If claims of organic's nutritional superiority could be verified (or even legtimately fudged), I think we'd be seeing a lot more of those claims in the marketplace. But we're not.

Hmm, wonder why there could be so much less money and effort on one side of this research than the other?

I don't take much of this all that seriously, mainly because I look at a peach as a tasty piece of fruit more than as a generic substitute for Lipitor and suspect that generally, our understanding of nutrition is still painfully primitive; I think we don't know what we're not looking for yet. But that's all the more reason to be doubtful about the conclusiveness of a study that averages out research going even further back into the primitive history of our understanding.

Buy good-looking fruit and veggies, especially from farmer's markets if you can, and the very worst that can happen is that you'll have overpaid a little to support farmers and eaten much tastier fruit and vegetables in the process. If the best case this study can make is that a bland, flavorless supermarket strawberry might be every bit as good for you as a far better-tasting one, well, that's not really that great an argument in my book.

Mike G wrote:So given a choice between a huge Driscoll strawberry with a starchy white center and a farmer's market one that's small and ruby red and screaming flavor, would you really be amazed to learn there was more good stuff in a cup of the latter?

Herein lies the problem. That Driscoll strawberry with the starchy white center is organic. The ruby red ones you buy at the farmers market are - for the most part - not. Which is why I disregard the Organic label entirely when I shop.

I haven't chosen a side in this debate; for me, it's a non-issue, but I have strong opinions about how the argument is presented, and how it is received...

Words are funny.... they can be used to sanctify or demonize. Are "chemicals" really categorically bad? Where would water treatment be without chemicals? Is "Organic" categorically good? Botulism is organic! Even within this thread, I see assumptions being made without any real evidence to back them up. It seems to be largely based on "how can Organic possibly be wrong when it feels right?

Someone mentioned Penn & Teller's banana experiment on pg.1. (P&T rock!) They also did an episode that concluded that the Green trend is like Indulgences of the middle ages; by paying a higher price, (sin tax?), consumers' sense of guilt for being a citizen of the modern industrialized world is magically washed away with the "knowledge" that they're helping to save our ecosystem, acting in a health-conscious manner, and nurturing their loved ones. Pat yourself on the back, and keep driving that SUV. (I believe a concerted effort to reduce our consumption of sugar and fast food would be significantly more beneficial. Or making available fresh food, organic or not, to those whose only options are McDonald's or the corner liquor store. Basic needs for the neglected vs. frivolities for yuppies. But I digress...)

In a society where obesity is epidemic, diabetes is on the rise, the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance racket is focused on sickness rather than wellness, etc. etc., I place very little stock in popular opinions on health and nutrition, though obviously those opinions are what drives the market. But even on this forum, with many of its members in the food service/production/science industries, opinions vary widely, underscoring my belief that no matter how many studies exist, there is no consensus about their "correct" interpretation. I thought the Scientific Method involved controlling all variables but one, in order to draw a definitive conclusion about a single aspect of the subject, not lumping together 50 separate experiments to draw 1 conclusion. (What's the average of "more antioxidants" and "more fungi"?) The latter method seems to leave plenty of room for interpretation to support an agenda, whatever it may be. (I'd like to see a study on the correlation between how often people buy organic vs. how susceptible they are to advertising.) Waiting for the Organic/Green/Eco bubble to burst... I suppose after profits level off and hype dies, we'll be able to look at the data with less spin...

But I do agree with the article's conclusions;
-that the issue is too complex to define as simply "organic vs. not", though people want their choices to be black or white, (intellectual laziness, it wouldn't surprise me to hear someone try to portray the issue as good vs. evil, and someone would buy it!)
-that for our society as a whole, this debate is barking up the wrong tree, or not seeing the forest, (insert tree metaphor here), and that we have much bigger fish to fry. What kind of impact will the organic movement have on public health overall, and will it help to alleviate unsustainable patterns of consumption as a whole?

Ideally, people would think critically and make informed decisions; decide what it is we value most about what we consume and pick the option that most closely matches our values, be they nutrition, flavor, price, locality, whatever. No single option will satisfy all of those needs. But consumer culture doesn't have an educated, empowered populace in it's best interests. It's all about the path of least resistance from your wallet to theirs.

-"Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics!"
-"The more you know, the more you realize you don't know!"

BTW, did anyone actually click on all 17 or so links within the article? All the external references make for a very tedious read!

end of rant

phredbull wrote:end of rant

if that was a rant, it was a thoughtful, well reasoned one. Thanks.

Kennyz wrote:

phredbull wrote:end of rant

if that was a rant, it was a thoughtful, well reasoned one. Thanks.

It started as a rant against mindless consumerism, but I had to re-work it for coherence and relevance, and to make myself seem thoughtful rather than misanthropic!

Herein lies the problem. That Driscoll strawberry with the starchy white center is organic.

Hardly. 5% of the starchy Driscoll berries, visible only in certain neighborhoods, are organic; there are, meanwhile, trillions of non-organic Driscoll starchberries out there, too. Which is why I said:

Buy good-looking fruit and veggies, especially from farmer's markets if you can

and didn't say anything about organic certification.

Let's not stretch "the organic label is easily manipulated by industry and thus a weak indicator" to "the organic label proves it's worse!"

phredbull wrote:I haven't chosen a side in this debate; for me, it's a non-issue, but I have strong opinions about how the argument is presented, and how it is received...

Words are funny.... they can be used to sanctify or demonize. Are "chemicals" really categorically bad? Where would water treatment be without chemicals? Is "Organic" categorically good? Botulism is organic! Even within this thread, I see assumptions being made without any real evidence to back them up. It seems to be largely based on "how can Organic possibly be wrong when it feels right?[/size]

My father grows all of his potatoes. Yes, he uses chemicals to keep away the beetles. A small swarm of beetles can strip 1/4 acre of potatoes in under two hours. There is way too much work in planting potatoes to watch all your work go down the toilet.

Vital Information wrote:

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Katie wrote:Carry on, then ... should we bother to buy organic?

I think the consensus pretty much is, that's not a very meaningful question.

When the choice is between conventional and organic bananas at Jewel, I'm not sure there's much difference. I'll buy conventional on price.

When the choice is between Driscoll's strawberries or Washington state apples at Jewel and Nichols Farm strawberries or apples at the farmer's market...I'll go with Nichols. Not only do they taste better, they seem righter.

Whoa, Aaron

I really do not believe that Katie's question is pithy, nor do I feel that there is a consensus on whether it is not a meaningful question.

We have a few things going on in this thread. First, we have a British study that purported to show that, nutritionally, organics are no different than conventional foods. That conclusion, however, has already been challenged. So, it is not rather clear whether nutritionally, organic foods are better or the same.

Then, we have this whole notion as to the meantingfulness of the organic label. I am quite sympathetic to this issue, and believe that corporate organic can be of poor quality.

Still, we have other issues rather untouched. Regardless of nutitionaly value, there are many reasons to eat food that is organically grown. Track dowbn Terra Brockman one day and ask her to see some of her slides. Her book comes out soon if you can wait. For a lot of people, there are important reasons for how their food was raised, and it does mean soemthing if the food was raised organically.

I didn't mean to suggest that there's consensus on the relative value of organic vs. conventional bananas at Jewel; but I have seen little support for the idea that "organic" in and of itself is a useful way of identifying high quality or nutritionally superior food products.

Interesting that you bring up Terra...the fact that Henry's Farm is not certified USDA Organic speaks precisely to this point. I wouldn't question the quality of Henry's produce because it can't legally be called Organic. I think we're probably on the same page here, no?

Mike G wrote:Why wouldn't it be logical that things grown hyperintensively would have fewer nutrients than things grown a little more naturally in equivalent soil? I have no idea whether it's the case or not, but I could certainly see a situation whereby the higher the yield, the less you get of certain things in the final result.

Mike G, if this is in reply to my post just above, perhaps you misunderstand me. First, the store owner in the video is commenting on her understanding of the perceived benefit of organic produce. As you said, not all that is not organic is necessarily "grown hyperintensively." While it may be plausible that conventionally grown produce, or the subset thereof that you refer to as hyperintensively grown produce, has fewer nutrients than organic produce, it does not seem to me inherently the more logical presumption. As I said before, I never thought of organic food as being higher in nutrients than nonorganic food. I'm not resistant to being persuaded that that's true, but that's not the message I've gotten from what [relatively little] I've read on the subject.

Where I perceive a benefit to organic food -- or if that's not a meaningful term, let me say for the moment, food not treated with chemical pesticides -- is the possibility of reduced carcinogenic exposure.

Why wouldn't it be logical that things grown hyperintensively would have fewer nutrients than things grown a little more naturally in equivalent soil?

Curious why you think it would be logical.

One cubic meter of dirt

Yield: 100 carrots

vs.

Yield: 1000 carrots

Is it not perfectly logical to assume something might get diluted between the first example, and the second?

Especially since I already know of things that are diminished-- like flavor and color. It certainly seems counterintuitive that something could be obviously poorer in those areas yet every bit as full of things you can't exactly see and taste.

That might prove to be wrong-- but it is, I think, a natural working assumption most of us would make.

(Incidentally, Katie, no it wasn't directed at your comment.)

On the other hand, my understanding is that when fruiting plants and trees are stressed (from lack of water, etc), the fruits end up being extra-flavorful, as the plant spends all of those limited resources making the fruit extra-appealing to animals.

For root vegetables, leafy greens, etc. this doesn't matter. But for tomatoes, apples, grapes, berries, and other fruits, overcrowding and drought might be a good thing.

Aaron Deacon wrote:I didn't mean to suggest that there's consensus on the relative value of organic vs. conventional bananas at Jewel; but I have seen little support for the idea that "organic" in and of itself is a useful way of identifying high quality or nutritionally superior food products.

Interesting that you bring up Terra...the fact that Henry's Farm is not certified USDA Organic speaks precisely to this point. I wouldn't question the quality of Henry's produce because it can't legally be called Organic. I think we're probably on the same page here, no?

Aaron, did you read the piece linked to by Jonah up-thread. My main reason for piping into this thread has been over this issue. An analysis that purports to show that organic food is no better than conventional food gets widely reported. That is a conclusion that many, honestly, want to hear. It is a comforting, safe thing to hear. The fact that many who have studied the issue do not believe in that conclusion seems to fly right by in this thread. Read the piece Jonah cited. I also found this little gem from the NYTimes from 2003 that lists some studies showing the nutritional benefits of organic food. The article quotes nutrition expert Marion Nestle:

"I don't think there is any question that as more research is done, it is going to become increasingly apparent that organic food is healthier."

Maybe comparing this issue to global warming is not perfect, but surely, there will always be those who will argue against the nutritional benefits of organic food. And there will continue to be studies that show its nutritional superiority.

Then, there are issues of ingesting pesticides. Yes, there are those who find no human harm in their digestion, but on the other hand, there are many who do find long term health issues from this consumption. That's a qualitative difference.

And I still believe that if a product causes much destruction to its surroundings as conventional agriculture often does, it cannot be looked at as high quality. Some may not agree with that, but plenty of others may also find that is a reason why organic is considered of higher quality.

Listen, I willingly concede that there are often differences between what we can call Big O organic and organic practices. I'd rather buy from Farmer Vicki's Genesis Growers who is not yet certified than some Cali-corp-organic that I do not know. Still, we should focus on the substance behind what being organic is, not the label. It is the practices we call organic that matter, not the label. Anyone can feel free to ignore or disregard the label or the practices. I just think they are not making informed decisions.

As to Henry's Farm, I'm not sure if they are or are not certified, but if you look at their web site,they make much to-do over their organic practices, and specifically why they believe they are better.

Mike, bad planting practices can certainly impact a crop, I just don't know too many production farmers who aren't all over optimum planting strategies. And, no, higher yield rates don't correlate with poorer fruit nutrition profiles.

(That brings up a separate point which is how does one determine that growing less on more land is more sustainable? It's a curious concept.)

With so many food issues there's "science" on both sides and advocates on both sides. You can pretty much find what you want to support your position. And advocates. I'd like to give credence to what Charlie Benbrook and Marion Nestle say. But I already know what they are going to say by the issue being debated. It's unfortunate and confusing (and I think that the latter is really the point).

And so a regulatory body from the most pro organic country in the world steps in, does a research review and finds nothing to suggest that the end product is any different (which is no surprise to most of the scientific world).

But is the answer really that bad? Is the fact that we have access to highly nutritious fruits and veggies at a significanlty lower cost than organic a bad thing?

That, of course is Dr. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D, University of Wisconsin, Madison and Dr. Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health (the department she chaired from 1988-2003) and Professor of Sociology at New York University.

I think it is fair to disagree on issues, just as many are not willing to believe in the science behind global warming, but to act like "the scientific world" believes in one thing and a few quacks believe in another is highly misleading to the readers of this forum.

Upthread someone said, "Buy the best-looking produce."
The sense that's missing is smell.
I won't buy a tomato that doesn't smell like a tomato, a canteloupe that has no scent, etc.
Strawberries are a big one on that: if they're not ripe enough, there won't be that heady scent.

Now, I used to work for a company owned by a big agribusiness, and what baffled me is that the organics objected to genetic manipulation. F'rinstance: corn plants that produce BT toxin (an organic insecticide which kills bugs but is harmless to people, birds etc.). You no longer need to spray any chemicals (including BT). Complaints were that it kills other, beneficial insects such as monarch butterflies, but spraying will kill more, due to spread of the spray. I'm all for this one. Also, irradiation: what's wrong with zapping berries to prevent fungal growth? There's radiation all around us, so it must be natural, right?

It's not like it's because of some Amish-like need to avoid technology -- BT is considered organic, but a low-tech farmer can't extract enough BT from bacterial cultures.

And, no, higher yield rates don't correlate with poorer fruit nutrition profiles.

Says somebody's well-funded study, no doubt. But again, my point wasn't that I knew such and such to be the case-- it was aimed at some stuff upthread suggesting that organic was merely a kind of voodoo, and there was no imaginable way it could be legit.

I can imagine very easily how something deficient in flavor and color could logically be deficient in other things, whether it proves to be the case or not. Or to put it another way, I could offer a hypothesis that it is.

auxen1 wrote:And so a regulatory body from the most pro organic country in the world steps in, does a research review and finds nothing to suggest that the end product is any different

That's not AT ALL what the research showed: it showed a *very* limited result, namely, that the amounts of certain substances did not vary significantly among a set of food items. Period. Full stop.

There was no examination, for example, of pesticide residue.

Several of the comments upthread slip back and forth between "nutritional" and "healthy": bad equivocation--two food items can be nutritionally equivalent but quite different from a health standpoint.

As to crop planting intensity, I know exactly zip about vegetables. But I *do* know about grapes, and I'm here to tell you that the pinot noir industry on the West Coast is all about increasing (to ridiculous densities) the planting intensity of pinot, in an effort to come closer to Burgogne. (It'll never work: PN, unlike cab, is exquisitely sensitive to terroir.) I'm sure that a Sonoma PN is nutritionally equivalent to a Côtes de Nuits, but aesthetically, it's not even close.

Geo

auxen1 wrote:And so a regulatory body from the most pro organic country in the world steps in, does a research review and finds nothing to suggest that the end product is any different (which is no surprise to most of the scientific world).

To be fair, that is an overstatement of what the researchers found. They found that there was no significant difference in nutrient quantity - they made no broad conclusions about whether the end products were different in other ways. Unfortunately, too many people use that very narrow conclusion to make broader, unsubstantiated claims.

But is the answer really that bad? Is the fact that we have access to highly nutritious fruits and veggies at a significanlty lower cost than organic a bad thing?

If the world were a simple place of binary bad and good, no.

However, it's a place where everything has costs, and good things have bad consequences.

Is it a purely good thing to have monoculture crops?

Is it a purely good thing to have cheap pork when it tastes like the wastes they live above and when the wastes contaminate the local water supply?

Is it a purely good thing to raise a generation who has no idea what a strawberry or tomato really tastes like? (Is it any wonder they search out ever more exotic manufactured foods when the natural ones are so wan?)

Is it a purely good thing for fruit to qualify for frequent flier miles?

To any thinking person, there's a lot more here than sheer nutritional content, though I still find it hard, in my heart of hearts, to believe a study of studies which are as much as half a century old. Plenty of reasons to be skeptical about that as the final word many would like it to be. But even if it were rock solid, it would be just one piece of the puzzle.

Geo wrote:Several of the comments upthread slip back and forth between "nutritional" and "healthy": bad equivocation--two food items can be nutritionally equivalent but quite different from a health standpoint.

I quoted Dr. Nestle using the word "healthy", but if you read the linked NYTimes article, it is rather clear that she is using it to mean more nutritional.

Geo wrote:That's not AT ALL what the research showed: it showed a *very* limited result, namely, that the amounts of certain substances did not vary significantly among a set of food items. Period. Full stop.

Well, it's more, the study did say:

Conventionally produced crops had a higher content of nitrogen, while organically produced crops had higher phosphorous and acidity content. No difference was detected for the other crop nutrient categories analyzed.

So, even in their methodology, they found qualitative differences between the crops. Organic supporters would argue that even those differences, especially the higher levels of nitrogen, do show why organic is better, however we want to define what better means

"the scientific world" believes in one thing and a few quacks believe in another is highly misleading to the readers of this forum.

I don't think it's misleading to suggest that Charlie Benbrook who is employed by an organic organization is going to advocate on behalf of organics. And Marion Nestle's history is a pretty clear indicator of her food politics. They are both mouthpieces which is fine. It's science's job to prove or disprove. But what they say doesn't move me one inch either way.

They found that there was no significant difference in nutrient quantity

Didn't mean to suggest anything more than equivalent nutrient quantity.

There was no examination, for example, of pesticide residue

Never suggested that there was. The claim, again, that organic advocates make is "more nutritious." The alchemy of production agriculture somehow lowers the nutrition (or the alchemy of organic somehow raises the nutrition) content of a fruity or veggie varietal.

Says somebody's well-funded study, no doubt.

Or the most basic food science.

It's not like it's because of some Amish-like need to avoid technology

Joel, the Amish are ok with gmo foods. Don't know about irradiation though. There's a couple in Berkley...wife does food biotech...husband is an organic farmer...just published a book positing that the most sustainable food solution is a marriage between biotech and organic. I'll try to find the link. I understand that when the wife goes shopping in Berkley she gets heckled. It's an interesting and worthwhile read.

Found the link to the biotech/organic couple that published the book...

http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/

She has a post on assessing scientific studies that is apropos to this discussion.

auxen1 wrote:I understand that when the wife goes shopping in Berkley she gets heckled.

I detest these self-righteous, holier-than-thou, moral-fascists! Last night, I was buying a pack of cigarettes at the grocery store, (for a friend), and the guy in front of me asked, "Do you enjoy killing yourself slowly?" I patiently explained that sometimes we make unhealthy choices to make our day-to-day lives more enjoyable, and resisted the powerful urge to kick him in the nuts.

phredbull wrote:

auxen1 wrote:I understand that when the wife goes shopping in Berkley she gets heckled.

I detest these self-righteous, holier-than-thou, moral-fascists! Last night, I was buying a pack of cigarettes at the grocery store, (for a friend), and the guy in front of me asked, "Do you enjoy killing yourself slowly?" I patiently explained that sometimes we make unhealthy choices to make our day-to-day lives more enjoyable, and resisted the powerful urge to kick him in the nuts.

I applaud your patience,

When at the Green City Market for the Snout to Tail event a few months ago, one of these types pretty much bumped me out of the way while I was taking some pictures of one of the food booths(it was wall to wall people so I wasnt holding up traffic or anything like that), and swore at me under her breath, I finished taking my pic, and then tracked the person down and let them know what I thought of their manners, & patience. I expected more from such an enlightened individual.

phredbull wrote:

auxen1 wrote:I understand that when the wife goes shopping in Berkley she gets heckled.

I detest these self-righteous, holier-than-thou, moral-fascists! Last night, I was buying a pack of cigarettes at the grocery store, (for a friend), and the guy in front of me asked, "Do you enjoy killing yourself slowly?" I patiently explained that sometimes we make unhealthy choices to make our day-to-day lives more enjoyable, and resisted the powerful urge to kick him in the nuts.

mmmmmmm

I keep coming back to this. What keeps this thread so near and dear to me.

Good clean food should not be a political issue, at least not a red state-blue state issue. I know the comment above is not necessarily making that analogy, but it is a stepping off point. Listen, George and Laura Bush wanted to be served organic food in the White House. They also wanted it kept on the QT. Why?

Cause organic is for those dirty effin' hippies right. They percieved it as a political liability to be associated with organic food.

Oddly enough, there's some out there, "crunchy cons" who want green issues, including organic foods, to not be simply associated with Al Gore and his ilk.

There's good reasons to go organic. You don't have to be from Berkely to believe that.

Agree that it doesn't have much to do with politics. Much more to do with wealth.

Certain parallels to belief in psychics a la Nancy Reagan.

Vital Information wrote:

Geo wrote:That's not AT ALL what the research showed: it showed a *very* limited result, namely, that the amounts of certain substances did not vary significantly among a set of food items. Period. Full stop.

Well, it's more, the study did say:

Conventionally produced crops had a higher content of nitrogen, while organically produced crops had higher phosphorous and acidity content. No difference was detected for the other crop nutrient categories analyzed.

So, even in their methodology, they found qualitative differences between the crops. Organic supporters would argue that even those differences, especially the higher levels of nitrogen, do show why organic is better, however we want to define what better means

Tom Philpott, who is somewhat of a God amongst my set (and probably some kind of relation to OurPalWill) hops on the nitrogen issue too.

But what I find most immediately significant is this: Both studies found that conventionally grown produce has substantially higher levels of nitrates than organic—most likely from widespread use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms.

This consensus around a nitrogen gap suggests a non-trivial advantage for organic food: A growing body of literature indicts heightened levels of nitrates in the U.S. diet as a significant health menace. For a while, we’ve known that nitrates are a powerful carcinogen.

The latest: a rather stunning recent report from the Journal of Alzheimer Disease (press release here) linking nitrates in food to “increased deaths from diseases, including Alzheimer’s, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s.”

The study’s lead author, Suzanne de la Monte of Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University, declares that we have become a “nitrosamine generation,” exposed to increasing levels of nitrogen-derived compounds that pose a threat at even in low doses. She indicts nitrate-preserved foods like bacon—but also conventional agriculture.

According to de la Monte, “We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture,” which are both taken up in food crops and also seep into drinking water.

De la Monte reports that incidence of the diseases in question—Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and type 2 diabetes—have “all increased radically over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau.” According to de la Monte:

Because there has been a relatively short time interval associated with the dramatic shift in disease incidence and prevalence rates, we believe this is due to exposure-related rather than genetic etiologies.
The press release adds:

The findings indicate that while nitrogen-containing fertilizer consumption increased by 230 percent between 1955 and 2005, its usage doubled between 1960 and 1980, which just precedes the insulin-resistant epidemics the researchers found. They also found that sales from the fast food chain and the meat processing [industry] increased more than 8-fold from 1970 to 2005, and grain consumption increased 5-fold.
To me, the study stands as a pretty damning indictment of industrial agriculture—and in particular efforts to extend its alleged benefits to the global South. Hey, grow more food with our agrichemicals—and melt your brains and become dependent on pharmaceutical insulin in the process!

Interesting, VI. Tnx for that. I would have thought that most folks would have been using NH3 for fertilizing, not nitrates. That's sure what all the Farmland co-ops here provide. There's a *huge* synthesizing plant over just east of Lawrence KS.

But then, I'm ignorant of the pathways of the NH3 once it is injected into the soil. Perhaps nitrates are produced at that point.

In any case, it would appear that the nitrogen differences in the two foodstreams might very well NOT be trivial.

Geo

auxen1 wrote:Agree that it doesn't have much to do with politics. Much more to do with wealth.

This organic/traditional debate can lean into the political field quite heavily. Knowing that big ag has very powerful and aggressive lobbyists and attorneys fighting for their way is political in nature. Knowing that certain government agencies like the FDA and USDA is run by former executives from big ag/petrochemical/pharmaceutical multinational corporations has a bit of a political tinge to it. Many of the studies that forums like this one debate are funded by special interest (political) groups. Maybe the politics here eventually lead to wealth but I would say that they are connected.

On the other hand, the way organic is marketed, priced and sold (even at the farmer's markets) is geared to the people that can afford it - capitalism. That doesn't mean that you can't obtain organic, fresh food from other sources, like growing your own but when you do that, it's harder to put a label on it (it's not big-ag and not Whole Foods, how can I define it)?

phredbull wrote:I detest these self-righteous, holier-than-thou, moral-fascists!

phredbull wrote:I believe a concerted effort to reduce our consumption of sugar and fast food would be significantly more beneficial. Or making available fresh food, organic or not, to those whose only options are McDonald's or the corner liquor store. Basic needs for the neglected vs. frivolities for yuppies. But I digress...

This is the problem with standing on one "side" versus the other - it's broken down to its lowest common denominator and leads to name calling. Food shouldn't be this complicated. Who do you suggest lead this concerted effort? Who is supposed to make "fresh food" more available? If "yuppies" are buying frivolous things, why does it bother you and how does it impact how people get their food (wouldn't these two things be mutually exclusive and who are you to determine what is frivolous in the first place - some may argue that cigarettes are a frivolity)? Should the "yuppies" give away their hard-earned money so that some people can afford purple asparagus versus a $1 cheeseburger (if yes, who do they give it to and how much do you want)? Have you ever thought that in some ares, fast food and liquor stores exist because that's what people want and that a fresh food markets don't exist because that's not what they want? In our capitalist environment, sometimes it's this simple - unfortunate (from our perspective, obviously not enough from theirs) but true.

Many of the people that work with these "disadvantaged" areas are "yuppies" or former "yuppies." I've seen that some disadvantaged areas want fresh food but most people there don't seem to care enough about it to make a difference. Eventually, you have put the responsibility on the individual to make the decision on their own food. Some people are making a difference in these areas but those people come from different backgrounds and yes, some are the hated, categorically defined, "yuppies." Sorry. I would ask the question, what are you doing to provide fresh food to those whose only options are McDonald's or the corner liquor store?

I agree that it can be frustrating or seem unfair but I've decided that it's the people that will make the difference. It's easy to say that conceptually "someone" or "they" should make fresh food more available but when faced with real problems and challenges, it's often more difficult than that.

I was contacted a couple of months ago by a person in a "disadvantaged" area of Chicago that wanted to try to build a garden for their community. The problem was that it had to be a mobile garden because if it was left outside at night, people would either steal all the food or destroy the garden. I offered many ideas about how they could still try something but it is a challenge to say the least. This is a difficult problem that needs realistic answers not empty pleas of "someone should do something."

Vital Information wrote:Tom Philpott, who is somewhat of a God amongst my set (and probably some kind of relation to OurPalWill) hops on the nitrogen issue too.

Although I agree that many of these products are things I would like to not ingest but if we're still talking about good science, let's remember that correlation does not equal causation. It does give you something to think about but this argument is hardly definitive.