Is there a point to buying organic?

In summary, the conversation discusses various environmental issues, such as organic farming, the sustainability of meat consumption and alternative fuel sources, and the controversial topic of GMO crops. The view of the scientific community is that organic farming is not sustainable and may not have significant benefits compared to conventional farming. However, some argue that organic farming is still beneficial for ecosystem diversity and soil and water quality. Buying organic also supports small farmers and may be a healthier choice for some individuals. Ultimately, the conversation raises questions about the true impact and benefits of organic farming and the importance of reducing food waste in addressing global food shortages.
  • #1
fugg
19
0
Over the past month, with the approaching date of the Copenhagen summit, several news and scientific articles have been prominently dedicated to various environmental issues, namely organic farming, the sustainability of keeping high levels of meat in our diets and its growth in developing countries, as well as the sustainability in general of feeding such a huge global population. There is of course also the question of developing alternative fuel sources for transport in the absence of oil security, and the controversial question of first generation biodiesels since they are all food crops whose environmental virtues have been thoroughly questioned.
This was a feature on Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...091110?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11621 about GM crops vs organic farming.

The general public of course takes a better view of the old man who kindly tends to his naturally growing farm that doesn't significantly suffer from pests and diseases, than the supposedly more commercially oriented and 'heartless' GM crops that increase yields and potentially make farms more profitable.

The view that the scientific community seems to espouse is that organic farming, though nice in principle, is not sustainable beyond redeeming the conscience of the West's upper middle class.

So then, organic farming is not actually so virtuous, since all it does is apply a model that is by nature small scale to cater to a niche and rich market. There was also the recent research that concluded there was virtually no nutritional difference between organic and the rest. Although intensive farming may have side-effects for the soil, the main culprit here is not greedy farmers or evil scientists performing wicked experiments in a lab, but the sheer size of the population. If we're to make food prices affordable to feed the world, we need these methods.

I used to buy organic when it was on offer because I thought I might be doing something positive as a consumer with little difference to my wallet, but now I'm more reluctant to take such a simplistic view. Considering the above, is there really a point to buying organic, given the realities of the global scale social and economic conditions of both?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
I buy organic, because its a healthy choice for me. Fruits like peaches and strawberry's, along with veggies like spinach and celery, contain more pesticides then I feel safe to consume. It also helps the small farmers, who would other wise be eaten up by the large conglomerate farming companies.

At the farm market in Detroit, prices are better then the grocery stores. You tend to see a lot of lower income people taking advantage of that.

The small organic farmer can often pick his crop and bring it to market in less then 12 hours. I will continue to support locally grown foods. It is actually really neat to sit around a old farm house and talk to people who have 5 generations of family invested in the land, they really have a lot to offer.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I garden organically, using organically-grown seeds and NO chemical fertilizers or pesticides. There is a strong contingent of organic growers and farmers here in Maine, and we are under threat from the spread of GMO crops. Crops that are wind-pollinated or are pollinated by wide-ranging insects can be contaminated by GMO crops being grown nearby. That is not such a pressing problem for me, because I grow for consumption. It is a very serious problem for the consortium of organic farmers that supply FedCo Seeds with all of its organic seeds. They have to abide by some very stringent guidelines to retain their "organic" classification, and cross-pollination from GMO crops can ruin years and years of hard work.
 
  • #4
I volunteer with a non-profit, http://www.cityslickerfarms.org/" [Broken] helping urbanites grow food in the city.

I grow as much of my own food as I can, and the rest I buy from local organic farmers or in bulk from one of my local natural grocers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
fugg said:
The view that the scientific community seems to espouse is that organic farming, though nice in principle, is not sustainable beyond redeeming the conscience of the West's upper middle class.

So then, organic farming is not actually so virtuous, since all it does is apply a model that is by nature small scale to cater to a niche and rich market. There was also the recent research that concluded there was virtually no nutritional difference between organic and the rest. Although intensive farming may have side-effects for the soil, the main culprit here is not greedy farmers or evil scientists performing wicked experiments in a lab, but the sheer size of the population. If we're to make food prices affordable to feed the world, we need these methods.

I used to buy organic when it was on offer because I thought I might be doing something positive as a consumer with little difference to my wallet, but now I'm more reluctant to take such a simplistic view. Considering the above, is there really a point to buying organic, given the realities of the global scale social and economic conditions of both?

There are a some benefits with organic farming such as ecosystem diversity and soil and water quality. There are less benefits with greenhouse gases when calculated on a per unit food production basis and it could even be worse.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/organic/policy/research/pdf/env-impacts2.pdf [Broken]

My own view is that it is more environmentally beneficial to reduce food waste which minimises the pressure to grow more food.

http://www.entrans.co.uk/food shortage what food shortage.html

Reducing cattle based meat is also environmentally beneficial
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
hypatia said:
I buy organic, because its a healthy choice for me. Fruits like peaches and strawberry's, along with veggies like spinach and celery, contain more pesticides then I feel safe to consume. It also helps the small farmers, who would other wise be eaten up by the large conglomerate farming companies.

At the farm market in Detroit, prices are better then the grocery stores. You tend to see a lot of lower income people taking advantage of that.

The small organic farmer can often pick his crop and bring it to market in less then 12 hours. I will continue to support locally grown foods. It is actually really neat to sit around a old farm house and talk to people who have 5 generations of family invested in the land, they really have a lot to offer.
I agree with every thing you say but would point out that you cannot assume , just because you bought something from a small farmer at a farmer's market, that it was grown organically. And, unfortunately, the farmer telling you that he farms organically doesn't necessarily mean it is true or that he means the say thing by "organic" that you do.
 
  • #7
fugg said:
The view that the scientific community seems to espouse is that organic farming, though nice in principle, is not sustainable beyond redeeming the conscience of the West's upper middle class.
You could argue that it is intensive farming that is not sustainable. In Europe it's estimated that >25% of crops are thrown away because they don't meet supermarket's cosmetic standards. Since the farm and supermarket have exclusive contracts the food is destroyed. A local farm will just sell you the misshapen but perfectly good vegatables. If you are going to destroy increasing amounts of food in order for your potato chips to all be the same size - somebody is going to go hungry.

There was also the recent research that concluded there was virtually no nutritional difference between organic and the rest
The research was a little suspect, it claimed there was no nutritional difference in food grown without pesticides and GM food grown with increased amounts of pesticide - IF you ignored the effect of the pesticide!

Which is rather like claiming that jumping from a cliff is safe - if you ignore the effects of gravity.
 
  • #8
HallsofIvy said:
I agree with every thing you say but would point out that you cannot assume , just because you bought something from a small farmer at a farmer's market, that it was grown organically. And, unfortunately, the farmer telling you that he farms organically doesn't necessarily mean it is true or that he means the say thing by "organic" that you do.
That's not so much of a problem in Maine, because our state has had a strong certification process for over 30 years. The farmers at the market know which of their competitors are certified and which are not, so it tends to keep things honest. I buy meat from a farm that is working toward certification, but has not yet actually been certified. The couple raises grass-fed Black Angus cattle, and most years, free-range chickens. They also grow cultivated strawberries using organic methods, and open their fields to the public, who pick their own berries and pay by the quart.
 
  • #9
By general take is:

1) There is no convincing evidence that organic food is safer or more healthful than non-organic food, so there is no basis for buying it for that reason.

2) There is convincing (but not complete, as I have seen significant counter-claims) evidence that organic farming has a lower negative impact on the local ecosystem, so buying organic might be somewhat helpful to the local environment.

There are also some important facts to keep in mind.

A) Plants produce natural pesticides, which are not necessarily any less deleterious than artificial pesticides.

B) Organic standards have been watered down to the point where the organic label does not mean pesticide-free. It just means it was grown without certain pesticides, though it may contain significant amounts of pesticides due to runoff from nearby farms.

C) Organic food production has been heavily industrialized. While organic food once mostly came from smaller, local farms, it very often is now produced on large farms using industrial farming methods and trucked long distances, so the locally-grown freshness that was once associated strongly with organic food is probably not anymore.

D) Organic food takes a lot more energy per calorie to produce, which is why it is so much more expensive. It is pretty much a luxury product, which many people (especially outside the wealthy west) cannot afford.
 
  • #10
I've always thought that the healthier the soil, the healthier the food that grows in it. Isn't there an issue of mineral content as well?

Anyways though, I had a class at San Jose State called environmental issues, and a whole chapter of my textbook was dedicated to the damage that high input chemical farming is doing to our farmland. After so long, salts build up in the soil, and it becomes unusable. The soil can be fixed, but it is expensive, and at some point almost impossible. So if my teacher wasn't just a propaganda agent, there is a real good reason to shop organic. Organic soil is more sustainable in the long term by far, and according to my book, we are facing the possibility of major food crisis if we let irresponsible greedy farmers ruin too much soil.

We used synthetic plant nutrients in our garden a few years ago, and ever since, the garden hasn't been too much success.

Another issue is that even organic soil can be degraded of essential plant nutrients and minerals. Some plants degrade certain elements of the soil, and others replenish it when they die. If you have the right mix of plants, the the soil will be self fixing and much more sustainable.

Also, I don't know if you have ever grown your own vegetables and fruit, but it is far better in taste then what you get at the store in my opinion. Fresher food is also more nutritious.

One possible con of organic crops, is that they are often grown using cow manure which contains antibiotics, and apparently these antibiotics are easily absorbed by plants, and although it is a very low level we are exposed to from our vegetables it isn't ideal, as there is a slight potential for the risk of causing bacteria to evolve a resistance to antibiotics over time, theoretically.
 
  • #11
Soil is a partner, not a resource. If you want to grow healthy tasty food, you need decent soil. There is a monster greenhouse complex not far from here (Backyard Farms) that grows tomatoes using hydroponics, but that kind of technology is not affordable nor well-adapted to the needs of average people.

Our soils tend to have a high clay content, due to millenia of glaciation, so it can be necessary to add materials to improve the soil so that periods of wet and dry don't equate to mud and concrete. I've been slowly adding compost to my garden spot over the years, but have still had drainage problems when we get monsoon weather. I had to have some ground-work done last fall to establish a viable drain-field for my septic system, and when the work was winding down, I had the contractor haul in a 14-yard truckload of coarse sand and another load of old rotted cow manure. I spread those on my garden spot and tilled them in with my tractor. The resultant soil is very dark, well-lofted, and permeable. If we get half-decent weather this summer, I hope to be able to supply friends and family with ample food.

As for soil depletion in the short term, it is a good idea to study companion cropping and crop rotation. Some crops (corn for instance) need a lot of nitrogen, and other crops (mostly legumes) fix nitrogen in the soil in the process of growing. The need for fertilization (either commercial or organic) can be alleviated by understanding the mechanisms behind the nutrient balance in your soil. Also, never underestimate the value of a well-rotted compost pile. No clean vegetable matter ever goes wasted here - it all goes to the pile to get rotted down by microorganisms and mixed and aerated by their wormy hosts.
 
  • #12
jreelawg said:
I've always thought that the healthier the soil, the healthier the food that grows in it. Isn't there an issue of mineral content as well?
Plants need tiny amounts of most minerals - not normally something to worry about.
Most do need nitrogen from the soil, so you need to either grow a nitrogen fixer (peas) or dump animal manure on it.

After so long, salts build up in the soil, and it becomes unusable. The soil can be fixed, but it is expensive, and at some point almost impossible.
Not really due to the farming, there is land that is marginal for farming and takes a lot of effort to make it work at all - ie growing wheat next to the ocean.
But wheat growing in the praries is pretty intensive and hasn't done much harm to the soil.

Also, I don't know if you have ever grown your own vegetables and fruit, but it is far better in taste then what you get at the store in my opinion.
That's generally the choice of variety. If you are growing tomatoes in Mexico to ship to Canada you need a variety that is tough and ripens slowly, taste comes second. If you grew the same variety in your window box it would taste the same
The stuff you grow in your own garden you aren't concerned with yield so you grow a variety that tastes nice.

One possible con of organic crops, is that they are often grown using cow manure which contains antibiotics, and apparently these antibiotics are easily absorbed by plants
Giving food animals antibiotics that aren't used in people (and so most human diseases aren't yet immune to) is totally crazy.
But plants aren't where I would worry. Beef+antibiotics -> hamburger -> salmonella+trashcan is more of a problem.

There is an excellent article looking at what you give to factory chickens and then how you transport them in open trucks on the road - it compares it to the best attempts to militarize bio-weapons like anthrax, the chickens are much more effective!

The main down side of organic is that people have an idea "organic=good, pretty=good therefore organic=pretty" which means that supermarkets demand much higher cosmetic standards for organic food. Which means they can charge much higher prices, but it means a large proportion (upto 50%) is thrown away. Compare the organic vegatables in an upmarket supermarket with the ones at the local farmers market.

In the better for you argument there are lies on both sides.
Organic food isn't magically nutritiously better for you, in fact for some things like nuts which are stored for a long time it can be more dangerous. It also isn't necessarily better for the environment to grow fruit organically in a greenhouse in Canada than grow it in the tropics and ship it.

Similarly GM food isn't in itself necessarily harmful - it's that it is GM'ed to allow you to use say, 10x as much pesticide. It's the 10x as much pesticide that you want to worry about.
 
  • #13
HallsofIvy said:
I agree with every thing you say but would point out that you cannot assume , just because you bought something from a small farmer at a farmer's market, that it was grown organically. And, unfortunately, the farmer telling you that he farms organically doesn't necessarily mean it is true or that he means the say thing by "organic" that you do.

Here in California there is a certification process in order to earn the organic label. Here in Berkeley the Ecology Center screens all vendors and inspects their farms. Not all organic farmers are certified. I buy my avocados from a local grower. He is not certified organic, even though he uses organic practices. Getting certification is an expensive proposition and he just cannot afford it.

I would recommend, in the words of Ronald Reagan; "trust...but verify."
 
  • #14
fugg said:
OThere was also the recent research that concluded there was virtually no nutritional difference between organic and the rest.

No there was not recent research conducted that reached that conclusion. The study you are referring to was an assessment of various test results over the past 50 years, not new research. And the disturbing fact that was glossed over was the higher nitrogen content of conventionally grown food as opposed to naturally grown food. The study also focused on a narrow spectrum of the nutritional elements of the food.

More recent research, field research, not a review of old research with a limited scope, has found a significant difference between organic and industrial crops. For instance, organic tomatoes have twice the amount of flavinoids of their industrial counterparts.
 
  • #15
vociferous said:
By general take is:

1) There is no convincing evidence that organic food is safer or more healthful than non-organic food, so there is no basis for buying it for that reason.

I assume the "By general take" is a typo, and you meant "My general take."

Convincing evidence is a subjective a term. I find the evidence to be convincing. We look at different evidence and even the same evidence from different perspectives and reach opposite conclusions.

2) There is convincing (but not complete, as I have seen significant counter-claims) evidence that organic farming has a lower negative impact on the local ecosystem, so buying organic might be somewhat helpful to the local environment.

There is little doubt that organic is better. To grow organically you must build living soil. Conventional methods kill the life in the soil till it becomes becomes little more than dead Earth to prop up the plants.
There are also some important facts to keep in mind.

A) Plants produce natural pesticides, which are not necessarily any less deleterious than artificial pesticides.

I fail to see your point here? Deleterious to whom? And why would adding industrial pesticides to the mix be prefered?

B) Organic standards have been watered down to the point where the organic label does not mean pesticide-free. It just means it was grown without certain pesticides, though it may contain significant amounts of pesticides due to runoff from nearby farms.

Could you cite examples of the specific chemical pesticides that are certified organic?

You do understand that pesticides are applied directly to the plants, not absorbed through the roots. Pesticide runoff is not a problem for organic crops. Over spray on the other hand is.

C) Organic food production has been heavily industrialized. While organic food once mostly came from smaller, local farms, it very often is now produced on large farms using industrial farming methods and trucked long distances, so the locally-grown freshness that was once associated strongly with organic food is probably not anymore.

I agree. Mono-crop on an industrial scale is only slightly better then conventional agriculture. This is why farmers markets are preferred over grocery stores. A person can meet his farmer, visit the farm, etc.

D) Organic food takes a lot more energy per calorie to produce, which is why it is so much more expensive. It is pretty much a luxury product, which many people (especially outside the wealthy west) cannot afford.

You have this exactly reversed. The energy input per calorie is about ~50% higher for conventional versus organic.
 
  • #16
Skyhunter said:
For instance, organic tomatoes have twice the amount of flavinoids of their industrial counterparts.
That is simply due to low levels of nitrogen in the soil, something that has nothing to do with being certified "organic" anyone can reduce the amount of nitrogen in the soil and not be considered "organic".

Skyhunter said:
You do understand that pesticides are applied directly to the plants, not absorbed through the roots. Pesticide runoff is not a problem for organic crops. Over spray on the other hand is.
You don't know about systemic pesticides? These are usually applied to the soil and absorbed through the roots.

http://www.plant-care.com/systemic-pesticides.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
We buy organic, but we also grow berries and vegetables organically. We also belong to a local farm project which specializes in organically grown crops.
 
  • #18
  • #19
Evo said:
That is simply due to low levels of nitrogen in the soil, something that has nothing to do with being certified "organic" anyone can reduce the amount of nitrogen in the soil and not be considered "organic".
You need not reduce the nitrogen content of the soil to accomplish this. When the weather cooperates, I have bumper crops of chilies and sweet peppers, even though conventional wisdom says that you should get better pepper crops in nitrogen-poor soil because high-nitrogen soils encourage leafing and inhibits flowering and fruiting. I believe the difference is that I am using organic gardening methods, and the nitrogen-rich compost and rotted manure that I add to the soil break down slowly and release nitrogen slowly and consistently. If I used chemical fertilizers, there would be a high nitrogen availability for a period of time, then it would have to be re-applied later. I have a fairly comprehensive soil-testing kit, and the levels of nitrogen, potash, and phosphorus all test at "good" or higher since I have gotten the soil in good shape a couple of years back. I have not had to adjust pH level for the last two years, either.

It was expensive getting the organic content of the garden improved - peat and composted manure aren't cheap. Neither are bone meal, blood meal, fish emulsion, etc, but it took all these amendments and more to overcome the deficiencies in the soil. The previous owner limed heavily every year, and flogged everything along with Miracle-Gro, and the soil was badly depleted in essential nutrients.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
That is simply due to low levels of nitrogen in the soil, something that has nothing to do with being certified "organic" anyone can reduce the amount of nitrogen in the soil and not be considered "organic".

Exactly how does reduced nitrogen content in the soil increase flavinoids?

And who (besides you) is suggesting that decreasing the amount of nitrogen in the soil is organic?

You don't know about systemic pesticides? These are usually applied to the soil and absorbed through the roots.

http://www.plant-care.com/systemic-pesticides.html [Broken]

Systemic pesticides can be applied to the soil, seed, or sprayed on the leaf. Unlike fertilizers though, they are not applied as liberally, and are less likely to create a runoff problem. I did not mean to suggest that it is never a problem, just that over spray is the major pesticide issue for organic growers, primarily because pesticides kill the beneficial fauna and flora that organic growers cultivate. My point is that pesticide runoff is a weak argument against buying organic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Skyhunter said:
Exactly how does reduced nitrogen content in the soil increase flavinoids?

And who (besides you) is suggesting that decreasing the amount of nitrogen in the soil is organic?
This is about the presentation given to the "organic seed company" that made the claim about the increased flavanoids. I thought you would know what the source of your claim was. You didn't know? Where are you getting this information from if you haven't even seen or know of the source? You seem to be tossing out random bits of information, and misinformation and not even know if they are true or where they came from.

The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182
 
  • #22
Skyhunter said:
Convincing evidence is a subjective a term. I find the evidence to be convincing. We look at different evidence and even the same evidence from different perspectives and reach opposite conclusions.


By convincing evidence, I mean that the evidence is sufficient that experts in the field are mostly convinced. I am neither a medical researcher nor a nutritionist, but I am aware of no consensus by physicians or medical researchers that organically grown food has a detectable and clear health benefit. In fact, I am aware of no study that convincingly shows a clear, conclusive health benefit that is achieved by eating organic food.

Skyhunter said:
There is little doubt that organic is better. To grow organically you must build living soil. Conventional methods kill the life in the soil till it becomes becomes little more than dead Earth to prop up the plants.


Actually, I have heard profound doubts about the environmental friendliness of organic farming aired by experts. I am not very knowledgeable about agriculture in general, and my general feeling from what I have read is that organic farming techniques probably have a lower net negative impact on the nearby environment than modern farming techniques; however, the counterarguments I have heard were convincing enough for me to withhold judgment on this matter for the time being.


Skyhunter said:
I fail to see your point here? Deleterious to whom? And why would adding industrial pesticides to the mix be prefered?


I was just pointing out that many people commit the logical fallacy of naturalism by assuming that something (such as a pesticide), because it is natural, is less deleterious than a synthetic product. I thought it was worth mentioning.


Skyhunter said:
Could you cite examples of the specific chemical pesticides that are certified organic?


http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Skyhunter said:
You do understand that pesticides are applied directly to the plants, not absorbed through the roots. Pesticide runoff is not a problem for organic crops. Over spray on the other hand is.


I am going to leave this one for now because I cannot remember my source, but I will get back later.


Skyhunter said:
You have this exactly reversed. The energy input per calorie is about ~50% higher for conventional versus organic.

Um, no, what I wrote was correct. For one calorie worth of, let us say, strawberries, it takes more energy to produce organic, which is why it is less efficient and higher-priced. One acre of modern farming techniques yield more food at a lower energy cost. If organic farming techniques were more efficient, organic products would be cheaper.

Organic food produces a lot lower yield per acre and requires much more manpower per calorie of food produced. I strongly suspect that when you factor that in (including all the extra energy the laborers consume during their life while working in organic agriculture), most organic farms are going to come out way behind. It is simple economics (my guess would be any study finding organic farming is more efficient has not factored in the extra cost of additional workers and all their consumption).


I think of organic farming sort of like cattle ranching. It is a luxury product for the first world. The bottom line is that the world's population is booming, the percentage of the GDP the average citizen spends on food is directly correlated with national wealth and technological level, and organic farming delivers the same basic product at a much higher economic cost.

The future lies in more technology, which means more food from the same acre at a lower cost. Organic food production is an anachronism, and while it might be affordable for the middle class in wealthy nations, it is not going to feed the world.
 
  • #24
Evo said:
I already answered it here, you are correct.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2575086&postcount=16

I missed that, thanks.

If I am remembering correctly, organic standards once mandated that produce labeled as organic had to be pass periodic tests, so even if the food was grown using organic farming techniques, it might not qualify as organic. I seem to remember reading that the standard has been changed and products can be labeled organic in the US if they meet the farming standards without regard to how much non-organic products from agricultural contamination they may contain.

I could be misremembering that though.
 
  • #25
I personally don't waste my money on "organic" food. The "organic" produce sells so slowly here that it's mostly half rotted when you buy it. I'm not afraid of pesticides, so I'd rather buy fresh local produce.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
I personally don't waste my money on "organic" food. The "organic" produce sells so slowly here that it's mostly half rotted when you buy it. I'm not afraid of pesticides, so I'd rather buy fresh local produce.

For most fruits and some vegetables, fresh food can tastes orders of magnitude better, I suspect because they pick it as it begins to ripen.

I also suspect that if organic food tends to taste better, it is because it is more likely to be local and thus fresher. We have dozens of farmers markets nearby, but I am usually too lazy to make the trip, even though the food there tend to be much better tasting.
 
  • #27
Evo said:
This is about the presentation given to the "organic seed company" that made the claim about the increased flavanoids.

What organic seed company? The NPR link is about the University of California Davis research. The source of my information. If you meant the presentation by Mitchell to the "Organic Seed Alliance" in 2006, I should point out that it is not a seed company. Also, it is not a claim about increased flavonoids, it is an observed empirical fact.

I thought you would know what the source of your claim was. You didn't know? Where are you getting this information from if you haven't even seen or know of the source? You seem to be tossing out random bits of information, and misinformation and not even know if they are true or where they came from.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

It is you, not me, spreading disinformation here. I said that organic tomatoes have more flavonoids. (true) You are the one who mistakenly claimed it was due to the amount of nitrogen in the soil. (speculation)

I resent the way that you are characterizing me here. Especially when it is you, not me who is mischaracterzing the UC Davis research. I have been following the work Kaffka is doing at UC Davis for a couple of years now.

Read the NPR article... It is not the amount of nitrogen in the soil, but the amount of readily absorbable nitrogen that they suspect could be influencing the flavonoid levels. But that is just a guess. Another possible explanation is that the plant produces these particular flavinoids for defense against pests that in a conventional plot would be controlled by pesticides.

Since they have not published any later results, that is where we stand, I suspect that both nitrogen and plant defense are contributing factors to the increase in these anti-oxidants.

More research is needed, because as Kaffka said, they really don't know exactly why there are more flavonoids in organic tomatoes.

Because growing systems are so complicated, Kaffka says he needs additional research to pinpoint a cause and effect between fertilization and flavonoids.
Life has been terraforming this planet for at least 3.8 billion years, and possibly as long as 4.2 - 4.4 billion years. I will trust the wisdom of the DNA over that of a Monsanto spokesperson any day.
 
  • #28
Skyhunter said:
What organic seed company? The NPR link is about the University of California Davis research. The source of my information. If you meant the presentation by Mitchell to the "Organic Seed Alliance" in 2006, I should point out that it is not a seed company. Also, it is not a claim about increased flavonoids, it is an observed empirical fact.
etc/...etc...

Skyhunter you didn't know about systemic pesticides or about the nitrogen in the soil/relationship to flavinoids etc... until I posted them. Just read your posts, you had no idea.

Skyhunter said:
You do understand that pesticides are applied directly to the plants, not absorbed through the roots. Pesticide runoff is not a problem for organic crops. Over spray on the other hand is.


Skyhunter said:
Exactly how does reduced nitrogen content in the soil increase flavinoids?

And who (besides you) is suggesting that decreasing the amount of nitrogen in the soil is organic?

And then after you read my links, you post like you knew that all along when your posts clearly show that you didn't. :biggrin:

You're usually good about backing up your claims, so I've been suprised lately. You're getting lax. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #29
vociferous said:
By convincing evidence, I mean that the evidence is sufficient that experts in the field are mostly convinced. I am neither a medical researcher nor a nutritionist, but I am aware of no consensus by physicians or medical researchers that organically grown food has a detectable and clear health benefit. In fact, I am aware of no study that convincingly shows a clear, conclusive health benefit that is achieved by eating organic food.

Fair enough. However, I am probably more informed than you on this subject and have probably seen more evidence. Is it conclusive? No. Is it suggestive? Yes.

Actually, I have heard profound doubts about the environmental friendliness of organic farming aired by experts. I am not very knowledgeable about agriculture in general, and my general feeling from what I have read is that organic farming techniques probably have a lower net negative impact on the nearby environment than modern farming techniques; however, the counterarguments I have heard were convincing enough for me to withhold judgment on this matter for the time being.

Again you make this statement without offering any evidence, links, or even a working hypothesis.

I was just pointing out that many people commit the logical fallacy of naturalism by assuming that something (such as a pesticide), because it is natural, is less deleterious than a synthetic product. I thought it was worth mentioning.

But no one is making that argument. And what about my question? How does adding man made pesticide make the plant less deleterious?


Thanks.

Um, no, what I wrote was correct. For one calorie worth of, let us say, strawberries, it takes more energy to produce organic, which is why it is less efficient and higher-priced. One acre of modern farming techniques yield more food at a lower energy cost. If organic farming techniques were more efficient, organic products would be cheaper.

How are you defining energy?

Every study comparing energy inputs into organic -vs- industrial has the energy input into conventional ~50% higher then organic.

Organic food produces a lot lower yield per acre and requires much more manpower per calorie of food produced. I strongly suspect that when you factor that in (including all the extra energy the laborers consume during their life while working in organic agriculture), most organic farms are going to come out way behind. It is simple economics (my guess would be any study finding organic farming is more efficient has not factored in the extra cost of additional workers and all their consumption).

Basing your opinion on your own analysis is an egregious mistake. Use your Google.

"[URL [Broken]
Comparison of organic and conventional farming system in terms of energy efficiency.[/URL]

I think of organic farming sort of like cattle ranching. It is a luxury product for the first world. The bottom line is that the world's population is booming, the percentage of the GDP the average citizen spends on food is directly correlated with national wealth and technological level, and organic farming delivers the same basic product at a much higher economic cost.

The future lies in more technology, which means more food from the same acre at a lower cost. Organic food production is an anachronism, and while it might be affordable for the middle class in wealthy nations, it is not going to feed the world.


I am not very knowledgeable about agriculture in general

The research contradicts your opinion.

http://www.unep.org/PDF/sc/Food_resourcekit-4.pdf [Broken]

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html [Broken]

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936 [Broken]

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicagriculturefeedtheworld.php

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Evo said:
etc/...etc...

Skyhunter you didn't know about systemic pesticides or about the nitrogen in the soil/relationship to flavinoids etc... until I posted them. Just read your posts, you had no idea.






And then after you read my links, you post like you knew that all along when your posts clearly show that you didn't. :biggrin:

Evo,

Why is it that you need to attack me personally? You have done so for years and quite frankly I am growing tired of it.

You could not even properly interpret the article you linked, yet you claim to know my level of knowledge from my post.

You don't know whether or not I knew about systemic pesticides, you don't know if I was aware of the possible connection between available nitrogen and flavonoid levels.

Ban me if you like, but quite frankly you are about the worst moderator on this forum! You are constantly making absolute statements that are factually incorrect.

Like this one.

That is simply due to low levels of nitrogen in the soil

And why did you make such a statement?

Why did you construct this strawman?

anyone can reduce the amount of nitrogen in the soil and not be considered "organic".

It seems that you are more interested in refuting me than being accurate.

If you have a personal problem with me then ban me and get it over with.
 
  • #31
Skyhunter said:
Evo,

Why is it that you need to attack me personally? You have done so for years and quite frankly I am growing tired of it.
Correcting you is not attacking you.

You could not even properly interpret the article you linked, yet you claim to know my level of knowledge from my post.
What, that I called it an organic seed company and not consortium? It had been a while since I had read the name of the group, and what does the group's name have to do with anything? The fact is that your post showed that you had no idea of the study that is being done that you somehow got the "increased flavanoids" info from. You told someone that plants didn't absorb pesticides through their roots, misinformation, I proved you wrong.

You don't know whether or not I knew about systemic pesticides, you don't know if I was aware of the possible connection between available nitrogen and flavonoid levels.
See above. And you didn't know about the connection because you said
Exactly how does reduced nitrogen content in the soil increase flavinoids?

And who (besides you) is suggesting that decreasing the amount of nitrogen in the soil is organic?
According to your post, you had no clue.

Ban me if you like, but quite frankly you are about the worst moderator on this forum! You are constantly making absolute statements that are factually incorrect.
I'm afraid it is you that has been incorrect, which I have shown in this thread. If you don't like to be corrected then check your facts before posting.
 
  • #32
Evo said:
Correcting you is not attacking you.

Calling me dishonest is a personal attack.

What, that I called it an organic seed company and not consortium? It had been a while since I had read the name of the group, and what does the group's name have to do with anything?

Nothing. Except that the link you provided did not even mention a seed company or consortium.

My guess was that you were referring to the Mitchell presentation, though it was not mentioned in the article.

The fact is that your post showed that you had no idea of the study that is being done that you somehow got the "increased flavanoids" info from.

I based my statement on an interview by Kaffka. I don't recall him mentioning nitrogen, he posited that it may be the plants natural response to increased threat exposure. I remember now reading about organic -vs- inorganic nitrogen, but what stuck in my mind was the defense mechanisms of the plant.
You told someone that plants didn't absorb pesticides through their roots, misinformation, I proved you wrong.

I did not disagree and stood corrected.

I was thinking of insecticides, a sub group of pesticides, which are primarily applied directly to the plant. The major point that seems to be lost here is that overspray, not runoff, is more of an issue for organic farmers.
See above. And you didn't know about the connection because you said According to your post, you had no clue.

Your statement was factually incorrect. My understanding, supported by the researcher's statements is that the connection is primarily to organic sources of nitrogen, not absolute soil content.

Asking for clarification does not necessarily imply ignorance.

Your evidence supports my statement that organic tomatoes are higher in flavonoids than their conventional counterparts.

I'm afraid it is you that has been incorrect, which I have shown in this thread. If you don't like to be corrected then check your facts before posting.

I admit when I am wrong. I often make mistakes, get confused, or simply misunderstand. I try not to compound my initial error by denying it. However, in this case I feel that you are being overly corrective without fully understanding the facts.
 
  • #33
Skyhunter said:
Calling me dishonest is a personal attack.
I pointed out what you had said, and then you posted like you knew it all along. Do I have to keep reposting that for you?

Skyhunter said:
My guess was that you were referring to the Mitchell presentation, though it was not mentioned in the article.
Yes it was mentioned in the article I posted.

My post #21
Evo said:
The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

I showed that the research said the increase in flavonoids was due to the nitrogen. Do you disagree?

Skyhunter said:
I was thinking of insecticides, a sub group of pesticides, which are primarily applied directly to the plant. The major point that seems to be lost here is that overspray, not runoff, is more of an issue for organic farmers.
But that's not what you said, and that's the point.
Skyhunter said:
You do understand that pesticides are applied directly to the plants, not absorbed through the roots. Pesticide runoff is not a problem for organic crops. Over spray on the other hand is.
When I corrected you you came back with this.
Skyhunter said:
Systemic pesticides can be applied to the soil, seed, or sprayed on the leaf. Unlike fertilizers though, they are not applied as liberally, and are less likely to create a runoff problem. I did not mean to suggest that it is never a problem, just that over spray is the major pesticide issue for organic growers, primarily because pesticides kill the beneficial fauna and flora that organic growers cultivate. My point is that pesticide runoff is a weak argument against buying organic.

Skyhunter said:
Your statement was factually incorrect. My understanding, supported by the researcher's statements is that the connection is primarily to organic sources of nitrogen, not absolute soil content.
Not according to Mitchell.
Mitchell's team say the finding can be explained by the availability of nitrogen. Flavonoids are produced as a defence mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency. The inorganic nitrogen in conventional fertiliser is easily available to plants and so, the team suggests, the lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by overfertilisation.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526114.900-organic-tomatoes-have-more-antioxidants.html

Which makes what I said correct as the current research stands.

Do you still disagree with the nitrogen/flavonoid connection? It seems to me that we agree on this.
 
  • #34
Locked pending moderation.
 

What is the difference between organic and non-organic food?

The main difference between organic and non-organic food is the way they are produced. Organic food is grown without the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Additionally, organic livestock must be raised without the use of antibiotics or growth hormones. Non-organic food, on the other hand, may contain these substances. Organic food is also often produced using sustainable farming practices that prioritize soil health and biodiversity.

Is organic food healthier than non-organic food?

While there is ongoing debate about the health benefits of organic food, some studies have shown that organic produce may contain higher levels of certain nutrients, such as antioxidants. However, the overall health benefits of organic food are still inconclusive. What is clear is that organic food is free of harmful chemicals and additives, which can be beneficial for both human health and the environment.

Is buying organic food better for the environment?

Organic farming practices prioritize sustainability and aim to reduce the negative impact of agriculture on the environment. By avoiding the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic farming helps to protect soil health, water quality, and biodiversity. Additionally, organic farming often uses less energy and produces less carbon emissions compared to conventional farming methods.

Why is organic food more expensive?

Organic food is typically more expensive because it is more labor-intensive to produce. Without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic farmers must rely on manual labor and natural methods to control pests and maintain soil health. Additionally, organic certification is a costly process that requires regular inspections and compliance with strict regulations. However, the price difference may also reflect the true cost of producing food without harming the environment and public health.

Is buying organic food worth it?

This is a personal decision that depends on individual values and priorities. Some people choose to buy organic food because they believe it is better for their health and the environment. Others may not see the value in paying more for organic food. Ultimately, it is important to consider the potential health and environmental benefits of organic food, as well as the potential cost savings from avoiding exposure to harmful chemicals, when making this decision.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
12K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top