6 ms·

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. There are some standards varying by country some govern

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set. The paper seems thin on how they classified the data as organic or not, looks like they took that source data's word for it. I am very skeptical anytime someone uses such vague terminology such as organic. Most compounds considered "synthetic" are technically organic in a chemical sense. When does something become synthetic? After all many forms chemical synthesis involves basic forms of human preparation (mechanical separation and cooking). How much human modification of a raw material crosses the line into syntheses? Manure vs compost vs fertilizer. The distinction varies by country/law/standard/organization/person. For instance the paper says they included "biodynamic" techniques as organic. Never heard of this before, looking into it it seems akin alchemy, mixing spirituality with farming protocols. The "natural" vs standard medicine debate overlaps in many way with this issue and is full of pseudoscience that pervades and pollutes the information available.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hrvbr 12y ago
In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo. Main rules, taken from the EC site: - Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently - Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned - On-site resources are put to good use, such as manure for fertiliser or feed produced on the farm - Disease-resistant plant and animal species adapted to the local environment are used - Livestock are raised in a free-range, open-air environment and are fed on organic fodder - Animal husbandry practices are tailored to the various livestock species http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm
- SigmundA 12y ago
  Of course my point is this this paper is vague since it doesn't specify which country/entities formal definition of organic they followed in order to classify the data. My point of varying and changing regulation stands as well, the EU original regulation went into effect in 1993, however I am not clear on what enforcement in which countries actually occurred when. It seems it had major revisions in 2007 and took some time overall for standards to be enforced fully. I also find it interesting that the formal regulation for "organic" restricts but still allows "synthetic" fertilizers and antibiotics. It shows the reality that the line is draw arbitrarily. GMO is a similar issue. If genetic modification is done in a lab it's labeled GMO and bad, if it's done through breeding it's not and ok. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if.
  - morsch 12y ago
    Arbitrary is a big word. Just because the line regarding fertilisers isn't drawn the way you imagine it would be doesn't make it arbitrary. I'm sure a lot of rational thought went into, balancing the various trade-offs involved in making a regulation that's meant to serve as a minimum standard applicable in a market with 300 million residents. The same goes for GMO stuff, it's your prerogative to redefine words in any way you see fit, but lab-GMO and breeding-GMO are a conceptually real categories and there's nothing arbitrary about differentiating them.
    - SigmundA 12y ago
      No I'm using the specific definition of arbitrary: "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" My point point being there is not intrinsic nature of something that can make it "organic" in the organic food definition. If one pesticide is allowed in the US and not int the EU definition of organic that is arbitrary. So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at targeted gene insertion is arbitrary.
ewestern 12y ago
This is not really true. Here's the National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop. Anything sold as organic in the US has to abide by these guidelines. Here's the equivalent EU program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Eco-regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Eco-regulation. There are some small differences in requirements between the two in terms of prohibited inputs, but for the most part they are pretty similar. Other countries tend to follow one or the other programs as the US and Europe is where the organic consumers are. Obviously, determining where to draw the line between synthetic and natural is a judgement call, which some may disagree upon. But in a lot of cases it's pretty clear, and the authorities make distinctions accordingly. Another big question determining an input's permissibility: how does this input affect the biodiversity of the system? You're right about "biodynamic" being ridiculous. All biodynamic farming, however, adheres to organic input regulations. If you had some critique of the actual National Organic Program, that would be a more interesting avenue of inquiry.
jqm 12y ago
In the US there is an official organic certification program. You can't just call something "organic" and get away with it. It actually has legal specifications.
- SigmundA 12y ago
  Unfortunately this paper isn't limited to the US or to data after the NPO was established as far as I can tell.
bitwize 12y ago
"Organic" in the sense of agriculture is very well-defined; it means using only mechanical processes and biological processes found in nature (e.g., artificial selection). No chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed: no pesticides, no fertilizers, no GMOs. Where the vagueness creeps in is when governments attempt to gerrymander the definition of organic so that e.g., Monsanto GMO crops can be classified as "organic" when they're not.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  See, when you say stuff like "no chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed" you exclude literally everything man has eaten EVER. I don't really care if people want to consume so-called "organic" food but the pseudo-scientific conversation surrounding it makes me cringe.
- toufka 12y ago
  You do realize water is a chemical? And sunlight is probably the largest 'genetic tamperer' around? There is so much grey space between what you think you mean, and what you are actually saying that the terms you use are entirely meaningless at a practical level.
Houshalter 12y ago
I thought it was defined as "no use of pesticides". Other stuff is often included like fertilizers or genetic modification, but I don't see how that is relevant.
cbsmith 12y ago
> The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. ...and this if further complicated by the fact that this paper is based on combining data from almost 150 other studies.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hrvbr 12y ago

In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo. Main rules, taken from the EC site: - Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently - Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned - On-site resources are put to good use, such as manure for fertiliser or feed produced on the farm - Disease-resistant plant and animal species adapted to the local environment are used - Livestock are raised in a free-range, open-air environment and are fed on organic fodder - Animal husbandry practices are tailored to the various livestock species http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm

SigmundA 12y ago
Of course my point is this this paper is vague since it doesn't specify which country/entities formal definition of organic they followed in order to classify the data. My point of varying and changing regulation stands as well, the EU original regulation went into effect in 1993, however I am not clear on what enforcement in which countries actually occurred when. It seems it had major revisions in 2007 and took some time overall for standards to be enforced fully. I also find it interesting that the formal regulation for "organic" restricts but still allows "synthetic" fertilizers and antibiotics. It shows the reality that the line is draw arbitrarily. GMO is a similar issue. If genetic modification is done in a lab it's labeled GMO and bad, if it's done through breeding it's not and ok. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if.
- morsch 12y ago
  Arbitrary is a big word. Just because the line regarding fertilisers isn't drawn the way you imagine it would be doesn't make it arbitrary. I'm sure a lot of rational thought went into, balancing the various trade-offs involved in making a regulation that's meant to serve as a minimum standard applicable in a market with 300 million residents. The same goes for GMO stuff, it's your prerogative to redefine words in any way you see fit, but lab-GMO and breeding-GMO are a conceptually real categories and there's nothing arbitrary about differentiating them.
  - SigmundA 12y ago
    No I'm using the specific definition of arbitrary: "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" My point point being there is not intrinsic nature of something that can make it "organic" in the organic food definition. If one pesticide is allowed in the US and not int the EU definition of organic that is arbitrary. So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at targeted gene insertion is arbitrary.

ewestern 12y ago

This is not really true. Here's the National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop. Anything sold as organic in the US has to abide by these guidelines. Here's the equivalent EU program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Eco-regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Eco-regulation. There are some small differences in requirements between the two in terms of prohibited inputs, but for the most part they are pretty similar. Other countries tend to follow one or the other programs as the US and Europe is where the organic consumers are. Obviously, determining where to draw the line between synthetic and natural is a judgement call, which some may disagree upon. But in a lot of cases it's pretty clear, and the authorities make distinctions accordingly. Another big question determining an input's permissibility: how does this input affect the biodiversity of the system? You're right about "biodynamic" being ridiculous. All biodynamic farming, however, adheres to organic input regulations. If you had some critique of the actual National Organic Program, that would be a more interesting avenue of inquiry.

jqm 12y ago

In the US there is an official organic certification program. You can't just call something "organic" and get away with it. It actually has legal specifications.

SigmundA 12y ago
Unfortunately this paper isn't limited to the US or to data after the NPO was established as far as I can tell.

bitwize 12y ago

"Organic" in the sense of agriculture is very well-defined; it means using only mechanical processes and biological processes found in nature (e.g., artificial selection). No chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed: no pesticides, no fertilizers, no GMOs. Where the vagueness creeps in is when governments attempt to gerrymander the definition of organic so that e.g., Monsanto GMO crops can be classified as "organic" when they're not.

oldmanjay 12y ago
See, when you say stuff like "no chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed" you exclude literally everything man has eaten EVER. I don't really care if people want to consume so-called "organic" food but the pseudo-scientific conversation surrounding it makes me cringe.
toufka 12y ago
You do realize water is a chemical? And sunlight is probably the largest 'genetic tamperer' around? There is so much grey space between what you think you mean, and what you are actually saying that the terms you use are entirely meaningless at a practical level.

Houshalter 12y ago

I thought it was defined as "no use of pesticides". Other stuff is often included like fertilizers or genetic modification, but I don't see how that is relevant.

cbsmith 12y ago

> The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. ...and this if further complicated by the fact that this paper is based on combining data from almost 150 other studies.