4 ms·

I have mixed feelings about this request. On the one hand, fair enough. On the other hand, I'm reminded of the paper 'Parachute use to prevent death and major t

by gmac 5y ago

I have mixed feelings about this request. On the one hand, fair enough. On the other hand, I'm reminded of the paper 'Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial'[1]. We don't always need data. Take chlorpyrifos[2]. It's pretty nasty. It requires no additional data to determine that, all else being equal, we'll be better off not consuming its residues on our food. This is not simply an "unnatural = bad" argument: this is a specific chemical with known harmful effects, which you can avoid by buying organic. Of course, the key question is: is all else equal? Organic farming does permit some other chemicals, and has a wide range of other impacts, including yields etc. So it's possible that organic farming is net negative for human welfare. But it's unfair to characterise a preference for organic farming as being quite as unscientific as you seem to claim. I also think the article is telling us less about the innate merits of organic farming and more about the stupidity of making huge system changes overnight without training the people on the ground. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Wow. Ok, that's pretty convincing. I guess it's frustrating having organic vs regular as the option here. Seems like we need more terms to have a more reasonable discussion. Like, what is it called when we don't use dangerous pesticides but we do use man-made fertilizer? What is it called when we use crops optimized for flavor and nutrition vs shelf-life and bulk? I live in the Netherlands and the produce here is pretty awful compared with France, Italy or Germany. I'd be happy with some kind of arbitrary point system to indicate holistic quality. Even though we might disagree on details, balancing price, health, nutrition, taste, environmental sustainability and labor ethics is really hard for a consumer. When you buy organic you kind of hope all those things are included, but it just seems so non-rationalized at the moment.
- gmac 5y ago
  It’s true that some of this could be fixed by more transparency. For example, the pesticides used on crops ought to be listed/available on packaging/at the point of sale.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    It'd most likely happen the other way around— i.e., saying that this produce was grown without the use of ... Wait, which ones should be avoided?
    - gmac 5y ago
      Maybe. The issue then is that people find sneaky ways around it. For example, some things that are "BPA-free" contain the rather similar BPS[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S
gruez 5y ago
>Take chlorpyrifos[2]. It's pretty nasty. It requires no additional data to determine that, all else being equal, we'll be better off not consuming its residues on our food. Can't you make the same argument with other organic but yucky stuff? eg. >Take cow manure. It's pretty nasty. It requires no additional data to determine that, all else being equal, we'll be better off not consuming its residues on our food.
- gmac 5y ago
  From the Wikipedia page on chlorpyrifos: “Organizations such as PANNA and the NRDC state that chlorpyrifos meets the four criteria (persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity) in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. I don’t think cow manure meets any of those four criteria.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >From the Wikipedia page on chlorpyrifos: “Organizations such as PANNA and the NRDC state that chlorpyrifos meets the four criteria (persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity) in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. But the parent poster explicitly mentioned that "it requires no additional data to determine that"? That sounds pretty closer to "chemicals are yucky", rather than "chemicals are bad and these studies show that" (what you're arguing for).
bluGill 5y ago
> Of course, the key question is: is all else equal? Organic farming does permit some other chemicals, and has a wide range of other impacts, including yields etc. So it's possible that organic farming is net negative for human welfare. It is a given that organic is a net negative. Non-organic allows everything organic plus everything organic prohibits. We might need to reform non-organic in some cases, but those doesn't mean we need the arbitrary restrictions of organic.

by gmac 5y ago

dr_dshiv 5y ago

Wow. Ok, that's pretty convincing. I guess it's frustrating having organic vs regular as the option here. Seems like we need more terms to have a more reasonable discussion. Like, what is it called when we don't use dangerous pesticides but we do use man-made fertilizer? What is it called when we use crops optimized for flavor and nutrition vs shelf-life and bulk? I live in the Netherlands and the produce here is pretty awful compared with France, Italy or Germany. I'd be happy with some kind of arbitrary point system to indicate holistic quality. Even though we might disagree on details, balancing price, health, nutrition, taste, environmental sustainability and labor ethics is really hard for a consumer. When you buy organic you kind of hope all those things are included, but it just seems so non-rationalized at the moment.

gmac 5y ago
It’s true that some of this could be fixed by more transparency. For example, the pesticides used on crops ought to be listed/available on packaging/at the point of sale.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  It'd most likely happen the other way around— i.e., saying that this produce was grown without the use of ... Wait, which ones should be avoided?
  - gmac 5y ago
    Maybe. The issue then is that people find sneaky ways around it. For example, some things that are "BPA-free" contain the rather similar BPS[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S

gruez 5y ago

>Take chlorpyrifos[2]. It's pretty nasty. It requires no additional data to determine that, all else being equal, we'll be better off not consuming its residues on our food. Can't you make the same argument with other organic but yucky stuff? eg. >Take cow manure. It's pretty nasty. It requires no additional data to determine that, all else being equal, we'll be better off not consuming its residues on our food.

gmac 5y ago
From the Wikipedia page on chlorpyrifos: “Organizations such as PANNA and the NRDC state that chlorpyrifos meets the four criteria (persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity) in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. I don’t think cow manure meets any of those four criteria.
- gruez 5y ago
  >From the Wikipedia page on chlorpyrifos: “Organizations such as PANNA and the NRDC state that chlorpyrifos meets the four criteria (persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity) in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. But the parent poster explicitly mentioned that "it requires no additional data to determine that"? That sounds pretty closer to "chemicals are yucky", rather than "chemicals are bad and these studies show that" (what you're arguing for).

bluGill 5y ago

> Of course, the key question is: is all else equal? Organic farming does permit some other chemicals, and has a wide range of other impacts, including yields etc. So it's possible that organic farming is net negative for human welfare. It is a given that organic is a net negative. Non-organic allows everything organic plus everything organic prohibits. We might need to reform non-organic in some cases, but those doesn't mean we need the arbitrary restrictions of organic.