3 ms·

Organic is a marketing term created by organic companies. Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

by cwojno 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
No, that's not true, it's the strongest USDA mandated and certified food standard available in the USA. The USA standard is far weaker than EU's organic standard, which is weaker than the UK's, but it is still the strongest defined standard in the US market. Not only do those standards limit pesticides, they restrict frequency and amount of what is permissible. The European standards have additional rules around animal welfare (I'm less sure about the US here) - which make organic the most animal friendly way of buying food, regardless of whether or not you care about organic's aims or use of pesticides.
- zaarn 7y ago
  The problem is that the term "organic" in the US includes pesticides that are... less healthy than normal ones. They are organic pesticides, those are after all okay, but they are more generica than targeted pesticides and tend to be worse for the environment and the human body (Kurzgesagt has a very good video on that).
  - cwojno 7y ago
    Some pesticides that are banned by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for humans and the environment.
    - zaarn 7y ago
      And some pesticides allowed by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for the huamns and the environment.
- cwojno 7y ago
  I agree that the USDA created an official designation. As you said, "organics" still use pesticides, but the recommendations for limitations and selection are not all based on science. If they were, then I would expect that GMO/GEO foods wouldn't be barred as they have the potential to not only help address malnutrition, but also reduce water usage and tillage. http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03231-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03231-x Sorry, I was speaking only of US standards as those are the only ones with which I'm even remotely familiar. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards Overall point: there is a strong naturalistic bias with the term organic. Natural = good, GMO = bad. This is unproven and in some cases counter to reality. This is why I refer to it as a marketing term.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult. And not what organic aspires to, anyway, it just involves a fairly arbitrary set of exclusions as to which pesticides are used, which exclusions have no particular correspondence to either human health or environmental sustainability. “Organic” is largely marketing, but what the marketing appeals to is woo to start with.
- refurb 7y ago
  It’s more than marketing in the sense that certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity. That said, the list of allowable, synthetic organic pesticides is pretty damn long.[1] [1] 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...
  - Nicksil 7y ago
    >certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity. They're not excluded for their toxicity. The exclusions come as a result of a limited list of chemicals used in organic agriculture.
    - refurb 7y ago
      I think we’re saying the same thing. A limited list of chemicals is used in organic farming. How did they limit the list? By removing the more toxic pesticides.

Organic is a marketing term created by organic companies. Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

by cwojno 7y ago

Organic is a marketing term created by organic companies. Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

No, that's not true, it's the strongest USDA mandated and certified food standard available in the USA. The USA standard is far weaker than EU's organic standard, which is weaker than the UK's, but it is still the strongest defined standard in the US market. Not only do those standards limit pesticides, they restrict frequency and amount of what is permissible. The European standards have additional rules around animal welfare (I'm less sure about the US here) - which make organic the most animal friendly way of buying food, regardless of whether or not you care about organic's aims or use of pesticides.

zaarn 7y ago
The problem is that the term "organic" in the US includes pesticides that are... less healthy than normal ones. They are organic pesticides, those are after all okay, but they are more generica than targeted pesticides and tend to be worse for the environment and the human body (Kurzgesagt has a very good video on that).
- cwojno 7y ago
  Some pesticides that are banned by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for humans and the environment.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    And some pesticides allowed by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for the huamns and the environment.
cwojno 7y ago
I agree that the USDA created an official designation. As you said, "organics" still use pesticides, but the recommendations for limitations and selection are not all based on science. If they were, then I would expect that GMO/GEO foods wouldn't be barred as they have the potential to not only help address malnutrition, but also reduce water usage and tillage. http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03231-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03231-x Sorry, I was speaking only of US standards as those are the only ones with which I'm even remotely familiar. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards Overall point: there is a strong naturalistic bias with the term organic. Natural = good, GMO = bad. This is unproven and in some cases counter to reality. This is why I refer to it as a marketing term.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult. And not what organic aspires to, anyway, it just involves a fairly arbitrary set of exclusions as to which pesticides are used, which exclusions have no particular correspondence to either human health or environmental sustainability. “Organic” is largely marketing, but what the marketing appeals to is woo to start with.

refurb 7y ago
It’s more than marketing in the sense that certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity. That said, the list of allowable, synthetic organic pesticides is pretty damn long.[1] [1] 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...
- Nicksil 7y ago
  >certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity. They're not excluded for their toxicity. The exclusions come as a result of a limited list of chemicals used in organic agriculture.
  - refurb 7y ago
    I think we’re saying the same thing. A limited list of chemicals is used in organic farming. How did they limit the list? By removing the more toxic pesticides.