Beware Of The Marketers

[CaptainMike]

This is a very interesting thread that I check in on from time to time. Something that often comes to mind for me is when these and many other "hot" topics become politicized, monetized, and occasionally weaponized they begin to lose credibility (at least with me). Much like what grantgallagher shared about not seeing the full context of a study, you must ask "why" or "why not". Usually a case of "follow the money". I generally quit buying "organic" because this. Just my opinion, but it seems to have devolved to simply a marketing gimmick with only anecdotal benefits that are not wholly supported. That is not to say that we shouldn't do all we can to protect our food and food sources, I just don't buy the hype. Now, off to the Farmer's Market.....

[Murdy]

I did not mean organic = pesticide free; the Forbes piece notes cross contamination from conventional ag. My point is a flawed try at regulation is better than no attempt. Limiting purchases to farms I know would drastically alter my diet (I don't live near a banana plantation). Maybe stricter oversight is warranted? Or reform? Abolition of the organic designation or relying on the conscience of individual businessmen seems extreme.
As for the cost, that's apparent when one makes a purchase.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Murdy Give this a read. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html Now, allow me to quote a wise person, "Nevertheless, common sense would seem to dictate that one should avoid eating things used to poison other things." Certified Organic (CO) does not guarantee the food has not had pesticides used in its production. What it guarantees is that pesticides produced synthetically have not been knowingly used, unless the farmer is dishonest or it is from the list of synthetic pesticides approved for organic use. One of CO's marketing strategies is to promote they don't use dangerous 'chemicals' that are 'unsafe' and 'bad for the environment'. However they don't talk about what they use, and when pressed call it 'organic or natural sprays' as if it is quite innocuous. Now, let's zoom out and look at the bigger picture. CO has had the word 'organic' legally protected for their use, everyone who is not certified is called 'conventional'. To become certified the farmer has to pay fees, pay someone to inspect the farm, and either keep or pay someone to maintain records. Those costs are passed onto the consumer. The farmer is only allowed to use inputs that are on an approved list, many of which cost more than other available inputs and generally require the use of more to be as effective. CO will paint all non-CO farmers with the same brush, you would think they are all out there putting massive amounts of chemicals. Fact is, non-CO farmers are free to do whatever they please. Many use organic methods, they just prefer not to go through the hassle of certifying. And some don't use any pesticides. How do I know? I'm one. On my farm in Stevens County I have never used a pesticide. I also know some organic farmers who don't use pesticides, but they choose to get certified so they can get more money for their crops. The point I'm trying to make is that if you genuinely want food that has not been treated with pesticides you must grow it yourself or deal with a farmer who you know and trust won't use them.

[Willy]

Ah! We're successful! We've deceived you into thinking we're "thinkers". LOL ;«)

More seriously, do feel free to join in. It's fun and this website has successfully encouraged civil discussion, something not found on many websites

[ComfortablyNumb]

Murdy Not so much pushback, more like takeover. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.72b39c154ac7

[obiQsmoker]

I just want to thank all of you for this. I have no background or knowledge to offer, but appreciate, SO appreciate, the information you folks are willing to share, and the respectful and thoughtful manner you share it. It’s refreshing. While I thought I was joining a BBQ community, little did I know the amazing group of thinkers I’d encounter.

[Willy]

Welcome to the conversation! I hope you stick around, especially given your background. I agree that nutrition is an "impossible" subject to study well. In "In Defense of Food", Michael Pollan discusses the very real, and hard to overcome, difficulties. I also think the media, in general, does a poor job of explaining the "latest study", hence the public's perception of the science is skewed unfairly. Science journalism is a specialty field and most journalists haven't the training for it.

[Willy]

@Murdy

What other "salient differences" are there?

[Murdy]

Further, limiting the comparison between organic and non-organic to the presence of chemicals ignores other salient differences between the two.

[Murdy]

Briefly, and off the top of my head, I'd note that I said "capable of pushing back hard" -- I think there's a bit of a Coke/Pepsi thing going on. Coke never used to compare itself to Pepsi in commercials when it was number one, because it did not want to imply an equivalence with number 2 (while Pepsi, seeking to elevate itself, was targeting Coke with things like the Pepsi Challenge). I suspect if the organic industry significantly cuts into Big Ag's profit, you will see that pushback.