digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Cracking Down on Organic Food Fraud: Science to the rescue

thedailygreen.com — With organic foods raking in $16 billion and more annually, some are concerned that Department of Agriculture standards and independent third-party verification may be insufficient to prevent fraud.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Organic123, on 02/05/2008, -5/+4Great news
    • TheWindBlows, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1You wife is finally cleaning her
      'green & sexy' lingerie on the clothes line for valentines day.
      Though weren't they white when you bought them for her?
  • socialpyramid, on 02/05/2008, -2/+22The other way to look at this is that it can also boost consumer confidence in the organic labels when things are done right.
    • allatti2d, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1I agree, but there are tons of rip-offs out there with the "Organic" label, and organic foods are so much more expensive. This is kinda silly in my mind, because not many people really understand what Organic means... they just think it's some groovy word that means what they're eating is healthier, which isn't always the case.

      I prefer irradiated foods myself, and veggies without bugs growing in them.
    • Iamironman, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2this has annoyed me for some time. I know what the name is supposed to mean but organic just means it has carbon in it. Which means thats an organic Twinkie your eating
    • tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1If a food contains carbon, can't it have the "organic" label?
  • mountainsurfer, on 02/05/2008, -2/+6It's about damn time.
  • Error601, on 02/05/2008, -4/+6So, the government is supposed to start drug testing our carrots now?
  • BuzzDiggity, on 02/05/2008, -10/+1whole - lotta crap - foods... funny how the meaning and implications of organic food is changing so drastically in recent times...
  • gnomey, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2Truth in labeling is important, but will this testing increase costs?
  • IAmLegend24, on 02/05/2008, -13/+6Organic give me the ***** everytime I eat it.
    • bfrank72, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Nutritional adaptation at its worst.
    • yodaj007, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6You eat it, then get the *****.
      You eat it, then get the *****.
      You eat it, then get the *****.

      Maybe you should learn and STOP EATING IT. Why haven't you learned that yet?
    • mrzack, on 02/05/2008, -2/+12***** is good. Proper bowel movement will lead to better health. You should eat More organic.
    • p0tent1al, on 02/05/2008, -4/+4What an idiotic statement. This is like saying drinking water makes your piss yellow.

      If organically grown fruit gives you the *****, it means you don't eat right in the first place. And believe me, if you don't eat right, you could go grab a regular ***** bag of grapes, if you tried to eat the whole bag, you would take up residence in the bathroom.
  • ryan83189, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Right before "organic" coke was in the think tank stage too.
    • V1be, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1they have those, with funny names like blue sky cola and china cola. they probably taste better, but whatever is in coke has got me hooked.
  • sockpuppets, on 02/05/2008, -4/+9From the same government that saved us from lead toys?
  • londubh, on 02/05/2008, -2/+81) USDA and/or FDA is getting lax. 2) companies are trying to weaken organic food standards. 3) companies love greenwashing.
  • PxCxG, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4So let's see...a new test has been developed that can only be used to test for certain types of fraud, but probably won't be used anytime soon since it's too expensive, and anyway, the current standards are trustworthy anyway, so this test isn't needed. Exactly what is science rescuing?
    Buried as lame.
  • minoss, on 02/05/2008, -13/+10I was under the assumption that all organic foods fall under fraud. I mean, has there actually been any conclusive studies that organic foods actually do anything?
    • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -8/+15I'll take organic food from my garden or the local farmer's market over pesticided, herbicided, larvicided, fungicided, chemicaly modified, hormonally altered, genetically modified, pasteurized, homogenized "foods" ANY day.
      • zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -7/+9Thing is, most of that organic produce comes from the same factory farms that produce the other kind. All organic methods do is reduce yeild, which is great for the corporate types because it lets them sell less product for more money. Not to mention that organic methods require far more of the 'natural' pesticides, herbicides, larvicides, and fungicides than the normal crops require of the modern versions of all of those, because the modern version is far more efficient, not to mention engineered to be safer. Also, unless you're eating wild plants that have never been cultivated they've been hormonally and genetically altered by our tampering. Its not like we're new at that, we've been at it since we started farming. Also last I checked pasteurization was a good thing, and even organic milk gets that treatment, or would you rather drink it bacteria and all?

        Organic is a feel good new-age marketing slogan and nothing more. There's no science to back it up, and before you invoke the 'evil corporations' backing the scientists, perhaps you should consider that the Organic food industry is a multi-billion dollar business, who unfortunately have a vested interest in backing this garbage.

        Oh, and all the small family farmers that I know of use every method they can to imrpove yield. Which means all the latest advances, since that costs them less in the long run, and brings back more money.
        • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -3/+6The famous 12-year Schuphan study tested the nutritional superiority of organically grown foods. Among other things, Schuphan found:
          1. Organic foods have far higher mineral and trace mineral contents, with the exception of sodium Organic produce contains far more iron, potassium, magnesium and calcium than conventional crops. (Most studies of this type demonstrate that organic foods have 2 to 10 times the mineral content of conventional foods - you really do get more value for the money).
          2. Organic spinach contained 64-78% more vitamin C.
          3. Organic Savoy cabbage contained 76-91% more vitamin C.
          4. Organic crops had a dry weight (after dehydration) of 69-96% more than conventional crops, demonstrating high-food value content.

          In 1993, Bob Smith, a trace minerals laboratory analyst, began a small experiment. For two years he visited stores in Chicago and purchased 4 to 15 samples of both organic and commercial produce. He brought these samples back to his laboratory and tested them for trace elements. His conclusions were as follows:
          1. Organically grown wheat had twice the calcium, four times more magnesium, give times more manganese, and thirteen times more selenium than the commercial wheat.
          2. Organically grown corn had twenty times more calcium and manganese, and two to five times more copper, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium and zinc.
          3. Organically grown potatoes had two or more times the boron, selenium, silicon, strontium and sulfur, and 60% more zing.
          4. Organically grown pears had two to nearly three times more chromium, iodine, manganese, molybdenum, silicon and zinc.

          Overall, organically-grown food exceeded commercial-grown crops significantly for twenty of the twenty-two beneficial trace minerals. Organic foods also had lower quantities of toxic trace elements, such as aluminum, lead, and mercury.

          Pesticides are poison.
          • zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -4/+5How well controlled were those studies?
          • chalkboy, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3I can remember my nutrition class in college and I don't remember wheat or corn containing calcium and after a quick search in google I find no mention of calcium in wheat or corn. Of course it could contain a very very very small amount. Minerals come from the ground the food is grown in. When you farm organically you farm in a sustainable way meaning you rotate crops and use less harsh chemicals and natural fertilizers like *****. I do not see how this could result in higher minerals it is really based on where the crop is grown not how. I think this study just proves that vegetables from different farms have different minerals in them. People really need to look at other factors when studies like these are released.
          • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Of course the point of the study wasn't to reveal which foods have most calcium. Green leafy vegetables/editable leaves are the best source of calcium. Calcium is the chief mineral of the human body. And of course Wheat contains Calcium -- I'd trust it as a source for Calcium over "Milk".The EU banned rBGH from being injected into Cows. Meanwhile here in the U.S., dairy farms keep using hormones on cattle and keep putting forth the message that we should be drinking lots of milk. Your blood will keep pulling calcium out of the bones to neutralize the acidic level of the blood that is put off balance by the milk. So you actually result in less calcium after animal milk consumption so that your body can balance your blood's pH level.
          • BossKey, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Zeebo, you are the master of FUD. Ever thought about working at Microsoft?
        • p0tent1al, on 02/05/2008, -5/+2yet again someone who talks without ever eating both. Any idiot who has actually went out and bought both regular and organic foods, can easily tell the difference between the two. One is tasteless and the skin outside it is actually somewhat black, the other taste healthy and looks healthy. One taste like it has been sprayed with poison, one doesn't.
          • captinherb, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I am a big proponent of organic, but I don't think that is entirely true. If your shopping at a farmers market that is absolutely accurate, if your shopping at Walmart where organic is just a sales tool I don't know that would be the case. It's just a matter of time before we have organic twinkies.
          • chalkboy, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Wow you have a good imagination. I have lived and worked on farms. Organic crops are grown next to the non organic ones. The only difference is the organic ones are ugly.
          • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Best organic food comes from a local farm or your yard if you can make & manage a garden. Most grocery stores literally can't sell as much organic food due to the fact that organic food doesn't have very long shelf life.
        • BossKey, on 02/05/2008, -3/+4Zeebo's post is all about yield, yield, yield.

          What he doesn't say is that due to the documented lower nutritional value of non-organic food, you actually have to eat more of it to get the same nutritional value as you would for organic food. In other words, the lower nutritional value of the non-organic crops, to some extent, negates the rise in yield! In some cases the drop in nutritional density is so dramatic that you're basically getting close to growing empty calories...junk food. So you need more land to grow the same amount of nutrition that's been possible all along with organic.

          http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/0802/sc0802-or ...

          Today's terminology for agriculture is completely backwards. "Organic" should be called "traditional," or "conservative," since it's the way it's been done for most of human history. On the other hand, industrial non-organic farming should be called "radical modern" agriculture.
          • zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4What can I say, I haven't seen any of this 'documented lower nutritional value' from an unbiased source, and there's no mechanism that I'm aware of that would cause a plant to somehow have more nutritional value because it got its nitrogen from feces rather than a modern fertalizer.

            I should also point out that most of human history sucked when it comes to nutrition and growing enough crops, and we have a few more people than we did back then.
          • simonn, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Too right.

            I live in Australia, so prices might be different to the US. We (fiance and I) went to a local farmers market on Sunday. We bought mainly from non-organic farmers. They basically use the same practices, but paying for certification cuts into their margins too much. Australian Dollars. Note that supermarket prices are not for "organic". (1kg = 2.2lbs).

            Egg plant: $3/kg. $9/kg in supermarket.
            Capsicum/Bell Pepper/Green peppers: $6/kg. $9+/kg in supermarket.
            A small pineapple: $1.40, $3.95 in supermarket (the night before, and flavorless for that matter! Grrr!).
            A box of oranges ~30: $6, supermarket, a lot more than $6!
            A bag of apples (~4Kg): $10, in supermarket, probably $16.
            A huge bunch of basil: $2, in supermarket, ?, but probably double

            I can't remember the rest off the top of my head, but I am sure you get the picture. Only eggs, potatos and brown onions were the same-ish price or cheaper at the supermarkets, but this is comparing to the bottom of the sumpermarket range "home brand" stuff.

            All of it soo tasty.

            We are thinking of getting our own kind-of-collective together between friends and taking turns to do the weekly veggie and fruit shop at the farmers market for each other.

            Also, when we went to the outer islands of Vanuatu last year, the eggs were amazing! Organic by default as the chickens just lived like chickens do naturally, pecking worms etc.
          • rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3By your argument then we should be eating crops genetically-engineered to give us the highest nutritional value possible.

            Not that I disagree with this idea, because I think GE crops are awesome, but they're not considered organic.

            I'm glad that you admit though that organic crops means making the choice to ignore science and reverting back to the old way of doing things.
        • ORMEs, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0zeebo on 02/05/2007: "How well controlled were those studies?"

          SCHUPHAN’S STUDY

          To start, 25 concrete framed plots were filled with sand and 25 with fen (low-land rich soil). Each plot had 10 square meters surface (107.64 square feet) and was filled to a depth of .9 meters (2.95 feet). The top layer of the sand plots was mixed with a small amount of fen to improve water holding at the surface.

          The plots were designated to receive one of the following types of fertilization: a) NPK, b) Stable manure, c) Stable Manure + NPK, or d) Biodynamic Compost.

          It is important to note that the exceptionally large quantity of Biodynamic Compost applied, equivalent to 38.38 tons per acre, in contrast to 13.39 tons of Stable Manure.

          Biodynamic Compost and directions for its application were supplied by Dr. Heinze of the Forschungsring fur biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise (Research Circle for Methods of Biodynamic Application) in Darmstadt-Eschollbrucken.

          The Stable manure itself was of “low quality” (low nitrogen) and varied little from year to year. No notes were supplied by Schuphan, regretfully, regarding the nature of neither the animals nor their feed, e.g.: fresh grasses, grains, silage, and hay. In future studies such information could be valuable in comparisons of various Stable Manuring materials and practices. Likewise not supplied was information regarding the specific genetic strains of seeds.

          Statistical Significance
          To test for conformity of yield, potatoes were planted in eight plots, four sand an four fen, and fertilized with Stable Manure alone. The strong statistical significance of the uniform results in these potatoes can be held as evidence for the reproducibility of the Biodynamic crops which, unlike all the others, were grown in only two plots per harvest (one fen and one sand).

          With the exception of the Biodynamic crops, all other fertilizers were tested by planting each crop (eg: potatoes) in four fen plots and four sand plots per fertilizer per harvest, and by growing each crop a number of times over the 12 year period. Eight crops were rotates; spinach, lettuce, savoy (cabbage), potatoes, celeriac (celery root), carrots, fodder beets, and sugar beets. Most rotations were successional, meaning two crops per year in one plot.

          Herein lies the strength of Werner Schuphan’s studies. He has built an experiment within which is designed a protocol for simultaneous production of multiple replications. Additionally, he has analyzed a representative set of replications for reproducibility and has shown high statistical significance. With the exception of the Biodynamic fertilizer (due perhaps to the sheer weight of fertilizer required), all other experiments have been carried out four times on each of two soils per harvest. In this way, each crop has grown in 26 plots per harvest. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of the traditional methods of the Golden Age of German Science.
          Where applicable, results were averaged according to four morphological types represented by spinach, savoy, potatoes, and carrots.

          Yield
          Unfortunately, yield is the contemporary farmer’s first concern. We have made it so. If, instead, his first concern were the nutritional value of the produce, his practice would be considerably different. The structure of our economy has not made it desirable or possible for the farmer to put his emphasis on biological value.

          Schuphan found that organic fertilization could in no way complete in terms of yield with NPK. He wrote, “These data reflect at the same time the tremendous role of fertilizer practice on yield, and the function of the soil as significant environmental factor influencing yield.”

          The argument of organic vs. chemical fertilization hinges on two opposing issues: 1) maximum yield against 2) biological value. Figuratively, biological value can be thought of as the sum of the actions of all components, both those that exhibit positive action like the vitamins, and those with negative action like the nitrates. Schuphan’s findings regarding amino acids and conjugated proteins in the above and the current studies throw much weight to the biological side of the balance.

          Heavy nitrogen fertilization results in a decrease in crops of the sulfur-containing amino acid methionine. Methionine is essential in plant metabolism for the transfer of methyl (CH3) from one compound to another. According to the above and earlier findings of Schuphan, diminished methionine content of crops due to heavy nitrogen fertilization results in decreased biological value of plant proteins.

          In the current experiments, both potatoes and spinach grown on organically fertilized fen and sand exhibited increases in methionine (express as a % of crude protein) from 11% to 47% above the NPK norms.

          Schuphan observed a concurrent slight decrease in both glutamic acid and lysine in organically fertilized plants. In his opinion, enhancement of lysine content of crops, which increases nitrogen fertilization, is not worth the loss of methionine and overall biological value of conjugated plant proteins. Lysine is touted by some nutritionists as playing a major role in accelerated growth of young people of the western world. It is richly supplied by animal foods of which there is plentiful supply. There is no need to devalue plant proteins in search of lysine stores for the public.

          Schuphan wrote, “We may come to the conclusion that organic manuring unequivocally favors sulfur-containing methionine, one of the most important amino acids. Breeders are very keen on genetically improving plant proteins by increasing their methionine contents. We have made it clear, however, that techniques of cultivation—more precisely techniques of fertilization—may also help in this respect.”

      • rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Genetically modified? What is wrong with GE crops?

        The man who pioneered them, Norman Borlaug, has saved over a billion people through his work. Norman Borlaug. Norman Borlaug. I'm repeating his name because I don't want you to forget the name of the greatest human being that has ever lived. Saved over a BILLION people. Norman Borlaug.

        You should just feel lucky that you have the luxury to choose what to eat. I know I do.
        • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -4/+2Hybridized plants have been crossbred to the point that they are genetically weak, do not contain viable seeds, and cannot survive in the wild. They have to be protected from elements and wildlife to survive –w which often means using toxic chemicals to grow and protect them. Most of the GE foods have been bred to the point that their sugar content is extremely high. Their mineral content is also out of balance to the point of being nutritionally deficient, especially if they were grown using chemicals.

          GE foods are far more detrimental than those that have been overly bred to be seedless. GE foods are those that have genes from another plant or animal installed into their gene structure. This includes plants that contain the genes of animal, fish, bacteria, bugs and other life forms. The companies involved in this are truly dangerously screwing with the structure of life. Their products have been given the name of “Frankenfoods.” Their experiments are no longer in their labs, but are growing on many farms around the world.
          GE foods are so new that we have no real idea of the dangers they may pose, not only to our immediate health but also to the long-term health and stability of humans, plants, and wildlife as well. It is likely that GE foods will result in a new profile of food allergies, as well as other health issues.

          Most food products that contain milk, such as butter, cake, candy, cheese, cookies, ice cream and yogurt also contain milk treated with GE hormones, so if you’ve got milk you also likely have genetically altered substances streaming through your body.

          Some animals are used in the experiments conducted to create new forms of farm animals. These animals are also sent to the slaughterhouses and sold to the unsuspecting public. If you eat meat or meat products from U.S. grocery stores or restaurants, you likely have eaten some amount of GE animal. Some of these animals have had human DNA engineered into their genes. Got Human?

          Eating overly hybridized and genetically altered produce may create imbalances in the human system, especially if they are eaten often, or make up most if not all a person eats.

          Because Hybridized/GE foods are more likely to contain higher levels of sugar, they are especially prone to molds that feed off sugar. Hybridized foods contain an addictive quantity of sugar and low levels of minerals.
          • rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6Blah blah blah, the little bit of what I read of your wall of text tells me you didn't read my comment at all. GE crops have saved over a BILLION people, you pompous prick.
          • minoss, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Guess what, most mammals have over 90% of our same genome. Should we consider them 90% human?

            Your post shows what little you actually know about GE foods. GE foods are devised to be more resilient to predators and disease, increase yield, and grow in habitats they couldn't usually grow. The later mainly to bring food to those areas lacking it and unable to grow it. Because if this, it's helped millions of people ***** LIVE.
          • zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3There are no genetically engineered plants used for food that contain genes from animals. Similarly we haven't started genetically modifying food animals that I'm aware of. Lastly there is no reason why hybridized or genetically engineered plants would contain more sugar, or be addictive because of that. Last I checked there wasn't anybody getting high off of sugar cane.
          • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1You just described "unnatural food". And stop using the starving people to support your personal opinion that GE foods are better than organic foods. Just because GE foods have helped millions "live", does not logically mean that they are better than organic foods.

            The discussion is not about the positive impact of GE foods on people that can't access organic foods (not due to natural causes btw), but the truth of "living" organic foods and their benefits versus unnatural/chemically grown foods.
          • rarson, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1The discussion is about how you're an enormous prick for trying to stop progress in growing food, because YOU have the luxury of turning your nose at food while many, many, many other people don't.

            Meanwhile, extraordinary human beings are increasing crop yields in areas that have trouble growing "organic" food.
        • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1Rarson, the intention of GE foods are not to save lives. They have been invented to replace healthier foods due to their longer shelf life. In the long-term, they actually are detrimental to human's health, as the foods are not in their natural state and continue to render human bodies mineral deficient. So, it's shortsighted of you to assume that because GE foods have saved lives they are therefore somehow better than organic foods. But I'm glad you resorted to name calling in a discussion about healthy foods -- I am honored.
        • ORMEs, on 02/06/2008, -1/+0There you go with the name-calling again. Typical troll I guess.

          And who said I'm trying to stop progress in growing food? How have I done so? My only intent is to bring education to those that wish to be more health concious. I just started out comparing the health benefits of organic foods versus GE foods, and then you started putting words in my mouth, so to speak. EVERYONE has access and the capability to consume organic foods, they just need the right education and tools; it has nothing to do with luxury, nobility, superiority or having lots of money.

          I have been to almost every country on this planet with various organizations & churches to deliver people food and help build houses for the poorest of the poor. I am a very active member of The Fruit Tree Planting Foundation ( http://www.ftpf.org ) which is also an extraordinary organization doing extraordinary things around the world.

          What have you done for the poor people around the world? I sure hope you're not content with them eating GE foods for the rest of their lives. But instead of at least saying "sure organic food is healthier than GE food", you're just calling me a prick and coming up with some fantasy that I am trying to prevent poor people from living, which is irresponsible of you and libelous.
      • mega-volt, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Ok, I was raised on a farm for 18 years before I moved out of my parents. My dad has been farming for 40 years. I know the agricultural industry. and all i have to say about your fancy studies is BULL *****.
      • Nozzle, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I'll stick to pasteurized foods over non-pasteurized any day...
    • akatsuki, on 02/05/2008, -2/+6Well, they prevent toxic pesticides from leeching into the groundwater and affecting the workers' health if not yours. Antibiotic free meat helps to reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
      • ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3I take it you don't have a degree in chemistry. Most organophosphates are fragile in the wild, and broken down readily.
    • adooga, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1No. Go back to McDonalds.
    • johnn11238, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2What they do, in my opinion, is taste better.
      What they DON'T do, in fact, is pollute the groundwater and destroy the soil, ala conventional farming.
      They also make it possible for family farmers to survive without government subsidies.
      • ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Here, enjoy some Placebo Brand Fruits! Our apples' red color is certified 37% more reddish than the competitor's. You can taste the red!
    • minoss, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1So far all i hear is a bunch of opinions. If I wanted opinion I'd go ask someone why Jesus had to die for us to be forgiven. What I want is facts.
    • caban, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2There has been several studies recently showing that organic food have a higher content of nutrients.
      You google foo seems weak, so hear is a link to one of them for you:
      http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/20 ...
  • unpolloloco, on 02/05/2008, -10/+18i thought organic was a fraud in the first place - although a great way to sell food for more money
    • p0tent1al, on 02/05/2008, -8/+4You thought? So you mean you haven't tried organic food in the first place to make a well grounded statement about it?
      • satanatnmtedu, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Nutrition is no different. What is different is the growing method. And, even that is rife with *****, so to speak. Crowing about not using chemical fertilizers, but manure is a ***** chemical. It is like the claim that all natural must be better; yet, there are many natural plants that can kill you when ingested.
        • tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Oh yeah? Well, organic food doesn't contain any chemicals. Because, you know, if you eat a chemical, you'll get sick.

          /sarcasm
      • brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Read the Omnivore's Dilemma. Organic doesn't mean what you think it means. Plus there are people who really do stick to the spirit of organic food production yet they can't get permission to call their food organic. It is all just a means to increase profit margins.
    • johnn11238, on 02/05/2008, -4/+1The idiot above you beat you to that one...
    • cusoman, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1Tell that to those of us that are allergic to the pesticides and preservatives they use in non-organic. Like me. Life saver, I tell ya.
      • brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Which pesticides and preservatives are they using in organic milk vs non organic? Have you tried washing your fruits and vegetables?

        I'm not saying you're a liar but I am saying that the organic food craze was created to improve profit margins on foods. It often doesn't mean what someone would logically expect it to mean.
  • kiegh, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3It's all the damn lawyers' fault for blurring reality with their trixy words.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I can't help but think that with the right label slapped onto something everyone will want to buy it.
  • linuxrebel, on 02/05/2008, -6/+8Isn't by definition all food organic? since organic refers to something being carbon based. With the exception of a few non-carbon based minerals (such as rion) or perhaps some vitamins. Food is as far as I know all organic. (definitions below from google.) Item 4 is at best subjective as even the concept of synthetic is debatable as most pesticides (not all, most) are actually mass produced natural compounds. Hormones are by definition another area of contention as they are a natural compound given in unnatural quantities. Personally I find the whole concept of "organic" food to be 99% marketing scam and 1% possibility.

    # relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds"
    # of or relating to or derived from living organisms; "organic soil"
    # involving or affecting physiology or bodily organs; "an organic disease"
    # of or relating to foodstuff grown or raised without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides or hormones; "organic eggs"; "organic vegetables"; "organic chicken"
    # simple and healthful and close to nature; "an organic lifestyle"
    # constituent(a): constitutional in the structure of something (especially your physical makeup)
    # a fertilizer that is derived from animal or vegetable matter
    • ORMEs, on 02/05/2008, -6/+3Organic foods are not sprayed, grown with pesticides or fungicides, or genetically modified. Pesticides and fungicides are chemicals specifically designed to kill living organisms. They should not be used on our pristine lands, put on our foods or fed to children. Foods grown using toxic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers are not natural, and can lead to diseases in the humans who eat the foods grown or treated with them.

    • captinherb, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3Jesus Christ, pickup a book. Organic as defined by the USDA, to be allowed to be printed on food packaging, is not "all food". Get passed the semantics
    • satanatnmtedu, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2You will be buried because people are stupid.
    • tannim111, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Personally, I prefer my metallic foods.
    • tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Well, you have to understand that the same kind of peopl;e who embrace "organic" food are those who think all chemicals are harmful. We're not talking about chemists here, so it's unsurprising they use "organic" to refer to natural growing.
  • p0tent1al, on 02/05/2008, -8/+5Anyone who buys organic foods regularly can see AND taste the difference. If you want to experiment, head down to your local grocery store (Stop & Shop for me) and grab some apples. Now head to an organic store (Whole Foods) and buy organic apples (make sure you buy organic).

    The apples from the grocery store will not taste as fresh as the organic apples, and the actual apple will look darker in comparison to the organic one. When you eat regular grown fruit, your basically eating pesticides along with them. Anyways, my point is you really can't fraud organic foods. People will be able to notice.

    It's kind of like the people are Diggers, and the fraudulent organic food is a photoshopped photo. The odds that diggers won't be able to call ***** on it? Very low.
    • fzagruzny, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7do you ever think the difference in taste might just be cognitive? i mean if you pay more for the same apple, then human nature dictates that you will probably convince yourself that the more expensive apple tastes better when it actually doesn't. as for the color, there are a lot of shades of non-organic red, green, and yellow apples. maybe whole foods just carries the lighter ones.
    • spidoman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Just like audiophiles can swear to hear a difference. Guess what, the difference doesn't matter.
  • Midtowner, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2The USDA/FDA has always been a bit too cozy with industrial interests. Too often, it appears that strong profits are more important than allowing Americans the information to make intelligent decisions about what we eat.

    It's actually quite shocking that the USDA/FDA don't give us more information. All too often, even when faced with solid facts such as "trans fats will make you fat and eventually kill you," Americans still opt for Big Macs at lunch time.

    • tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Right, and they have that choice. Or would you force people to only eat healthy food?
      • StaticThunder, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1No, but I would increase their health insurance premiums commensurate with their increased risk.
  • bathenry07, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1It has some advantages vs other tipes of food
  • MasterThief117, on 02/05/2008, -5/+7I may be ignorant, but I certainly do not want "organic food." which in itself is a misnomer as all food along with everything biological is organic.
    I want my food to be genetically engineered to be resistant to many diseases and to offer the best taste. I want my food to be sprayed with pesticides to kill the bugs that cause disease and ruin many crops yields.
    Why should I spend top dollar for food that does not have this treatment?
    • Ellipsys, on 02/05/2008, -3/+1"Organic" as it applies to food is clearly what webster would put as a 2nd or 3rd definition - Yes, we all know it means carbon based first and foremost, but there is some context here to be aware of. As to why you'd want organic food instead of conventional (note, they don't label it "inorganic"), it has been shown in many studies that the same things that make crops grow better and increase the yield of meat, can be harmful to you. Would you want to eat a cow that has been taking steroids? How about antibiotics? Hormones? These things don't just "stop" at the animal who is being injected with them, but get into our water supply and into us during consumption. Maybe you should rethink eating pesticides - they aren't too good for the pests, are they? They build up in your system over time because of their chemical composition, in many cases. Artifical preservatives, chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics and hormonal treatments are just a few of the "non-food" additives into conventional food products. Buying truly organic means being free of them.
      • RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Nope. Organic foods spray too - just with chemicals that are derived from nature somehow... Otherwise, your Apple would be a nasty, bruised, worm-filled mess - and the yield would be so low that the farmers would have to charge 10 or 15 times more to make it even considerable.

        Although I suppose you could grow your own trees and use nothing on them. You can feel free to allow fungus to grow on your fruit and worms to thrive in them. I wonder how quickly those things will build up in your body?
        • Ellipsys, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Notice my use of the word "Artificial". In truth, I should have explained it more clearly. I don't mind if they spray ground up orange rinds onto tomato plants to keep the bugs away. I have no problem using most (but not all) of the "organic" fertilizers and pesticides - Its the artificial ones that I object to.
    • vertigoacid, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Large food growers don't grow for taste, they grow for shelf life and stability.
      • zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4It should be pointed out that the 'large food growers' are just as involved in organic produce as they are in ordinary produce.
    • RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4No... "Large food growers" grow for the greatest $ yield per hectare. This means a combination of many variables. Shelf-life is one of them, but taste is also very important. I don't know where you are getting your romantic notion of the "small grower" but relatives on my wifes side are fruit and chili farmers. With 200 acres they support a family - but are not rich... Anything less than that and they'd be starved. They employ a lot of workers to help harvest and plant. They are as small as you can get, but they are still larger than most people would think when they would think of "small farmers"
    • tech42er, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Absolutely. Genetically engineered food will allow for much larger yields, cutting down on starvation and malnutrition.
  • DeFex, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2the more likely thing to happen is for the FDA to ban using this test to label food.
  • npa100, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1digg b/c of "natural gas and/or phosphates minded from the Earth" heh.
  • katorga, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2"Americans still opt for Big Macs at lunch time." Probably because it is CHEAP more than anything else. Being able to afford to eat probably trumps "good for you".
  • fixedcoma, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4"I say Anon should go AFTER MONSANTO NEXT! DOWN WITH MONSANTO!"
    • RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Monsanto is evil - yes - but they really have little to do with this topic.
  • rarson, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5The problem I have with organic food is that it's all about ignoring science. I mean, we've used science to better so many aspects of our lives, then why not food as well? Organic means no genetically-engineered crops... that's just stupid. People in America love to tell other people that they should eat organic... but you know what? Starving people in third-world countries rely on GE crops to survive.

    With the world population ever growing, arable land ever decreasing, and weather constantly affecting crop yields, it makes no sense to me that we would not use GE crops to ensure that we don't run out of food. Commodities like wheat and soy will be very expensive in the future when the world's population begins to really outstrip supply, so we're shooting ourselves in the foot by refusing GE crops.

    Just another plug for the greatest human being who ever lived: Norman Borlaug. The man has saved over a billion lives through his pioneering of GE crops.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
    • Ellipsys, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2Most "organic" food buffs, including myself would actually prefer genetically modified food that is proven safe, because it doesn't require chemicals, hormones, pesticides and the like. The problem is, most of these modifications have not been studied outside corporate farming backed labs.
    • zugzub, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0You do realize GE crops where not developed to feed third world countries. They where developed to make farming easier. Feeding third world countries was just a side benefit.

      My brother is an OCIA certified farm. His corn, wheat oats, soybean and spelt production rivals our cousins who farms with chemicals.
  • RyeBrye, on 02/05/2008, -2/+7My father-in-law is one of the worlds leading experts on apple crops... I've talked to him a bit about his take on Organic foods, and his point-of-view is: whatever helps the farmer...

    Although quotes like this are incorrect:
    "Organic foods are grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, which are often derived from natural gas and/or phosphates minded from the Earth; without the use of chemical pesticides designed to kill weeds, insects or diseases, and without the use of genetically engineered seeds."

    That's not true. They do use pesticide, fertilizer, fungicide, and weed killer... They just use "organic" versions of each... which... by the way - are nowhere near as efficient as the non-organic versions so they need to spray five or six times more frequently. They also use "organic" fungicide... etc. In his words, he explains that anyone trying to grow apples without using these thing would result in a crop so "badly mangled, bruised, and wormy" that nobody would ever want to buy it at a supermarket...

    I assume the same scenario applies to just about any other "organic" food you might be buying.
    • Grok22, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2I've been to vineyards in Napa Valley and they were organic not because thats what the consumer demanded but because it was more economical and produced a better product. They used things like insects and manure to help the crops grow. I would assume this would be true for apples as well.
      • zeebo, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3You might assume that, but you'd be wrong. Wine producers also sometimes use 'biodynamic' farming techniques, which basically means they're trying to use shamanism to improve their product. Neither the organic nor the biodynamic techniques help, but it does let them sell the Wine at a premium, and some wine tasters like audiophiles will mentally link 'more expensive' with 'better tasting'. Its economical, because it allows them to sell less wine for more money.
  • Grok22, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1most food you get from your farmers market are organic in everything but their name.
    • brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Often times this is true. They might not have permission to actually use the organic label but you're probably a lot better off getting stuff from there than the huge super market. Plus it is often cheaper and fresher.
  • ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Everytime I hear someone mention "organic" food I want to punch them in the face. What a load of new-age anti-science crap.

    If you don't like pesticides, just say so! If you want humanely raised meat, just say so! If you don't want someone "playing god" with genetics, just say so! I can get on board with some of those causes, but at least have the decency to say what it is you're trying to support.

    But trying to change the meaning of a scientific term for a political purpose is crossing the line in my mind. Unless you're only eating salt and water, ALL your food is organic!
  • WaterDragon, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2"the USDA has also recently cracked down on at least one large dairy that had received organic certification for its milk before its standards lap"

    I wonder if that refers to Horizon 'organic' dairies. They were found to be using factory farm methods for their supposedly free-range, organically fed dairy cows. I stopped buying Horizon then, as did many others.
    • ClOlD, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5Conformist. Would you have stopped buying it if no one told you about these lapses? Could you taste any difference?

      No. Because it's THE SAME ***** MILK.
      • Hamletlere, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Slave labor can produce THE SAME ***** COFFEE BEANS as paid labor. By your reasoning, I am a conformist if I stop buying cheap coffee beans when I find out it is produced by slave labor.
  • DrThunder, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5Organic food it's self is a fraud. If the whole planet went organic half the people on earth would starve. The crop yield and time between harvest for organic compared to normal crops it huge. Sure you might not have chemical fertilizer and pesticides but you need a lot more land.
    • spidoman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Don't know why you're being dug down, it's true.
    • zugzub, on 02/06/2008, -2/+0Your an idiot, iof you plant 110 day corn it's ready for harvest in 110 days, doesn't make a rats ass whether you grow it with chemicals or without.

      And the low yield story, it's just that a story. My brother runs an organic farm raising small grains, pork and free range chicken. I raise organic vegetables and get just as much as our neighbor does who raises them conventional.
      • DrThunder, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2I said time between harvests not time it takes to grow moron. If you are not putting chemical fertilizers in the dirt you can't keep planting on the same land over and over again. You will suck all the nutrients out of the dirt. Organic farmers need to do crop rotation more then a farmer using conventional means. Mass organic farming is what made Iraq a desert, look it up. And ass for your brother last I checked you don't need chemical fertilizers and pesticides for Pigs and Chickens, but I might be wrong. And your little organic garden is not going to feed the world. Taking care of half a dozen plants is not the same as taking care of 100 acres. so NO your the idiot.
  • danger127, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3That "organic" food is such a good idea! Look how much people are making off regular foods by merely slapping an ORGANIC sticker on them! People are so gullible.
  • breadbin, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Organic products should be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism if you ask me. If you think they taste better then go for it, it's your wallet, but don't assume that organic farming produces magical crops that are imbued with properties that can't be found in those produced by modern agricultural science.

    Here's an interesting article, which also touches on the commonalities in the way people view terms like "organic" as well as "herbal" and "holistic."

    http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/08/fault-line- ...
  • iamthearm, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1There is already fraud going on. In order for a company to put the word "Organic" on a label, only 70 or 75% of the contents need to be Organic. Go government!!!!
  • zugzub, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0IF you want to eat organic eat it, if you don't want to,don't.
    But if you want true organic get it local, your not going to get true organic at wall mart.
    theres more to it than what you see on the surface. All of the chemicals that conventional farmers us are killing the ground. Every year they dump more and more chemicals on the ground to get their crops to grow.

    Look at all these guys putting field tile in fields that by rights shouldn't need it. Why? because they have killed of all of the worms and now the fields won't drain. Keep right on doing what your doing. Someday no matter how much fertilzer yo dump on the ground your GMO crops are NOT going to grow. While you are starving I will be still be eating.

    The USDA standards are a bunch of bull *****. They are lax just so corporate farms could get on the band wagon.
  • portos12, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Third-party verification may be insufficient to prevent fraud
    http://www.recipesblog.net
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.