farmers that employ tillage. And they do appear to have healthier soil.
    • rmrm 9y ago
      herbicides I can understand (if they are killing to clear). Pesticides I cant quite see why theyd use any more. What would the rationale be to drive that?
      • HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
        My guess (and it's only a guess) would be that the crop residue left behind by no-till harbors more pests than the ground that's been tilled.
  • Juggerbot 9y ago
    >In an unhealthy soil environment where bacteria and funghi are depleted, the plants are dependent on being fed soluable forms of all nutrients. I don't think natural soil systems have been able to keep up with the nutrient demands of modern crop production for some decades now.
• macawfish 9y ago
  I once bought some organic heirloom variety tomatoes shipped from Mexico. I was surprised to find that they were disgusting, flavorless and spongy. I've grown the same varieties myself in rich yard soil, and they were flavorful and delicious. I can only imagine that the imported tomatoes were grown in depleted soil using less than sustainable methods. I really wish big ag people would wake the frick up and realize that the benefits of sustainable polyculture go way way way beyond sometimes-higher yields. Permaculture methods strengthen the diverse ecologies that enrich soil in the first place.
  • mistermann 9y ago
    > I can only imagine that the imported tomatoes were grown in depleted soil using less than sustainable methods. This is far from the only explanation. I've bought supposed "heirloom" tomatoes in a high end supermarket before, and they were also disgusting. What you bought probably simply wasn't a proper heirloom tomato.
    • jdmichal 9y ago
      All heirloom means is that it grows true from seed. Any other properties of the plant, including taste, are up in the air.
      • mistermann 9y ago
        Where do non-heirloom tomatoes come from if not seeds?
        • grzm 9y ago
          A key distinction is the "grows true", which I interpret as "breed true", i.e., the seeds are non-hybridized. For a bit more detail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirloom_tomato#Seed_collecting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirloom_tomato#Seed_collectin...
          • 9y ago
• newnewpdro 9y ago
  Like anything else there's going to be some amount of fraud going on if it's profitable. My experience buying mostly organic produce for a decade has shown to have generally better results than conventional. Conventional produce doesn't taste as good at the very least, and it's very obvious there can be significant differences. Organic fruits rot much quicker, it's impossible to keep organic strawberries around for more than a day. Organic heads of romaine lettuce are often full of living insects like tiny green aphids and other small winged bugs. Previously finding an insect in my produce was such an exceptional occurrence and my perspective so skewed by consuming only conventional produce that I would dispose of it if there were any evidence of insects, finding it so abhorrent as to be bad. Now when there are insects, which is quite common with organic lettuce, I somewhat rejoice in the evidence of insects finding my food an appropraite place to live, wash it off, and eat. Having said that, most of my experience is in the SF bay area at quite high quality grocery stores where the produce department is large and almost entirely organic from local suppliers, the New Leaf in Half Moon Bay for example is organic by default, conventional clearly labeled and the exception. These places move so much organic produce there's no problem stocking large quantities and varieties without throwing it all away due to the short shelf life. Whenever I'm visiting the midwest and try continuing my normal diet of predominately organic produce, my options tend to be limited to Whole Foods and they don't have much organic produce because the local population isn't buying it. What organic stuff they do have is of notably worse quality than what I've grown accustomed to, not from local sources, and often packaged in branded bags or plastic containers with a suspiciously chemical taste I've come to associate with conventional produce. There seems to be some access privileges in play with quality organic produce. If you're in an affluent area with health-conscious people and abundant local sources, the grocers have incredible organic produce and there's an obvious advantage. YMMV
• btilly 9y ago
  I also would like to see actual research backing the "soil depletion" hypothesis. And ruling out alternative theories like https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crops-nutrition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crop... which showed that rising CO2 levels reduces how nutritious many crops are.