3 ms·

Perhaps someone might say the same of me, but my initial reaction to the FSA study was that it sounded cherry-picked, based on the very language that was cited

by teilo 17y ago

Perhaps someone might say the same of me, but my initial reaction to the FSA study was that it sounded cherry-picked, based on the very language that was cited in this response, that nutritional differences were found in certain cases, but were overlooked as "insignificant". I believed this was cherry-picking because I have read a number of very good, highly controlled studies (NOT meta-studies), which contradicted the FSA report. If one has an agenda, it is ridiculously easy to "invalidate" this or that study, and exclude it from your pool of research. And pardon me for paranoia, but I also know that the Monsantos and Cargills of the world spend mega-bucks lobbying against organics in the halls of government. But one must ultimately set such suspicions aside and deal with the report upon its own merits. Meta-studies are damn hard to do and get right. But they are next to worthless if there is an agenda behind the study, which this article appears to imply.

cwan 17y ago
I suspect the Monsanto's and Cargill's of the world spend mega bucks moving the classification of organic. If that's where the money is, they would be developing products that would fit within the constraints of how organic was defined which to date is still a fairly nebulous definition. The problem is that we're all losers if we're wrong about organics and we get lower yields from land, this will ultimately reduce food security, increase food costs and increase prices for everyone - rich and poor alike. I think you also assume that those who are for organics (which in its own right is becoming a significant business) don't have an agenda of their own to encourage consumers to pay a premium for their product.
- teilo 17y ago
  The definition of organic is fairly stringent. The USDA standards are well formed. There are other certification bodies, of course, such as Oregon Tilith, which have more stringent requirements yet. I make no such assumption about organic producers not wanting to keep prices high, because this is not really a problem. The market will set the price of organics to be appropriate and sustainable regardless of any nefarious plot by organic producers to keep prices high. Also, you make in incorrect correlation between organic farming and low yield. That is a myth (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778 http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778). Organic farming does not equal low yield. The high yield of today's crops does not come from chemical fertilizer, but from producing high-yield varietals via selective breeding, something that is completely in keeping with organic farming methods.
  - cwan 17y ago
    There remains considerable controversy over whether nanotech/GMO should play a role. Currently the former is allowed, the latter is not. Another interesting article here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/... I note the irony of citing Rachel Carson's Silent in the article you linked to what with her assertions debunked in subsequent years not to mention the resulting increase in deaths from malaria - at least some of which was preventable. Additional thoughts here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html
    - teilo 17y ago
      Yes, Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked. But I'm more interested in the University of Michigan studies cited in the article I linked.
      - evgen 17y ago
        Having no time to check up on the sources, I would say that my only objection to the overview of the study is the comparison of "what 'organic' _might eventually_ be able to produce" with conventional agriculture as if it were a static target and presenting current production as if it were a sufficient long-term target. Organic production methods might be able to provide a theoretical caloric output that is equal to 180% of current conventional agriculture caloric output? Well done, but if global population is going to increase by 50% within 50 years this approach is not good enough.
- dejb 17y ago
  It doesn't follow that increased popularity of organic food would necessarily lead to price increases in non-organic food. That's the great thing about having a free economy - you can chose to believe organic isn't worth the extra cost (as I currently do by the way). Furthermore you can continue to evaluate the evidence and at any point you can decide alter your behaviour based on a new cost benefit analyses. The only likely way it would increase the cost non-organic is if governments started to force farmers to pay for the 'externalities' (i.e. environmental cost) of their farming methods. But we wouldn't be 'all losers' in this either. It would simply be transfer of costs from people who are essentially mooching off the system (i.e. me by using cheap non-organic food) to the beneficiaries of a cleaner environment (all of us).
  - cwan 17y ago
    The issues with respect to externalities with respect to farming organic or otherwise are not as clear as you might think: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-gr... Adding arbitrary production constraints tend to add costs - and in the case of "organic". From what I've been reading, organics cost more to control - so either you need more land or you need more inputs - labor or additives. If you go the land route, more limited land drives up cost of the cost of the underlying capital required for everyone - given that land is also an important input at the moment for general farming. Of course, I think consumers would be best served whether buying organic or regular if the governments of the world would abandon farming subsidies that greatly distort markets - but dare to dream.
    - dejb 17y ago
      Just like a nice recursive call, the article you link to relies on a lot of information from the Soil Association which the parent article is refuting. I agree that organic is not the same as 'low externalities'. Pricing in all the externalities would be the best thing. As for the 'non-externality' costs the may be some extra demand for land but for that happen the demand for non-organic would have fallen significantly - most likely faster than supply. So in the short and medium term the prices of non -organic would actually fall.

by teilo 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

I suspect the Monsanto's and Cargill's of the world spend mega bucks moving the classification of organic. If that's where the money is, they would be developing products that would fit within the constraints of how organic was defined which to date is still a fairly nebulous definition. The problem is that we're all losers if we're wrong about organics and we get lower yields from land, this will ultimately reduce food security, increase food costs and increase prices for everyone - rich and poor alike. I think you also assume that those who are for organics (which in its own right is becoming a significant business) don't have an agenda of their own to encourage consumers to pay a premium for their product.

teilo 17y ago
The definition of organic is fairly stringent. The USDA standards are well formed. There are other certification bodies, of course, such as Oregon Tilith, which have more stringent requirements yet. I make no such assumption about organic producers not wanting to keep prices high, because this is not really a problem. The market will set the price of organics to be appropriate and sustainable regardless of any nefarious plot by organic producers to keep prices high. Also, you make in incorrect correlation between organic farming and low yield. That is a myth (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778 http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778). Organic farming does not equal low yield. The high yield of today's crops does not come from chemical fertilizer, but from producing high-yield varietals via selective breeding, something that is completely in keeping with organic farming methods.
- cwan 17y ago
  There remains considerable controversy over whether nanotech/GMO should play a role. Currently the former is allowed, the latter is not. Another interesting article here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/... I note the irony of citing Rachel Carson's Silent in the article you linked to what with her assertions debunked in subsequent years not to mention the resulting increase in deaths from malaria - at least some of which was preventable. Additional thoughts here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html
  - teilo 17y ago
    Yes, Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked. But I'm more interested in the University of Michigan studies cited in the article I linked.
    - evgen 17y ago
      Having no time to check up on the sources, I would say that my only objection to the overview of the study is the comparison of "what 'organic' _might eventually_ be able to produce" with conventional agriculture as if it were a static target and presenting current production as if it were a sufficient long-term target. Organic production methods might be able to provide a theoretical caloric output that is equal to 180% of current conventional agriculture caloric output? Well done, but if global population is going to increase by 50% within 50 years this approach is not good enough.
dejb 17y ago
It doesn't follow that increased popularity of organic food would necessarily lead to price increases in non-organic food. That's the great thing about having a free economy - you can chose to believe organic isn't worth the extra cost (as I currently do by the way). Furthermore you can continue to evaluate the evidence and at any point you can decide alter your behaviour based on a new cost benefit analyses. The only likely way it would increase the cost non-organic is if governments started to force farmers to pay for the 'externalities' (i.e. environmental cost) of their farming methods. But we wouldn't be 'all losers' in this either. It would simply be transfer of costs from people who are essentially mooching off the system (i.e. me by using cheap non-organic food) to the beneficiaries of a cleaner environment (all of us).
- cwan 17y ago
  The issues with respect to externalities with respect to farming organic or otherwise are not as clear as you might think: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-gr... Adding arbitrary production constraints tend to add costs - and in the case of "organic". From what I've been reading, organics cost more to control - so either you need more land or you need more inputs - labor or additives. If you go the land route, more limited land drives up cost of the cost of the underlying capital required for everyone - given that land is also an important input at the moment for general farming. Of course, I think consumers would be best served whether buying organic or regular if the governments of the world would abandon farming subsidies that greatly distort markets - but dare to dream.
  - dejb 17y ago
    Just like a nice recursive call, the article you link to relies on a lot of information from the Soil Association which the parent article is refuting. I agree that organic is not the same as 'low externalities'. Pricing in all the externalities would be the best thing. As for the 'non-externality' costs the may be some extra demand for land but for that happen the demand for non-organic would have fallen significantly - most likely faster than supply. So in the short and medium term the prices of non -organic would actually fall.