6 ms·

> I also can't help but to notice that the agro-dietary industry is a pretty low-margin business. It seems like driving up profit margins requires convincing pe

• mercutio2 6y ago
  Certified organic food is not healthier or cheaper, certainly. Whether it's better for the environment is much less clear; the USDA organic requirements are pretty watered down, and modern pesticides responsibly applied are pretty safe, but synthetic fertilizer, as typically applied on commercial scale farms, is pretty darn bad for ecosystems.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • luc4sdreyer 6y ago
    > but synthetic fertilizer, as typically applied on commercial scale farms, is pretty darn bad for ecosystems. True. It's a big problem. However, the biggest environmental problem _right now_ is habitat loss. As in, massive habitat loss has already happened. We won't feel the really bad effects of climate change for another 100 years. Clearing forests also contribute to climate change. > Habitat loss is perhaps the greatest threat to organisms and biodiversity.[5] Temple (1986) found that 82% of endangered bird species were significantly threatened by habitat loss. Most amphibian species are also threatened by native habitat loss,[6] and some species are now only breeding in modified habitat So how do we reduce habitat loss? Well, clearing habitats for agriculture is the principal cause of habitat destruction [1]. So we should try to be efficient with the land we have. Unfortunately organic farming does the opposite [2]: > The Oxford meta-analysis of 71 studies found that organic farming requires 84% more land for an equivalent amount of harvest [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction#Impacts_on_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction#Impacts_on... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Land_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Land_use
• cbolton 6y ago
  This article on organic food looks like a rather biased piece to me, more like a grab bag of one-sided arguments looking only at bad examples. The author indeed backtracks in the notes at the end: Based on the responses, I just want to make this clear: this is NOT a comprehensive comparison of organic and conventional agriculture, nor is it intended to be. That post would be miles long and far more complex. My overall belief is that there shouldn't be a dichotomy in the first place - there are a variety of methods and practices that a farmer can use, each with its pros and cons. The main point here is that something "organic" isn't intrinsically better than something that isn't, and that you have to approach all kinds of agriculture critically to achieve optimum sustainability. I thought so... I would be surprised if the main point (that organic food is not healthier pesticide-wise) applies to all organic labels.
• pizza234 6y ago
  > Organic is a better example. It's simply a marketing concept designed to capitalize on the appeal to nature fallacy It's not clear what exactly are you referring to with "organic", as one can refer to both agricaltural products and processed food. At least in relation to processed food, I do read and compare labels, and very often, there are 1. less additives 2. natural additives as opposed to chemical ones 3. less refined ingredients. This alone is a big deal, and just based on this, organic as a whole is definitely healthier. I can't talk for processes themselves, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were higher standards in the food chain (e.g. less freezing time, no freezing at all etc.). As a matter of fact, you'll often read that organic is tastier; I personally don't find it so, but that could be very well the cause. Again, organic food is preferrable here (I'm not using "healthier" in a strict sense here). I'm not based on USA though, which may have looser food standards.
  • luc4sdreyer 6y ago
    >It's not clear what exactly are you referring to with "organic" I'm referring to both, and more. All of it. Here is the definition from wikipedia [1] > Organic food is food produced by methods complying with the standards of organic farming. Standards vary worldwide, but organic farming features practices that cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Organizations regulating organic products may restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in the farming methods used to produce such products. Organic foods typically are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or synthetic food additives >This alone is a big deal, and just based on this, organic as a whole is definitely healthier. This is the appeal to nature fallacy I referred to originally. Just so we're on the same page [2]: > The appeal to nature is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is claimed to be good because it’s perceived as natural, or bad because it’s perceived as unnatural. > For example, a person using an appeal to nature might suggest using herbal remedies when treating a serious medical condition, despite what research says on the topic, simply because they perceive the herbal remedies as more natural than modern treatments. > It’s important to understand this kind of fallacious thinking, since it frequently plays a role in people’s internal reasoning process, as well as in debates on various topics. As such, in the following article you will learn more about the appeal to nature fallacy, and see what you can do in order to counter people who use it, while also making sure that you won’t use it yourself. The linked page has many examples, you can find more here [3]. In response to your points in particular: 1. Additives aren't healthy or unhealthy. It simply describes a category of food. Anything can be an additive: sugar, salt, apples, uranium. 2. The meaning of "natural" and "chemical" isn't well-defined here. Everything in nature is composed of chemicals and chemicals are natural. The meaning you're giving to these words are basically natural is good and chemical is bad. If not, please provide a rigorous definition of the two words. 3. Refined probably refers to "processed"? It's similarly vague, allowing anyone to make it mean whatever they want. So if we go with the definition: > "Processed food" includes food that has been cooked, canned, frozen, packaged or changed in nutritional composition with fortifying, preserving or preparing in different ways. Any time we cook, bake or prepare food, we're processing food Then no, it's not bad to process food: [4], [5]. Some forms of processing may be bad yes, but please specify what you mean. > but I wouldn't be surprised if there were higher standards in the food chain (e.g. less freezing time, no freezing at all etc.) Again, which standards? My point being that standards enforced by organic farming _are not_ about improving taste, cost, or health. Of course they claim that, but there is insufficient evidence for this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food [2] https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-nature-fallacy/ https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-nature-fallacy/ [3] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature#Examples https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature#Examples [4] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/not-all-processed-foods-are-unhealthy https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/not-all-proce... [5] https://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-processed-food https://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-processed-food