AngrySarah wrote:One of the interesting things about the human mind is we don't use evidence to form opinions. We form opinions and then emphasize the evidence that supports our opinions and then ignore or explain away all the evidence to the contrary. It does not make us bad that we think this way, it makes us human.

That said, it is my general opinion that organic/local food movement is arbitrary and does not have a strong basis in fact. It is a belief system, like being a Unitarian or a fan of the Iowa Hawkeyes. I could try to convince people otherwise but in the long run who cares? It is harmless for the most part.

I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone getting to act on their opinions can be a problem.

Just because you don't believe in the benefits of organic, doesn't mean that the fertilizer runoff from the field that grew your vegetables isn't flowing in to the Mississippi like everyone else's.

-Dan

p.s. For what it's worth, I personally buy a mix of conventional and organic, local and not (just like I sometimes burn fossil fuels, sometimes ride a bicycle). Not trying to cast stones, just pointing out each of our decisions has an impact, and our personal opinions don't change that impact

AngrySarah wrote:One of the interesting things about the human mind is we don't use evidence to form opinions. We form opinions and then emphasize the evidence that supports our opinions and then ignore or explain away all the evidence to the contrary. It does not make us bad that we think this way, it makes us human.

Actually, it makes us ignorant. An informed, intelligent person uses facts, observations, and evidence to form opinions, however imperfect those opinions happen to be.

I think what you are trying to say is that our opinions influence how we perceive and process information & fact. But you really said something very different from that and, in fact, totally changed the meaning of it.

Khaopaat wrote:

AngrySarah wrote:Except if you like Michigan. That is plain wrong.

Uncalled for! It's okay though, thinking back to this past Saturday's game will put the smile right back on my face

I'm curious - what are your thoughts on the stuff I've read about how organically-grown vegetables being less pesticide-infused? After reading a lot of that stuff, I have started buying organic root vegetables & non-peel-able fruits & veggies (I still by conventionally-grown peel-able stuff, because it's cheaper and I figure I'm throwing away most of the pesticides with the peel).

I think the pesticides used in the US are mostly harmless. Unless you are an insect. Then not so much.

I also buy organic at times. Right or wrong I think it gets to the store quicker so has a better taste. I could be wrong but that is not a hill I want to die on. I just don't think there is, on average, no great nutritional advantage in organic that justifies the prices. I think the concept of organic "food our grandparents would recognize" is arbitrary and in and of itself does not mean one is not harming the enviroment. They grew crops organically during the Dust Bowl. I also think if all food was grown organically it would mean more marginal land is farmed due to reduced overall yields.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic that many people care way too much about. Again, it is a belief system. People get touchy when belief systems are challenged since people take it as a personal attack.

AngrySarah wrote:They grew crops organically during the Dust Bowl.

Not sure what organic vs. conventional had to do with it - they weren't rotating their crops, growing cover crops during the Winter, contour plowing, etc.

Luckily, we had soil scientists to help figure this stuff out. If only we had soil scientists around these days doing research about maintaining soil health...

-Dan

dansch wrote:

AngrySarah wrote:They grew crops organically during the Dust Bowl.

Not sure what organic vs. conventional had to do with it - they weren't rotating their crops, growing cover crops during the Winter, contour plowing, etc.

Luckily, we had soil scientists to help figure this stuff out. If only we had soil scientists around these days doing research about maintaining soil health...

-Dan

Yeah, but you know scientists and their facts...who needs 'em?

AngrySarah wrote:I think the pesticides used in the US are mostly harmless. Unless you are an insect. Then not so much.

Hmmm...it appears the EPA disagrees with you a tad.

AngrySarah wrote:I think the pesticides used in the US are mostly harmless. Unless you are an insect. Then not so much.

I also buy organic at times. Right or wrong I think it gets to the store quicker so has a better taste. I could be wrong but that is not a hill I want to die on. I just don't think there is, on average, no great nutritional advantage in organic that justifies the prices. I think the concept of organic "food our grandparents would recognize" is arbitrary and in and of itself does not mean one is not harming the enviroment. They grew crops organically during the Dust Bowl. I also think if all food was grown organically it would mean more marginal land is farmed due to reduced overall yields.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic that many people care way too much about. Again, it is a belief system. People get touchy when belief systems are challenged since people take it as a personal attack.

Wow, I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier as I don't check the site as much now that I'm living in Minneapolis but I saw some of these comments and wanted to add my two cents. What are my qualifications - well I have very little or none basically. Over the past few years, I did a lot of research while planting a food garden on my roof and had to make some decisions on what type of growing medium, fertilizer (organic/non) and pest control I used. I ran across a lot of these issues trying to figure these things out and in the meantime, over the last four years or so, the local/organic/sustainable/CSA/farmer's market debate marches on.

When I grew my own food, I went organic because I couldn't imagine spraying a petrochemical byproduct on something I was going to eat in a few days. Do I buy all organic? - No, for a variety of reasons, nor do I buy exclusively local. Do I attend farmer's markets? - yes, mainly because I like the quality and taste of the food but don't buy everything there.

I highlighted the above because I was having a discussion around these topics just the other day. We were discussing organic, heirlooms/hybrids, integrated pest management, local food, and what they all meant/what should a person do?

I wouldn't tell anyone what to buy, especially concerning food but here's what I told the person that was asking these questions. I don't speak from authority but sort of use the following rules of thumb:

Organic - if you don't want to eat petrochemical fertilized and sprayed (for pests) food, buy organic. It does not mean that the food will taste any better or be fresher. Many of those organic farms are in California and the food is still picked before it's fully ripe so it can be shelf stable. If you feel that these petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides are totally safe, don't worry about organic. Typically, organic is more expensive because it costs more to produce (labor, pest management, lower yields).

If you want better tasting food, you'd have better luck with local food picked fresh. Often the shelf life is shorter so a local farmer is your best bet. But, just because it's local doesn't mean it'll taste great. So many variables (some mentioned above) factor into this like - season (beginning/middle/end), weather, fruit/vegetable variety (sometimes hybrid/heirloom plays a factor), when it was picked, etc. Talk to the person growing and picking it and taste it. If it's good, buy it, if not, don't.

In MN, a lot of the farmers at markets are Hmong. I was asked why I thought their produce was cheaper or in some cases, more uniform compared to the "ugly" fruits/veggies of some of the other farmers. I said to ask the farmer. My best guess was that the Hmong farmers grew hybrid varieties that were bred for this climate while some of the other farmers were trying "fashionable" heirloom varieties, which may or may not work here and would be more susceptible to diseases. If I wanted higher yields, I would grow a hybrid that I know has a history of doing well in this climate. It's been my experience that some heirlooms taste better than some hybrids and vice versa - you just have to learn what you like and taste.

Oh yeah, one more thing in regards to the original article from Joe C. I lived in Paris this past summer and loved the markets, mostly for the cheese and bread but I find the produce in MN and Chicago at the farmer's markets to be of a higher quality. It's rare to find a true "farmer's market" in Paris, selling produce directly from small farmers/growers. Most of the produce in the markets comes from large farms and distribution centers and taste a lot like the produce at the grocery stores. Typically, it's just artfully arranged to look nice. I know he mentioned the south of France (I spent some time in Nice as well) but I thought I'd share my experiences in Paris in the middle of summer.

AngrySarah wrote:
I think the pesticides used in the US are mostly harmless. Unless you are an insect. Then not so much.

Well that must save quite a bit of time in food prep not having to bother to wash your produce.

I'd be happy with no pesticides or chemical residue on my fresh produce. It's true that one can avoid residue of synthetic chemistries by purchasing organic. And, one can also avoid a whole host of chemicals, metals, etc. by not buying organic.

Some of the approved chemicals and metals for organic food production include:

Ammonium carbonate. Boric acid. Copper sulfate. Elemental sulfur. Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide. Insecticidal soaps. Sucrose octanoate esters. Pheromones. Sulfur dioxide. Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
Copper sulfate. Hydrated lime. Alcohols. Ethanol. Isopropanol. Chlorine materials. Calcium hypochlorite. Chlorine dioxide. Sodium hypochlorite. Copper sulfate. Hydrogen peroxide. Ozone gas. Peracetic acid. Soap-based algicide/demossers. Soap-based herbicides. Hydrogen peroxide. Lime sulfur. Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Potassium bicarbonate. Elemental sulfur. Streptomycin. Tetracycline. Humic acids.
Lignin sulfonate. Magnesium sulfate. Soluble boron products.
Sulfurous acid. Sodium silicate. Hydrogen chloride.

So, answer the world food production challenges by going all organic and you have tons and tons of the stuff above going into your food and the environment.

Perhaps more focus should be put on the demand problem of too many people eating too much food produced on too little land.

auxen1 wrote:I'd be happy with no pesticides or chemical residue on my fresh produce. It's true that one can avoid residue of synthetic chemistries by purchasing organic. And, one can also avoid a whole host of chemicals, metals, etc. by not buying organic.

So, answer the world food production challenges by going all organic and you have tons and tons of the stuff above going into your food and the environment.

I don't think going organic is supposed to solve the challenges of the world's food production but this is a very good point about some of the misconceptions of organic farming. Many of the large organic growers (think of those familiar labels from the grocery store) use approved organic fertilizers and pesticides in such large amounts, it raises a question about whether or not it's actually better for you (perceived yes).

I feel that if you have a concern about what you eat, you should learn about how it's grown and know your options. When I was in Chicago, I bought from Nicholls Farm quite a bit even though they are not organic. They are very straightforward about this and if you ask, they will discuss how they manage pests and fertilize their crops. I was comfortable with it as I understand how difficult it would be to be truly "organic" in a farming scenario.

auxen1 wrote:...one can also avoid a whole host of chemicals, metals, etc. by not buying organic.

Conventional could have any combination of the ones you list (or none) in addition to conventional fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.

As far as your list, sure, things like humic acid sound unpleasant, but what you're talking about is really the primary component of dirt (decomposed plant matter). Peracetic acid? Scary sounding, but "breaks down in food to safe and environmentally friendly residues". Lignin sulfonate? Made from wood pulp and used as a micro-nutrient (and artificial vanilla).

Some of them, like ethanol... I don't even know why it's on your list. People spraying their corn crops with corn ethanol in a show of corn subsidy irony? Same with sodium silicate, which has no farming application I can find.

auxen1 wrote:Perhaps more focus should be put on the demand problem of too many people eating too much food produced on too little land.

I'm not sure I follow - are you suggesting rationing of food? A one-child policy?

-Dan

sodium silicate (water glass) is one method of sealing eggs to preserve them. i don't think it's used in horticulture at all, though.

NFriday wrote:Hi- The artists they have been having at the Evanston farmer's market, are all Evanston residents, and that is the only criteria required to sell their art work there. There is a wide range of art there. Some of it is first class, and some of it isn't.

My mom is actually one of the artists - she does handmade ceramics, and has been for the past 30+ years. I don't live in Evanston anymore and rarely manage to drag myself out of the house early enough to make it to the Farmer's Market when there is anything worthwhile left in the way of produce, though, so I can't comment otherwise.

"breaks down in food to safe and environmentally friendly residues"

I don't know of a synthetic chemical used in agriculture that doesn't make this same claim. Good to see that organic and conventional have come together under one tent.

I'm not sure I follow - are you suggesting rationing of food? A one-child policy?

I'm suggesting that our ability to produce food is not unlimited and there are trade-offs being made today, and significantly more...many of them unattractive....that will be made in the very near future.

Officially off topic.

Didn't we have a whole other long thread debate on the topic of nutritional value of organic vs conventional produce? If I recall correctly the upshot was that increase nutrient value was unproven, though other benefits such as reduced exposure to pesticides were well established. Just hate to see us chase each other around the same tree again and again.

Katie wrote:Didn't we have a whole other long thread debate on the topic of nutritional value of organic vs conventional produce? If I recall correctly the upshot was that increase nutrient value was unproven, though other benefits such as reduced exposure to pesticides were well established. Just hate to see us chase each other around the same tree again and again.

Really, we have the whole long threads cause the same mis-information gets repeated ad nauseum. Saying something, and saying something in a seeming convincing fashion, with a very certain tone, does not, in fact make for "truth".

Repeatedly, studies have been cited, in this thread, and in other threads, that have shown exactly what you claim has not been shown. That differences in nutrient values HAS been proven.

We can chalk it up to scientists with bias or change the subject (to the usual, "if we all farm organic we'll die stuff"), but we cannot ignore that there is science when you say there is not.

Now, I will shortly go atone for the snippiness of this post.

Happy New Year!

vital

it's early in the year but suggest you print out the last post and cast it onto the chicago river.

Seriously, though, Happy New Year!

Repeatedly, studies have been cited, in this thread, and in other threads, that have shown exactly what you claim has not been shown. That differences in nutrient values HAS been proven.

The Cleveland Clinic should spend more time on LTH....from their website:

Myth No. 3: Organic foods are healthier than conventional foods.
Fact: Organic foods are without a doubt becoming more popular and more readily available. Although organic foods are generally grown using lower levels of pesticides, no scientific studies have clearly shown that they offer greater nutritional benefit than non-organic foods.

And the Mayo Clinic needs to get its head out of its lab as well...

No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn't claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.

Amer Medical Assoc, American Dietetic Assoc, Amer. Pediatric Assoc....also on the wrong side of this....they are scientists, don't they understand science?

Debating 101: one should not throw around terms like "no" when in fact there are many if not at least some. Citing users with poor logical skills, no matter how prestigious they appear also does not make your points true. Put another way, myself Dan above, others, we have met the burden of showing the existence of studies. Your burden cannot be to simply deny the evidence presented. Rather, at this point you may try some legitimate form of argument.

Perhaps something along the lines of "the sample size in Dr. Organic's groups were too small to draw scientifically valid conclusions."

Wishing something did not exist, when its existence has already been documented is poor form to say the least.

I kind of enjoy the whole "my scientists are more credible than your scientists" spin.

I think, like with any issue, you have to look at and respect both sides. Not demonize a viewpoint that may differ from your own. Closed mindedness, talking down to folks, & promoting a personal agenda, etc., really add nothing to what should be a friendly & educational discussion.

Myself, I have softened if only slightly to organics as they have become more affordable, and available. If they look good, and are affordable, I buy them. I doubt they contain more nutrients, but with a young child in my household, limiting chemicals is important to us.

as for the topic of this thread, I still dont care for GCM, but prefer the rural and suburban farmers markets i go to.

jimswside wrote:I doubt they contain more nutrients, but with a young child in my household, limiting chemicals is important to us.

Substitute "young child" with "pregnant chick" and you've nailed my feelings on the subject as well.

Khaopaat wrote:

jimswside wrote:I doubt they contain more nutrients, but with a young child in my household, limiting chemicals is important to us.

Substitute "young child" with "pregnant chick" and you've nailed my feelings on the subject as well.

congrats by the way.

those early developmental months/years are important as you know.

for me, I think my lifestyle/diet stunt any further development.

Khaopaat wrote:

jimswside wrote:I doubt they contain more nutrients, but with a young child in my household, limiting chemicals is important to us.

Substitute "young child" with "pregnant chick" and you've nailed my feelings on the subject as well.

If you follow auxen1's line of thought, your best bet is to "...avoid a whole host of chemicals, metals, etc. by not buying organic."

There ya have it folks, keep your kids (and future kids) safe by buying conventional, pesticide-sprayed vegetables. Makes perfect sense*

-Dan

* Once I have my morning coffee, I have a feeling it'll sound like bullshit again

My husband and I heard a NPR debate on this a few months ago. There's an internal war going on about it in the household because my MIL (yep she lives with us) thinks organics are malarkey ( of course she's from the UK where I believe a lot of our conventional pesticides are banned, but that's another issue). My husband and I decided to keep it simple. Since we had not heard or read of any evidence that the consumption of organics was harmful, while on the other side of the debate there were plenty of questions around the safety of conventional (nutritional issues aside) produce. We shoot first for organic, then pesticide-free, then conventional. That generally translates into me not wanting grapes unless they are organic but being more than willing to consume a conventionally grown banana.

At this point, I think anyone who cares about this argument is aware of the options and the choices they make are the choices they make. I suspect when consumers are given the choice of organic vs. conventionally grown produce and the price and quality of the produce are the same, more will purchase organic. I'm not convinced that is a bad idea, but I'm not a scientist or a large scale farmer, just a consumer.

All I know is that after I ate my first Jupiter seedless grape from Klug Farms I never wanted to eat another supermarket grape again...pesticides, nutrients, and whatever else be damned.

All I know is that after I ate my first Jupiter seedless grape from Klug Farms I never wanted to eat another supermarket grape again...pesticides, nutrients, and whatever else be damned.

Exactly. Every farmer's market raspberry I've eaten this summer has settled this debate for me, no matter how many studies prove I'm not getting enough atrazine in my diet.

katie asked why we run around trees.

When "dan above, myself and others" is wielded to combat the scientific integrity of the universally esteemed and scientifcally neutral Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic it's pretty safe to say that there's no middle ground and around the tree we go.

"No matter how prestigious they appear." Can't respond to that.

If you follow auxen1's line of thought, your best bet is to "...avoid a whole host of chemicals, metals, etc. by not buying organic."

There ya have it folks, keep your kids (and future kids) safe by buying conventional, pesticide-sprayed vegetables. Makes perfect sense*

My point, Dan, and I didn't know it was buried, is that for every choice that is made there are trade offs. It's not black and white.

The Soil Association in the U.K. has been working for 40 years to develop this same scientific argument -- and to date hasn't satisfied neurtral scientists.

What baffles me is that it's completely unneccessary and yet organic advocates persist. There are all sorts of reasons to buy organic that don't have to be fabricated.

What's the point?

auxen1 wrote:katie asked why we run around trees.

When "dan above, myself and others" is wielded to combat the scientific integrity of the universally esteemed and scientifcally neutral Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic it's pretty safe to say that there's no middle ground and around the tree we go.

"No matter how prestigious they appear." Can't respond to that.

....

What baffles me is that it's completely unneccessary and yet organic advocates persist. There are all sorts of reasons to buy organic that don't have to be fabricated.

What's the point?

But my dear friend. what of the time when the most prestigious scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth or that the Acadamy insisted that insects spontaneously generated from fecal matter. You cite names without putting things in context or history, while refusing to except that your basic premise is simply wrong. You can hide as much as possible behind their names, such science exists no matter how much you want to wish it away. One could make the analogy to climate change if one wanted, but we really do not want to go there now do we?

What is the point? We don't need to run simply to sensual factors again and again when challenged. There are other very good reasons to favor organically grown food including the increased nutrient value of the food. Is it always possible to get organic foods or good foods generally. As we all know, cost remains a real hurdle as does availability. The point then, I guess is to help show why it makes sense to pay the cost and deal with other hassles. The fact that it tastes really good too is just a bonus.

I rest my case.

I had an interesting discussion with a co-worker recently. He is of the opinion that everyone should eat organic. He's an anti-big box grocery store type.

I agree with him. Everyone should. But, I'm not sure that everyone can afford to. In my opinion, there is a real disconnect between the Slow and Organic Foods movement and the realities of budgetary restrictions that some people have to live on.

A few weeks back, one of the local Chicago alterna papers did a story on deep innner city farmer's markets and their lack of success. That lack of success was attributed specifically to the cost of items at those markets. While organic, hand raised heirloom varieties of vegetables are far better for you and far better tasting, they are alos far more expensive than mass produced and out of the financial reach of lower income people.

If I am a food stamp recipient with a fixed monthly allowance for what I can buy, you can be sure that I will be looking for a better combination of food and value than my local farmer's market can provide.

Does that make the vision and mission of the slow food movement bastardized? Absolutely not. If anything, it should present a challenge as to how we bring healthy, tasty, organic food to a wider population at lesser costs. Perhaps, the answer is tax credits for Farmers who sell at inner-city markets and for those who are willing to pass discounts on to customers who use entltlement dollars to purchase foods at their markets.

It seems to me that the writer of the original piece has more disdain for those who shop at Farmer's markets than he does for the market itself.

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.