6 ms·

When I saw a label of organic, I immediately assume it's over-priced fraud product. To me, it's same as those stupid product which claims magical cure for cance

by ezoe 7y ago

When I saw a label of organic, I immediately assume it's over-priced fraud product. To me, it's same as those stupid product which claims magical cure for cancer.

snthd 7y ago
Organic farming is primarily about producing products better rather than producing better products.
- enriquto 7y ago
  better for whom? for the environment in the long term or for the health of the consumer in the short term? these two criteria are probably contradictory.
- chicob 7y ago
  Organic farming is primarily about producing organically (i.e. without synthetic means), rather than producing sustainably.
johnchristopher 7y ago
What do you mean ? That fraudsters mix regular product with organic product to lie to consumers in order to cash in the benefits ? Or that organic products are a fraud ?
- ctdonath 7y ago
  That consumers think it means something different than what the industry knows it means.
jhrmnn 7y ago
It‘s not the same. If anything, organic produce and its labeling are regulated (at least in EU), magical cures for cancer are not.
- WA 7y ago
  And usually, organic doesn’t mean that it is more healthy for the consumer. It just means it was produced according to some rules that protect the environment somewhat.
  - afiori 7y ago
    Organic agriculture is in many ways a menace to the environment, pesticides are filtered not on environmental or health concerns but based on a natural/artificial scale. In practice worse pesticides and fertilizer imply that huge quantities are used still yielding less per square meter.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Except the EU, and even more restrictive UK organic standard restricts both amount, number of applications, and requires an audit trail of why it was applied, so no it doesn't imply huge quantities. No idea if USDA permits unlimited use...
      - fact_factory 7y ago
        >No idea if USDA permits unlimited use... They do not, in fact it is a last resort. [0]https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d7eae45799f2375&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d...
    - fact_factory 7y ago
      In practice, organic farms are required to use pesticides as a last resort, whereas conventional farms use as much pesticide as they feel is necessary routinely. Furthermore, pesticides that are approved for organic use are non-selective, meaning that they must be applied carefully or they will damage the crop. Modern conventional agriculture is dominated by selective herbicides that are used in volume, because the crops are resistant to their effects. This means that the amount of pesticide used by a conventional farming operation dwarfs that of an organic farm.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Why fraud? Organic is certifying different, but clearly defined production and husbandry standards. You have to meet EU, USDA etc requirements before you can legally use the term organic. It's a worthwhile indicator of less excess in farming, and a marked step up from the many, often dubious, self-certification schemes and logos. Whether you prefer the flavour, or think the restrictions of organic are necessary or not, or don't go far enough are another matter.
- markdown 7y ago
  > Why fraud? Organic is certifying different, but clearly defined production and husbandry standards. Those production and husbandry standards aren't always quite what we expect them to be. You should see how "free range" chickens are raised. Australian farmers who actually care about the welfare of the chickens and the quality of the end product have been trying to create a new brand "pasture raised" or "pastured eggs" (in the case of eggs) because lobbying by the major producers watered down the standards to the point it's disgusting to see chicken feedlots where chooks are free to range at 10,000 hens per hectare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=can8xFpZKRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=can8xFpZKRs
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Free range is a great example of one of those that's been hollowed out to be a near useless marketing phrase in many parts of the world. EU standards set amount of outside access, and limit birds per hectare - a quick search says 3,500 per hectare. USDA restrict neither making it completely worthless. EU Organic is tighter than the EU free range definition on birds per hectare, and limits total flock size too. Free range is marketed to imply old time farm yards with a few dozen hens happily pecking around some rural spacious idyll. The reality is depressingly different. Whether you care about organic aims at all, buying EU organic gets you the "most" free range eggs from best treated hens, that you can get at the supermarket. Which is more than a bit silly. You won't be surprised to learn I'm in favour of much stronger regulation and definitions on food and production labelling. While we're at it, adding carbon impact to labels.
- delfinom 7y ago
noja 7y ago
What? Why would you do that?
7952 7y ago
We all have to make decisions on complex products with very limited data and understanding. Words like "organic" are just a heuristic. It is maybe better than nothing.
Merrill 7y ago
The benefit of organic is the presumed lower amounts of pesticide and herbicide residues in the product, hence some tiny lessening of the probability of getting cancer. Some would also assert that the products have better nutritional values, but this seems very marginal and unlikely. On the other hand, the amount of energy used to grow, process and distribute the product is likely to be higher than for non-organic due to less efficient fertilization, more cultivation, lower yields due to pests, and smaller-scale production units.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  "Presumed" is the problem. Organic: you keep using that word; the government does not think it means what you think it means.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    >Organic 101: What the USDA Organic Label Means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-... What about the presumption is wrong? Also https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-standards https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-s... “Organic” “Organic” can be used to label any product that contains a minimum of 95 percent organic ingredients (excluding salt and water). Up to 5 percent of the ingredients may be nonorganic agricultural products that are not commercially available as organic and/or nonagricultural products that are on the National List.1 Principal display panel: May include USDA organic seal and/or organic claim. Information Panel: Must identify organic ingredients (e.g., organic dill) or via asterisk or other mark.
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      > What about the presumption is wrong? Everything? You quote a bunch of resources, and none of them support the presumption you made "lower amounts of pesticide and herbicide residues in the product, hence some tiny lessening of the probability of getting cancer. Some would also assert that the products have better nutritional values". The presumption is understandable, intuitive, but has no basis in reality. The presumption seems to be that organic farming is closer to traditional farming and avoids practices that pollute the products and the environment. However, the government doesn't see it that way, and describes (in the resources you quote) "organic" in a way that does not require to avoid polluting practices as such, but only certain types of polluting practices... while farmers/manufacturers (obviously) compensate for them. In particular, if we're talking about produce, then the large growers who want to satisfy the USDA Organic Label criteria of "Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides." achieve that by using nonsynthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides in large quantities (as they're less efficient as the "default" materials). The substances replacing standard synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are not safer for humans, they're not safer for the environment, they're simply "more natural" because of arbitrary criteria. While an organic farmer could make produce with less pesticides, that's not cost efficient, so on average mass-produced organic produce that meets all the USDA Organic Label requirements generally has more harmful herbicide and nitrate residues than the "default" non-organic produce. A friend works in food safety testing labs, and most of products that exceed the allowed limits of various unhealthy substances or are near the limits come from certified organic farms.
jacknews 7y ago
yes I think this is it, it's a backlash of sorts against over-hyped (and over-priced) marketing to hipster values.

by ezoe 7y ago

When I saw a label of organic, I immediately assume it's over-priced fraud product. To me, it's same as those stupid product which claims magical cure for cancer.

snthd 7y ago

Organic farming is primarily about producing products better rather than producing better products.

enriquto 7y ago
better for whom? for the environment in the long term or for the health of the consumer in the short term? these two criteria are probably contradictory.
chicob 7y ago
Organic farming is primarily about producing organically (i.e. without synthetic means), rather than producing sustainably.

johnchristopher 7y ago

What do you mean ? That fraudsters mix regular product with organic product to lie to consumers in order to cash in the benefits ? Or that organic products are a fraud ?

ctdonath 7y ago
That consumers think it means something different than what the industry knows it means.

jhrmnn 7y ago

It‘s not the same. If anything, organic produce and its labeling are regulated (at least in EU), magical cures for cancer are not.

WA 7y ago
And usually, organic doesn’t mean that it is more healthy for the consumer. It just means it was produced according to some rules that protect the environment somewhat.
- afiori 7y ago
  Organic agriculture is in many ways a menace to the environment, pesticides are filtered not on environmental or health concerns but based on a natural/artificial scale. In practice worse pesticides and fertilizer imply that huge quantities are used still yielding less per square meter.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Except the EU, and even more restrictive UK organic standard restricts both amount, number of applications, and requires an audit trail of why it was applied, so no it doesn't imply huge quantities. No idea if USDA permits unlimited use...
    - fact_factory 7y ago
      >No idea if USDA permits unlimited use... They do not, in fact it is a last resort. [0]https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d7eae45799f2375&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d...
  - fact_factory 7y ago
    In practice, organic farms are required to use pesticides as a last resort, whereas conventional farms use as much pesticide as they feel is necessary routinely. Furthermore, pesticides that are approved for organic use are non-selective, meaning that they must be applied carefully or they will damage the crop. Modern conventional agriculture is dominated by selective herbicides that are used in volume, because the crops are resistant to their effects. This means that the amount of pesticide used by a conventional farming operation dwarfs that of an organic farm.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Why fraud? Organic is certifying different, but clearly defined production and husbandry standards. You have to meet EU, USDA etc requirements before you can legally use the term organic. It's a worthwhile indicator of less excess in farming, and a marked step up from the many, often dubious, self-certification schemes and logos. Whether you prefer the flavour, or think the restrictions of organic are necessary or not, or don't go far enough are another matter.

markdown 7y ago
> Why fraud? Organic is certifying different, but clearly defined production and husbandry standards. Those production and husbandry standards aren't always quite what we expect them to be. You should see how "free range" chickens are raised. Australian farmers who actually care about the welfare of the chickens and the quality of the end product have been trying to create a new brand "pasture raised" or "pastured eggs" (in the case of eggs) because lobbying by the major producers watered down the standards to the point it's disgusting to see chicken feedlots where chooks are free to range at 10,000 hens per hectare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=can8xFpZKRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=can8xFpZKRs
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Free range is a great example of one of those that's been hollowed out to be a near useless marketing phrase in many parts of the world. EU standards set amount of outside access, and limit birds per hectare - a quick search says 3,500 per hectare. USDA restrict neither making it completely worthless. EU Organic is tighter than the EU free range definition on birds per hectare, and limits total flock size too. Free range is marketed to imply old time farm yards with a few dozen hens happily pecking around some rural spacious idyll. The reality is depressingly different. Whether you care about organic aims at all, buying EU organic gets you the "most" free range eggs from best treated hens, that you can get at the supermarket. Which is more than a bit silly. You won't be surprised to learn I'm in favour of much stronger regulation and definitions on food and production labelling. While we're at it, adding carbon impact to labels.
delfinom 7y ago

noja 7y ago

What? Why would you do that?

7952 7y ago

We all have to make decisions on complex products with very limited data and understanding. Words like "organic" are just a heuristic. It is maybe better than nothing.

Merrill 7y ago

The benefit of organic is the presumed lower amounts of pesticide and herbicide residues in the product, hence some tiny lessening of the probability of getting cancer. Some would also assert that the products have better nutritional values, but this seems very marginal and unlikely. On the other hand, the amount of energy used to grow, process and distribute the product is likely to be higher than for non-organic due to less efficient fertilization, more cultivation, lower yields due to pests, and smaller-scale production units.

ctdonath 7y ago
"Presumed" is the problem. Organic: you keep using that word; the government does not think it means what you think it means.
- Merrill 7y ago
  >Organic 101: What the USDA Organic Label Means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-... What about the presumption is wrong? Also https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-standards https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-s... “Organic” “Organic” can be used to label any product that contains a minimum of 95 percent organic ingredients (excluding salt and water). Up to 5 percent of the ingredients may be nonorganic agricultural products that are not commercially available as organic and/or nonagricultural products that are on the National List.1 Principal display panel: May include USDA organic seal and/or organic claim. Information Panel: Must identify organic ingredients (e.g., organic dill) or via asterisk or other mark.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    > What about the presumption is wrong? Everything? You quote a bunch of resources, and none of them support the presumption you made "lower amounts of pesticide and herbicide residues in the product, hence some tiny lessening of the probability of getting cancer. Some would also assert that the products have better nutritional values". The presumption is understandable, intuitive, but has no basis in reality. The presumption seems to be that organic farming is closer to traditional farming and avoids practices that pollute the products and the environment. However, the government doesn't see it that way, and describes (in the resources you quote) "organic" in a way that does not require to avoid polluting practices as such, but only certain types of polluting practices... while farmers/manufacturers (obviously) compensate for them. In particular, if we're talking about produce, then the large growers who want to satisfy the USDA Organic Label criteria of "Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides." achieve that by using nonsynthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides in large quantities (as they're less efficient as the "default" materials). The substances replacing standard synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are not safer for humans, they're not safer for the environment, they're simply "more natural" because of arbitrary criteria. While an organic farmer could make produce with less pesticides, that's not cost efficient, so on average mass-produced organic produce that meets all the USDA Organic Label requirements generally has more harmful herbicide and nitrate residues than the "default" non-organic produce. A friend works in food safety testing labs, and most of products that exceed the allowed limits of various unhealthy substances or are near the limits come from certified organic farms.

jacknews 7y ago

yes I think this is it, it's a backlash of sorts against over-hyped (and over-priced) marketing to hipster values.