Article on the Organic vs. Conventional debate

A Slate article discussing organic produce. I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but thought this was some compelling food for thought (har har):

http://www.slate.com/id/2224342/

Edit: fixed a typo that was annoying me

I guess I never presumed organic food was more nutritious - having higher nutrient content - than nonorganic food. My understanding was that it was healthier, or call it safer, in other ways, i.e., lower pesticide content. I can see the reported findings being misunderstood by people who equate nutritious with healthy.

Except organic food has plenty of pesticides, just "organic" pesticides.

I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing about organic that is any more beneficial than well-run conventional farming, and in many cases, organic can be worse for us as a whole than current and future conventional farming (i.e. lower yields, higher usage of fertilizer).

But I'm sure most will disagree with me.

Katie wrote:I guess I never presumed organic food was more nutritious - having higher nutrient content - than nonorganic food. My understanding was that it was healthier, or call it safer, in other ways, i.e., lower pesticide content. I can see the reported findings being misunderstood by people who equate nutritious with healthy.

I saw this yesterday and I thought the same thing you did (never really equated organic produce with more nutrient value).

other than some non-organic items(avocados & garlic to name a few imho) tasting better than their organic counterparts, the only other difference I have noticed was the jacked up price of organic items.

For me it really doesnt make any sense to pay more for an organic item that doesnt taste as good as its non-organic conterpart. Afterall I want the food I eat to taste good.


edited for spelling errors.

I like the Penn & Teller episode where they cut the same regular banana in half, and asked organic food consumers to tell the difference between which was organic or not. So funny to see how people would go into detail about how one half was much better than the other half.

Two reactions:

First, I think it has been known for a while that organics have similar nutrients than conventionally grown food. After all, how does spraying some chemical on an orange orchard lessen the amount of Vitamin C in the oranges. The supposed advantage of organics is what they don't contain. Marion Nestle has a nice response to this new research at http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/07/tod ... -organics/

Second, it is important to know the author of this article. James McWilliams is a history professor and has been trying to debunk the supposed benefits of organic and "localvoire" food options. He wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times in the spring that argued "free range" pork had more pathogens than conventional pork. After this article, it came out that he misrepresented aspects of the research he was discussing (he claimed he was simplifying technical details, but every simplification he made supported his underlying conclusion) and that the research was funded by conventional pork producers. None of this is to suggest you should write off anything thing McWilliams writes without thinking about it on your own, but someone who is not an expert in the science that he discusses should not presume he is presenting a disinterested summary of this body of work. Again, see Nestle: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/is- ... rial-pork/

Oh jeez, I didn't realize he was the "free range pork" guy when I posted the link.

What hath I wrought?

LTH discussion of McWilliam's pork op-ed here.

Is there anyone who really believed (or believes) that organic produce differs significantly from conventional, nutrition-wise? I don't even think a study was needed to reveal that there is no meaningful nutritional difference between them but maybe that's because I work with a lot of nutritional data at my job and the numbers (anecdotally) seem to have always reflected this.

As others have posted, the significant difference is likely between the pesticide residue levels in the food, the land on which it was grown and the nearby water supplies. Good luck getting that study funded, though.

=R=

For me it really doesnt make any sense to pay more for an organic item that doesnt taste as good as its non-organic conterpart.

Obviously this is an inarguable point, and on any given day, you could probably find a pair of peaches, one organic from the farmer's market, one flown from Paraguay and bought at Jewel for much less, that would support your point. At least as soon as the Jewel peach softened up.

But, when I think of the most memorable fruit I've bought in the last few years, they're basically all from the farmer's markets and most of them were organic. Oriana's Asian pears, Klug grapes, real, non-Driscoll strawberries, the peaches and cherries in my fridge right now... it all blows away conventional produce like Leon blows away Holden at the beginning of Blade Runner, through the wall and it can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs it. So even if organic is total brainwash, the producers who have been brainwashed that way sure make f'ing awesome fruit, and I hope they keep doing whatever crazy, completely unscientifically-proven thing it is they're doing.

I think it really is a case of the average LTHer having a very different, more realistic perspective about food-related issues.

A quick Google search for the phrases "I eat organic" "it's healthier" yielded the following on the first page:

An op-ed piece in BNET.com, some business management-type magazine wrote:My family and I eat organic because we think it's healthier and that it tastes better than processed, artificially-flavored food.

The Independent wrote:Frank Naba, 17, student:
"I eat organic food about four or five times a week. Mostly vegetables, chicken, eggs – that stuff – it's healthier. My mum has always given me organic food since I was a baby. Now, the older I get, the more organic food I want. It's healthy. It builds me up strong. Well, I thought it was healthy until recently when they said it made no difference."

Wendy Parker, 28, council worker:
"I try to buy organic food. Fruit and veg mostly...I think it's healthier and I think it tastes better...I certainly have the feeling organic would be better for you.

Some chick with the screen name 'Pink cuteness bunnies and stuff' on Yahoo! Answers wrote:I stick with organic because it's healthier, I get more nutrients out of it, it tastes better and if I could, I buy local organic to support local family farms.

Mike G wrote:
But, when I think of the most memorable fruit I've bought in the last few years, they're basically all from the farmer's markets and most of them were organic. Oriana's Asian pears, Klug grapes, real, non-Driscoll strawberries, the peaches and cherries in my fridge right now... it all blows away conventional produce like Leon blows away Holden at the beginning of Blade Runner, through the wall and it can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs it. So even if organic is total brainwash, the producers who have been brainwashed that way sure make f'ing awesome fruit, and I hope they keep doing whatever crazy, completely unscientifically-proven thing it is they're doing.

those items you mention are out of my league. I am not a big fruit eater, maybe some of the black raspberries growing wild in my yard, some pineapple when I see it on sale, or a rare banana, and thats about it.

I have only compared a few organic, and traditional items side by side, carrots, romaine lettuce, avocados, and garlic, and either found no taste difference, or in the case of the avocado substantial taste difference. The organic avocado had no flavor.

I will say that if the organic roamine lettuce or carrots is on sale and within $.10 of the non organic I will buy it.

Its cool folks like organics, I just cant justify the cost for everything i buy.

Just to be clear, though. The is a difference between organics being healthier (for example, because they don't contain potentially dangerous pesticides) and organics having the same nutrient content as conventionally grown foods (i.e. same level of vitamin C in both the organic orange and the conventional one).

A lot of the research is about nutrient content (the second thing above), not about the overall health effect (the first thing above). But when people read a news article about nutrients, they don't always make the distinction between nutrients and health.

At the end of the day, I'm with Mike G: I buy what I think will taste best: stuff from the farmer's market, locally produced, organic, what have you. The organic peach flown half-way across the world in January doesn't appeal to be because it tends not to taste that good.

I also buy what I think fits better into my world view: I'd prefer something that doesn't have a potentially dangerous chemical or hormone added. If down the line, research convinces me that these things are fine, maybe I'll change my mind. But for now I'll just assume that stuff that kills pests isn't good to put in my body.

Mike G wrote:But, when I think of the most memorable fruit I've bought in the last few years, they're basically all from the farmer's markets and most of them were organic. Oriana's Asian pears, Klug grapes, real, non-Driscoll strawberries, the peaches and cherries in my fridge right now... it all blows away conventional produce like Leon blows away Holden at the beginning of Blade Runner, through the wall and it can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs it. So even if organic is total brainwash, the producers who have been brainwashed that way sure make f'ing awesome fruit, and I hope they keep doing whatever crazy, completely unscientifically-proven thing it is they're doing.

Do you think they're growing organic because it produces tastier produce, or do you think they're growing organic because many of the farmers markets and many consumers demand it?

That is, do they buy into the "organic is safer/better/awesomer" line, or do they just do it because that's what their customers want?

I suspect that most of the reason those fruits taste better is because they're starting with better cultivars and then treating them with more care, picking at the peak of freshness, etc. Not because they happen to be organic. If they could use safe inorganic pesticides to get higher yields of those same delicious -- but often finicky -- varieties of fruit, and then sell them to me for a lower price... well, I'd be very happy.

I think the problem is with whole notion of there being an "organic vs. conventional" debate to begin with. It's dreamed up by people trying to make money through labels, and by people who just like to argue. It is not a real debate. The world of food is not separated into 2 easily distinguishable categories.

Though I like to argue , I generally agree with Kenny.

Kennyz wrote:The world of food is not separated into 2 easily distinguishable categories.

Tell that to the GCM application committee

Kennyz wrote:I think the problem is with whole notion of there being an "organic vs. conventional" debate to begin with. It's dreamed up by people trying to make money through labels, and by people who just like to argue. It is not a real debate. The world of food is not separated into 2 easily distinguishable categories.

I agree, generally. But one way it is important is if you go to the store, farmer's market, etc. and are faced with two choices: the organic peach and the non-organic peach. These products differ along many dimensions that you might care about, including taste, freshness, country of origin, cost, etc. Some people care about all of these attributes. Others care only about taste. Regardless, in making the decision about which to buy, it is legitimate to consider what the actual differences are between those in the "organic" bin and those in the "conventional" bin. While the world isn't easily separated into 2 easily distinguishable groups, the two bins of peaches are.

Khaopaat wrote:

Kennyz wrote:The world of food is not separated into 2 easily distinguishable categories.

Tell that to the GCM application committee

not sure what this means. The vendors at the GCM are not all organic. If there is a problem with the GCM application process, it is that it takes too many esoteric and subjective factors into account. It is the antithesis of a black and white process.

Do you think they're growing organic because it produces tastier produce, or do you think they're growing organic because many of the farmers markets and many consumers demand it?

That is, do they buy into the "organic is safer/better/awesomer" line, or do they just do it because that's what their customers want?

I suspect that most of the reason those fruits taste better is because they're starting with better cultivars and then treating them with more care, picking at the peak of freshness, etc. Not because they happen to be organic. If they could use safe inorganic pesticides to get higher yields of those same delicious -- but often finicky -- varieties of fruit, and then sell them to me for a lower price... well, I'd be very happy.

Who knows why they do it? Ask them!

I think a lot of these are distinctions without a difference, ultimately. Is an organic farmer in GCM because he was organic, or is he organic because he's in GCM? Or is it because he and GCM share a whole bunch of goals which are not necessarily prioritized? Farmers follow where a market is, and some see a better prospect selling smaller amounts of better fruit by hand to Lincoln Parkers than vast amounts of commodity fruit to grocery chains. They go organic AND sell at GCM AND pick better cultivars and varieties AND wouldn't use chemicals even if they could because that's who they are, really, not because they did a cost-benefit analysis that arrived at that conclusion narrowly over a completely different approach.

Quality and 'organic vs. conventional' are mutually exclusive, IMO. There are so many factors (discussed upthread in various posts) that lead to quality or lack thereof and in my experience whether a given produce is grown organically or conventionally is not always a major one.

=R=

I have to disagree, Ronnie.

I don't think organic is a guarantor of quality; I don't think it's a cause per se.

But I'd say it's a very strong indicator, insofar as anyone who bucks the overwhelming financial logic of the industrial food system and does things by a different, usually older and more natural way is probably devoting far more care in general at every stage of the process, which will usually manifest itself in far more flavorful results.

I seem to have been acquiring proof for this notion all summer long. Maybe it's all voodoo, but all I can say to farmers is, do do that voodoo that you do so well.

Mike G wrote:I have to disagree, Ronnie.

I don't think organic is a guarantor of quality; I don't think it's a cause per se.

But I'd say it's a very strong indicator, insofar as anyone who bucks the overwhelming financial logic of the industrial food system and does things by a different, usually older and more natural way is probably devoting far more care in general at every stage of the process, which will usually manifest itself in far more flavorful results.

But now that we've got organic peruvian asparagus in august (at whole foods today), and organic watery tomatoes in january, is it really a good indicator?

Mike G wrote:I have to disagree, Ronnie.

I don't think organic is a guarantor of quality; I don't think it's a cause per se.

But I'd say it's a very strong indicator, insofar as anyone who bucks the overwhelming financial logic of the industrial food system and does things by a different, usually older and more natural way is probably devoting far more care in general at every stage of the process, which will usually manifest itself in far more flavorful results.

I seem to have been acquiring proof for this notion all summer long. Maybe it's all voodoo, but all I can say to farmers is, do do that voodoo that you do so well.

Are you sure about that? I'm with Ronnie on this one. The majority of local farmers producing and selling wonderful fruits and vegetables are doing so without organic certification. Mick Klug, Genesis Growers, Green Acres, Nichols... I don't believe any of them are certified organic. Nor are any of the wonderful farmstands I stopped at in the middle of the Ohio country side, nor, I imagine, any of the great peach producers stevez wrote about from his recent trip down south. Some of the GCM vendors are in process of seeking certification because they think it will help them sell more, but they are not currently organic by any official designation.

Okay, maybe I'm overestimating how many of them are officially organic as opposed to the ones whose practices seem pretty good from what I hear. Which is probably a pretty good indicator of how much attention I pay to official certification versus my intuitive sense of who seems to care and try harder and who doesn't.

So revise the above. If you're talking about large-O Organic purely as a label, then sure, it's an indicator of big growers who can handle the bureaucratic requirements and want the label for marketing reasons more than it's an indicator of quality. Far be it from libertarian me ever to suggest that looking for signs of government regulation is the best way to taste a peach.

If you're talking somebody who's planting elk poo in a horn because Steiner says to, though, I think that's a huge indicator of quality, because it's the ones crazy enough to do that who care enough to grow awesome stuff.

grits wrote:

Katie wrote:I guess I never presumed organic food was more nutritious - having higher nutrient content - than nonorganic food. My understanding was that it was healthier, or call it safer, in other ways, i.e., lower pesticide content. I can see the reported findings being misunderstood by people who equate nutritious with healthy.

I saw this yesterday and I thought the same thing you did (never really equated organic produce with more nutrient value).

I'm with y'all. I read this study last week in the Sun Times & felt like the victim of a bait & switch. I have relied heavily on organic produce for some time. I feel fortunate that it is readily available & that I can afford it. I always thought the primary virtues of this produce was lower use of known carcinogens.

Something we no longer battle about in the household. My mum-in-law is from the U.K. so conventional produce there, to my knowledge, isn't covered in the known carcinogens that ours is.

Ultimately, I think the article in Slate is ok, more important to get more produce to Americans (excluding French Fries & Ketchup )

I got my 5+ today- tomatoes, peach, apples, lettuce, green beans, mushrooms, watermelon, did you get yours?

I believe that the single biggest factors that determine the potential quality of produce are its pedigree and when it is picked. Since so many agri-business crop varieties are created primarily to be picked early, travel well and look good on the shelf, it follows that they generally taste the worst. I believe that even if you grew these crops organically -- until the peak of their ripeness -- they would still be inferior.

It's logical that a farmer who grows organically or sustainably is less likely to grow these varieties but it isn't a certainty. And, a farmer who practices one or both of these methods is more likely -- but not guaranteed to -- to grow varieties of produce that taste great, look just ok and travel poorly because that farmer picks the crops when they are ready, not when the market demands it. This farmer doesn't have to worry about how the produce ultimately looks in the grocer's case because he knows his customers care more about flavor than anything else. He doesn't have worry that if he/she picks at the right time, the fruit will bruise in transit. Hell, this farmer may not even sell goods through the mainstream grocery conduit.

So, while organic and quality often travel together, they aren't inseparable. I think we can all site examples of organic products coming up short. It happens, for a variety of reasons. It's agiculture and there will always be uncontrollable variables. But I've also picked my own at plenty of small local farms in WI, IL, MI, KS and IN that are neither sustainable nor organic. The produce at these places is almost always excellent. They just happen to grow good varieties, and have the freedom to pick at the right time. There are lots of excellent reasons to buy from sustainable and organic farmers (and I generally do) but I don't think doing so guarantees quality on the plate or the palate.

=R=

Hi,

In July's University of California at Berkeley's Wellness Letter's feature article was Should You Be a Locavore?

Regards,

ronnie_suburban wrote:I believe that the single biggest factors that determine the potential quality of produce are its pedigree and when it is picked. Since so many arig-business crop varieties are created primarily to be picked early, travel well and look good on the shelf, it follows that they generally taste the worst. I believe that even if you grew these crops organically -- until the peak of their ripeness -- they would still be inferior.

When I spent a year in the Imperial Valley in California and Mexico, the motel that I stayed at was generally filled with "field bosses"; that is the guys that do all the recruitment of employees and get the crops picked. Organic or non-organic, the vegetables are grown pretty much by the same growers in adjacent fields using many of the same practices and picked by migrant workers who travel from one location between the Texas Rio Grande Valley in South Texas to Salinas in Northern California.

Occasionally, I would ask them about the differences. Most of them would say that it is "mainly the price." These guys were mostly harvesting iceberg and carrots.