3 ms·

"There’s no proof that the meat [from animals fed from fraudulently marked "organic" produce] is any better for you, but some people believe it is and others ha

by erikig 7y ago

"There’s no proof that the meat [from animals fed from fraudulently marked "organic" produce] is any better for you, but some people believe it is and others have philosophical or environmental reasons for preferring it." Makes me wonder - who is the victim of this fraud?

Maarten88 7y ago
The animals, clearly
- zaroth 7y ago
  How do you figure? The animals were being raised for slaughter one way or another. You think the animals cared that the grain they were eating was mis-labeled as organic?
pm90 7y ago
People who hold that belief.
bilbo0s 7y ago
As a farm boy from Wisconsin I'm obviously going to look at it a bit different than the majority of the HN crowd, but I'd say the victims were the farmers who were his competitors. That said, I completely understand the skepticism. Who's to say that those farmers aren't trying to get their yields up via non organic methods as well? (Of course, if they were, why would they have turned him in? But you never know.)
Thorrez 7y ago
The customers who paid a higher price for something because it was falsely advertised. Just because there's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it isn't healthier. And people buy organic for reasons other than health, such as the idea that it's better for the environment (e.g. no pesticides seeping into the ground).
- ourmandave 7y ago
  Just because there's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it isn't healthier. USDA certified cringey statement.
  - Thorrez 7y ago
    It's a variation of the common phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."[1] It's a common debate, at what point, if ever, can we say something doesn't exist when there's no evidence for it. There might actually be some evidence that organic food is healthier, this study[2] found an association between organic food and reduction in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014148 https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014148
    - ourmandave 7y ago
      Yes, and the dragon in my garage only eats organic knights. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
      - Thorrez 7y ago
        In that exact same book by Carl Sagan he uses the quote: > Appeal to ignorance—the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist—and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Carl Sagan says we should be comfortable with ambiguity. We should say "organic food might be healthier, or it might not, we don't know". But I already linked one study that seemed to indicate a health benefit. I don't see how "The Dragon in My Garage" is relevant here. In that story, the goalposts are constantly moved until the idea is untestable. But the idea of organic food being healthier doesn't seem to have moving goalposts, and it doesn't seem untestable to me.
lovich 7y ago
Does it matter if organic is healthier or not? If you advertise a good for sale based on a specific characteristic, and then sell goods that don't have that characteristic, you have committed fraud. Whether or not that specific characteristic has an affect in the real world does not change the fact that you aren't selling what you advertised
peteradio 7y ago
I suppose you see no problem with Amazon selling knockoffs as namebrand?
cortesoft 7y ago
Part of the appeal of organic is to be better for the environment. That is not something that is inherent to the product produced, but is an externality.
- beerandt 7y ago
  It depends on what you want to maximize, because you don't use manufactured fertilizer, but you might need to deforest 3x the land to generate the same long-term average yield.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Agreed that it is not so simple a calculation. However, I still don’t think you should commit fraud just because you think the calculation is complicated.
danmg 7y ago
The real victims are the people paying higher prices for 'conventional' produce and grains because farmers are chasing higher prices and lower yields for organics. This includes most of the developing world.

by erikig 7y ago

Maarten88 7y ago

The animals, clearly

zaroth 7y ago
How do you figure? The animals were being raised for slaughter one way or another. You think the animals cared that the grain they were eating was mis-labeled as organic?

pm90 7y ago

People who hold that belief.

bilbo0s 7y ago

As a farm boy from Wisconsin I'm obviously going to look at it a bit different than the majority of the HN crowd, but I'd say the victims were the farmers who were his competitors. That said, I completely understand the skepticism. Who's to say that those farmers aren't trying to get their yields up via non organic methods as well? (Of course, if they were, why would they have turned him in? But you never know.)

Thorrez 7y ago

The customers who paid a higher price for something because it was falsely advertised. Just because there's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it isn't healthier. And people buy organic for reasons other than health, such as the idea that it's better for the environment (e.g. no pesticides seeping into the ground).

ourmandave 7y ago
Just because there's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it isn't healthier. USDA certified cringey statement.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  It's a variation of the common phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."[1] It's a common debate, at what point, if ever, can we say something doesn't exist when there's no evidence for it. There might actually be some evidence that organic food is healthier, this study[2] found an association between organic food and reduction in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014148 https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2014148
  - ourmandave 7y ago
    Yes, and the dragon in my garage only eats organic knights. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
    - Thorrez 7y ago
      In that exact same book by Carl Sagan he uses the quote: > Appeal to ignorance—the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist—and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Carl Sagan says we should be comfortable with ambiguity. We should say "organic food might be healthier, or it might not, we don't know". But I already linked one study that seemed to indicate a health benefit. I don't see how "The Dragon in My Garage" is relevant here. In that story, the goalposts are constantly moved until the idea is untestable. But the idea of organic food being healthier doesn't seem to have moving goalposts, and it doesn't seem untestable to me.

lovich 7y ago

Does it matter if organic is healthier or not? If you advertise a good for sale based on a specific characteristic, and then sell goods that don't have that characteristic, you have committed fraud. Whether or not that specific characteristic has an affect in the real world does not change the fact that you aren't selling what you advertised

peteradio 7y ago

I suppose you see no problem with Amazon selling knockoffs as namebrand?

cortesoft 7y ago

Part of the appeal of organic is to be better for the environment. That is not something that is inherent to the product produced, but is an externality.

beerandt 7y ago
It depends on what you want to maximize, because you don't use manufactured fertilizer, but you might need to deforest 3x the land to generate the same long-term average yield.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Agreed that it is not so simple a calculation. However, I still don’t think you should commit fraud just because you think the calculation is complicated.

danmg 7y ago

The real victims are the people paying higher prices for 'conventional' produce and grains because farmers are chasing higher prices and lower yields for organics. This includes most of the developing world.