Everytime I hear an argument in favor of eating organic food, it really falls flat for me. I'm been looking up arguments for eating organic food over conventional food, and I haven't seen an article yet that isn't riddled with pseudo-science and bad logic. The number one proponent Michael Pollan, who is also extremely influential on food policy, makes an outright attack on science in more than one of his books, saying that there are multiple ways of acquiring knowledge (true, but we only have one reliable way of actually testing our ideas.) The obvious implication is that he doesn't care what science says when it comes to his ideas. This is also the same guy who says that " Plants can hear, taste and feel." Needless to say, I am not convinced.

I'm wondering if anybody with a stronger background in science than me (which should be most people) can make a more convincing case if there is a good reason to eat organic or non-GMO food. Or is this anti science gibberish? Or something else.

The Science Babe has been greatly and intelligently showing that these new health fads are just that: fads. You should check her out.

(June 4, 2015 at 11:52 pm)Kitan Wrote: The Science Babe has been greatly and intelligently been showing that these new health fads are just that: fads.  You should check her out.

I mean that's definitely my feeling on the subject already. What I'm wondering is if there are good arguments for the other side of the coin. It's important (to me at least) to hear both sides of the argument.

There are no good arguments for organic and GMO free or gluten free from what I have discerned.

I think you may have Pollan all wrong..he's pretty big on ag sci (who know, though, may have lost it since I least checked). One of his best pieces of work was on why we shouldn't be stuffing cattle full of corn, imo. Organics aren't "anti-science" even if their customers may sometimes be.
(plants -can- hear, taste and feel,.what's the problem?)

There's really no argument for preference of organic over conventional in the general. Whichever is produced responsibly is fine (the differences between them are sometimes only the certification, most of the pesticides, for example..are shared by both production methods). If you had specific concerns/desires, maybe I could give you the ad copy version?

Organic as social one-upsmanship
Organic as a way to go local
Organic to reduce consumption of ag inputs (no more oil-to-food)
Organic as a soil builder
Organic as a niche market that can save a small farm, or support one (aka, "the business angle", lol)

The first thing is to consider what it means to be organic versus conventional.  With organic, certain pesticides, herbicides (for getting rid of weeds), and fertilizers are not used (anything not considered "organic").  (1) Many of the pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are very bad for you in sufficient concentrations.  (2) They can also be bad for the environment, (3) and for farm workers.  So there are three potential avenues to explore, any one of which could be enough to justify it.

Now, with poisons, a tiny amount often has no noticeable impact on your health.  The question then becomes, how much matters, and how do we know?  Well, tests are done and scientists look for problems.  If problems occur statistically significantly more with those exposed to a certain level of the poison than to a control group not so exposed, they decide that that level is bad for you.  Of course, others repeat the testing to make sure a mistake was not made the first time.  Now, one of the important aspects of this is, there is no test that proves a certain level is safe.  They can only show that there is a problem at some level or other, and less could still be dangerous, but could have gone unnoticed in a test, because the test was not large enough, did not last enough years to detect the problems, etc.  Over the years, what tends to happen is that they find lower and lower levels of some poisons to be dangerous than they have found in the past.

Now, with conventional produce, there are (at least sometimes) rules about how much poison can be used on them, and how close to harvest time they can be used.  The idea being, of course, to keep the amount of poison on the final product to be below any amount that has been found to be dangerous.  The thing is, even if the rules were always followed (which is obviously not the case), it could be that the amounts that are currently judged to be acceptable are, in fact, dangerous for longterm health.

With organic, the amount of toxins from pesticides and fertilizers is often less (measured less) than on conventional produce.  So, if one wishes to be extra cautious about what one eats, one can select organic and one will be exposed to less poisons.  Now, it may be that the levels on conventional produce is fine, in which case one is being more cautious than necessary.  But there is no way of knowing that with certainty, and so some people may feel it is worth the extra cost for having less exposure to poisons.

Don't forget, there are also reasons 2 & 3, the environmental impact (which includes runoff into streams and your water supply), and the effects on the workers who would otherwise be exposed to very high levels of poison from pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.


As for GMO, they are variable in what is genetically modified and why, so there is not one thing to say about them all.  However, one of the reasons to genetically modify a crop is to make it more resistant to a herbicide or pesticide, so that they can spray more poison on the crops to kill the things they want to kill, without killing the crop.  Of course, in doing so, you tend to end up with more poison on the final product that way.  And that in turn also affects reasons 2 & 3 above, as there is more impact on the environment (and the runoff going to your drinking water) and more impact on farm workers exposed to even higher levels of poisons.

So, if you are wanting to be cautious about what you eat, avoiding GMO and conventionally grown crops could be a good idea.  Of course, it may not make any difference at all for you, depending on exactly what levels of poisons really matter.  But you don't know that; you must decide, with limited information, what you will do.


I suppose it is worth mentioning that there are plenty of idiots out there who imagine organic or nonGMO means that it has more nutrients or tastes better or some other such thing, but certainly that will not necessarily be the case with conventional versus organic, and whether it is the case with GMO versus nonGMO would depend on what, exactly, we are talking about, with either one potentially tasting better and either one potentially being better nutritionally.

Trouble with 1 is that organic and conventional farms use -the same pesticides(poisons), bought from the same distributors, manufactured by the same producers...this is mostly because organic farms and conventional farms -are the same farms-.  Organics 'aint a mom and pop business anymore, and the certification is both voluntary, un-enforced...and in many cases ....unenforceable.  So even in areas where there -should be- differences....there simply aren't.  People have a strange idea of what it means to be organic..in truth, it has nothing to do with pesticides.  Organic Certification is the recognition that you have undertaken a specific -soil management policy-.  Nothing else.

Argument seems to be that organics mean "less pesticides" - the reverse is true, demonstrably.  Many small farmers have now realized how valuable this information is to their "no/low pesticide" farms. They don;t take the trouble to go organic, and they educate the public on what -actually- means.

Argument seems to be that an organic poison is less poisonous than a conventional poison to workers (or that workers aren't given RTFI -return to field intervals- for -both), or that, as above..they use different poisons or less poison. Pesticides are chosen because of their toxicity. Toxicity is not rated by the metrics of organic/conventional. There is no row in the excel file for that....organic pyrithrin is equally toxic compared to conventional pyrithrin - precisely equal, in fact, because they are the same substance with identical delivery. That organics are forced to use -more- pesticides is simply the effect of locking out broad spectrum, relatively stable (and thus long lasting) pesticides from the model (soil management..remember?). They have to spray more not because they use a different chemical, not because it is less lethal, it is simply less stable and so washes away (and into our streams and rivers..yay!) faster, leading to shorter intervals between application in order to achieve effect. This also accounts for the price disparity (not including the novelty value), btw.......though you'll hear all sorts of shit about "oh the bugs" and "our yields aren;t artificially enhanced". It would tank their business model to explain to you, in simple - unimpeachable terms- complete with supporting numbers from their own books and the books of their co-competitors.........that they spend alot more on pesticide than "the other guys".

Organics have been a victim of their own success, if you ask me. I've done it, I can see the profit potential - but to me...it isn't worth the hassle of doing 1 group and 50 individual tours a day intentionally misleading people for all the best of reasons.....lol. Organic =/= sustainable. Organic =/= pesticide free (or even pesticide "a little less"). Organic =/= delicious. I'm more interested in sustainable, pesticide free food that is delicious....the first and the last are easy....the one in the middle pits me against a more than competent adversary in a "forever war"...lol.

(I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from organics, there are reasons other than ad copy to buy them, just trying to offer a little clarity where the water has been intentionally muddied by those with vested interests -for quite some time-)

I am not that versed in organic products, but as a consumer I did once try to learn and bought some of them. I tried organic milk and really enjoyed its flavor. But in the long run it was not that sustainable for my wallet. A half gallon of organic milk cost a little over 3 dollars when I first tried it, now it is over five. I rarely ever buy anything organic these days.

What I do remember is that some labels are truly organic while others are not. Plus you have to consider the source of the product. Veggies and./or other canned products from overseas may come from countries that do not have the same standards (or none at all) as the U.S. as far as pesticide levels and such. China was one of the worst.

Organics as soil management, will get you the full load of science.  Apparently, useful soil isn't -exactly- a renewable resource.   Additionally, broad spectrum soil fumigants (as used in strawberry production) and foliar sprays (as used in tomato production) accelerate the deterioration initiated in the main by heavy tillage (shared by both organics and conventionals).  

One method, conventional, produces more food.

The other, organics, produce healthier soils.  

If you value healthy soil, and soil conservation - than organics may appeal to you on those grounds.  Conventionals -could- focus on soil and achieve similar results..but the focus with conventionals is currently in extracting as much as possible -from- the soil, not building up superdirt.  

(I know that's not directly an argument for -eating- organic food.....but it's on the periphery, I think - and many others seem to think. Time it hits the table there's no difference, eat the organic, eat the conventional, eat the gmo..it's all the same. Before the table, though, you might be able to get your food to do work you're interested in.)

(June 9, 2015 at 11:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If you value healthy soil, and soil conservation - than organics may appeal to you on those grounds.  Conventionals -could- focus on soil and achieve similar results..but the focus with conventionals is currently in extracting as much as possible -from- the soil, not building up superdirt.  

(I know that's not directly an argument for -eating- organic food.....but it's on the periphery, I think - and many others seem to think.   Time it hits the table there's no difference, eat the organic, eat the conventional, eat the gmo..it's all the same.  Before the table, though, you might be able to get your food to do work you're interested in.)

Not quite, even on the table the residual pesticides and such can be a good reason to avoid conventional. As you noted, conventional and GMO is basically more business friendly do to a higher production value, however that is also translates to many producers using really harmful methods to increase yield, which in turn effects the consumer's health.

So as far as I know, conventional raises both environmental and health concerns. Organic raises financial concerns