Diannie wrote:Well, it seems the scientific evidence is now in Commercial Organic Farms Have Better Fruit and Soil, Lower Environmental Impact, Study Finds

"Side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional strawberry farms and their fruit found the organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse." emphasis mine

This is not really my area, or at least not fully, but the way they calculate standard errors and statistical significance seems odd. They have at most 13 pairs of conventional/organic locations. I would think this says that they really have 13 or 26 data points. But the size of the SE's and p values seems to suggest they are treating multiple observations from each location as a data point. I'd be interested if someone with deeper knowledge can comment on this. I'm just surprised at statistical significance from a seemingly small number of observations.

Hi- Part of the problem with setting up farmer's markets in low income areas in Chicago, is that until this year, none of the farmer's markets sponsored by the City of Chicago accepted link cards. This year I think something like 13 of them accept WIC coupons and link cards. The city of Chicago used to make farmers that sell at the big farmer's markets, to also sell at the markets in the low income areas. One of the farmers told me that when he sold at one of the low income farmer's markets, he was lucky if he had sales of $100 for the day. Farmers were paying the rental fees for the low income farmer's markets, and not showing up.

At the Evanston market, I saw an organic grower selling heirloom tomatoes for $1 a pound at the end of the day a few weeks ago. This last Saturday he was selling them for $2 a pound at the end of the market. There are a few organic growers at the Evanston market that never lower the price on their heirloom tomatoes, and I won't pay the money they are charging. One of them sells heirloom tomatoes for $8 a quart, and another one sells them for $4 a pound every week. I can understand why they have to charge so much money, because heirlooms do not produce very well, but I can't afford $4 a pound tomatoes.

Concerning the nutrition content of organic produce, I still have a hard time believing that organic produce is a lot more nutritious. Nutrition Action newsletter, which is published by CSPI, has studied this issue several times, and has not found any convincing research backing up the fact that organic produce is more nutritious. There are other reasons to buy organic produce, including better taste, and the lack of pesticide. It is very hard to grow organic cherries, peaches and apples in the midwest, because of the humidity factor. Most of the organic fruit in this country is grown in the desert in California. Organic vegetables are easier to grow in the midwest. Many of the growers that raise fruit in the midwest to bring to the farmer's markets, use an integrated pest management program on their farm. This means that they only use pesticides when necessary, and they usually use about half the amount of pesticides used by a factory farm that sells to the big chains. My sister grows her fruit using IPM. She actually uses some pesticides approved for organic production such as garlic oil. She also sprays her cherry trees with grape kool aid, because the birds can't stand it. Birds love to peck at ripe cherries, and we used to spray our trees with a chemical, that kept the birds at bay. A few years ago the company that was manufacturing the chemical that we were using decided to take it off the market, because they were up for EPA renewal, and they decided that it was not worth their while to spend the money required to get their product recertified. A professor at Michigan State came up with the grape kool aid idea, which is dirt cheap. Hope this helps, Nancy

I wish this "organically-grown produce is more nutritious" concept had never been conceived; it's the perfect strawman for people to focus on & argue against, and seems to keep eclipsing the much more reasonable "organically-grown produce is generally soaked in fewer/less harmful chemicals".

It's like the phrase "global warming" - what a stupid phrase. "Global weather f#@k-up" would be much better, because it wouldn't give boneheads the opportunity to point at blizzards & floods and say "where's your 'global warming' now?"*

* I think the two concepts are only related in that they are associated with phrases that seem engineered to make conversations & debates fruitless and off-track. I do not wish to steer this thread to the topic of global warming. If this thread does veer to the topic of global warming, I accept no liability, and may God have mercy on us all.

Khaopaat wrote:I wish this "organically-grown produce is more nutritious" concept had never been conceived; it's the perfect strawman for people to focus on & argue against, and seems to keep eclipsing the much more reasonable "organically-grown produce is generally soaked in fewer/less harmful chemicals".

Bingo. I feel like only the most strident pro-organics ever really asserted that the reason to eat organic was that it was more nourishing; rather, that was a defense asserted by the mass food industry ("you can't prove that your organic food is more nutritious"), knowing that was a claim that could be argued ad infinitum without any definitive resolution, thus undermining or slowing the movement away from conventional produce. Part of the reason why, despite my feelings, I refuse to get caught in that trap.

YourPalWill wrote:Personally, I see value from both perspectives. Until we find a way to sell high quality organic products at a cost that supports the needs of lower income families, both the Farmer's Market and the Mega Market are going to hold important places in our society when it comes to feeding people.

I'm sayin'! I am grateful for the opportunity to share my neighborhood with so many Section 8 neighbors; the disconnect between how many people perceive poverty and what it's actually like amazes me - not to say that proximity means I really understand this struggle, but I do have a better idea of what a few cents more for a food item means, much less a few dollars. Seems they're kind of short on cake. (Maybe if Mlle. were alive today, she'd have said "let them eat flamin' hot cheetos and honey buns.")

Corollary to your "way to sell high quality organic products at a cost" would be "way to produce the necessary yields to feed the existing millions of hungry people on earth." The issue I have with subsidies is that they don't necessarily address the problems in food production, and overlook that hunger isn't limited by US boundaries.

Although I agree with auxen that the other side of this issue is the number of people who need food.

aschie30 wrote:

Khaopaat wrote:I wish this "organically-grown produce is more nutritious" concept had never been conceived; it's the perfect strawman for people to focus on & argue against, and seems to keep eclipsing the much more reasonable "organically-grown produce is generally soaked in fewer/less harmful chemicals".

Bingo. I feel like only the most strident pro-organics ever really asserted that the reason to eat organic was that it was more nourishing; rather, that was a defense asserted by the mass food industry ("you can't prove that your organic food is more nutritious"), knowing that was a claim that could be argued ad infinitum without any definitive resolution, thus undermining or slowing the movement away from conventional produce. Part of the reason why, despite my feelings, I refuse to get caught in that trap.

hear, hear!

This is a big reason why I often choose organic produce over conventional. It has little to nothing to do with flavor or nutrition. Thank you for expressing this so well. I usually just walk away in a shaking incoherent rage when someone makes this assertion.

There's not really that much difference between the mass food industry as you put it and the organic industry... this is an older chart but still worthwhile:



these are largely processed foods, but if you look at the companies growing most of the crappy organic tomatoes, greens, strawberries, etc, they're all mega corps that are also producing tons of non-organic stuff.

Which I guess brings us back to the farmers' market....

gleam wrote:There's not really that much difference between the mass food industry as you put it and the organic industry...

And I knew someone would point that out. Of course, not wanting to miss out on the opportunity for a profit, the "mass food industry" has gradually acquired or developed smaller organic companies, while simultaneously arguing by proxy against the nutritious value of the very products they produce. The equivalent of "arguing both sides of the aisle."

But I think the attachment of that flow chart shows that you guys know what I mean by "mass food industry."

So, making a profit while producing food is bad. Financially unsustainable operations are the way to go?

And, while we advocate that organic production and food be the de facto standard, when others adopt organic production and products that's a bad thing. We don't want a Cargill that controls hundreds of thousands of acres, for example, dictating to their contracted growers to farm organically.

And what food company argues against organic food? Who, exactly, gives their proxy?

auxen1 wrote:And, while we advocate that organic production and food be the de facto standard, ...

Who are the "we" advocating that organic production be the de facto standard? I don't think it includes anyone who has commented in the 5 pages of this thread.

Kenny,

While you are absolutely correct, the point remains.

If there is a product that is better for the world, why is it a bad thing when large entities adopt and promote that product?

Seems to me that is exactly what organic proponents have been advocating.

What am I missing?

auxen1 wrote:If there is a product that is better for the world, why is it a bad thing when large entities adopt and promote that product?
...What am I missing?

Do I really need to list things that were once good, but then became bad or at least diminished in some important way because big entities decided to "adopt and promote" them? OK, here is barely a start: Pizzeria Uno, the macchiato, Chowhound, internet porn, Grubstreet, bagels, Leinenkugel, chicken, East Berlin, metromix.com, Times Square, Popeye The Sailor.

Hilarious list that should not be defaced my overwrought argument.

Well played.

I thought this article was a very good summation of the issue.

Mhays wrote:I thought this article was a very good summation of the issue.

Thanks, Mhays, interesting read.

I do think the author, however, flogs a common strawman, that being that people who shop at farmers' markets are primarily motivated by intentions/delusions of challenging and/or changing the agrindustrial complex. While I admit that I like supporting local, family run businesses and a pre/non-factory farming way of farming, and would love it if more people made conscious decisions about sourcing food that had a meaningful effect on how farming is done in the U.S., I am more motivated in my farmers' market shopping by the fact that the product is just better, and I know many others for whom that is the primary motivation of shopping at farmers' markets.

The main theme of this thread and others like it is the very issue you suggest is a strawman. I've got no beef with people buying luxury food and paying a premium for it - my problem is the greener-than-thou attitude that can accompany the luxury purchase.

Mhays wrote:The main theme of this thread and others like it is the very issue you suggest is a strawman. I've got no beef with people buying luxury food and paying a premium for it - my problem is the greener-than-thou attitude that can accompany the luxury purchase.

Fair point; just saying that the "greener-than-thou" attitude is not something I frequently see (other than perhaps amongst those with the biggest media mouthpieces), but until someone does a definitive survey of folks' motivations in farmers' market shopping (and who knows, maybe someone has), the arguments on all sides are based on "evidence" that is, at best, anecdotal and at worst, projecting or self-serving.

Jay's article is funny and I especially like this bit:

It is a sign of my weakness as a cook that I imagine I always make better food if the ingredients have come from, say, Borough Market: a kilo of dinky clams from the fish place at the back, a slab of pork belly from the Ginger Pig, complete with nipples (because proper cooks do not recoil at such things; I am a proper cook, ergo I celebrate the piggy nipple), a bucket of high-grade Devonshire cream which could harden an artery at 20 paces, a few punnets of raspberries from the teeny-weeny family-owned farm in Cliché-on-Sea. Hurrah! I am a complete and rounded person, and not merely as a result of all those animal and dairy fats.

But I've never encountered a "greener than thou" attitude from anyone because they shop at a farmer's market. Where should I go to hear this point of view?

Mhays wrote:The main theme of this thread and others like it is the very issue you suggest is a strawman. I've got no beef with people buying luxury food and paying a premium for it - my problem is the greener-than-thou attitude that can accompany the luxury purchase.

Some people sneer at others because they drive gas-guzzling SUVs, others sneer at Prius owners because they're not riding bikes. Unfortunately, people are flawed and they all have their own personal elite causes. <Shrug> Nevertheless, I don't see a widespread greener-than-thou effect sweeping the nation merely because people choose to buy in-season tomatoes at a farmer's market. So why, then, focus on people who buy produce at a farmer's market as the objects of your derision? As far as characterizing farmer's market produce as a "luxury good," I dunno -- are flat screen TVs luxury goods? Yet they're common in middle class households. How about computers? What about using the internet and participating in discussion boards about food? I bet you could make the argument that only people of a certain income and/or higher education have the luxury of doing that. Are you foodier-than-thou because you eat "exotic" food, and avoid Cheetos? Just because you can buy celery cheaper at a grocery store, doesn't necessarily make farmer's market produce a luxury good. It's a question of how you choose to allocate your purchasing dollars. There are plenty of people who choose to shop at a farmer's market who are far from wealthy.

Not too many luxury good purveyors accept LINK cards...

boudreaulicious wrote:Not too many luxury good purveyors accept LINK cards...

Most farmer's market produce is priced beyond what LINK customers can reasonably pay - successful SNAP/farmer's market programs depend on a charitable subsidy to offset the difference in cost from a grocer's, which usually covers 50% or more of the purchase price.

Just because you can buy celery cheaper at a grocery store, doesn't necessarily make farmer's market produce a luxury good.

How else do you define a luxury good than that it is more expensive and has higher status than it's readily-available counterpart?

At any rate, I'm out. Feel free to discuss without me.

Mhays wrote:

boudreaulicious wrote:Not too many luxury good purveyors accept LINK cards...

Most farmer's market produce is priced beyond what LINK customers can reasonably pay - successful SNAP/farmer's market programs depend on a charitable subsidy to offset the difference in cost from a grocer's, which usually covers 50% or more of the purchase price.

[I'll respond even though Mhays is "out," which is disappointing since she revived this thread.] Are we talking now about what people can "reasonably pay"? I thought we were talking about whether a farmer's market peddles "luxury goods." Even though this is delving into off-topic territory, a lot of stores that accept LINK (including Whole Foods and Dominick's) are charging prices that are more than people who use LINK can "reasonably pay." I don't know why farmer's markets are a special target. If you want to discuss hunger, and the ability of feeding people at prices they can afford, that opens up a whole new, complex discussion that touches on a variety of issues unrelated to farmer's markets. (Ever go to the River North Whole Foods? It's not uncommon to see people paying with their LINK card there -- clearly, Whole Foods prices are substantially more than what even a middle class family can reasonably afford.)

Mhays wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Just because you can buy celery cheaper at a grocery store, doesn't necessarily make farmer's market produce a luxury good.

How else do you define a luxury good than that it is more expensive and has higher status than it's readily-available counterpart?

I don't know that farmer's market produce is "more expensive" or has "higher status." I've seen cantaloupes priced to move at farmer's markets, and priced ridiculously at Dominick's. And vice versa. I don't think that fluctuating prices make the good "luxury" merely because at any given time it may be cheaper elsewhere.

aschie30 wrote:I don't know that farmer's market produce is "more expensive" or has "higher status." I've seen cantaloupes priced to move at farmer's markets, and priced ridiculously at Dominick's. And vice versa. I don't think that fluctuating prices make the good "luxury" merely because at any given time it may be cheaper elsewhere.

Agreed. Does that mean shopping at Trader Joe's, instead of Aldi's, is now a luxury experience?

Do I get to spend more money, without judgment, because I don't have a TV, we only have one car (& it's not a SUV), I don't consume alcohol, animals, or cigarettes? Why should anyone else care?

Look ultimately, we all spend money on what we want. I've watched plenty of folks with food stamps (back in the day) and now Link cards, buy Cheetoes, alcohol, and cigarettes (the latter were not purchased with food stamps or Link cards). I'm not going to judge them or deride them.

I won't deride a multi-millionaire for getting a 16 year old a Maybach and I won't deride someone I've decided has more than enough money to spend, the ability to buy their groceries only at Aldi, or buy no groceries at all and eat at Subway because it's cheaper that way ( never mind taste, variety, and/or nutrition).

Getting back on thread, Chicago's farmers mkts are bullshit. But they're all we've got and better than nothing. It's not like we're the beneficiaries of yr round growing climate.

Hi,

We have ONE local farmers market that has strict rules on the products being sold with fees being paid for farm inspections. The farmer are not allowed to sell any product that they have not grown. Their farms are inspected annually and some vendor have been expelled for cheating. All of the farmers know their products, the varieties and production methods. They are all friends with each other and share information about their products.

This market has no hint of snobbery and the prices are reasonable. Organic, non-chemical and traditional farmers work together. The farmers with very small amounts of exclusive produce (fairytale or rosa bianco eggplant, green zebra tomatoes, serotta basil, egg-size cabbage, bb sized potatoes, purple asparagus, goldrush apples) do not charge higher prices. In the past few years, more farmers are adding heirloom crops.

I will admit to not understanding the meat vendors. Our poultry growers don't understand breed differences, feeding patterns or age development. (How about a 5 pound bourbon red turkey?) The beef is slaughtered too early and poorly butchered. I also don't like buying anything that is frozen but that is my problem.

I have visited many farmers markets in suburban Chicago and realize that urban markets are unable to establish or enforce rules. The vendors rarely know anything about the varieties being presented or the provenance of their products. In most cases, the vendor is hired to deliver and sell. Much of the produce seems to come from a local wholesale outlet.

I also understand the marketing value of adding a bit of snobbery to the mix and agree that much of it is pure, free-range, pro-biotic, hormone-free and un-certified organic BS!

Tim

Tim - lots of good, interesting info about your farmers market. A couple of glaring omissions though: where and when is it?

Kenny,

Old Capitol Farmers Market in downtown Springfield on Wed. and Sat. mornings.

Sadly, a long haul from Chicago. The Dane County Farmer's Market is closer and bigger.

Tim

Tim wrote:Kenny,

Old Capitol Farmers Market in downtown Springfield on Wed. and Sat. mornings.

Sadly, a long haul from Chicago...
Tim

Indeed, but I'll be sure to make a stop there if I'm ever in the area. Thanks Tim.

Tim, have you been to the Green City Market? I would be shocked if anything there was from a wholesale outlet. That isn't to say that everything is perfect there (Kennyz, among others have pointed out poorly stored milk, fruit picked too early, etc.), but I think there is a lot of room between the very bad markets that you have in mind and the ideal ones.

I spend a lot of time in Springfield, but haven't been to the downtown market. I'll have to check it out. There is also an evening market at the state fairgrounds.