I agree and I disagree. 
Most of the farmers I know are aware of the double standard of needing more "natural" pesticide and acreage for the same amount grown "commercially". More and more they are growing companion gardens, mostly in harvest-able rows side by side, such as the traditional "sister plants" or the old growing mint around your tomatoes and beets keeps pests at bay (google "companion planting"). This is to help reduce the need of more pesticide and also create natural barriers that result in less loss by deer or other critters,  sadly, it's not really new at all, we are relearning lost lessons . Also farming "Tech" is moving very fast these days to try and find ways to defeat the huge wastes of water, land and resources that "modern" farming creates.

That being said, the scam of big business in Organics has been exactly as you say.

Flavor.  Flavor is better in in-season products, this I believe. Can I prove it scientifically? nope. i just try to buy from as many local people as I can. 

welcome to the forums, hope to see ya around a bit.

If you're going to get on a soapbox it would behoove you to actually get the facts.

Organics is a complex issue, with growers ranging from the small, diverse grower who upholds the conventional idea of what an organic grower is, to the huge organics divisions of factory farms, whose methods are barely different from how they grow and market their conventional crops. So, as soon as you use the word "most" you'd be hard pressed, at best, to provide documentation. In addition to other problems inherent in keeping score, there are vast numbers of organic growers who are exempt from certification, and whose crops are not even considered in the productivity figures.

Excluding the fact that "organic" is defined and enforced by federal law, exactly what you get when buying organic produce depends mostly on who it is purchased from. Get it from a small, diverse grower (who is likely choosing heirlooms varieties as well) and it's worth the price difference. Get it in a supermarket, where it comes from a factory farm, and you're getting ripped off.

But there's no sense in arguing with a true believer. Especially when the facts presented are patently wrong. For instance, "One of the main ones used is called Rotenone....." 

In point of fact, because it is so powerful, and because it is an indiscriminate killer that attacks the micro-herd as well as actual pests, rotenone is the last choice for most organic growers. In fact, it was originally on the excluded list, and is frowned upon by serious organizations. 

Writing is Environmental Health Perspectives, for example, Katherine DiMatteo notes:

 

>To set the record straight, rotenone is not commonly used in organic agriculture. Rotenone that has been naturally derived is listed as a “restricted substance” by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI 2004) and may be used only in special circumstances with designated limitations. Meanwhile, rotenone’s synergist, piperonyl butoxide, is prohibited from use in organic agriculture.<
BTW, the links between rotenone and Parkenson's have been seriously called into question, and much of the "research" along those lines has been discredited.

Besides which, anybody who wants to take the time can find one study after another detailing the health risks of synthetic pesticides and other agricultural products. Doesn't make those studies necessarily any more correct than the rotenone/Parkinson one.

As to taste differences, that's about the only place in your tirade that you make a semi-valid point. If you grow the same variety, controlling all the variables, but grow one patch organically and the other using synthetics, they will (or should) taste exactly the same. Vegetables require 16 different nutrients, and the plant doesn't care how they are supplied. If they are available in soluble form then the plant will utilize them.

There are two major influences on the "organics taste better" argument. One comes from the true believers on the other side of the spectrum from you, and can be ignored as wishful thinking. As with all true believers, they will happily promulgate anything that sounds positive, and ignore any negatives.

The other resulted from the days before organics were mainstream. Because they were only available from small growers, who sold them at Farmer's Markets, CSAs, and the like, their offerings tended to be ripe. For most people, that's the only time they got to taste, say, a ripe tomato. Not knowing the difference, they attributed the superior taste to the growing method, rather than to the food distribution system.



 

Well here's a can of worms.

I absolutely believe in organic produce. My spices dont endanger the people who pick them.My carrots dont poison the folk who live near the fields where the phosphates are sprayed. There are + & - for all arguments, but surely natures way is the way.

Rotenone and sabadilla have been banned Nationwide for a number of years, as I stated above the industry is moving faster then the arguments. Has most of America been bamboozled? heh, yeah.Are we learning? yes. Places like this keep minds expanding.



ps. what am I? Processed meat by-product?

I am currently in the fresh produce industry (importing into USA and Canada from 20 countries around the world) on a very large scale.
As a "big business insider", the whole Organics issue is as muddled as the forum posts on this thread.
 

The one major issue that seems to get confused both by consumers and even industry "professionals" (who should know better) is the distinction between "organics" and "food safety".
You purchase a product that is 100% organic and certified by a USDA accredited company, and yet suffer the most common problems such as e-coli or salmonella contamination. In countries where most product grown (USA included) farm workers are usually low paid and can work in fields with no access to toilets or clean water for washing; think about that next time you taste a few unwashed grapes in the supermarket.

It is difficult to generalize across all fruits and vegetables (and proteins also) what the issues with "Organic" really are. Some fruit trees that are grown "organic" require large amounts of copper to be added to the soil to stop pests from destroying the crop; each produce item has its own issues.

Overall, the import requirements into the USA are so stringent from the USDA that even non-organic product is required to have such low residuals from "approved" pesticides, that a light wash under clean water removes anything of concern.

There was also a tone (?) in the first post that sort of put "big business" in a less-than-favorable light. My professional experience is that the large produce growing businesses are the ones who adhere to the government requirements, are tested more often, keep their certifications current, and provide facilities and clean water for their workers, moreso than some smaller farms which may not be able to afford this added cost and are not so much on the radar due to their lower volumes. This doesn't mean the smaller farms are bad, but size is not a valid determiner of ethics, knowledge, or capabilities.

The other "big business(?)" implication was that they are making huge dollars on organics. Depends on the product, but generally the cost of organics to the supermarkets is substantially higher than conventional product. Organics are incredibly expensive to grow, and often have a much lower yield-per-acre than conventional product. Depending on the type of product and certification requirements, growers may have to grow for 2-4 years with no pesticides, but cannot call their product "organic" until the fields have been pesticide free for this time (it is refered to as "transitional").. so during that time they have much lower yields without the higher price of organic to cover the costs. Most commercial growers live year-to-year (barely) so this is literally "betting the farm" so to speak.

I'm sure there are some "bad apples" out there in the commercial produce business like any industry; but, honestly, the 10's of millions of boxes of produce we sell in the USA each year (organic or not) are safe to eat and have little-to-no harmful residues, and what might be on the product is easily rinsed off. I would be much more suspect of a "local farmers market" to find uncertified and uncontrolled application of questionable pestices than I would the "big boys".

Isn't it ironic how your opinion on the issue and your vested interest just happen to coincide?

I'm especially amused by this line: "the large produce growing businesses are the ones who adhere to the government requirements....." Considering that Monsanto et als all but wrote the regulations, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

The other "big business(?)" implication was that they are making huge dollars on organics.

Yeah, right. I certainly believe that the factory farmers jumped on the organics bandwagon for any other reason than to make a boatload of money.

I'm not going to try and refute all your erroneous and misleading statements. Suffice it to say, your entire post is typical of the way big agriculture argues every issue; by making claims that are unsubstantiated, intentionally providing confusing data, and taking one set of facts and applying it to a different set of conditions.

I wonder about whether or not the pesticides get into the ground water and travel up into the plant.  I totally see that happening.  It's not that we can't get rid of it by washing.  We can't do anything about the pesticide that's inside the fruit or vegetable.

Yes, pesticides do get into the water table. Just like people who use harsh chemicals to keep there lawns unnaturally green. Thanks to all who are following the new law  and not using them in Ontario. In my neck of the woods it is law that we cannot use water from the house for our gardens or lawns or actually for anything ..like if you wanted to make a skating rink in the backyard for your kids  (which one of my neighbors did ,,,,hmmm how did he do that?) So we have rain barrels and the sump pump water for that.....It reminds me so much of Germany  when I was there .Water is a hot commodity more expensive than beer and wine. They are so ahead of the game as far as being "Green"
  I'm not all sure about these claims to fame of "the best organic" But ( there's always a but...lol) There are quite a few here
in Ontario that you can visit and really do the math yourself.
and don't even get me started on Canola Oil...Canola is an ancient grain that is extinct and whatever there selling out there now is a genetically altered form of Canola.
Edited by gypsy2727 - 4/25/10 at 4:12pm

it's geneticaly altered Rapeseed. Canola is not and was not ever a plant. Although they are now marketing it as such.

Sorry ( I really did know that .. my meaning was Canola is from an ancient grain  I guess it was not clearly put.Oh I better be a little more care full with my threads) on not being" full on " on the info   you are politically correct Gunner ... I wouldn't want to be against you in Jeopardy!

Thanks for the FYI

Gypsy
Edited by gypsy2727 - 4/25/10 at 4:09pm

KYHeirloomer (and others),

I should clarify that my statements above refer to the fresh fruit and vegetable industry; I am also suspect of the true "multi-national" globals such as Monsanto. Corn and grain crops are a whole 'nuther can of worms of which I have no knowledge, other than what I watch (somewhat in horror of) on 60 Minutes.

 

All I can say is the view I provided was not meant as "misinformation", but my own personal factual perspective from within the business - however you are correct in that the whole topic is not only complex, but very emotionally charged.

 

I'd really like to see everyone interested in Organics to take the time and expense to put in a small garden; even a small planter on a balcony if living in an apartment. It it a real eye-opener to experience first-hand the amount of work that goes into producing fresh produce; tending it; dealing with the slugs that eat holes in your chard; etc..etc.. . I think one of the biggest hindrances to organics is that fresh produce is way to inexpensive in North America. Just for fun, take you back-yard garden and price it out at the supermarket, now consider if that was the scale at which your efforts were remunerated. It's a shame and the reason why so many farmers are getting out of the business.

I feel the love Private Chef


Gypsy

 I buy my meat from local farmers all year round.  Same goes for about 60% of my produce.  I'm friends with these people.  Sucks to be you guys :P

Interesting thread...

I have stayed away from organic produce not because I don't trust it, but because it is just so blooming expensive!  I was a stay home mom for years so we had to watch our budget.  I couldn't justify paying the ransom the supermarkets were asking for organics so I stayed away from them.  I have to say though that the prices have come down since they were first introduced, but I rarely shop for produce and meat at the supermarket anymore.  I buy all of my meat from a butcher at the farmers market who sells only Ontario meat, and my produce I buy from a few different farmers at the market.   I've learned to watch the quality of what is being offered for sale and I will pay extra for good quality food. 

take you back-yard garden and price it out at the supermarket, now consider if that was the scale at which your efforts were remunerated.

Warba, if you think this thread is something, make that suggestion at a gardening site. Then watch the feathers fly!

One aspect of the entire "better food" controversy is that we, as Americans, are very used to having a plentitude of cheap food. I know it sometimes doesn't seem that way after a trip to the supermarket, but it's true. In terms of cost and availability we are the best fed people in history.

Again, so there's no confusion, we're talking about the cost and quantity, not the quality.

One aspect of that is that you cannot grow your own food as cheaply as you can buy it. Not if all the cost factors are included. There are many good reasons to have your own garden, ranging from the quality of the food, to the self-satisfaction that comes from any hobby activity. But cost savings is not one of them.

When people say they save money by growing their own they're thinking out-of-pocket money only. Somebody pays, say, $1.98 for a packet of seed and eats tomatoes all summer long. Wow! Look what they saved over buying tomatoes. Those who grow heirlooms and other open pollinated varieties and save their own seed actually claim that it costs them nothing, cuz the seed was free. But that's not how cost accounting works.

I grow (or trade for) much of the produce we eat. I grow heirlooms exclusively (will not put a hybrid in the ground), using organic methods. I guarantee you, there is no way I could afford to buy the vegetables I grow.

I want you to refute what you consider the erroneous and misleading statements. That's how you will gain more credibility with your position

I don't see much point to doing so, PC. I'll provide just one example from the post, not to argue the point but to show the way big agriculture presents issues:

The other "big business(?)" implication was that they are making huge dollars on organics. Depends on the product, but generally the cost of organics to the supermarkets is substantially higher than conventional product. Organics are incredibly expensive to grow,...

Break that down, and what you find is this: We (i.e. big agriculture) aren't making a lot of money growing organics (is this because we're supplying them as a public service?) Proof: Supermarkets pay more for them, so have to charge more.

Guess what, people. Supermarkets are not growing the stuff, nor are they part of big agriculture. In this context they are consumers who also are overpaying, and passing the overage through to their customers.

How come we don't hear how much the factory farm organics division earns from its crops? Could it be that Monsanto, and AGI, and Con-Agra don't want us to know how profitable that business is?

Then we go on to talk about how much more expensive it is to grow organics by obfuscating the issue with a discussion about what it costs to earn certification---which is irrelevent---and with half-truths about the costs of growing.

Etc.

Keep in mind we're talking about the same industry that, for 50 years, did everything possible to convince us that hybrids would solve all the problems of agriculture. Then came GMOs, which would solve all the problems associated with hybrids. Huh? Wanna play that one again?

Anyway, I won't waste time with a line by line refutation. But you can gain some insights into these issues by going to the Food Inc. thread that's currently running on the Late Night Cafe forum.

Soon we will all be eating organic vegetables, not just the food stamp recipients.........Chef Bill

Maybe it's just early, Chef Bill. Or maybe I'm slow. But I haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say.

Could you expand on that thought?

Organics had the largest double digit growth for years, big boys jumped on the $$$$ bandwagon. 

For Monsanto it's all about the money...for years they've ignored superweed implications and sued small organic farmers that had winddrifted GMO's show up in their fields....they've bought seed companies and usurped marketing terms "sustainable" is one of the latest. Word buzzing around now is that their developing a seed that doesn't need water to germinate!!! SCARY..really SCARY shtuff.  

Know your farmer, visit their farm....hang out at growers' markets, feeds your body & soul.

In my humble opinion Whole Foods is the biggest rip off ever. Last year in some areas of country their beef was recalled because of E-coli.

Organics remind me of the Hula - Hoop craze or the Emperors new clothes. I know a girl who gives her infant raw milk, this to me is waiting for an accident to happen. I have lived to this age without organics and will continue down the same  road. thank you

What I'm afraid of is the cancer causing chemicals.  I just don't know how much of this stuff I've eaten over the past 40+ years.  Your liver wasn't designed to filter out all of this junk.

While I understand your point, Ed, I think you seriously overstate things. If Whole Foods is a rip off for the reason you provide, then we'd have to say the same applies to Kroger and Publix and so on, all of which have sold meat products that were subsequently recalled . And I don't know what organic beef is, anyway.

 

Certainly there is an element of faddishness surrounding organics, just as there is with the whole "green" thing. I would suggest, however, because the impetus driving the fad comes from several directions, that when the fad passes there will be a considerably larger percentage of people continuing with it than is usual with fads.

 

And, consider this: Agriculture, as we know it, has been around about 10,000 years. Pasturization has been around roughly 125 years. How, I ask you, did we ever survive all those centuries drinking raw milk? And eating cheese made from it? And, on the other side of the coin, what relationship, if any, exists between processed milk and the growing incidence of lactose intolerence? I mean, the very idea of mammals not being able to assimilate milk is kind of contrasurvival.

 

Synthetic agricultural chemicals are barely a century old, dating from pre-WW I German experiments (which led, not only to agricultural products but to gas warfare---but that's another story). So, again, for 9,900 years we used organic methods to fertilize and protect our crops, and survived very nicely. And, again, what is the cumulative effect of all those synthetic chemicals, considering we are the least healthy people to ever populate the earth? Before you answer, remember that DDT was considered perfectly safe for 60 years.

 

America's reputation as being the breadbasket of the world was established in the 19th century, when there were neither hybrids nor synthetic chemicals to "help" us out. Yet we fed the world using what are now called organic methods.

 

But let's put all that aside. The basic question isn't really "organics" vs "conventional," the way you use it. Your examples, such as Whole Foods in this discussion, and others in previous ones, indicate that your experience doesn't relate so much to the growing method as to the food distribution system, and to food-safety issues related to it.

 

As you well know, Florida is a major tomato producer. Yet, when you buy tomatoes in the supermarkets down there they come not from Florida, but from Mexico, and California, and sometimes even further away. Once you answer the question, "why and how is that so?" a lot of the rest falls into place.

 

But that's the thing.  Those who drank bad milk got very sick or didn't survive.  Also, our bodies produce less and less lactase as we get older.  Many Asians don't produce the enzyme.  They go from mother's milk to soy milk.

Those who drank bad milk got very sick or didn't survive.

 

Two things about this, Kuan. First, we need to define "bad milk." Pasturization doesn't prevent milk from turning, it just delays the process. There is nothing inherently dangerous about drinking milk straight from the cow---otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago.

 

Second, while conventional wisdom says this is so, where's the documentation? There is only one disease I'm aware of that is directly linked to milk. Could be others, but I don't know about them. And, despite what the USDA says, there is nothing inherently dangerous about eating cheese made from raw milk. Cheese is, of course, a way to preserve milk for a longer time. Hmmmmmm? Just what pasturization and irradiation are supposed to do.

 

As an aside, I would like to know what there is about the fermentation process that makes something safe after 90 days but dangerous after only 30? Can anyone explain that?

 

I have, as a living historian, looked more deeply into many of the folk-wisdom aspects of 18th and 19th century health matters. Many of the things we grew up believing, and which seem to make sense, turn out to be incorrect. F'rinstance, infant mortality was not as widespread as we were taught.

 

The real problem with pointing to causes of ill-health is that there were so many things: diet, environment, poor sanitation and hygiene, etc. contributing to poor health that isolating one cause is difficult at best. Somebody once tried making a case that 90% of human suffering, previous to the 20th century, could be traced to bad teeth. That's obviously a gross overstatement. But it highlights the problem. If you're immune system has been compromised by a mouth full of rotty teeth, and you drink some bad milk and die, was it the milk, per se? Or just you're inability to resist the pathogens in the milk?

 

The same syndrome exists in our own time, with things like AIDS infections. It's not the AIDS virus that gets you so much as your body's inability to resist other invasions.

 

Also, our bodies produce less and less lactase as we get older.

 

Are you suggesting that this has changed? If not, then it's hardly germane. If so, what are the causes of the change?

 

Either way, we're not talking so much about adult-onset lactose intolerance, but the growing numbers of children who suffer from it. Even worse, the apparently increased number of infants who are intolerant of their own mothers' milk.

What I'm afraid of is the cancer causing chemicals. I just don't know how much of this stuff I've eaten over the past 40+ years. Your liver wasn't designed to filter out all of this junk.
 

For many people, that is the issue. Not necessarily cancer, as such. But the cumulative effect of all those synthetic chemicals we've been injesting for a hundred years. Whether or not they are a significant factor in our overall ill health is an unknown issue. And not one that's being seriously studied.

 

Those who study such matters depend on funding. And the big research bucks come from the people who make those chemicals. The odds of them funding a study that might reveal serious product liabilities range from slim to none. The gubmint, of course, doesn't get much involved until there is a catastrophic cause.

 

Which means that the only recourse concerned people have is to stop eating foods grown with those chemicals. And that, of course, brings us full circle to the organics question.

What an excellent post!

 

I completely agree with theprivatechef.

 

This crazy 'natural' thing is the same for a lot of things: Pharmaceuticals, Cosmetics and more. Synthetic has been proven time and time again to be better.

 

I know there are people who won't agree but it's a scientific claim so check out the facts and you'll see.