Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Food & Drink => Topic started by: FatBloke on 18 July, 2008, 12:59:57 pm
-
Why do people buy organic food? Is it because it's supposed to be better for you (no scientific evidence), or because it's better for the environment.
I buy organic products because I perceive them to be more environmentally friendly, but are they?
I have just opened a pack of organic minced beef, shrouded in plastic packaging with the legend "not currently recyclable". Earlier today I looked at a pack of organic asparagus that had been airlifted in from Peru.
Are we being conned? I'm beginning to think so. :-\
-
Yes we are conned. I tend to buy because I find it taste better most of the time.
-
Why do people buy organic food? Is it because it's supposed to be better for you (no scientific evidence), or because it's better for the environment.
I buy organic products because I perceive them to be more environmentally friendly, but are they?
I have just opened a pack of organic minced beef, shrouded in plastic packaging with the legend "not currently recyclable". Earlier today I looked at a pack of organic asparagus that had been airlifted in from Peru.
Are we being conned? I'm beginning to think so. :-\
For meat, dairy etc it's about animal welfare - though if course if you know the cow that you ate personally and that she was well-tended and happy on a non-organic farm then it's a red herring
Most of us though get milk etc from the supermarket or milkman so it's likely factory-farmed
I know someone will come along in a minute and say that organic farming is cruel because it denies 21st century drugs - but I guess that's not quite how it works in practice and (one of the) alternatives is routine antibiotic etc use in megaherds. Nasty stuff.
But yeah - overpackaging is an issue. Faced with the choice between organic asparagus in plastic from Peru and non-organic from Hereford in a paper bag I'd go for the latter.
I guess it can taste better if it is small-scale organic, but agribusiness organic produce can be just as tasteless & watery as ordinary stuff.
I'm not convinced on the "inherently better for you" unless it is fresh stuff.
-
The thing that annoys me the most about Organic Food is that it's not scalable. We can't feed the world on organically grown food. I think it's a sop to the middle classes who like to think they're being environmentally friendlier / healthier without having to change their lifestyles too much.
I also think it's a result of the backlash against genetically modified food that occurred in the early 2000s. People had no scientific reason to not buy GM foods but a media campaign calling them "franken foods" but a stop to the GM industry in this country, without any tests and studies being done.
So, it's all marketing. Stop buying it and buy meat and veg produced in this country! :)
-
Or*...stop buying meat, and it becomes much more scalable. :)
* or 'and'
-
To save money I buy Tesco Economy (Blue Stripe) produce and rub soil on it.
Hey Presto ! Organic food for half the price.
-
The thing that annoys me the most about Organic Food is that it's not scalable.
You might argue that corporate intensive oil-dependent agribusiness is ultimately not scalable, both spatially and temporally.
-
The thing that annoys me the most about Organic Food is that it's not scalable.
You might argue that corporate intensive oil-dependent agribusiness is ultimately not scalable, both spatially and temporally.
I doubt I might, I don't understand half of what you just said.
-
Nobody's forcing you to buy asparagus, heavily packaged and flown in from overseas. You made that choice, and you have all the information to hand.
I buy organic because I sometimes get allergic reactions (serious wheeze attacks) to remnant pesticides on fruit, and because I believe it to be better for biodiversity than the horrid monocultures of agribusiness.
If the choice is between UK normal and imported organic, I usually buy the UK stuff.
Are you being conned? No. There's this weird idea that "green" is a zero-sum game, that if you do something one way, it's worse than some other way and so all of its merit is lost. That's bunk. Both the airborne organic asparagus and local regular asparagus are a step up from airborne regular asparagus.
-
If you know little about agriculture and bio-chemistry, then it is perfectly possible to convince yourself that organic produce is 'better' and if you believe it to be good then that is a good thing. You're not being conned at all, just buying into a belief system, there's nothing wrong with that. 'Organic' Pork and Poultry can still be fed on fishmeal, so there's no more reason that they should taste like Pork or Chicken. Given a free choice of produce at a supermarket consumers buy the stuff with the longest shelf life, that has no taste because it isn't ripe. Ripening fruit and veg is the way to appreciate the taste. Produce from market stalls tastes better because the stallholder chooses to give you all the stuff which will be rotten tomorrow. Fine if you shop every day, but wasteful if you have to throw them out. I think an ethical stance is to buy frozen and tinned veg. Less waste that way, all the way down the supply chain as overripe produce can fed to livestock.
Damon.
-
Many people seem to think: Can't do everything, so we may as well do nothing?
Andy, I go with your approach.
I don't buy much organic food, but only because I haven't had much money for a long while. Buying organic is a priority when we can afford it.
But I regard the 'greenness' of food as a holistic thing. I don't want to make monocultural deserts of polytunnels in Peru or Spain, however restrained the chemical regime has been.
Similarly, I won't buy veg from Israel, because there are more important things than being able to buy celery all year round.
-
I read somewhere, or heard about a lecture, I forget which, in which the author / lecturer maintained that in a few years' time, everything we ate would be organic because ultimately everything else is unsustainable, depending as most of our food does on large quantities of fossil fuel for fertilisers and transport. I think he was assuming, totally wrongly in my view, that the peak oil / climate change / credit crunch / general governmental incompetence causing the current crisis would suddenly lead to a more equitable distribution of resources and that millions won't just starve because of our cockeyed and corrupt system.
When I'm shopping, I tend to go for low air miles as an admittedly crude indicator of the worthiness of something. I always avoid buying Israeli stuff, but for something like dates, the alternatives are not necessarily a lot better. Yesterday I didn't buy apples because they came from New Zealand or South Africa, but did buy pears from the Netherlands, which for all I know were grown in heated glass houses and were therefore less environmentally sound that SA apples. I did buy SA satsumas. "Organic" doesn't really figure on my radar.
-
The thing that annoys me the most about Organic Food is that it's not scalable.
You might argue that corporate intensive oil-dependent agribusiness is ultimately not scalable, both spatially and temporally.
I doubt I might, I don't understand half of what you just said.
Yeah, sorry, should have been" not scalable, either spatially nor temporally"
;)
-
When I'm shopping, I tend to go for low air miles as an admittedly crude indicator of the worthiness of something. I always avoid buying Israeli stuff, but for something like dates, the alternatives are not necessarily a lot better. Yesterday I didn't buy apples because they came from New Zealand or South Africa, but did buy pears from the Netherlands, which for all I know were grown in heated glass houses and were therefore less environmentally sound that SA apples.
Quite so. Food miles aren't always the worst thing. There was a R4 interview with a Prof of food science a year or two ago about this, and even though he's an advocate of carbon-minimisation of food, he made the point that "local produce" in many parts of Britain would lead to a diet in which turnips featured more heavily than perhaps he'd prefer himself.
-
Organic refers to the way the food is produced: for fruit and veg it means no pesticides or artificail fertilisers. For meat, eggs, etc it means no antibiotics, growth hormones, etc and also fed on (mostly) organic feeds.
There's nothing in the idea of organic food about animal welfare, however most organic certifying bodies like the Soil Association will only certify food produced to high welfare standards. For example, a free range pig might be fed on strictly organic feed and have no drugs but if it was weaned at 39 days it can't be called organic. Most of the organic standards of welfare are higher than free-range standards.
Once the food has been produced to organic standards, it should be organic. Whether it goes in a plastic bag is another matter, and that's an issue for the consumer: do you want organic produce or do you want organic AND environmentally friendly produce? Really this should be another issue, but the Soil Association have muddied things by threatening to not certify things which have been flown in.
People choose organic for lots of reasons, for example they may be worried about pesticide residues in the food they eat, or they might be worried about phosphate runoff into watercourses. So they might not care about the packaging or the transportation. Others might, and you can choose accordingly.
-
There are lots of myths about Organic food, such as no pesticides, more nutrients, etc:-
The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford - Green Living, Environment - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html)
Although do read the comments section at the bottom too.
-
Nobody's forcing you to buy asparagus, heavily packaged and flown in from overseas. You made that choice, and you have all the information to hand.
I did indeed, and the choice I made was to put it back on the shelf!
-
(Sings)
I’m gonna feed our children non-organic food
I’m gonna feed our children non-organic food
I’m gonna feed our children non-organic food
And with the money saved take ‘em to the zoo
(Bows deeply to audience, splits trousers)
-
There are lots of myths about Organic food, such as no pesticides, more nutrients, etc:-
The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford - Green Living, Environment - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html)
Although do read the comments section at the bottom too.
I especially liked
'Organic fields where I live are usually hand sown, hand reaped, non tilled and farmed by University degree holding women who get as many as four harvests a year from these fields. Were machinery is used it is kept to a minimum so as not to disturb the soil and have it blow away.'
This has to be the way ahead for agriculture.
Damon.
-
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DBB5C044FDD468C1BF0D23FCD2B121F6.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1700496
Organic milk, at least, does show a health benefit.
-
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DBB5C044FDD468C1BF0D23FCD2B121F6.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1700496
Organic milk, at least, does show a health benefit.
But I'm not a wheezy baby with eczema.
Damon.
-
This has to be the way ahead for agriculture.
Student totty bending over a lot?
I'm saying nothing. O:-)
-
What the random guy said.
I think there's a lot of misconception about what organic actually means. As I understand it, the idea is to make the food as 'natural' as possible, by limiting man-made (chemical) pesticides, fertilizers, and not using unnecessary drugs on the animals and not feeding them rubbish etc. This has very little to do with the environment, or with animal welfare in terms of living conditions.
I personally prefer limiting the packaging and buying locally produced and free range food, as I think those issues are more important, and I actually object to some of the rules organic produce has to adhere to (like no GM).
-
There are lots of myths about Organic food, such as no pesticides, more nutrients, etc:-
The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford - Green Living, Environment - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html)
Although do read the comments section at the bottom too.
There are myths, and much of what he says is reasonable - but much isn't. It's a kind of diatribe, I guess.
I have no doubts that largescale agribusness organic is just as energy-intensive and polluting and maybe more so) than largescale agribusiness conventional agriculture.
That doesn't mean that small-scale sustainable food production is a bad thing - the key is to see how thta fits with organic/not
And as A Random One said, Uk organic certification tends to have an animal welfare component.
-
What the random guy said.
I think there's a lot of misconception about what organic actually means. As I understand it, the idea is to make the food as 'natural' as possible, by limiting man-made (chemical) pesticides, fertilizers, and not using unnecessary drugs on the animals and not feeding them rubbish etc. This has very little to do with the environment, or with animal welfare in terms of living conditions.
We did this one to death before.
The standards currently set by the main British
farm assurance schemes covering beef, lamb,
pork, chicken, milk and eggs assure the fulfilment
of 4-7 out of 15 key animal welfare determinants.
This compares poorly with the standards set for
organic farming by the Soil Association. The Soil
Association Certified Organic Standard, a scheme
recognised as having high standards of farm
animal welfare, assures the fulfilment of 11-14 of
15 key determinants. Standard British farm
assurance schemes cannot, therefore, assure the
use of high welfare systems of breeding and
rearing animals.
From "An Animal Welfare Analysis of Major UK Farm Assurance Schemes
Compassion In World Farming Trust
2002"
-
The thing that annoys me the most about Organic Food is that it's not scalable. We can't feed the world on organically grown food. I think it's a sop to the middle classes who like to think they're being environmentally friendlier / healthier without having to change their lifestyles too much.
I also think it's a result of the backlash against genetically modified food that occurred in the early 2000s. People had no scientific reason to not buy GM foods but a media campaign calling them "franken foods" but a stop to the GM industry in this country, without any tests and studies being done.
So, it's all marketing. Stop buying it and buy meat and veg produced in this country! :)
Actually, you could feed the world organically. What put pressure on food supplies is waste, growing out of season crops and the developed world's demands for cash crops.
-
We did this one to death before.
Sorry. Didn't know that.
The standards currently set by the main British
farm assurance schemes covering beef, lamb,
pork, chicken, milk and eggs assure the fulfilment
of 4-7 out of 15 key animal welfare determinants.
This compares poorly with the standards set for
organic farming by the Soil Association. The Soil
Association Certified Organic Standard, a scheme
recognised as having high standards of farm
animal welfare, assures the fulfilment of 11-14 of
15 key determinants. Standard British farm
assurance schemes cannot, therefore, assure the
use of high welfare systems of breeding and
rearing animals.
From "An Animal Welfare Analysis of Major UK Farm Assurance Schemes
Compassion In World Farming Trust
2002"
Didn't know that either. I might actually start buying some more organic if it's actually animal-friendly (although obviously not if it has heaps of packaging). So where is free range on this scale, then?
-
Soil Association certified organic is stricter on free range definitions than the government standard, so, for example, organic free range eggs will come from smaller flocks with proper outdoor access. Supermarket free range will almost certainly be less free (often by a very long way).
OTOH picking the eggs up from a local smallholder might be more free-range than SA organic.
-
OTOH picking the eggs up from a local smallholder might be more free-range than SA organic.
We just did this
We used to buy Waitrose Organic Columbian Blue-tailed, Much-Loved, Read-a-Story-at-Bedtime-Chickens' eggs.
Last week I got 6 random-sized very free range ones from the little farm up the hill. The shells were thinner and they tasted watery and slightly nondescript
-
Have you reported the little farm to the RSPCA on suspicion of failure to read the chickens a story at bedtime? ;D
I've been getting free range happy eggs from the butchers' round the corner, which appear to come from a local farm. These eggs are great - the chickens must not only get a story at bedtime but a nightlight and some soothing music too.
-
A local farm near you? For local people, no doubt!
Regulator was saying you lived in the country, and so it transpires ;D
-
Actually, you could feed the world organically. What put pressure on food supplies is waste, growing out of season crops and the developed world's demands for cash crops.
Do you really believe this? Water is a very precious commodity in many areas of the world. Growing organic food uses more water and results in a lower yield (read the paper linked in the Independent article for the references for this).
Is it better to use some fertilizers and (especially) pesticides to increase yield and so minimize water uses per kilo of food produced?
On the animal welfare side of things: we always buy non-organic RSPCA approved meat, e.g. free range chicken, outdoored reared pork, etc. Is this worse in animal welfare terms than SA certified meat?
(I'm genuinely interested, btw, I'm open minded enough to change my mind if concrete evidence is given. Something the SA is infamous for NOT doing.)
-
Actually, you could feed the world organically. What put pressure on food supplies is waste, growing out of season crops and the developed world's demands for cash crops.
Do you really believe this? Water is a very precious commodity in many areas of the world. Growing organic food uses more water and results in a lower yield (read the paper linked in the Independent article for the references for this). Is it better to use some fertilizers and (especially) pesticides to increase yield and so minimize water uses per kilo of food produced?
That's a myth I'm afraid. Growing organically does not require more water and it does not result in lower yields. In fact, research shows that in the majority of cases, organic yields are higher, as the soil is better maintained. If you give me a chance, when I get home I can dig out all the research on this.
One example (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304)
Another example (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325101134.htm)(I'll try and dig out the journal reference)
A third example (http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/droughtresearch.shtml)
On the animal welfare side of things: we always buy non-organic RSPCA approved meat, e.g. free range chicken, outdoored reared pork, etc. Is this worse in animal welfare terms than SA certified meat?
(I'm genuinely interested, btw, I'm open minded enough to change my mind if concrete evidence is given. Something the SA is infamous for NOT doing.)
Not sure about this. It depends on what level of RSPCA approval has been sought - there's more than one. The most basic level is not much better than intensive factory farming. The top level equates to that of the Soil Association.
-
(I'm genuinely interested, btw, I'm open minded enough to change my mind if concrete evidence is given. Something the SA is infamous for NOT doing.)
Not sure about this. It depends on what level of RSPCA approval has been sought - there's more than one. The most basic level is not much better than intensive factory farming. The top level equates to that of the Soil Association.
But are the RSPCA standards actually checked and enforced? For example, see this report on some of the conditions on a RSPCA "Freedom Food" approved farm: Five News with Natasha Kaplinsky (http://www.fivetvonline.tv/natashas_newsroom.php?id=242)
-
Newcastle University on naturally grazed organic milk having much higher levels of beneficial nutrients:
http://www.qlif.org/grafik/Organic%20Milk%20Release1.pdf
This was widely reported last year:
Organic Food Is More Nutritious Say EU Researchers (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php)
Prof Leifert told the press that the research results suggested that eating organic food was equivalent to eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables a day.
-
Given the large amount of water used in the production of agro-chemicals, I don't believe the Independent article is independent enough.
-
Because I don't want pesticedes in my drinkingwater
-
Well, we're still getting our weekly Riverford box delivery (vegetables). We thought long and hard before going for Riverford, but although there are some food miles involved they do try to justify them all - and we take them at their word. It does come a bit pricier than non-organic: I reckon we spend about £4-£5 a week more than we would do to get the same items in the supermarket. And we do have to top-up with supermarket vegetables which are mostly not organic.
I was sceptical at the start as to whether there'd be a flavour advantage - but there is! Others may not believe me, but I say the taste of their carrots especially is superb! For years I've got rather blasé about spotlessly clean supermarket carrots as being watery and insipid, but these - which are supplied with all the mud on, but a quick scrub in cold water reveals the gorgeous orange colour - are excellent. The nearest approximation is probably the carrots sold sablé in France (I think that's the word) still coated in soil. But that's rare in British supermarkets. Other things in the Riverford box are also better tasting than the supermarket stuff - probably excepting the onions. They're having a bad year for onions it seems.
Some things that turn up in the box don't work out though. One week they dumped a head of raddicio on us. This was something we'd never tried before, and, try as we might (and we dowloaded several cooking techniques off the internet) we couldn't make it palatable. We gave up on it. Also we got a bit overloaded with swedes during the winter (I did get to like swede more than I used to, though, in consequence). One or two went bad on us before we got round to using them. More fuel for the compost bin therefore.
End of Riverford plug. :):-[
One good thing about organic food business, it gives the Little Englanders in our midst something to sneer at. If it weren't for the Organics they'd have to take it out on some other sector of the food business, like, say, fruit'n'veg. Best give them an obvious target! Bit like cyclists really: if there weren't cyclists around to be the target of a vitriolic hate campaign, they'd have to take it out on other road users, such as (horrors!) motorists... ;D
-
All this talk of 'animal welfare' and comparisons between organic and non organic meat makes me die.
Either way the production of meat is the most barbaric and wantonly wastelful means of food production ever devised.
-
I am very lucky. In Rugby there is Wild and Free, an organic outlet, and every Thursday and Friday there is Dave's Wholefood Shop which is in St. Andrews Church Hall. I reckon about 90% of what we now eat comes from these sources. We get our Ecover products through these shops too.
Ten miles away is Garden Organic (Ryton Gardesn / HDRA) but their produce range has become more limited in recent years. In fact, Steve who runs Wild and Free used to be the shop manager there five or six years back.
We don't count the cost - no point really. We have to eat. Not using supermarkets we can't really compare price anyway.
Not all, but a fair proportion of our food now comes from local sources. Even our organic milk delivered by Steve comes from nearby Leicestershire. Our organic meat comes from a farm less than ten miles away and sold through Steve's shop also.
What we do notice is that when we eat elsewhere the taste of food is different, usually more bland and often missing something like a crunch of a carrot, the zing of raspberries, the deep taste of bacon ... But then I guess we are used to what we eat.
So why? It's better for the environment, it tastes great, and it's local*.
* Obviously the banana sticking out of my mouth as I type isn't very local :D
-
I now get an Abel and Cole box, but not because it's organic. I buy it because it's low food miles (they never air freight any of their fruit) and because it tastes very good indeed. Organic food (IMHO) has become another label for for posh, urban trendies who don't want The Guilt when little Jocasta is diagnosed with ADHD.
Apart from the gentle nudge I got from Liz, I also now buy Abel and Cole because it's reasonable value and it's delivered to my door for nothing. I am fundamentally lazy and whilst I can be bothered to wash the mud off my spuds, I very much like the idea of not having to go to the shops to buy them.
Of course, I'm a TWINKie with a large disposable income and a taste for good, home cooked food. If I was a single mother with a low income, three kids but time on my hands during the day, I think I'd buy Tesco value veg like any of the rest of my contemporaries.
If I actually bought veg in the first place.
-
Twinkie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie)
Twinkie - a Golden Sponge Cake with a Creamy Filling. Organic cream? ::-)
-
I have a local organic farm delivery. I have a £20 mixed box (Fruit, veg and salad) every fortnight. I decided to do this, as the food tastes like food, it is nice to have food that is locally grown, I like supporting local farmers and it is easy and convenient for me. I didn't choose the food because it was organic, but pleased that it is.
-
Twinkie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie)
Twinkie - a Golden Sponge Cake with a Creamy Filling. Organic cream? ::-)
Also known as DINKs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINKY) :D
-
Twinkie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie)
Twinkie - a Golden Sponge Cake with a Creamy Filling. Organic cream? ::-)
Also known as DINKs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINKY) :D
Does that make me a SINK as I am single income with no kids?
-
I am not hung up on organic standards but use organic as a handy shorthand for produce that had been grown with more attention to taste and texture rather than shelf life and perfect shape. The same with meat, organic usually goes alongside better conditions for the animal.
-
Well, we're still getting our weekly Riverford box delivery (vegetables).
As are we. I don't buy from them because they are organic. Generally the veg just tastes better and I like the seasonal nature of it.
From a food miles point of view it mostly comes from a farm which is approx 30 miles away - apart from the odd few items at "lean" times of the year.
£15 a week for veg to feed a family of 4 doesn't seem a big deal to me.
-
I refuse to eat organic food, based on conversations with farmers who grow the stuff and people at the top of the food chain (well the certification managerial chain).
There's also the fact that pesticides to me are a good thing. They are safe (assuming you're aren't a pest!) as one of the lead scientists demonstrated when a journalist asked him to prove it, he got a carrot, dunked it in the pesticide and then ate it.
I buy fruit and veg from the local markets, meat from the butcher and fish from the fishmongers. I try to stick to seasonal stuff and generally ask where it's come from.
-
£15 a week for veg to feed a family of 4 doesn't seem a big deal to me.
Just what we thought. We're taking the next size down (£12.75) which isn't quite enough for three people, but then, two of us not being meat-eaters, we do get through plenty of veg. The large box would be a tad too much for us though.
-
I have a local organic farm delivery. I have a £20 mixed box (Fruit, veg and salad) every fortnight. I decided to do this, as the food tastes like food, it is nice to have food that is locally grown, I like supporting local farmers and it is easy and convenient for me. I didn't choose the food because it was organic, but pleased that it is.
Do you get a choice of what you get or is it a mixed bag box of stuff that is in season/available?
-
The box I get have the veg and fruits of the season.
But the company have 11 different types of Vegetable boxes (size & types )
-
I have a local organic farm delivery. I have a £20 mixed box (Fruit, veg and salad) every fortnight. I decided to do this, as the food tastes like food, it is nice to have food that is locally grown, I like supporting local farmers and it is easy and convenient for me. I didn't choose the food because it was organic, but pleased that it is.
Do you get a choice of what you get or is it a mixed bag box of stuff that is in season/available?
Either/or. You can select what you want, have a seasonal surprise and deselect things you don't want.
It's a very user friendly service.
-
I have a local organic farm delivery. I have a £20 mixed box (Fruit, veg and salad) every fortnight. I decided to do this, as the food tastes like food, it is nice to have food that is locally grown, I like supporting local farmers and it is easy and convenient for me. I didn't choose the food because it was organic, but pleased that it is.
Do you get a choice of what you get or is it a mixed bag box of stuff that is in season/available?
Either/or. You can select what you want, have a seasonal surprise and deselect things you don't want.
It's a very user friendly service.
Sounds great - it would be good if we had something similar here
-
I refuse to eat organic food, based on conversations with farmers who grow the stuff and people at the top of the food chain (well the certification managerial chain).
There's also the fact that pesticides to me are a good thing. They are safe (assuming you're aren't a pest!) as one of the lead scientists demonstrated when a journalist asked him to prove it, he got a carrot, dunked it in the pesticide and then ate it.
I buy fruit and veg from the local markets, meat from the butcher and fish from the fishmongers. I try to stick to seasonal stuff and generally ask where it's come from.
One idiot scientist is not proof, Gonzo. I could refer you to heaps of peer-reviewed evidence from around the world showing that pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer residues impact adversely on health.
-
Do you get a choice of what you get or is it a mixed bag box of stuff that is in season/available?
With Riverford, you don't get a choice, you just get what's in the box for that week (varies from week to week). Details are published each week on the website. Different size boxes have different selections: in other words they don't just differ in quantities, so if there's something you want to avoid, you can sometimes get around it by taking a different size box. Not really suitable for people who have allergies or strong aversions to stuff, but we're lucky in that respect. And this policy enables them to keep the costs and food miles down, I believe.
Just checked on the site, and the prices are going up next week. Bummer! Oh well, that's food inflation.....
I should have added that the packaging is minimal and a lot of it is re-cyclable. The sturdy outer box: they take that back the following week and re-use. Things like tomatoes and mushrooms come in cardboard punnets which will go in the recycling bin. Some items come in polythene bags - not sure about biodegradability but they get some re-use for binning rubbish.
-
I could refer you to heaps of peer-reviewed evidence from around the world showing that pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer residues impact adversely on health.
I go for the general consensus of the scientific community. As it stands, I believe that this is of the "really don't worry about them" nature.
I can show you papers that says that global warming's fictional. Do you believe that too?
-
Science News / Farm Life Turns Male Toads Female (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33865/title/Farm_life_turns_male_toads_female)
Try telling the toads that there's nothing wrong.
-
Science News / Farm Life Turns Male Toads Female (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33865/title/Farm_life_turns_male_toads_female)
"That there was a difference suggests that something special about farming is to blame, such as the chemicals used on farms"
ie. there's something about farms, but let's just blame it on the chemicals then we can all go down the pub.
-
There's also the fact that pesticides to me are a good thing. They are safe (assuming you're aren't a pest!) as one of the lead scientists demonstrated when a journalist asked him to prove it, he got a carrot, dunked it in the pesticide and then ate it.
That was pretty dumb :)
There may be a question about residues - and I agree that overall it's not clear-cut that pesticide residue levels below maximum permitted levels are short-term harmful - but I don't think it could be argued that large doses are without adverse effects.
I certainly wouldn't argue that having pesticide residues in food is of any health benefit to anyone who eats that food :)
-
I could refer you to heaps of peer-reviewed evidence from around the world showing that pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer residues impact adversely on health.
I go for the general consensus of the scientific community. As it stands, I believe that this is of the "really don't worry about them" nature.
I can show you papers that says that global warming's fictional. Do you believe that too?
And where do you get this 'general consensus' of the scientific community from - or is that your interpretation? Certainly my understanding is is that the general consensus is that the scientific community are trying to reduce herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer use.
Certainly, the EU is introducing new restrictions on the use of these products on the basis of scientific evidence of the dangers to health that they pose. In the past 5 years, 93 products have been banned in the EU.
...And scientists are using the reduction in use of such products as one of the bases for pushing GM crops.
Sorry Gonzo, but your view of the scientific consensus simply doesn't wash.
-
There's also the fact that pesticides to me are a good thing. They are safe (assuming you're aren't a pest!) as one of the lead scientists demonstrated when a journalist asked him to prove it, he got a carrot, dunked it in the pesticide and then ate it.
Are you old enough to remember when John Selwyn Gummer was in the cabinet, Gonzo?
-
Science News / Farm Life Turns Male Toads Female (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33865/title/Farm_life_turns_male_toads_female)
"That there was a difference suggests that something special about farming is to blame, such as the chemicals used on farms"
ie. there's something about farms, but let's just blame it on the chemicals then we can all go down the pub.
Can you suggest any physical agent that would have that effect on amphibia ?
it's like climate change - you might not have absolute proof but you have chemical agents in the environment (where they will have effects - that's their purpose) and you have effects observed in toads. Cause-and-effect linkage ? No, no more than CO2 emissions and climate change, but there's a decent reason to suspect a link and evidence that seems to support it.
-
There's also the fact that pesticides to me are a good thing. They are safe (assuming you're aren't a pest!) as one of the lead scientists demonstrated when a journalist asked him to prove it, he got a carrot, dunked it in the pesticide and then ate it.
Are you old enough to remember when John Selwyn Gummer was in the cabinet, Gonzo?
My thoughts exactly
I was working in DoH at the time, and my food safety colleagues all winced...
-
Science News / Farm Life Turns Male Toads Female (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33865/title/Farm_life_turns_male_toads_female)
"That there was a difference suggests that something special about farming is to blame, such as the chemicals used on farms"
ie. there's something about farms, but let's just blame it on the chemicals then we can all go down the pub.
You do realise that the chemical in question has already been banned in the EU because it's unsafe?
And that it's known that it directly affects frog and toad reproductive systems? (In the lab?)
Edit: at 1/30 the concentration thought to be safe for drinking water.
Yet it is still in use in the USA.
This is your "scientific consensus".
-
Are you old enough to remember when John Selwyn Gummer was in the cabinet, Gonzo?
Well, I certainly am! (how is the lovely Miss Cordelia doing now, anyone know?). And I also remember the infamous Spanish Cooking Oil (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,542111,00.html) scandal, and how we were all taken in by the 'expert' explanations. Read the article, quite an eye-opener!
-
And I also remember the infamous Spanish Cooking Oil (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,542111,00.html) scandal, and how we were all taken in by the 'expert' explanations. Read the article, quite an eye-opener!
That's not much more than an extended conspiracy theory, written up for a newspaper.
I don't know much about the Spanish poisoning cases, other that what I recall at the time on the TV, but that article just doesn't ring true.
I knew Richard Doll reasonably well, and worked with him for a few years. I have absolute confidence that he would not knowingly be part of any "cover-up" the way that article implies, and from that starting point and the lack of any other hard evidence there - where are the peer-reviewed papers ? - I have to say that I have difficulties with that article.
-
The EU spends their entire life introducing restrictions. Quite often they are ill thought out.
The biggest threat that herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers pose is entirely from fertilisers and specifically; terrorists getting hold of some and blowing it up.
And where do you get this 'general consensus' of the scientific community from - or is that your interpretation?
From someone who spends a fair chunk of their life dealing with the agri-scientific community. I figure that he knows more than you or I ever will.
Did you know that if coffee was tested as a agri-chemical it wouldn't be classed as safe to spray on crops?
-
Well, Gonzo, John Selwyn Gummer? Who he and what did he famously do to his daughter?
-
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/220000/images/_220166_john_gummer_and_burger300.jpg)
I can't seem to find any references to little Cordelia these days, but it would appear that a family friend of the idiot Gummer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer) carked it from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease last year.
Clicky (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-487074/Family-friend-John-Gummer-killed-CJD-aged-23.html)
-
Not so little! She must be well into her twenties by now. I just hope she's in good health, and being left in peace to get on with her life as she deserves. Remember, she didn't actually eat the burger...
-
No - apparently some civil servant had to make the bite into it for her.
Which makes her a damn sight smarter than her cretin of a father...
-
Whether or not it's the influence of the infected beef, but Gummer has become quite sound on environmnetal issues in later life. Quite a shock really.
-
The EU spends their entire life introducing restrictions. Quite often they are ill thought out.
The biggest threat that herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers pose is entirely from fertilisers and specifically; terrorists getting hold of some and blowing it up.
And where do you get this 'general consensus' of the scientific community from - or is that your interpretation?
From someone who spends a fair chunk of their life dealing with the agri-scientific community. I figure that he knows more than you or I ever will.
Did you know that if coffee was tested as a agri-chemical it wouldn't be classed as safe to spray on crops?
Funnilyenough, many of my compatriots at university were on the Natural Resources course... They don't just spend time mixing with agri-scientific experts.... they are experts in agriculture (particulalry low input forms). Ever heard of the John Innes Institute?
-
Y'know, I believe in freedom of choice. The information I have gathered and read over the years about GM as oppose to organic has convinced me that there is no advantage to GM, but many disadvantages. For instance, sterile seed means that a farmer has to buy seed every year, not cultivate seed from the previous years crop. And having to buy the seed companies chemicals because they are the only ones that work with that seed is very restrictive too. Also, when your free radical GM crop spreads as all crops do, it can take away the free choice of others by infecting organic farms and jeopardising their license and livelihood.
But the thing about GM that most disturbs me is the bullying tactics that the big agro-bullies use... (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1030.cfm)
After all, if their product is so good why would they ever need to behave like this?
-
The EU spends their entire life introducing restrictions. Quite often they are ill thought out.
Do they ? Are they ?
I spend quite a lot of my time actually writing stuff that the EU uses in the implementation of H&S Directives. I'd argue that it is actually quite carefully thought-out and that the way to make sure it is is to fully-engage with the process and ensure that the outcome is sensible.
The biggest threat that herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers pose is entirely from fertilisers and specifically; terrorists getting hold of some and blowing it up.
Not really, since these days they have stuff in them to prevent that...
-
Whether or not it's the influence of the infected beef, but Gummer has become quite sound on environmnetal issues in later life. Quite a shock really.
I think that after he left office, and regained a sense of perspective, he looked back with incredulity at what was done on his watch.
I suspect this is a common fate of ministers...but I do have respect for him that he came out and admitted to a change of heart, and started to try to do some good.
-
but I do have respect for him that he came out and admitted to a change of heart, and started to try to do some good.
Agreed.
I remember before my brother retired from English Nature (he worked at Attingham Park, near Shrewsbury) he told me about a visit from Gummer, then Minister, who wanted to be shown round the estate.
The event was described by all ranks as "Taking the monkey for a walk." ;D
-
Wow; What was your point?
Reg - I don't want to start a pissing contest here with who knows who, but the institute is a single scientific entity. Scientists can prove pretty much what they want from data, so you need to consider lots of different scientists and go with the majority opinion.
Do they ? Are they ?
The best example I can give is one that isn't related to agriculture. A while back, the EU introduced a scheme called REACH. The idea was to stop harmful materials coming into products in the EU. Failure to comply could have resulted in jail terms for (ir?)responsible parties and unlimited fines. My company had more people employed to deal with it than the EU. There were substantial holes in the legislation and no-one, not even the people from the EU who originally set the rules could answer a lot of questions.
The biggest threat that herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers pose is entirely from fertilisers and specifically; terrorists getting hold of some and blowing it up.
Not really, since these days they have stuff in them to prevent that...
Precisely, that gives you some idea of the level of threat we're talking about!
As an aside, certain people began to get very twitchy when some middle eastern guys turned up in a van one day at a fertiliser distributor and asked to buy 2 tonnes. They said that they only sold it in much larger quantities, but if they came back in a couple of hours, they might be able to sort something. Needless to say, in a couple of hours, the police were there, but no middle eastern guys!
-
The best example I can give is one that isn't related to agriculture. A while back, the EU introduced a scheme called REACH. The idea was to stop harmful materials coming into products in the EU. Failure to comply could have resulted in jail terms for (ir?)responsible parties and unlimited fines. My company had more people employed to deal with it than the EU. There were substantial holes in the legislation and no-one, not even the people from the EU who originally set the rules could answer a lot of questions.
And that differs from national legislation...how ?
REACH is a pretty good idea, and where there are failures in implementation advice it's almost always because the national enforcement agency - in the UK the HSE - has signally failed to provide the information and support to allow companies to comply. It's all part of this "light touch" regulation idea - pretend that legislation won't have an impact and fail to plan for when it does.
But having a crap national agency trying to implement the UK legislation isn't the Commission's fault.
The biggest threat that herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers pose is entirely from fertilisers and specifically; terrorists getting hold of some and blowing it up.
Not really, since these days they have stuff in them to prevent that...
Precisely, that gives you some idea of the level of threat we're talking about!
That would be "none", since these days it has stuff in it to prevent that...
-
I don't want to get into a pissing competition either Gonzo - but the John Innes Institute is the leading plant science institute in the UK, with a leading international reputation. I tend to trust their reports and research - as do the scientists.
-
There's also the fact that pesticides to me are a good thing. They are safe (assuming you're aren't a pest!) as one of the lead scientists demonstrated when a journalist asked him to prove it, he got a carrot, dunked it in the pesticide and then ate it.
They used to say that about DDT and organophosphates! :-\
-
I haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if others have said this before.
I seem to recall being told (many, many years ago at uni) that modern chemical pesticides came about as a 'happy accident' whilst scientists were researching compounds for chemical warfare... That's how potent they are.
As for their safety or otherwise, the impact from run-off into the surrounding environment is well documented. It isn't good. Something that has no effect on one species may be fatal to another, so occasional chemicals make it onto general release when they really shouldn't have got that far - think agent orange and organophosphates.
Lab tests on animals typically run over generations, but we know that animal testing is not always a reliable source of information for the impact chemicals have on humans, as Thalidomide victims know only too well. So we are, in fact, the field-test of these substances - we're only a few generations down the line from when they were developed. Build-up in tissues is something that seems to occur in many species, why not ours too?
The same argument can be applied to GM crops - field tests require consumption of the crops. They may, or may not have an effect, it's too early to tell. The main point of concern though is that one of the originators of GM crops, Monsanto, developed them in accordance with a pesticide that they would be resistant to. Both the the pesticide and the crop needed to be used together, and naturally, they both resulted in revenue for the company. The idea of benefiting 3rd world farmers was a myth - the farmers could not use alternative, cheaper herbicides, but instead had to pay a premium for the ones developed by Monsanto.
On the environmental front, cross-pollination must occur - I cannot believe that it does not. Pollinating insects must find both GM and non-GM crops equally attractive otherwise they would not be sprayed with insecticides, would they?
Finally, if you assert that the population of the world cannot be fed organically, then I would take that as a clear indicator that we have a population problem, not a farming one.
-
And that differs from national legislation...how ?
Because it required that every material in a product be registered with a central, accessible database. One of the things that they didn't think about was how this would affect secrecy. Another thing was the shear quantity of work involved in implementing this scheme. Other countries were looking to see how the UK dealt with the secrecy thing (eg. in the forces) before they implemented it because the central authority didn't really know. The idea was that they aren't going to punish everyone.
Utterly OT of course.
Anyhow, this isn't "politics and other arguments"; I'm going to keep avoiding organic produce as I generally go for the whole we've advancing as a species argument and our methods of agriculture are going to have to advance with us.
-
And that differs from national legislation...how ?
Because it required that every material in a product be registered with a central, accessible database. One of the things that they didn't think about was how this would affect secrecy. Another thing was the shear quantity of work involved in implementing this scheme. Other countries were looking to see how the UK dealt with the secrecy thing (eg. in the forces) before they implemented it because the central authority didn't really know. The idea was that they aren't going to punish everyone.
I meant in the way it was (mis)handled. It was national legislation Gonz...that is how Directives work. If the implementation was screwed then that was a UK problem.
Plus - the Commission doesn't just dream up Directives. They are negotiated and agreed by national delegates, and then they have to be voted on by Council and the European Parliament. At every stage there is opportunity to point out problems, and if that doesn't happen then someone took their eye off the ball. If Directive is implemented with the problems you indicate, then there was a failure of national authorities - ie the HSE again
-
I'm going to keep avoiding organic produce as I generally go for the whole we've advancing as a species argument and our methods of agriculture are going to have to advance with us.
I don't see the link. We can still produce enough food naturally to feed the world. We just don't distribute it very well. We have food mountains and masses of waste. We're wasteful and profligate because we can be. Let's modify our behaviour first, eh?
-
I'm going to keep avoiding organic produce as I generally go for the whole we've advancing as a species argument and our methods of agriculture are going to have to advance with us.
I don't see the link. We can still produce enough food naturally to feed the world. We just don't distribute it very well. We have food mountains and masses of waste. We're wasteful and profligate because we can be. Let's modify our behaviour first, eh?
Exactly!
And if you don't believe me/us Gonzo then read back on the thread to the evidence I posted about how organic production can produce better yields than conventional production...
-
Higher yields, yes, but smaller profits for agro-business...
-
Higher yields, yes, but smaller profits for agro-business...
Shame.
-
I wonder why they put so much effort into bogus front organisations putting out spurious 'information' to muddy the waters on the public understanding and acceptance of organic?
-
I'm going to keep avoiding organic produce as I generally go for the whole we've advancing as a species argument and our methods of agriculture are going to have to advance with us.
I don't see the link. We can still produce enough food naturally to feed the world. We just don't distribute it very well. We have food mountains and masses of waste. We're wasteful and profligate because we can be. Let's modify our behaviour first, eh?
Exactly!
And if you don't believe me/us Gonzo then read back on the thread to the evidence I posted about how organic production can produce better yields than conventional production...
i'd say that's very unusual and probably only in a lab or in very carefully controlled conditions. No, I dont work at the John Innes institute but most of my family are farmers. Uncle William went organic about eight years ago (after 3 or 5 years converting, according to the rules from the Soil Association) and his yields were absurdly small, down to1 - 1.5 tonnes of wheat / acre compared to 2.5 - 3 for dad on a very similar farm. It may well be that he's a crap farmer, but their yields were roughly the same beforehand. The quality of the grain was also horrible, full of weeds and very difficult to harvest.
he is still organic but has switched to beef and hemp (!) rather than mainstream cereals.
my other problem is that produce labelled as organic often isnt. I picked up a load of spuds once from a distribution centre in deepest norfolk which my stepfather was going to use to feed his pigs, they were busy bagging up spuds for supermarkets, both organic and normal all from the same source. And do you believe that green veg grown in Kenya or Chile and labelled as Organic is really as carefully monitored as stuff from the UK?
The view of farmers I've spoken to is that it is possible to make money farming in an organic way, provided you can get a higher price for the crop as the yields will be lower (that's farmers, not agri-business).
-
Surely the argument shouldn't really be organic or non organic but an appropriate amount of fertilizer etc and food grown for taste and quality rather than the convinience of supermarkets.
-
agreed. And keeping it as local as possible so stuff actually tastes like it's meant to.
-
Wow; What was your point?
My point was that your pesticide-laden carrot-eater (Prof. B. Bunny?) was pulling the same publicity stunt that Gummer pulled all those years ago. He got his daughter to take a bite out of the burger (although apparently it was a civil servant who ate a lump, not Gummerella) in order to demonstrate his confidence that British beef was safe, whilst the scientific community was already examining pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
Don't trust a risk-taking publicity-seeker.
-
This debate would benefit from some historical perspective. History of organic farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_organic_farming)
There were a number of strands in the develoment of the 'organic movement', concerns about the changing nature of rural society, interest in soil structure and concern about the impacts of pesticides on wildlife being among them. It seems to me that we now focus on the subjective and the personal. Taste, health impacts and allergies especially, which did not motivate the pioneers. It is this concentration on the personal from the 'Me Generation' which has associated organics with 'crankiness' in the popular imagination.
Damon.
-
This debate would benefit from some historical perspective. History of organic farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_organic_farming)
There were a number of strands in the develoment of the 'organic movement', concerns about the changing nature of rural society, interest in soil structure and concern about the impacts of pesticides on wildlife being among them. It sees to me that we now focus on the subjective and the personal. Taste, health impacts and allergies especially, which did not motivate the pioneers. It is this concentration on the personal from the 'Me Generation' which has associated organics with 'crankiness' in the popular imagination.
Damon.
I'd agree with that
I reckon that taste can be as good in fresh, local, small-scale non-organic and I'm not really too worried about the health effects on me of pesticide residues. Or allergies - the cat has asthma but I don't blame his diet :)
For me, it is about environmental impact and animal welfare, as mentioned upthread. Neither of which necessarily are better with organic, but both of which usually are - and in both cases organic is likely better than factory-farmed non-organic. Which sometimes are the only available options
Now - biodynamics. That is weird. I've had a fair bit of French wine harvested that way
-
I'm going to keep avoiding organic produce as I generally go for the whole we've advancing as a species argument and our methods of agriculture are going to have to advance with us.
I don't see the link. We can still produce enough food naturally to feed the world. We just don't distribute it very well. We have food mountains and masses of waste. We're wasteful and profligate because we can be. Let's modify our behaviour first, eh?
Exactly!
And if you don't believe me/us Gonzo then read back on the thread to the evidence I posted about how organic production can produce better yields than conventional production...
i'd say that's very unusual and probably only in a lab or in very carefully controlled conditions. No, I dont work at the John Innes institute but most of my family are farmers. Uncle William went organic about eight years ago (after 3 or 5 years converting, according to the rules from the Soil Association) and his yields were absurdly small, down to1 - 1.5 tonnes of wheat / acre compared to 2.5 - 3 for dad on a very similar farm. It may well be that he's a crap farmer, but their yields were roughly the same beforehand. The quality of the grain was also horrible, full of weeds and very difficult to harvest.
he is still organic but has switched to beef and hemp (!) rather than mainstream cereals.
my other problem is that produce labelled as organic often isnt. I picked up a load of spuds once from a distribution centre in deepest norfolk which my stepfather was going to use to feed his pigs, they were busy bagging up spuds for supermarkets, both organic and normal all from the same source. And do you believe that green veg grown in Kenya or Chile and labelled as Organic is really as carefully monitored as stuff from the UK?
The view of farmers I've spoken to is that it is possible to make money farming in an organic way, provided you can get a higher price for the crop as the yields will be lower (that's farmers, not agri-business).
I'd refer you back to the evidence I posted earlier on this thread Mike. Long term trend evidence shows organic crops have higher yields, as the soils tend to be more fertile.
-
We had to give up our allotment because one of our friendly neighbours kept spraying it with Roundup. His reasoning was that the weeds we let grow would harm his crops. Never mind he was destroying ours >:(
-
I'd refer you back to the evidence I posted earlier on this thread Mike. Long term trend evidence shows organic crops have higher yields, as the soils tend to be more fertile.
I've now read the links and am very surprised, it certainly doesnt match what I've seen. Interesting stuff..
Polar Bear - I'd be doing quite a lot of swearing if someone did that to my veggies!!
-
Indeed It nearly came to blows. >:(
I spent hours and hours toiling lovingly over my produce. My plan eventually is to move to a property with some land and then nobody can interfere.
-
Ahhh - Roundup! That delightful environmentally-friendly product of that splendidly ethical purveyor of beneficial chemicals M*ns*nto. Also purveyor of those delectable "Roundup Ready" GM crop products...
-
I'd refer you back to the evidence I posted earlier on this thread Mike. Long term trend evidence shows organic crops have higher yields, as the soils tend to be more fertile.
I've now read the links and am very surprised, it certainly doesnt match what I've seen. Interesting stuff..
Polar Bear - I'd be doing quite a lot of swearing if someone did that to my veggies!!
There is a lot of evidence out there. However, it tends to be 'drowned out' by the Mon*a*t*s of this world, and their ilk, who spend an absolute fortune on PR and 'inducements' to decision makers.
-
I was just talking to farmers... That's the big thing that leads me to doubt the research. If they *could* get higher yields by going organic, I suspect they would.
-
I was just talking to farmers... That's the big thing that leads me to doubt the research. If they *could* get higher yields by going organic, I suspect they would.
They can - but it takes time. Also, farmers are as susceptible to the hype and marketing as any other consumer. You only have to look at the farming trade rags to see how much emphasis is given to 'conventional' farming and the amount of fluff released by the bio-chem big boys.
-
Having read through those links, short of buying the research papers, they don't tell you a great deal of info.
The one that does give you the info (no. 3) does have one thing I suspected could happen in the others;
The 1981-2002 phase of the FST (a new phase has recently been initiated) compared corn and soybean crop performance in two organic treatments, one of them manure-based (MNR), and one legume-based (LEG), with a conventional treatment (CNV). The MNR treatment was a five-year corn-soybean-wheat-clover/hay rotation; the LEG a corn-soybean-wheat-green manure rotation; and the CNV a five-year corn-corn-soybean-corn-soybean rotation. Herbicides and synthetic fertilizers were the main inputs into the CNV treatment.
The LEG method had a year with nothing growing and every other year had a different crop. The regular method grew wheat for 60% of the time. I've never done agricultural science before, but I've done enough regular science to know that;
a) you can't compare non-comparable data. If you want to prove something, get them both growing the same crops.
b) intensively growing the same crop will suck all the nutrients out of the ground. This is why you don't plant the same crop in the same field for two years back to back. Most farmers in this country will have a field as set-aside for 1 year in 5. Covering it in manure isn't a possibility.
Scientists can skew data in any way they wish. Most scientists are reliant on funding to continue their research. I wonder how much more funding has gone into the effect of mobile phone radiation after several people starting saying that it'll kill you!?!
-
I wonder how much more funding has gone into the effect of mobile phone radiation after several people starting saying that it'll kill you!?!
In this country ? Probably about £25M
That would be about 0.1 % of what the Govt got for the 3G spectrum auction, and a tiny percentage of the value of the telecos. Probably less than the total remuneration of their CEOs in a good year
-
In this country ? Probably about £25M
That would be about 0.1 % of what the Govt got for the 3G spectrum auction, and a tiny percentage of the value of the telecos. Probably less than the total remuneration of their CEOs in a good year
I could have sworn that's not what your earlier post said!
-
The LEG method had a year with nothing growing and every other year had a different crop. The regular method grew wheat for 60% of the time. I've never done agricultural science before, but I've done enough regular science to know that;
a) you can't compare non-comparable data. If you want to prove something, get them both growing the same crops.
The probem is, what you are comparing here is method, so they can't be the same.
Given that the two approaches are quite different, a fair test would be to look at the totality of input (energy and chemicals) and the totality of output in both cases.
-
In this country ? Probably about £25M
That would be about 0.1 % of what the Govt got for the 3G spectrum auction, and a tiny percentage of the value of the telecos. Probably less than the total remuneration of their CEOs in a good year
I could have sworn that's not what your earlier post said!
It's not, but I though the earlier one was a bit of a dangerous thing to write in public ;)
Plus, I actually know the relevant figures for the UK and I'd be guesstimating the global ones.
-
Having read through those links, short of buying the research papers, they don't tell you a great deal of info.
The one that does give you the info (no. 3) does have one thing I suspected could happen in the others;
The 1981-2002 phase of the FST (a new phase has recently been initiated) compared corn and soybean crop performance in two organic treatments, one of them manure-based (MNR), and one legume-based (LEG), with a conventional treatment (CNV). The MNR treatment was a five-year corn-soybean-wheat-clover/hay rotation; the LEG a corn-soybean-wheat-green manure rotation; and the CNV a five-year corn-corn-soybean-corn-soybean rotation. Herbicides and synthetic fertilizers were the main inputs into the CNV treatment.
The LEG method had a year with nothing growing and every other year had a different crop. The regular method grew wheat for 60% of the time. I've never done agricultural science before, but I've done enough regular science to know that;
a) you can't compare non-comparable data. If you want to prove something, get them both growing the same crops.
b) intensively growing the same crop will suck all the nutrients out of the ground. This is why you don't plant the same crop in the same field for two years back to back. Most farmers in this country will have a field as set-aside for 1 year in 5. Covering it in manure isn't a possibility.
Scientists can skew data in any way they wish. Most scientists are reliant on funding to continue their research. I wonder how much more funding has gone into the effect of mobile phone radiation after several people starting saying that it'll kill you!?!
Duh! It's called 'crop rotation' rather than monoculture.
Sensible farmers know that crop rotation works better than monoculture as it improves soil quality and thus yields. After all, prior to growth of large agri-businesses in the UK after WWII nearly all farmers used crop rotation methods. It's only because of the growth in monoculture agriculture that the demand/need for herbicides/fertilizers has grown to the levels we see today.
The organic system is based on crop rotation rather than monoculture - it's in part a return to farming systems that we know work.
-
The probem is, what you are comparing here is method, so they can't be the same.
It seems that the organic method is an optimal one whereas the regular method is less than optimised. Fair enough if both are optimised though.
Given that the two approaches are quite different, a fair test would be to look at the totality of input (energy and chemicals) and the totality of output in both cases.
Depends what criteria you're using. Most farmers from this country will be interested in cost in/cost out. Some LEDCs would rather use a cost in/yield out.
Also, has anyone posted data yet for this country (apart from Mike's anecdotal experience that says that it's worse)?
-
Interesting article on going "kind of organic" although with a US centric flavour (ketchup as 75% of your tomato consumption? WTF?)
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/five-easy-ways-to-go-organic/ (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/five-easy-ways-to-go-organic/)
'S pretty much what we try to do; all meat is organic as well as fruits/vegetables with edible skin, but not necessarily everything else.
-
Depends what criteria you're using. Most farmers from this country will be interested in cost in/cost out. Some LEDCs would rather use a cost in/yield out.
Environmental impact/water & resource usage vs output, measured over sufficient time to establish stability and sustainability.
Isn't that what we're talking about ?
-
Would you buy food that cost 10x the amount of the less environmental stuff?
-
Would you buy food that cost 10x the amount of the less environmental stuff?
Cost ?
-
cost:
argent, assets, bankroll, bequest, bill, blunt, bonus, boodle, booty, brass, bread, bribe, capital, cash, cent, change, chattel, chips, clink, coin, coinage, currency, cush, dinero, dough, dump, finances, funds, gelt, gilt, gold, gratuity, greenbacks, green stuff, grig, handsel, hansel, hard cash, income, jack, jake, kale, legacy, legal tender, legaltender, lettuce, livre, long green, loot, lour, lucre, mammon, mazuma, medium, mina, moola, moolah, moss, oof, ooftish, pelf, proceeds, profit, property, purse, rebate, reimbursement, resources, revenue, rhino, riches, rocks, scratch, specie, spondulics (slang), sterling, stipend, swag, tender, tin, wad, wampum, wealth, wherewithal, windfall!
-
Yes, but what do you mean by cost ?
If you mean the financial cost in pounds to the individual grower of one season's product, that's one thing. That neglects the hidden costs and the question of how sustainable that business and cost model is when the totality of input costs are included - which means carbon coats, water costs, long-term environmental cost, cost to health
If you mean just the resource cost (which I thought we were talking about) then
Given that the two approaches are quite different, a fair test would be to look at the totality of input (energy and chemicals) and the totality of output in both cases.
would seem to do it
-
If you want to convince someone to do something, then prove that it's financially beneficial.
If you can't do that, then it's all academic this is the first, and biggest, stage you need to get past.
-
If you want to convince someone to do something, then prove that it's financially beneficial.
If you can't do that, then it's all academic this is the first, and biggest, stage you need to get past.
Now I'm confused.
I thought we were discussing the methods used to show/not the validity of Regulators's assertion that
Long term trend evidence shows organic crops have higher yields, as the soils tend to be more fertile.
if you are talking now about the financial benefits alone of organic farming, that's a different thing. I'd tend to agree with you, with the proviso that you have to include all the hidden costs as well - the inherent subsidies in infrastructure, any subsidy and the equivalent financial cost of environmental damage.
-
Depends in what form the financial benefit comes. Deferring a loss to the future makes it no less a loss, but gets it left out of the calculations.
-
Reg has said that organic farming can create greater yields. We've agreed that their criteria isn't ideal, but were debating over what is better.
I'm just saying that if you want to sell the idea to the people who actually grow the stuff, telling them that they should "look at the carbon cost of both" won't convince most people; you need to show a cost benefit. The carbon cost argument needs to be used against a whole different group of people.
Telling people that their profits will be higher in the future is the sort of argument that you use with an accountant.
As it stands, I'm not seeing anything that will convince your average farmer to convert from growing regular to organic.
-
Reg has said that organic farming can create greater yields. We've agreed that their criteria isn't ideal, but were debating over what is better.
I'm just saying that if you want to sell the idea to the people who actually grow the stuff, telling them that they should "look at the carbon cost of both" won't convince most people; you need to show a cost benefit. The carbon cost argument needs to be used against a whole different group of people.
Telling people that their profits will be higher in the future is the sort of argument that you use with an accountant.
As it stands, I'm not seeing anything that will convince your average farmer to convert from growing regular to organic.
That's because they don't get the facts. They're inundated with propganda from the agrichem companies.
If you actually talk to farmers who have converted to organic, then you'll find few (if any) that regret doing so. Yes, there is an investment in the beginning - but the increased yields and prices make up for it.
-
I did and he was largely un-impressed.
It's just a slightly different way of doing things so that all your eggs aren't in one basket.
What sort of farmers have you talked to? (ie. farm size? type? etc)
-
I think the economics will become more obvious as subsidies are removed, and also as the price of "cheap" food rises in the next few years. And as the real price of "cheap" food is revealed.
-
A few friends of mine, who have varied holdings (some arable, some dairy, some mixed). There was also a very good series on 'Farming Today' (Radio 4) talking to farmers who had converted.
I note that the United Nations also endorses the benefits of organic farming. (http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4281&lang=1)
But I'm sure you know better, eh Gonzo...
-
If you actually talk to farmers who have converted to organic, then you'll find few (if any) that regret doing so. Yes, there is an investment in the beginning - but the increased yields and prices make up for it.
Perhaps the prices make up for it, but the yields are nowhere near. Not in real life anyway, where farmers need to grow wheat / wheat / wheat in their fields because they cant afford the equipment to change to sugarbeet / beans / maize / alfalfa / whatever.
-
I think the economics will become more obvious as subsidies are removed, and also as the price of "cheap" food rises in the next few years. And as the real price of "cheap" food is revealed.
The UK arable market is doing well because their costs haven't changed much, yet sale prices have rocketed due to less produce being available from overseas.
-
If you actually talk to farmers who have converted to organic, then you'll find few (if any) that regret doing so. Yes, there is an investment in the beginning - but the increased yields and prices make up for it.
Perhaps the prices make up for it, but the yields are nowhere near. Not in real life anyway, where farmers need to grow wheat / wheat / wheat in their fields because they cant afford the equipment to change to sugarbeet / beans / maize / alfalfa / whatever.
Sorry Mike - but the evidence is against you. Crop yields are higher in organic than in conventional and the relative additional costs of crop rotation are negligible. After all, rotational planting was the norm up until the 1950s-60s... you didn't hear farmers saying they couldn't afford to do it then.
-
I love it when people say that what you've experienced can't have happened because the science says so!
-
If we're really determined to start talking facts... ::-)
“Conservation or reduced tillage (one or no cultivation together with one application of herbicide) is often used in integrated systems, which greatly benefits wildlife. In addition, integrated farming methods can produce more food from less land than an organic system, hence land can be taken out of cultivation and used to encourage wildlife.” Holland et al, 1994
In July 2000 the UK advertising watchdog, The Advertising Standards Agency, ruled that most of the claims made in a leaflet by the UK Soil Association for organic produce and its production were unsupportable. The Soil Association replied that “the nature of this market is not well understood and the use of science in the debate is, paradoxically, obscuring reality”
“An extensive literature review of over 150 studies comparing organically and conventionally grown foods found no evidence of better tasting properties or improved nutritional value. In fact, organic produce often had a lower nitrate and protein content.” Woese, K, et al. J. Sci Food Agric, 74, 1997
The difference between pesticides used in organic farming and other crop protection technologies is not their toxicity, only their origin. Pesticides used in organic farming are extracted from plants, insects, or mineral ores and not by chemical synthesis. In fact, two of the most popular organic-approved pesticides, oil and sulphur, are used more than any other pesticide, by volume, in the USA
This research was performed by a Dr A. Trewavas, from the institute of cellular and molecular biolodgy, University of Edinburgh. In attempting to examine the claims of organic agriculture it is necessary to establish suitable systems where the only difference is in the technology. The root difference between organic and other forms of agriculture are the rejection (supposedly) of soluble minerals and synthetic pesticides and herbicides(2). Natural pesticides are instead allowed where necessary; or at least this is the rhetoric. How far copper sulphate or soap (two organic pesticdes) should be regarded as natural is a debatable issue. The distinction between natural and synthetic has little meaning when as Leake(1) showed the synthetic version of copper (mancozeb) is superior to copper sulphate in every environmental aspect(1) or when synthetic pyrethroids can be shown to work at much lower concentrations and with less general environmental effect than pyrethrum itself(2). How natural is sulphur or oil (organic pesticides) really when they have to be mined, chemically modified or distilled before use? The only objection to synthetic pesticides that can reasonably be made is that they are not sufficiently selective to deal with just the pest. The advantage of using GM pest resistant crops therefore stands out as an obvious solution and it is illogical that GM is rejected despite its environmental benefits. Such rejection is however the revealing aspect that shows organic proponents really to be frightened of new technologies and presumably to wish some return to some supposedly golden past when the problems didn't exist. That is hardly a philosophy that should be encouraged in societies like ours with government-sponsored action plans, particularly as societies (again like ours) depend on new technologies and their development for their survival. He cites no less than 49 references, and his article has been peer-reviewed. It also places some intresting findings in my grasp regarding energy useage and supposed environmental benefits regarding organic farming.
Organic farmers assert on principle that organic sources of minerals produce crops with superior quality to inorganic mineral fertilisers. Manure is the permitted fertiliser but minerals from manure breakdown have not been observed to produce crops with superior qualities (8, 9, 55). Furthermore the nutritive value tested on children was higher in crops grown on inorganic fertiliser than manure (33). Intensity of fertilisation is more important, as is location of the farm to crop quality. Organic fertiliser, soil type or synthetic pesticide are of little importance (31). The availability of free N between different fields receiving no fertiliser and under the same management varies by at least three fold. Contrary to organic expectations, no relationship between the organic content of the soil and freely available N was observed (32 and references therein).
A further organic assertion that inorganic fertilisers damage soil structure has instead been shown to result from lack of crop rotation (29). Organic associations claim that current unstable synthetic pesticides are dangerous. Only natural pesticides like rotenone, (a highly-toxic, fish-killing chemical) or Bt spores (which causes fatal lung infections in mice (21-23)) are used to kill insects on organic farms. Pyrethrum (a common fly killer) is also used; the more effective and equally unstable, synthetic pyrethroids are banned. Any competitive organic farmer will keep his cropped area as clean of insects as possible by whatever means permissible (27). Studies in Texas showed that organic insecticides can be used at 100 fold higher dose than conventional products (64 ). Organic farmers use copper sulphate to treat plant disease but this is to be banned by the EC [it's not just inorganic chems that get banned]. Bordeaux mixture, the organic form used, has induced liver disease in vineyard workers, caused deaths and is probably carcinogenic. Copper sulphate kills earthworms, fish and leads to serious copper contamination of food (24). Use of this chemical by the organic community for many years indicates the dangers of assertion rather than knowledge.
Measurements at Rothamsted indicate that 86% of organic soils analysed are deficient in phosphate whereas only 15% conventional soils are in this state.About the supposed energy savings organic agriculture provides: Leake(48) at CWS farms measured every last drop of fuel used on organic conventional and integrated no- till agriculture and observed that organic used the most draft energy. Organic used three fold more than integrated farming and substantially more than conventional farming. Putting the Bertillson figures (for fertiliser and transport) with those of Leake on fossil fuel use on farms, the efficiency of conversion of fossil fuel use into seed energy can be estimated. The figures for organic in kWhr/tonne of yield are organic 200, integrated 132, conventional 140. The latter two forms of farming are more efficient in their conversion of energy into product. Thus Organic= 200kw/h/tonne Conventional= 140kw/h/tonne No-till= 132kw/h/tonne
Regarding milk: "This is because a greater proportion of the cows diet comes from forage, the rule book states not less than 60%. This puts a limit on the yield/cow (about 7000litres) which is far less than can be achieved by feeding lots of cake."
Wheat 50% lower yield:
"In the frame of a long-term experiment carried out in Central Italy, conventional and organic winter wheat cropping systems were compared in 2004 and 2005 to evaluate the effect of system management on wheat grain yield and quality. The organic system showed grain and straw yield about 50% lower than the conventional system. Organic grain samples resulted 20% lower in protein content and exhibited poor bread production qualities."
[Organic Vs Conventional Winter Wheat Quality and Organoleptic Bread Test]
-
Sorry Gonzo - but your post above is crap and you know it. Are you honestly telling me that the UN and everyone else I've pointed you to are deluded fools?
-
Are you telling me that the stuff I've posted is from deluded fools?
Bear in mind that the "Organic is better than conventional" lobby will get more funding as that's against common perception.
edit - whilst researching, the only paper that seemed to say that yield was higher from organic farms was that ONE you quoted. Every other source said that it was lower.
-
All the stuff you've posted is a decade old and some is from known sceptics.
Are you seriously saying that the UN and the other bodies I've quoted don't know what they're talking about? Quite frankly, I know who I believe.
-
But, organic is conventional. It's only the modern agri-business that has introduced mass chemical usage and GM.
-
The UN:
Evidence from UNCTAD research shows that, in developing countries, organic agriculture can outperform conventional and traditional systems
How much of your food comes from developing countries?
-
The UN:
Evidence from UNCTAD research shows that, in developing countries, organic agriculture can outperform conventional and traditional systems
How much of your food comes from developing countries?
If you look in your average supermarket, quite a large percentage. Developed countries' shopping baskets are full of cash crops from developing countries. If you don't believe me, just take a look in your fruit bowl.
And the UN's endorsement doesn't just relate to developing countries - I just used an example from UNCTAD which happened to relate to developing countries.... ::-)
-
“We should use organic agriculture and promote it,” said Jacques Diouf. “But you cannot feed six billion people today and nine billion in 2050 without judicious use of chemical fertilizers.”
Organic farming alone will not ensure global food security, cautions UN agency (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24987&Cr=food&Cr1=&Kw1=organic&Kw2=&Kw3=)
Jacques is the director general of the organisation which you says supports Organic. Or is he a deluded fool too?
Some part of your argument now has to give!
As of yet, you haven't provided anything (other than anecdotal which is in disagreement with both mine and Mike's) that says that Organic is any better in this country. I've provided quite a lot up the page that says that it is.
Regarding imports; as soon as you start importing food then you've lost the case for it being more environmentally friendly anyhow. "She said UK consumers have demonstrated their willingness to buy organic food, although most is currently imported." [Baroness Young].
The Organic community are shown repeatadley to be making unsubstantiated claims that they are better/more environmentally friendly when in actually fact, this is not proven. This in turn gives the public the perception that they're buying better food. In most cases they can't back up these claims as the science doesn't back them up, but they've got a hunch, so that's alright:
In July 2000 the UK advertising watchdog, The Advertising Standards Agency, ruled that most of the claims made in a leaflet by the UK Soil Association for organic produce and its production were unsupportable. The Soil Association replied that “the nature of this market is not well understood and the use of science in the debate is, paradoxically, obscuring reality”
To be honest, this is all largely academic now as I doubt anyone else is still reading this thread!
-
I am. ;)
-
Gonzo - I wasn't arguing for imports. I was responding to your point about developing countries.
It seems to me that you've begun to resort to straw man arguments...
-
I am. ;)
So am I. Although I must admit it's more browsing than reading (I do have work to do).
-
Gonzo - I wasn't arguing for imports. I was responding to your point about developing countries.
Which one?
It seems to me that you've begun to resort to straw man arguments...
Your claim for a company supporting organic food is flawed as their CEO disagrees with your main point that yield is as high which is what everyone has told you.
Almost every claim about the benefit of organic produce being better for you is unproven.
Once I started digging, it seems that for every piece of stuff that can be found showing that organics are better for the environment, there's another piece that says they're worse. Which side do you think gets more funding?
I'm struggling to really see any benefit.
-
Gonzo - I wasn't arguing for imports. I was responding to your point about developing countries.
Which one?
It seems to me that you've begun to resort to straw man arguments...
Your claim for a company supporting organic food is flawed as their CEO disagrees with your main point that yield is as high which is what everyone has told you.
Almost every claim about the benefit of organic produce being better for you is unproven.
Once I started digging, it seems that for every piece of stuff that can be found showing that organics are better for the environment, there's another piece that says they're worse. Which side do you think gets more funding?(1)
I'm struggling to really see any benefit.(2)
(1) If you compare the advertising and PR budgets for the agrichem businesses lobby and the organic lobby, I think you'll find that the agrichem lobby spend multiple times what the organic lobby does.
(2) You might find it easier to see if you take off the blinkers...
-
Find me a company who sells regular chemicals that says that regular is better than organic cause I can find you a hell of a lot making un-substantiated claims the other way.
Everyone I know who has a vast swathe of experience (substantial in some cases) and every independent person (ie. their livelihood/funding doesn't depend on being on one side of the argument or the other) who's work I've seen questions the benefits of organic farming.
It seems that you're unwilling to concede anything even though one of your own sources disagrees with you.
-
Descending (on foot!) Vesuvius we stopped at a stall offering samples of tomato sauce on focaccia bread to promote the boxes of small plum tomatoes they were selling. I don't know if they were organic but they were Absolutely Delicious and bore absolutely no relation to anything I've tasted in the UK, which is just as well as a shoeboxful cost 20EUR.
I rather doubt there's enough sunshine hitting W4 to grow such sweet tomatoes. Alas, I will not find out this year as the Manotea tomato crop has failed due to all the plants being eaten by a big fat pigeon (grrr).
-
Descending (on foot!) Vesuvius we stopped at a stall offering samples of tomato sauce on focaccia bread to promote the boxes of small plum tomatoes they were selling. I don't know if they were organic but they were Absolutely Delicious and bore absolutely no relation to anything I've tasted in the UK, which is just as well as a shoeboxful cost 20EUR.
I rather doubt there's enough sunshine hitting W4 to grow such sweet tomatoes. Alas, I will not find out this year as the Manotea tomato crop has failed due to all the plants being eaten by a big fat pigeon (grrr).
It looks as though I may have a surplus this year - my tomato plants are going mad. You'll be welcome to partake of any surplus...
-
I am. ;)
Me too :P
-
Descending (on foot!) Vesuvius we stopped at a stall offering samples of tomato sauce on focaccia bread to promote the boxes of small plum tomatoes they were selling. I don't know if they were organic but they were Absolutely Delicious and bore absolutely no relation to anything I've tasted in the UK, which is just as well as a shoeboxful cost 20EUR.
Absolutely! Buy fresh stuff because it tastes best.
People often go for the organic tastes better argument when in fact, organic is generally just fresher from supermarkeks thus will taste better.
Buy from local people (and straight off the fields) and the taste will be the best!
-
I wanted to leave this argument well alone. I choose organic vegetables only if grown locally, and more than that, I choose local growers even if they are not organic.
I looked at Regulator's links. The studies cited seemed vague. The Rodale institute is not exactly an unbiased source, in fact their publishing/direct marketing wing is something that I really would like to stay well away from. Citing the 'UN' is disengenuous and lazy, to the say the least. Come on Regulator, you can do better than that!
It seems rather crass to argue on what to me seems to be a rather spurious divide, that between 'organic' and 'conventional'. Organic farmers have access to a range of pesticides, fungicides etc., and conventional farmers can choose from an array of 'man-made' chemicals.
So far, there has been little basis to this thread to suggest what organic actually means.
I have always understood that the best trials so far have had yields at about 20% less than non-organic regimes, but with considerable advantages when it came to soil structure, bio-diversity, economic self reliance, local economic benefits, etc.
This is a profound argument for organic methods.
However, I am worried about arguments based on rather suspect notions that 'natural' means best. 'Traditional' farming methods have been responsible for serious enviromental damage, in the same way that modern industrial farming has.
Crops used in rotation, to fertilise, have an impact. That is what they are there for. This in itself might seem useful, but it does not mean some automatic ecological benefit. Organic farming is just as capable of creating damaging monocultures as conventional farming. Is this what high organic yields might mean?
The appropriate use of carefully thought out products seems right, in this context. We could very well need them, just to create a balanced and sensible system. One which accepts useful yields, and a respect for our environment.
-
I thought I'd investigate organic hydroponics, most stuff seems to be about growing dope. There was this article though. A SIMPLE SOLUTION (http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic-Gardening/1977-03-01/Organic-Hydroponics-A-Simple-Solution.aspx?page=4) it raises a number of interesting points. If we remove the idea of soil, is it still organic. The organic fertilisers used are fish emulsion and bloodmeal, so that's veggies out of the equation. We are faced then with the prospect of organic produce, say tomatoes, which does nothing for the structure of the soil and is fertilised by animal products. I'd eat it, but I can see it might present problems, but then again I quite like the idea of urban agriculture.
Damon.
-
So far, there has been little basis to this thread to suggest what organic actually means.
What the term "organic" actually means varies but the various meanings are laid down clearly and explicitly in the guidelines of the individual certifying bodies, eg Soil Association guidelines (http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/4042794258a20f4280256a680046b77e/389b373f825f68e180257149004c2a1c!OpenDocument).
Beyond the literal meanings, my feeling is that "organic" is just another food certification scheme. Some food certification schemes have more merit than others but fundamentally all food certification schemes - including organic - are predominantly marketing devices.
My favourite local restaurant either grows its own food or sources it from within a ten mile radius and names the farms on the menu. Last time I ate there, I saw the chef picking the beans that shortly after were on my plate. You can see the sheep that are used for meat grazing extensively on the neighbouring marshland. None of their food is ever labelled organic but I'd rather eat their food than anything labelled organic from a supermarket.
d.
-
Definitions of organic vary from country to country - bear in mind the majority of our organic produce seems to be flown in from warmer climes.
And whilst organic farming may benefit soil structure (I've seen "Natures Way"'s salad fields near Selsey - with the "Don't walk on the fields 'cos it's dangerous" type signs :-X ) the loss of yield isn't great in a growing population.
Personally we try to buy locally (from the "Farm Shop") and also locally produced. Wilstone asparagus is sooo much better than Peruvian stuff :P. Though today it'll be Tesco, but I will look for UK produced veg and fruit in preference to overseas produce.
-
As for definitions of 'Organic', I'm happy with the Soil Association, but I'll try to avoid imported goods.