5 ms·

I wouldn’t be surprised if during the next few years you saw a number of stories like this come out. From my talks with folks there isn’t as much oversight in t

I wouldn’t be surprised if during the next few years you saw a number of stories like this come out. From my talks with folks there isn’t as much oversight in the organic sector as we’re led to believe. That’s all hearsay so take it with a grain of salt.

rblatz 7y ago
Being from Ohio I knew quite a few farmers, or people that grew up on farms. They all laugh at organic and say it’s bullshit. There is typically no way to tell after the fact if something is or isn’t organic. Same with rBGH free dairy products. Farmers have known for years that the label is only as good as the word of farmer, and with economic pressures to cheat, it’s not surprising to find cheaters.
- gniv 7y ago
  > There is typically no way to tell after the fact Consumer Reports (and others) did studies that showed non-organic food have lots more pesticide residue than organic food. That of course doesn't mean they are better for you or that they are tastier.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Depends on the food. Broccoli, possibly, because you eat all of it. But nobody eats a banana peel.
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    Gonna go out on a limb here and say that consuming more pesticides is bad for you.
    - loeg 7y ago
      It's fertilized with manure; eating fecal bacteria is bad for you, too. Wash your produce no matter where you get it from.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    No, non-organic has more residue of expected pesticides. The often unspoken truth however is that many chemicals aren't tested for. For example copper sulfate, used as organic fungicide. In other words conventional agriculture uses far more substances that the USDA tests for, a vast majority of them, whereas organic agriculture uses substances that aren't covered by USDA tests. Which should be obvious. This doesn't mean that: 1. Organic agriculture uses less pesticides (bullshit, unless you're talking about GMOs, another hot subject) 2. Organic produce is in any way healthier Both of these statements lack credible evidence. And we might actually find instances in which the substances used in organic agriculture are more unhealthy than their conventional equivalents.
    - jerry1979 7y ago
      I think grouping all pesticides together and thinking about who uses "less pesticides" or "more pesticides" will lead to incorrect evaluations of pesticide safety. Scientists should evaluate chemicals on a chemical-by-chemical basis. I found a study that talks about how using certain chemicals on the farm can lead to cancer for farm workers: "In summary, the epidemiologic evidence from a number of different studies now more convincingly shows that prostate cancer is related to pesticide use." This makes me think that, at the very least, organic produce is healthier for farm workers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276799/ edit: forgot a word.
    - markdown 7y ago
      > For example copper sulfate, used as organic fungicide. Why would one need to test for copper? The trace amounts of it that one would find are good for you. I mean, it's used for water piping in homes even.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        That's silly, like saying breathing chlorine is safe because it's a component in table salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Toxicological_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Toxicologic...
- analog31 7y ago
  In some states, you're not allowed to label milk as rBGH-free, because all milk is rBGH free. They have to label it as being made from cows that the farmers promise not to feed rBGH to.
- yborg 7y ago
  You can get certification from an auditing organization that you are following organic practices, so for farms willing to spend the extra money on that, it's a little better than someone's word. I know someone who works as an auditor in this space for a living, and they are pretty busy.
- tsomctl 7y ago
  Except for those with leaky digestive systems, and non-organic produce is a guaranteed way to get a headache.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  If you are passing off one product as another, deliberately defrauding your buyers, you are running serious risks. It wont be the feds taking the farm. It will be Whole Foods' lawyers coming to recover the cost of pulling your product off shelves. And insurance doesn't cover fraud.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    TFA goes into this. By the time it’s at Whole Foods it’s way too late to test for pesticides. GMO is a different story. The fraudster in this story got caught early on co-mingling GMO with non-GMO.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Trading Standards in the UK are able to detect organic products, and will periodically take samples from farms and manufacturers for lab testing. There have been samples taken from stores, and prosecutions -- not enough, but the ability is there. That's over and above the Soil Association regulations and inspections. SA is the organic standards body in the UK. So it sounds like the US problem is lack of oversight. Of course thanks to the deliberate under funding of the state, particularly of local councils, by recent Tory governments the UK is rapidly catching up to that lack of oversight -- Trading Standards are severely underfunded currently as councils are forced to fund more urgent needs first. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-produce-tests-and-inspections https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-produce-tests-and-inspec...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nyrosis 7y ago
It's indeed likely more of this is happening due to poor government oversight. Though I suspect the demand for oversight and the desire for organic food will motivate this market to respond. If people are willing to pay money for this method they will likely pay to have it guaranteed in a rigorous inspection.

rblatz 7y ago

Being from Ohio I knew quite a few farmers, or people that grew up on farms. They all laugh at organic and say it’s bullshit. There is typically no way to tell after the fact if something is or isn’t organic. Same with rBGH free dairy products. Farmers have known for years that the label is only as good as the word of farmer, and with economic pressures to cheat, it’s not surprising to find cheaters.

gniv 7y ago
> There is typically no way to tell after the fact Consumer Reports (and others) did studies that showed non-organic food have lots more pesticide residue than organic food. That of course doesn't mean they are better for you or that they are tastier.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Depends on the food. Broccoli, possibly, because you eat all of it. But nobody eats a banana peel.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  Gonna go out on a limb here and say that consuming more pesticides is bad for you.
  - loeg 7y ago
    It's fertilized with manure; eating fecal bacteria is bad for you, too. Wash your produce no matter where you get it from.
- bad_user 7y ago
  No, non-organic has more residue of expected pesticides. The often unspoken truth however is that many chemicals aren't tested for. For example copper sulfate, used as organic fungicide. In other words conventional agriculture uses far more substances that the USDA tests for, a vast majority of them, whereas organic agriculture uses substances that aren't covered by USDA tests. Which should be obvious. This doesn't mean that: 1. Organic agriculture uses less pesticides (bullshit, unless you're talking about GMOs, another hot subject) 2. Organic produce is in any way healthier Both of these statements lack credible evidence. And we might actually find instances in which the substances used in organic agriculture are more unhealthy than their conventional equivalents.
  - jerry1979 7y ago
    I think grouping all pesticides together and thinking about who uses "less pesticides" or "more pesticides" will lead to incorrect evaluations of pesticide safety. Scientists should evaluate chemicals on a chemical-by-chemical basis. I found a study that talks about how using certain chemicals on the farm can lead to cancer for farm workers: "In summary, the epidemiologic evidence from a number of different studies now more convincingly shows that prostate cancer is related to pesticide use." This makes me think that, at the very least, organic produce is healthier for farm workers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276799/ edit: forgot a word.
  - markdown 7y ago
    > For example copper sulfate, used as organic fungicide. Why would one need to test for copper? The trace amounts of it that one would find are good for you. I mean, it's used for water piping in homes even.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      That's silly, like saying breathing chlorine is safe because it's a component in table salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Toxicological_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Toxicologic...
analog31 7y ago
In some states, you're not allowed to label milk as rBGH-free, because all milk is rBGH free. They have to label it as being made from cows that the farmers promise not to feed rBGH to.
yborg 7y ago
You can get certification from an auditing organization that you are following organic practices, so for farms willing to spend the extra money on that, it's a little better than someone's word. I know someone who works as an auditor in this space for a living, and they are pretty busy.
tsomctl 7y ago
Except for those with leaky digestive systems, and non-organic produce is a guaranteed way to get a headache.
sandworm101 7y ago
If you are passing off one product as another, deliberately defrauding your buyers, you are running serious risks. It wont be the feds taking the farm. It will be Whole Foods' lawyers coming to recover the cost of pulling your product off shelves. And insurance doesn't cover fraud.
- zaroth 7y ago
  TFA goes into this. By the time it’s at Whole Foods it’s way too late to test for pesticides. GMO is a different story. The fraudster in this story got caught early on co-mingling GMO with non-GMO.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Trading Standards in the UK are able to detect organic products, and will periodically take samples from farms and manufacturers for lab testing. There have been samples taken from stores, and prosecutions -- not enough, but the ability is there. That's over and above the Soil Association regulations and inspections. SA is the organic standards body in the UK. So it sounds like the US problem is lack of oversight. Of course thanks to the deliberate under funding of the state, particularly of local councils, by recent Tory governments the UK is rapidly catching up to that lack of oversight -- Trading Standards are severely underfunded currently as councils are forced to fund more urgent needs first. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-produce-tests-and-inspections https://www.gov.uk/guidance/organic-produce-tests-and-inspec...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nyrosis 7y ago

It's indeed likely more of this is happening due to poor government oversight. Though I suspect the demand for oversight and the desire for organic food will motivate this market to respond. If people are willing to pay money for this method they will likely pay to have it guaranteed in a rigorous inspection.