5 ms·

A great example of moving the goal post. Go down the list, as each on is stricken off the supporters will say "it was never about X, it was always about Y". I

A great example of moving the goal post. Go down the list, as each on is stricken off the supporters will say "it was never about X, it was always about Y". I'm constantly hearing about how organic food is: Healthier, tastier, or better for the environment. The scientific literature just doesn't hold up with any of those claims. [1] On top of that, if there was some aspect of organic food that actually did make it better for the environment, then let's just use that with normal farming. Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy? [2] [1] http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-food-pesticides-and-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-food-pe... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

slantyyz 14y ago
>> Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy? I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name. Just like how people like to add the word "artisanal" to foods. It's a newish word (marketing wise) to describe doing things the old way.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 14y ago
  > I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name. It's an quality standards certification [1]. Part of it is "doing things the old fashioned way" but that's mainly a reaction to the negatives of big-agribusiness over-use of irradiation and pesticides... as new way of meeting organic requirements are found, as long as the quality standard is met, it's still organic. That's not to say the term "organic" hasn't been co-opted, much like "green", or "hybrid" [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
  - derleth 14y ago
    > over-use of irradiation Just curious, what are the downsides of over-use of irradiation? Be as specific as you can, please.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I prefer the notion of labeling adulterated foods as "imitation", so when you go to the grocery store, you'll see things like "imitation" bread, cheese, etc.
- jonny_eh 14y ago
  Farming has been evolving for thousands of years. There is no "old way".
varelse 14y ago
[2] Just try to get agro-business to accept lower yields on poultry and livestock in exchange for halting the use of antibiotics in their feed. Good luck with that one. Doesn't seem like an appeal to nature whatsoever - it just seems like a practice that should be considered harmful. But beyond my belief that produce and livestock that have been bred for flavor instead of yield/shelf-life taste better, and that the same people doing the former tend to farm organic in my biased experience, we're otherwise in agreement.
stinkytaco 14y ago
I don't think you're being fair calling it a "moving goalpost". The "organic movement", if that's even a thing, is about a lot of things to lots of different people. It's about supporting local economies, safety and jobs for field workers, a reaction to the decline of rural culture and the rise of agribusiness, getting more fruits and vegetables and less corn byproducts into children, etc. It's also a movement with a long history and lots of different players pushing different agendas, co-opting a single word to relay their message. It's like reading an article in Wired called "The Rise of the Geeks" or "Silicon Valley Rebels" depending on the time and context it could mean 1,000 different things. When someone says "organic" they could mean "organic" in the sense the USDA means it, or the could mean: biodynamic, local, home grown, etc.
- derleth 14y ago
  > more fruits and vegetables and less corn byproducts Wow. What on earth do you think corn even is? Monsanto didn't invent the stuff, you know.
  - inafield 14y ago
    Paraphrasing: Depending on the specific type of corn, Monsanto would disagree with you.
    - derleth 14y ago
      That's a legal-political problem, as I mentioned elsethread.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - lansing 14y ago
    Corn is a grain, not a fruit or a vegetable.
    - mc32 14y ago
smartician 14y ago
It's not moving the goalpost, it's pointing out a straw man fallacy. "Organic" just means that (among other things) no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used. I'm not sure who seriously expects that food produced like this would be "more nutritious", but it's proven that organic food contains less contaminants than conventional food [1]. Also, the studies mentioned probably only observe a few well-known micro-nutrients like vitamins. But I read somewhere that an apple for example contains more than a hundred organic compounds, the effects of which we haven't fully researched yet (ever heard of ursolic acid for example? [2]). Some studies showed that organic chicken and eggs contain more Omega 3 fatty acids. The organic label is also an indicator that the production process is not as low-cost as possible, and usually high quality and low price are opposing goals. This is not necessarily always the case, but as I said it's an indicator. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-no-better-nutrient http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-... [2] http://www.naturalnews.com/036312_apple_peel_obesity_ursolic_acid.html http://www.naturalnews.com/036312_apple_peel_obesity_ursolic...
- derleth 14y ago
  > no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used Never mind that each of those things have greatly different effects on the safety of the food and other things: > no synthetic fertilizers A valid environmental concern, depending on how the fertilizers are used and where the runoff goes. > irradiation Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > sewage sludge A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. > genetic engineering More fear-mongering nonsense when applied to food safety, but a valid concern as regards patent law and similar legal battles. Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who claim Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world using vaccines, which they also believe are evil.
  - inafield 14y ago
    > Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). > A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. > genetic engineering We don't yet know all the side effects of genetic engineering. We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations that want to hide the 2% mutant plant that ate the research team. I'm being funny and exaggerative, but we really don't know.

slantyyz 14y ago

>> Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy? I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name. Just like how people like to add the word "artisanal" to foods. It's a newish word (marketing wise) to describe doing things the old way.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 14y ago
> I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name. It's an quality standards certification [1]. Part of it is "doing things the old fashioned way" but that's mainly a reaction to the negatives of big-agribusiness over-use of irradiation and pesticides... as new way of meeting organic requirements are found, as long as the quality standard is met, it's still organic. That's not to say the term "organic" hasn't been co-opted, much like "green", or "hybrid" [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
- derleth 14y ago
  > over-use of irradiation Just curious, what are the downsides of over-use of irradiation? Be as specific as you can, please.
MartinCron 14y ago
I prefer the notion of labeling adulterated foods as "imitation", so when you go to the grocery store, you'll see things like "imitation" bread, cheese, etc.
jonny_eh 14y ago
Farming has been evolving for thousands of years. There is no "old way".

varelse 14y ago

[2] Just try to get agro-business to accept lower yields on poultry and livestock in exchange for halting the use of antibiotics in their feed. Good luck with that one. Doesn't seem like an appeal to nature whatsoever - it just seems like a practice that should be considered harmful. But beyond my belief that produce and livestock that have been bred for flavor instead of yield/shelf-life taste better, and that the same people doing the former tend to farm organic in my biased experience, we're otherwise in agreement.

stinkytaco 14y ago

I don't think you're being fair calling it a "moving goalpost". The "organic movement", if that's even a thing, is about a lot of things to lots of different people. It's about supporting local economies, safety and jobs for field workers, a reaction to the decline of rural culture and the rise of agribusiness, getting more fruits and vegetables and less corn byproducts into children, etc. It's also a movement with a long history and lots of different players pushing different agendas, co-opting a single word to relay their message. It's like reading an article in Wired called "The Rise of the Geeks" or "Silicon Valley Rebels" depending on the time and context it could mean 1,000 different things. When someone says "organic" they could mean "organic" in the sense the USDA means it, or the could mean: biodynamic, local, home grown, etc.

derleth 14y ago
> more fruits and vegetables and less corn byproducts Wow. What on earth do you think corn even is? Monsanto didn't invent the stuff, you know.
- inafield 14y ago
  Paraphrasing: Depending on the specific type of corn, Monsanto would disagree with you.
  - derleth 14y ago
    That's a legal-political problem, as I mentioned elsethread.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lansing 14y ago
  Corn is a grain, not a fruit or a vegetable.
  - mc32 14y ago

smartician 14y ago

It's not moving the goalpost, it's pointing out a straw man fallacy. "Organic" just means that (among other things) no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used. I'm not sure who seriously expects that food produced like this would be "more nutritious", but it's proven that organic food contains less contaminants than conventional food [1]. Also, the studies mentioned probably only observe a few well-known micro-nutrients like vitamins. But I read somewhere that an apple for example contains more than a hundred organic compounds, the effects of which we haven't fully researched yet (ever heard of ursolic acid for example? [2]). Some studies showed that organic chicken and eggs contain more Omega 3 fatty acids. The organic label is also an indicator that the production process is not as low-cost as possible, and usually high quality and low price are opposing goals. This is not necessarily always the case, but as I said it's an indicator. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-no-better-nutrient http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-... [2] http://www.naturalnews.com/036312_apple_peel_obesity_ursolic_acid.html http://www.naturalnews.com/036312_apple_peel_obesity_ursolic...

derleth 14y ago
> no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used Never mind that each of those things have greatly different effects on the safety of the food and other things: > no synthetic fertilizers A valid environmental concern, depending on how the fertilizers are used and where the runoff goes. > irradiation Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > sewage sludge A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. > genetic engineering More fear-mongering nonsense when applied to food safety, but a valid concern as regards patent law and similar legal battles. Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who claim Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world using vaccines, which they also believe are evil.
- inafield 14y ago
  > Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). > A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. > genetic engineering We don't yet know all the side effects of genetic engineering. We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations that want to hide the 2% mutant plant that ate the research team. I'm being funny and exaggerative, but we really don't know.