4 ms·

"The idea that you can really tell, or there is any difference at all, in the meat of livestock fed organic vs. conventional is extremely far fetched." If they

"The idea that you can really tell, or there is any difference at all, in the meat of livestock fed organic vs. conventional is extremely far fetched." If they tested the feed of course they would know the difference because the non-organic feed would be contaminated with pesticides/herbicides. And organic livestock is fed organic feed because of course the contaminants are reflected in the meat. This is easily verified as basic fact, though actually testing the feed or the meat is an expensive process hence the whole honor system. This doesn't make organic a scam. Exactly the same reason you might not want an apple sprayed with a pesticide applies to eat a burger from a cow that was fed feed sprayed with the same. In many ways moreso given that these things are concentrated as you go up the food chain. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180/subpart-C/section-180.364 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E... Conventional red meat can have 20X the amount of glyphosate than your apple can. This was a failure of the certification and monitoring system. Often by design. I don't buy organic. Too niche of a section and the risk profile seems low enough that it doesn't seem worth the attention to me. But I'm not threatened by it, as many seemingly are, and get why some people are focused on that. Years back I did subscribe to a CSA that followed organic principles not because of the organic element, but because their land use was sustainable and quite beautiful (most farms are dire factories, in essence, whereas this place was an eclectic wonderland).

bloaf 5y ago
> the non-organic feed would be contaminated with pesticides/herbicides. https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-approved-for-organic-production/ https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-ap... Organic farming uses herbicides and pesticides too.
- Madmallard 5y ago
  Organic foods, especially ones that have a USDA stamp other rigorous approvals, are upheld to much higher sanitary, chemical-cleanliness, and soil-care standards than conventional crops. The thing about organic pesticides is a red herring. Fresh organic foods raised in good soil are unarguably way better for you than the alternative. There's not even a comparison.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >Organic foods, especially ones that have a USDA stamp other rigorous approvals, are upheld to much higher sanitary USDA non-organic food is less sanitary than the organic variety? >chemical-cleanliness What does this mean? If you put something on food, it's going to get in your body. Whether you apply an organic product to crops or its conventional analog, it'll end up in your body. The chemicals are "clean" insofar they're present at quantities approved for human consumption. >Fresh organic foods raised in good soil are unarguably way better for you than the alternative. There's not even a comparison. How so?
    - Madmallard 5y ago
      Take some courses on food and chemical safety at an accredited university.
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        >Take some courses on food and chemical safety at an accredited university. How is this relevant to the discussion?
- defaultname 5y ago
  Vinegar. Sticky traps. Soaps. Diatomaceous earth. Targeted bacteria. And so on. I'm not sure these are in the same league.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >Vinegar. Sticky traps. Soaps. Diatomaceous earth. Targeted bacteria. >Organic herbicides and pesticides are chosen specifically such that they don't contaminate the product (and thus products of the product). Nowhere in my comment did I claim otherwise. Contaminate with what? Organic herbicides and pesticides contain the same constituent chemicals as their conventional counterparts. They have to, otherwise they wouldn't work. The organic variety contain more ballast, however, which requires additional application to meet the efficiency of the conventional variety.
    - defaultname 5y ago
      "They have to, otherwise they wouldn't work." If you want to give some specific example, go ahead, but as is the statement is nonsensical. You can kill insects and pests with a neurochemical. Or you can put sharp rocks (diatomaceous earth) and traps to do the same, albeit with more labor and less efficacy. Are you sincerely arguing that these must be the same? That an organic burger has rat traps in it? This same insincere argument appears in every discussion about organic practices. A sort of hand wavy "it's all the same". No, it isn't all the same. Farming has been pushed to the level of extraordinary efficiency -- as mentioned, conventional farms are basically gross factories, having nothing to do with "nature" -- and to do this the practice is massive applications of pretty nasty chemicals. Not many organic farms operate in such a manner.
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        >You can kill insects and pests with a neurochemical. Or you can put sharp rocks (diatomaceous earth) and traps to do the same, albeit with more labor and less efficacy. Are you sincerely arguing that these must be the same? That an organic burger has rat traps in it? What on Earth are you talking about? >having nothing to do with "nature" What does this mean? What, specifically, is the difference between conventional agriculture and organic with respect to your appeal to "nature"? >pretty nasty chemicals. What chemicals are you referring to here? >Not many organic farms operate in such a manner. Are you sure about that? How so?
parineum 5y ago
> If they tested the feed of course... > ...of course the contaminants are reflected > This is easily verified as basic fact So easy and obvious that you failed to provide a source. > Conventional red meat can have 20X the amount of glyphosate than your apple can. Is there a reason for that? It seems plausible to me that glyphosate would not survive being cooked and, therefore, a food that is often eaten raw would have different requirements for different types of food. The increased allowable amount is also not indicative that there is actually more in it. It may simply be reflective of an decreased bioavailablity of the substance when delivered via meat, for whatever reason.

bloaf 5y ago

> the non-organic feed would be contaminated with pesticides/herbicides. https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-approved-for-organic-production/ https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-ap... Organic farming uses herbicides and pesticides too.

Madmallard 5y ago
Organic foods, especially ones that have a USDA stamp other rigorous approvals, are upheld to much higher sanitary, chemical-cleanliness, and soil-care standards than conventional crops. The thing about organic pesticides is a red herring. Fresh organic foods raised in good soil are unarguably way better for you than the alternative. There's not even a comparison.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >Organic foods, especially ones that have a USDA stamp other rigorous approvals, are upheld to much higher sanitary USDA non-organic food is less sanitary than the organic variety? >chemical-cleanliness What does this mean? If you put something on food, it's going to get in your body. Whether you apply an organic product to crops or its conventional analog, it'll end up in your body. The chemicals are "clean" insofar they're present at quantities approved for human consumption. >Fresh organic foods raised in good soil are unarguably way better for you than the alternative. There's not even a comparison. How so?
  - Madmallard 5y ago
    Take some courses on food and chemical safety at an accredited university.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >Take some courses on food and chemical safety at an accredited university. How is this relevant to the discussion?
defaultname 5y ago
Vinegar. Sticky traps. Soaps. Diatomaceous earth. Targeted bacteria. And so on. I'm not sure these are in the same league.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >Vinegar. Sticky traps. Soaps. Diatomaceous earth. Targeted bacteria. >Organic herbicides and pesticides are chosen specifically such that they don't contaminate the product (and thus products of the product). Nowhere in my comment did I claim otherwise. Contaminate with what? Organic herbicides and pesticides contain the same constituent chemicals as their conventional counterparts. They have to, otherwise they wouldn't work. The organic variety contain more ballast, however, which requires additional application to meet the efficiency of the conventional variety.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    "They have to, otherwise they wouldn't work." If you want to give some specific example, go ahead, but as is the statement is nonsensical. You can kill insects and pests with a neurochemical. Or you can put sharp rocks (diatomaceous earth) and traps to do the same, albeit with more labor and less efficacy. Are you sincerely arguing that these must be the same? That an organic burger has rat traps in it? This same insincere argument appears in every discussion about organic practices. A sort of hand wavy "it's all the same". No, it isn't all the same. Farming has been pushed to the level of extraordinary efficiency -- as mentioned, conventional farms are basically gross factories, having nothing to do with "nature" -- and to do this the practice is massive applications of pretty nasty chemicals. Not many organic farms operate in such a manner.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >You can kill insects and pests with a neurochemical. Or you can put sharp rocks (diatomaceous earth) and traps to do the same, albeit with more labor and less efficacy. Are you sincerely arguing that these must be the same? That an organic burger has rat traps in it? What on Earth are you talking about? >having nothing to do with "nature" What does this mean? What, specifically, is the difference between conventional agriculture and organic with respect to your appeal to "nature"? >pretty nasty chemicals. What chemicals are you referring to here? >Not many organic farms operate in such a manner. Are you sure about that? How so?

parineum 5y ago

> If they tested the feed of course... > ...of course the contaminants are reflected > This is easily verified as basic fact So easy and obvious that you failed to provide a source. > Conventional red meat can have 20X the amount of glyphosate than your apple can. Is there a reason for that? It seems plausible to me that glyphosate would not survive being cooked and, therefore, a food that is often eaten raw would have different requirements for different types of food. The increased allowable amount is also not indicative that there is actually more in it. It may simply be reflective of an decreased bioavailablity of the substance when delivered via meat, for whatever reason.