Organic Farming Is a Load of—hmmm—Fertilizer

Ronald Bailey | September 14, 2007

A superb article in the Australian popular science magazine Cosmos debunks the organic food and farming craze. On claims that organic is more nutritious, the article notes:

A comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers on the health impacts of organic foods, published by Faidon Magkos and colleagues in 2006 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, concluded there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier.

Even if it can't be proved that eating organic is healthier, advocates claim it is nutritionally superior. Some studies, especially those reported by the organic farming advocate group, the British Soil Association, show that organic produce has a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and anti-oxidants such as flavonols, polyphenols, lycopene and resveratrol.

However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides. According to Bruce Ames, a variety of insect-resistant celery had to be taken off the U.S. market in the late 1980s because its psoralen levels were eight times higher than normal and caused a rash in people who handled it. There was a similar story with a naturally pest-resistant potato variety that ended up being acutely toxic because of its high levels of solanine and chaconine – natural toxins that block nerve transmission and cause cancer in rats. Organic farmers who rely on 'naturally resistant' plant varieties may also be producing plants with high levels of 'natural' toxins. And in this case, 'natural' is not likely to mean better. Think of Abraham Lincoln's poor mother, who died after drinking the milk of a free-range cow that had grazed on a snakeroot plant.

Regardless of how it is grown, the nutritional content of fruit and vegetables is more likely to be affected by freshness or varietal differences. One study reported by Magkos tried to narrow things down by growing the same variety of plums in adjacent fields, with one using organic and the other conventional methods: the conventionally grown plums contained 38 per cent more of the potentially beneficial polyphenol compounds than the organically grown ones did.

What about claims for sustainability? With regard to preserving topsoil, no-till farming using genetically modified crops wins hands down. To wit:

An 11-year farming experiment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, compared crops grown three ways: conventional tillage, organic methods, or no-till. Compared to the conventional tilled plot, the organic plot was likely to hang on to 30 per cent more soil. But compared to the organic plot, the no-till plot hung on to 80 per cent more soil.

What about the alleged health dangers of synthetic pesticides?

If chemical pesticides are hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina — the Agricultural Health Study – suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.

A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. According to James Felton, of the Biosciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also chairs the study, "The bottom line is the results are coming out surprisingly negative. It's telling us that most of the chemicals we use today are not causing cancer or other disease."

Health of the planet and protecting nature?

...many agricultural scientists estimate that if the world were to go completely organic, not only would the remaining forests have to be cleared to provide the organic manure needed for farming, the world's current population would likely starve.

Yields?

...the poor yield of organic farming means that food production would be a major problem. In Australia, for instance, organic farming yields 50 per cent or less per square kilometre because of pest problems and phosphate-depleted soils. (Phosphate is locked away in the ancient clays; conventional farmers help themselves to highly soluble chemically-made superphosphate. Organic farmers can't use a chemical, so they use poorly soluble rock phosphate.)

One critical point to note is that conventional farming using genetically modified crops has been reducing its effects on the natural world over time using the findings of science. Since organic is an ideology, its ability use of scientific findings to reduce its impact on the natural world is heavily constrained.

Look folks, eat all the organic food you want. Just don't be fooled into thinking that you're doing something good for your health or for the health of the planet. You're not.

Whole Cosmos article here.

Some of my own reporting in 2002 on organic alchemy here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|9.14.07 @ 9:57AM|#

What no disclaimer? Bailey is shilling for Big Ag. I mean really, Abraham Lincoln's poor old Mother? For shame Ron, for shame. :J

|9.14.07 @ 10:02AM|#

This should help the locally grown vs. organic debate along.

Missing from the study: Nothing about the effects of eating synthetic hormones over 2 generations? At least you could have recognized the shortcoming.

Morgan|9.14.07 @ 10:02AM|#

Even if Ronald were shilling as you say, what's the evidence that he's wrong? He cites an awful lot of evidence, lots of places to point out the faults. I don't think the Lincoln anecdote is one of those.

Great article, it's always fun pointing out how much more resources are used and pollution is produced for the assumed benefits of organic produce.

jj|9.14.07 @ 10:03AM|#

Crap. "Studies" are surveys. They are like the macro component of economics. The micro still needs to be considered.
Its an unassailable fact that pesticides kill cells -- otherwise they would not be used at all. Since they kill not only insect or plant cells, but human also, they are clearly not good for consumption.
Milk and meat are found to contain hormones (since these are pumped into cows) that are linked to human obesity and early puberty.
Presenting ONE freak incident of bad organic food food does not discount the benefits of eating organic any more than presenting evidence of one non-organic food that is unhealthy.
I'm a libertarian. I'm against govt regulation on any sorts of foods. But the evidence provided in this article sucks.

Episiarch|9.14.07 @ 10:04AM|#

I haven't even read this yet and I'm already rubbing my hands with glee over the flamewar to come.

|9.14.07 @ 10:05AM|#

"Organic Farming Is a Load of--hmmm--Fertilizer".
Based on the scant 'evidence' presented? I'd say the article contains more fertilizer than organic food.

|9.14.07 @ 10:06AM|#

I like this study, as it supports my prejudices. jj dislikes it because it does not support his prejudices. So turns the world.

|9.14.07 @ 10:08AM|#

Dear Ronald Bailey -
I would like to hear an explanation on how this has anything to do with free markets or free minds.

Congratulations for perpetuating the negative image of libertarians that many hold.

VM|9.14.07 @ 10:11AM|#

pssst - Morgan -

Warren was kidding

jj:
"They are like the macro component of economics. The micro still needs to be considered. "

um.... hokae. I got nuffin hier.

|9.14.07 @ 10:15AM|#

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ron, stop reading "Cosmos" and start reading "Cosmo." Your posts will be a lot better.

jj: Please read the National Research Council's report, Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet and get back to us.

I'll give you the bottom line now--the report concluded that levels of both synthetic and natural carcinogens are "so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk." Worse yet from the point of view of anti-chemical crusaders, the NAS added that Mother Nature's own chemicals probably cause more cancer than anything mankind has dreamed up: "Natural components of the diet may prove to be of greater concern than synthetic components with respect to cancer risk."

And of course, the folks over at the American Cancer Society don't know what they're talking about when they conclude:

"At present there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer...."

What is the 'organic' equivalent for meat products? 'Free range'? Id like to see comparative studies regarding the hormone & antibiotic stuffed high density grown meat vs its free range cousin.

In fact, I see nothing in this entire article about hormones. Isn't that quite a big oversight? Isn't that the big argument from the organic crowd? Wow, that's a gaping hole.

William R. Simonson|9.14.07 @ 10:18AM|#

val,

Human meat?

|9.14.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Reinmoose: I'm puzzled. For just one instance the organic folks want to ban and/or severely regulate genetically modified crops based on absolutely no good scientific evidence. Part of their rationale for this is that organic is nutritionally, ecologically, and economically superior. Surely opposing ridiculous unscientific regulations is an issue in which some libertarians might be interested?

Flappy The Eagle|9.14.07 @ 10:24AM|#

I HAVE GIVEN UP ON EATING THE ORGANIC LIVER OUT OF HIPPIES ON ACCOUNT OF SEEING WEIRD TRACERS AFTER EVERY BITE. ZEUS HATES HIPPIES, AND THUSLY IT SHOULD BE MY DUTY TO PECK OUT THEIR LIVERS AND FEED MY EVER-GROWING FAMILY, BUT I CANNOT STAND THE HALLUCINATIONS ANYMORE. TAKE THIS AS A WARNING, HIPPIES, I MAY NOT PECK OUT YOUR LIVER BUT I'VE GOT A BEAK AND ETERNITY, I WILL FIND OTHER THINGS TO PECK UNLESS YOU STOP GROWING YOUR FOOD IN SHIT. I DID NOT SPEND THOUSANDS OF YEARS PECKING OUT LIVERS SO THAT I COULD EAT SPROUTS GROWN IN DUNG!

|9.14.07 @ 10:25AM|#

Except that your post had nothing to do with regulations.

A superb article in the Australian popular science magazine Cosmos debunks the organic food and farming craze

Thank god we can all make fun of people who make choices about which foods to eat based on scientific findings presented in an Australian popular science magazine.

|9.14.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Like I always say: Better living through Chemistry!

Edward|9.14.07 @ 10:27AM|#

The organic movement, along with vitamin and supplement fads, has all the scientific underpinnings of astrology. It's all part of the wussification, risk aversion, and New Age goobledygook that have sprung up in the wake of traditional religion's decline.

|9.14.07 @ 10:28AM|#

"Organic" has very little meaning in advertising. Ditto "natural." I mean, arsenic is natural, but I don't want any in my Wheaties.

I seem to recall reading that the FTC wants to get more involved in this--and it probably will as "organic" sales continue to rise--but defining these terms is well nigh impossible.

Let's face it--most of us make a load of irrational decisions, many based on fears that are disconnected from reality. That's why we overreact to terrorist attacks, are scared to touch doorknobs, fear pesticides, avoid vaccinations, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Reinmoose, maybe the "free minds" aspect has something to do with the idea that a mind can't be truly free if it's basing decisions on false information? It's like a post showing that, despite claims to the contrary, carrying a rabbit's foot does not actually result in increased good luck for the one who carries it. And people who walk under ladders have a mortality rate no higher than people who don't.

|9.14.07 @ 10:32AM|#

val,

Human meat?

Meh, the hunting season for that is not nearly long enough for me to deep freeze a year's supply.

|9.14.07 @ 10:33AM|#

Everyone (well, not everyone, but some people) knows about confirmation bias.

But I've been thinking lately about what I've dubbed the Conan bias. I's argue that a lot of opionion and political discourse is based not on your beliefs and why they are superior, but rather of your desire to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

In fact, I would argue that a lot people who "agree" with and "support" one particular Team do so not because they love that Team's policy positions or leaders, but that the despise (or fear) the opposing Team's positions or leaders or the type of people who identify with that Team.

And that it sparks a pleasure center in the brain when you denigrate them.

|9.14.07 @ 10:37AM|#

Reinmoose: I don't want to read this magazine anymore if it's only going to run stories about SWAT teams and market regulations.

|9.14.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Wow, there are a lot of hurt feelings in this thread. Go wash the sand out of your vaginas, nancies. No one's stopping you from wasting your money on inefficiently grown vegetables at Whole Foods.

It's like a post showing that, despite claims to the contrary, carrying a rabbit's foot does not actually result in increased good luck for the one who carries it.

Of course, that statement is just as unprovable as saying that a rabbit's foot does result in increased good luck.

Im cut and pasting the following that would seem to contradict your assertions, Ron. From the polyface farms newsletter, of which I know you're familiar. I await reading the study in more detail. I apologize for the weird formatting.

______

ON THE FARM - We've always known that Polyface eggs were the best in the world, now we have the data to prove it! This study was conducted by The Mother Earth News Magazine at a lab in Seattle. If you are interested in seeing the results of all the folks who participated in the study, watch for the September issue.

Polyface Eggs USDA Eggs

Vitamin E 7.37 mg 0.97 mg

Vitamin A 763 IU 487IU

Beta carotene76.2 mcg 10 mcg

Folate 10200 mcg 47 mcg

Omega-3s 0.71 g 0.033g
Cholesterol 292 mg 423 mg
Saturated Fat 2.31 g 3.1 g

People of Earth:

Eat irradiated mangoes and bananas! That's how I maintain my array of fantastic super powers!

It is also how I maintain my superhuman colon!

Additionally, eating human meat is wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Unless it is prepared with a plum marinade! Delicious!

Reinmoose: You didn't know that the organic folks want to ban competitors? I had to spell that out?

Also, what Jennifer said.

|9.14.07 @ 10:40AM|#

In fact, I would argue that a lot people who "agree" with and "support" one particular Team do so not because they love that Team's policy positions or leaders, but that the despise (or fear) the opposing Team's positions or leaders or the type of people who identify with that Team.

Very true...for a magazine that advocates "Free Minds" (drink), many here seem very quick to judge those who think inappropriately.

You know, "statists", "nannies", "hippies", "religious nuts", etc.

|9.14.07 @ 10:44AM|#

Dan,

You left out bibertarians.

VM|9.14.07 @ 10:45AM|#

ProGLib:

"Let's face it--most of us make a load of irrational decisions, many based on fears that are disconnected from reality. That's why we overreact..."

Good call - hier (PDF!!!!!!) is an paper by Becker and Rubenstein (2003/2004) called "Fear and the Response to Terrorism"...

*chases atomic fruitbat around the room with a badminton racket*

|9.14.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Human meat?

Meh, the hunting season for that is not nearly long enough for me to deep freeze a year's supply.

Here in Detroit, the season appears to be year round.

|9.14.07 @ 10:47AM|#

This has a great deal to do with the general phenomenon of hobbyists attempting to get the government to legitimize and subsidize their otherwise uneconomic activities. In order to fight this, we must find effective logical and scientific refutations to their largely emotion- based assertions.

uncle sam|9.14.07 @ 10:47AM|#

I brought home some 'organic' pita bread from Trader Joe's once. When I was unpacking the bag, I noticed mold growing on it.

Hmmm, organic mold.

|9.14.07 @ 10:49AM|#

Let's call 'organic farming ' what it is,primitive.It was the cause of famine and food shortages.

Dan T. Nobody here wants to outlaw organic produce or free range chickens. We reserve the right to chuckle at those who spend extra (usually hard earned) cash on them. OK?

|9.14.07 @ 10:51AM|#

Dan T. Nobody here wants to outlaw organic produce or free range chickens. We reserve the right to chuckle at those who spend extra (usually hard earned) cash on them. OK?

Sure. And I reserve the right to point out how the real motto here should be "free minds as long as you agree with us".

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 10:53AM|#

Sure. And I reserve the right to point out how the real motto here should be "free minds as long as you agree with us".

Non-trolling got to be too taxing for you, did it?

|9.14.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Also, I'm so damned tired of this worry about "genetically modified/engineered" food. Broolli and Cauliflower are both descended from the same species of plant. Now write this down, boys and girls, SELECTIVE BREEDING IS SLOW MOTION GENETIC ENGINEERING. There will be a quiz at the end of the period.

Wait a sec. The assertion that:

"Some studies...show that organic produce has a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and anti-oxidants such as flavonols, polyphenols, lycopene and resveratrol."

is rebutted by:

"However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides."

I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion, but isn't this a bit like changing the subject then claiming to have one the debate?

It leaves me to wonder: How did Cosmos conclude that organic wasn't healthier? I mean with statements like this: "If chemical pesticides are hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected." I have to question their understanding of the scientific method from the start.

Episiarch|9.14.07 @ 10:56AM|#

But I've been thinking lately about what I've dubbed the Conan bias.

I like this idea. If you look at a lot of people, their preferences and prejudices can usually be seen as a combination of their "confirmation" biases and "Conan" biases. Any scientific evidence that supports their confirmation or refutes the despised other's confirmations is great; anything else is ignored.

Or...is this just my own Conan bias regarding irrational or partisan people? My head hurts...

|9.14.07 @ 10:57AM|#

"SELECTIVE BREEDING IS SLOW MOTION GENETIC ENGINEERING."

What's wrong with slow motion again? Too bad there wasn't slow motion with thalidomide for pregnant women.

|9.14.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Meh, the hunting season for that is not nearly long enough for me to deep freeze a year's supply.

I misunderstood when I first moved to Florida and someone told me Tourist Season had started.

Luckily I got straightened out when I asked if a rifle or a shotgun was recommended.

I can see I could have gotten into a lot of trouble if I'd just gone out with the 30/30.

|9.14.07 @ 11:01AM|#

Dan T.

I thought the whole idea (besides, of course, making pretty funny jokes/observations) of these comment threads was to battle it out intellectually over the substance of these posted articles.
I dialectic, you know? How can you say something like, "'Sure. And I reserve the right to point out how the real motto here should be "free minds as long as you agree with us'"? Who is "Us"? Is there some rules/guide line memo that gets sent out so everyone hews to a party line here? If so, nobody sent it to me, and for that matter, no one seems to be following it.
I think you just get upset because you throw an opinion out there that has intellectually shaky underpinnings, and then get called on it.

|9.14.07 @ 11:07AM|#

re: "Tourist Season"

A friend of mine told me not long ago she was going to participate in a "cowboy shoot."
I asked if you need a license to shoot cowboys, or if they are merely classified as "pests." She laughed, but said I might not want to use that one indiscriminately.

|9.14.07 @ 11:08AM|#

tk:

I'm just drawing a distinction between disagreeing over philisophical and political issues and showing a fundamental disrespect for those who don't agree with you.

Even Mr. Bailey seems to be angry that a number of people out there might honestly suspect that eating foods that have been sprayed with chemicals designed to kill animal life might not be a great idea.

|9.14.07 @ 11:10AM|#

Non-trolling got to be too taxing for you, did it?

I rest my case.

|9.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#

And people who walk under ladders have a mortality rate no higher than people who don't.

Yes, but people who walk under ladders are more likely to be involved in hilarious hijinks when someone drops a bucket of paint on them than people who don't.

Episiarch|9.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Even Mr. Bailey seems to be angry that a number of people out there might honestly suspect that eating foods that have been sprayed with chemicals designed to kill animal life might not be a great idea.

No, Dan, he is angry that people might use this belief, not grounded in any science but merely in "suspicion", to tell other people how they can farm, what they can eat, and so on.

You're not even trying anymore, are you. I understand that it's Friday, but come on.

|9.14.07 @ 11:15AM|#

Matt: I do indeed know Polyface and I've even purchased some of their meats--tasty and tough just like the free range cows we used to grow on our dairy farm.

And the data Polyface presents is fine but does it have any real nutritional impact in a balanced diet? (One other admittedly cynical thought, if the results had turned out differently would Mother Earth News be touting them?)

As I'm sure you know, there are plenty of studies that show largely insignificant differences in nutrition between organic, conventional and genetically enhanced crops. The difference is the organic folks are desperate to hype any study that shows some difference that they can tout as a way to claim superiority and they remain silent when the results don't go their way. Anyway, the link to the Magkos study cited in the Cosmos article is here.

And here's one to broccoli study and another to a pig study--no difference.

And here's a report about a 2007 study showing little significant difference in nutrition between organic and conventional foods.

Dan T.: You post your odd views here frequently and freely, now you insist that "free minds" must all agree with you?

chris|9.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#

"Reinmoose: You didn't know that the organic folks want to ban competitors? I had to spell that out?"

I think you got this backwards. Monsanto is the one suing farmers whose crops crosspolinate w/theirs. Small organic growers are about as purely competitive as you can get. Big Ag and Corporate farmers are the ones getting all the money from the state, patenting every seed known to man, etc.

|9.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#

What's wrong with slow motion again? Too bad there wasn't slow motion with thalidomide for pregnant women.

I dunno maybe this.

|9.14.07 @ 11:19AM|#

J sub D: "world hunger" is a political problem, not an agricultural problem.

And Dan T.: tell me again, what's the problem with a magazine providing commentary on the hot issues of the day?

poco|9.14.07 @ 11:21AM|#

I'm not keen on paying extra just for the bureaucracy of organic certification, but I would like my veg (esp. those with edible skins) at least to be pesticide-free. Also, IME organic just tastes better -- more strongly like the plant it's meant to be. So organic costing 2x or 3x that of conventional produce probably isn't worth it, but

...but 50% more? Sure.

Damn server ate the last yummy organic bit of my post

|9.14.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Even Mr. Bailey seems to be angry that a number of people out there might honestly suspect that eating foods that have been sprayed with chemicals designed to kill animal life might not be a great idea.

Bingo.

And come on, Bailey.
Surely opposing ridiculous unscientific regulations is an issue in which some libertarians might be interested?

Again, nobody said anything about regulations. Provide me evidence to the contrary please.

Reinmoose: You didn't know that the organic folks want to ban competitors? I had to spell that out?

Also, what Jennifer said.

First of all, "the organic folks"... hmm, sounds like broad sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people to me. Also, Jennifer's comment was unintelligible.

Would you randomly post something about rabbits' feet or walking under ladders, just to make fun of people for having superstitions? Secondly, that business about a mind not truly being free if its basing decisions on false information is ridiculous. The whole point of libertarianism is that people can make whatever choice they want, regardless of the information, as long as nobody is compelling them to do so and they are not compelling other to do the same.

Your implication that this has anything to do with regulations is disingenuous, and it's entirely similar to the "problem? there's no problem" mentality of global warming, drug use, and the like. I do not refute the claims of the extremely scientifically founded claims of the article you cite, nor do I need to to object to your apparent distain for people who make a choice that you don't agree with.

|9.14.07 @ 11:23AM|#

i usually find organic vegetables at the farmers market are as cheap or cheaper than conventional produce at the grocery store

*"distain" should be "disdain"

Rob W.|9.14.07 @ 11:26AM|#

In regards to the fungicide methyl bromide being phased out, I think that stuff is beyond phased out. I work in a chemistry lab that regularly uses nasty things like phosgene and cyanides, and we weren't able to find a single company willing to sell us methyl bromide for research use, much less to spray on food products. You'd think there would be an exception on the ban for research.

|9.14.07 @ 11:27AM|#

J sub D: "world hunger" is a political problem, not an agricultural problem.

Today, yes. Perhaps I shoud have cited this as well.

|9.14.07 @ 11:29AM|#

Chris: Organic folks do too sue. In Canada so far and are trying to set it up here too.

See again my article on Organic Law for how to fairly resolve this issue.

chris|9.14.07 @ 11:34AM|#

everyone sues, but there is no way oragnic growers are more anticompetitive than agribusiness.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Would you randomly post something about rabbits' feet or walking under ladders, just to make fun of people for having superstitions?

No, but I'd gladly make fun of people who want to mandate the carrying of rabbit's feet and outlaw subladder walking for the Greater Good.

Secondly, that business about a mind not truly being free if its basing decisions on false information is ridiculous.

I'd post a rebuttal but I can't, since I lost my lucky rabbit's foot and dare not post or touch electronics today, lest something horrible happen to me. I'll just huddle on the floor in the corner, whimpering in fear and enjoying my wonderful freedom. My mind is in no prison, and fuck any rationalist bastard who says it is.

|9.14.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Reinmoose: With all due respect-I don't care if you buy organic or not, just so long as you are not doing it out of scientific ignorance sustained by the folks who promote organic foods like the Organic Consumers Association.

For another take on the OCA look at activistcash here.

|9.14.07 @ 11:38AM|#

let's face it.Primitive farming is not going to feed the country.Much less the world.Not to mention the fact that much less land is used in the modern type.Much of the forest in this country exist due to this wise use of land.

|9.14.07 @ 11:39AM|#

Chris: I didn't say organic folks were "anticompetitive." I said they wanted to ban their competitors.

Just in any case someone has some doubts, I'm against ALL agricultural subsidies period.

|9.14.07 @ 11:40AM|#

1. Mad cow disease? One reason why organic meat is now big in Japan
2. There's one brand of eggs from vegetarian-fed free-range chickens that just tastes better to me. So I'm willing to pay the extra $1.00/pack every now and then. Would I be willing to pay extra for an egg which was shown to carry more omega-3 oils in the yolk? Yes I would.

3. Hey, it's MY food choices. I've found organic tomatoes to consistently be better tasting and more ripe than those horrible plasticated monstrosities one finds in the standard grocery store. (Normal tomatoes would probably taste just as good if they picked them when they were ripe as opposed to when green and then shipping them around the country under nitrogen gas, but I don't have that option.) Organic farmers, in general, seem to pick veggies when they are RIPE, not GREEN, which probably accounts for most of the taste benefits....

4. So when did Libertarianism turn into making fun of people's free choices?

|9.14.07 @ 11:44AM|#

I don't buy organic food. I don't agree with the part of the article about pesticides, but I largely agree with the rest of the findings.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the other points I've made, other than to reduce whatever assumptions people have about my position on the matter just because I think threads specifically designed to make fun of people for making a choice that's contrary to what seems rational by the evidence presented are scummy.

|9.14.07 @ 11:48AM|#

So when did Libertarianism turn into making fun of people's free choices?

I've always figured it was a core principle. ;-)

|9.14.07 @ 11:49AM|#

poco

Pesticide residues are easily washed off fruit and vegetables. The likelihood of any significant amont remaining is nil.

Read Virginia Postrel's interview with Bruce Ames (Reason,November 1994).

Just curious, is there anyone here who doesn't realize you have to wash fruit and vegetables before preparing or consuming? Regardless of the source.

Freshness and handling have more influence on flavor and appeal than method of farming.

A conventionally grown tomato picked this morning from my own garden (or yesterday and bought a a farmers market) will taste better that an organically grown tomato picked last week and shipped across the country.

|9.14.07 @ 11:51AM|#

And if we didn't make of stupid people, what would Brittany and Paris do with their spare time?

|9.14.07 @ 11:52AM|#

Hey Ron, thanks for the other links.

Yea, Mother Earth News certainly has its agenda, and cherry picks its studies like most partisan outfits.

And Organic farming isnt magic. Any benefits ought to be testable by science.

Common sense is often counter-intuitive. Nonetheless its hard for me to shake certain views:

eating less pesticides is healthier than eating more

eating an animal that eats a healthy diet is healthier than eating an animal that does not.

These views may not prove to be true, but they are certainly more appetizing and I will pay an extra few dollars to live by them. And, as you know, if we'd end the grain subsidies in this country we'd all be paying a little more (for most meats, at least) anyway.

group mentality goon|9.14.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Matt -
ur stupid. lolz.

eating less pesticides is healthier than eating more

eating an animal that eats a healthy diet is healthier than eating an animal that does not.

clearly, because you make this choice, you want to impose regulations on all of us and make us all eat less pesticides and animals with your supposedly "healthy" diet.

Scop|9.14.07 @ 11:59AM|#

Heated in here, isn't it?

I like the idea of organic (even though my high school chem teacher would point out that malathion, DDT, and dioxin are all organic, but I digress). I like the idea of a fmaily farm, where the inhabitants are "in tune" with nature. I like the idea of the village community where everyone does an honest day's work--you know, the blacksmith, the cooper, the miller, the farmer, the priest, the tailor, the barman, the taverner, the brewer, the thatcher, the carpenter, and so forth.

I love these ideas. I admit I love going to Renaissance fairs where I can live for a few hours in such a fantasy. But my fantasy never includes dead babies, tooth decay, plague, ricketts, mental retardation due to preventable illnesses, vitamin deficiencies, and food poisoning. (You know, one theory about the Salem witch trials is that the little girls who made most of the accusations were having seizures due to a Rye fungus.)

I, and many other people, long for the uncomplicated world of simple farmers, and small, happy communities. Of course, they never really existed. We can easily fantasize about the good touch-feely stuff, the organic farming, the life connected to the land; it's a little harder to remember the death and disease and the passionate hope of all those involved in tilling the soil to escape.

"Organic" feels good, emotionally. But synthetics--nasty chemicals!--feed people. Irradiation saves lives. Technology offers no appeal to the heart. But it will keep your teeth intact, your liver clean, your muscles disease-free, and your stomach full.

If I had a point, it would be this: let the fantasy of living off the "organic" land remain in fairy tales and Renaissance fairs, and feed your children food grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and irradiated after harvest. And thank God or human ingenuity that we no longer have to grow our food in piles of shit while praying for rain.

|9.14.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Reinmoose,I think the problems develop when 'organic' producers want labels touting their 'benefits' and regulating what can be called organic.They had to change the meaning of the word to fit their view of how crops should be raised and insure market share..The amount of fruits and vegetables in stores during the off season is a modern phenomenon.Whether your eating modern or primitively grown produce you have a much healthier diet than before.

Just to be clear.

I have no problem with people who prefer the taste of tomatoes or zuchini from some local farmer at their local market because in fact they are probably right. It very likely does taste better and it likely has higher nutrient levels*.

My problem is with those who tell me straight faced that they eat organic food because it has no chemicals (what it's pure spiritual matter or something?) and is healthier. Those people deserve to be laughed at.

*Of course considering how loaded with nutrients fruit and vegetables are the slight losses in nutrients due to lack of freshness are not really that significant. On the other hand the flavor loss is.

Vermont Gun Owner|9.14.07 @ 12:02PM|#

My experience with organic vegetables and fruits is somewhat limited. However, having grown up on a dairy farm that has operated both conventionally and (in the past 3 years) organically, I can say that with organic milk you are getting ripped off. The only difference is that the milk you are getting is coming from warted, pink-eye infested cows and the farmer gets paid extra for the milk.

Oh, and the hay the cows eat can only be gathered by tractors that have been thoroughly checked for oil leaks.

|9.14.07 @ 12:03PM|#

yall really think organic growers are using primitive or medieval methods? there is an huge body of literature devoted to increasing soil fertility and production using organic methods.

Matt|9.14.07 @ 12:08PM|#

>>>clearly, because you make this choice, you want to impose regulations on all of us and make us all eat less pesticides and animals with your supposedly "healthy" diet.

Goon,
against my better judgement I respond. Sarcasm, troll, or malnourished brain functionality?

the day the USDA got involved with Organic certification was a dark one for organic foods, IMO. End subsidies, and no special treatment for any food preferences by the feds, I say.

|9.14.07 @ 12:08PM|#

vermont is totally right. there is a difference farmers (and corporations) that grow organic for a better return and those that have a more holistic view of farming who go above and beyond organic standards.

Scop|9.14.07 @ 12:10PM|#

chris,

In case you're referring to my lengthy diatribe about medievalism, I do not deny that organic farmers do a hell of a lot of work and research to making their practices better. If I gave the impression that I consider modern organic farming medieval, then I apologize.

I just consider the impulse to be an organic consumer a rather Romantic fantasy. That was what I was trying to convey in that unforgiveably long post.

ed|9.14.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Nice try, Ron, but as Organic Foods is a religion, it is exempt from logic and science.

|9.14.07 @ 12:13PM|#

Michael Pack -
I agree. (reitterating that nothing of the sort was mentioned in the above article, *ahem*)
Independent organic labels do exist, as do ones that indicate that the food was farmed by a family owned farm (which, of course, could mean multi-million dollar farms, but I digress), as do humane labels. The bigger problem is the USDA's insistence that it needs to regulate this. If they'd just be like "bugger off," the independent labels would replace them.

dhex|9.14.07 @ 12:14PM|#

4. So when did Libertarianism turn into making fun of people's free choices?

now while the conservatarian legions who have come to hit and run in the past year or so are big on this kind of thing, no one complains when we're ripping into creationists who want to push xyz or some other outre group that has few, if any, detractors.

we generally only notice this sort of thing when our own ox is being gored. but hit and run and reason have always had a playful/mean edge (i.e. the legendary santorum's daughter thread) and if nothing else we can all agree organic foods is a salient topic.

Scop|9.14.07 @ 12:15PM|#

and I misspelled "family"

I'm going to a synthetic, irradiated hell for that.

|9.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#

End subsidies, and no special treatment for any food preferences by the feds, I say.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Doctor Duck|9.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#

people who walk under ladders have a mortality rate no higher than people who don't.

Whoa. This is going to save me a lot of time. Thanks!

Douglas Gray|9.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#

The issue is muddled because the concepts "organic" and "conventional" are not scientifically precise. Mr. Bailey rightly points out that produce that is fresher and which comes from the healthiest plants is generally the best tasting and most nutritious, whether it be "organic" or "conventionally" grown.

There is nothing magical about locally grown produce, unless it is fresher. With fruits especially, it is freshness and ripeness which count, not so much how it is grown

|9.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#

Another problem with Mr. Bailey's article is that he would have you believe that because he read in one journal that there is no scientific reason to think that organic foods are better for you, it must be gospel.

But yet a simple visit to the organic food wikipedia page puts that notion to rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

group mentality goon|9.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#

It's ok Matt. It's all sarcasm. Though I admit, it doesn't sound that far off base from some of the serious comments above, does it?
I should work harder to make it more obvious.

Ha! Idiots bought into the organic food and wholefoods took it right to the bank! I should've thought of that...

|9.14.07 @ 12:20PM|#

End subsidies, and no special treatment for any food preferences by the feds, I say.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Moi aussi
(or for some of you, Ich auch).

|9.14.07 @ 12:21PM|#

we generally only notice this sort of thing when our own ox is being gored. but hit and run and reason have always had a playful/mean edge (i.e. the legendary santorum's daughter thread) and if nothing else we can all agree organic foods is a salient topic.

Along those lines, a self deprecating sense of humor makes reading/posting H&R much less upsetting. Gore my ox, I can takde it.

|9.14.07 @ 12:26PM|#

DHEX -

Somehow I missed out on the "legendary santorum's daughter thread".
Do you have idea if there is someway to access it?
I'd love to read it.

|9.14.07 @ 12:34PM|#

tk -

Here you go!

|9.14.07 @ 12:37PM|#

Hmm... Salty ham tears...

Oh wait, Ronald Bailey? With the Competitive Enterprise Institute? The CEI where the Washingon Post noted that "the most generous sponsors" of their 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal."

Yup. Pure reason and no bias there! You just really care about the environment and our health!

|9.14.07 @ 12:41PM|#

I don't think fruits and vegetables get subsidies.That's mostly grain,cotton and sugar and should be stopped.Organic labeling is a farce.With out a label from the USDA and studies trumpeting how much better they are for you you just have a more expensive carrot.

|9.14.07 @ 12:45PM|#

Okay, Shilly, what list of donors would be acceptable to you, precisely? You think General Motors and Exxon Mobil really have a beef against organic farmers? Why?

You act like you think you've made some sort of telling point here, but I don't think you have. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the Captain Planet theory of business ("Corporations are spending millions of dollars to design a machine that runs on babies and topsoil and emits carbon monoxide and E. coli!").

|9.14.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Jack Boone -

Thank you. Should I read it now, or wait till after I get back from happy Hours...?

Paul|9.14.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Thank god we can all make fun of people who make choices about which foods to eat based on scientific findings presented in an Australian popular science magazine.

Like our politicians make policy choices about global warming?

|9.14.07 @ 12:49PM|#

"I brought home some 'organic' pita bread from Trader Joe's once. When I was unpacking the bag, I noticed mold growing on it."

Yeah, you gotta be quick with that stuff. Half-life is about 6 minutes. I think they run it through dirty bathwater before they put it in the bag because you can watch the mold bloom during your ride home.

|9.14.07 @ 12:52PM|#

The comedy cannot be enhanced by mere alcohol. Though it's an astoundingly long thread (someone on a righty site linked to it, and it was swarmed by outraged Reds), so you might have to skip happy hour to read the whole thing.

matt|9.14.07 @ 1:04PM|#

hmmm, I thought organic was supposed to mean that it was grown without pesticides and only with using things like say, spiders that eat the pests? or is nothing grown without?

I thought that was a requirement of organic food

|9.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#

"There is nothing magical about locally grown produce...."

Tell that to your friendly neighborhood "localvore."

|9.14.07 @ 1:08PM|#

"There is nothing magical about locally grown produce."

Absolutely correct. Locally grown produce is generally fresher, healthier and tastier. There's really no magic involved.

Tell that to your friendly neighborhood "localvore."

*shudders* It's a chilling thought to think that that trend is only just beginning.

I never thought the argument about organics was the nutrition value. I thought it was the lack of chemicals and poisons that made people want organic. silly me.

|9.14.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Here we go again...

Modern organic farming is nothing like the characterizations most of you are ignorantly rattling off. It's not sticking seeds in piles of steaming shit, living in a mud shack while praying for rain. Organic farming today is based on an enormous amount of research (yes, scientific) that is currently ongoing. And for every study that a pop-sci author can rattle off to prove that toxins are good for you, your children and society, there's another that says quite the opposite.

My take on this? I believe technology is an awesome way to compliment and explain natural phenomena. It is not very good a supplanting natural systems. If I'm going to vote with my dollars, I'll vote on a system that leverages several million years of adaptations over one that's got a few decades of industry-biased research.

Remember, many pesticides have been banned over the years because of proven harm to humans and surrounding ecosystems (here). This means that whatever biocide du jour may be rated as fine today and proven lethal tomorrow. Pesticides make it to market with a few years of study, and years after that - oops! Sorry about all of those birth defects.

Seriously, I understand the lust for efficiency, but you're going to count on a product created by a handful of people and tested by a magnificently ineffective bureaucracy that you eat? Oh, but they say it's good for you, this time it's different, look at all of these studies run by a department larded with industry names, etc.

Gullible much?

Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 1:13PM|#

I thought organic was supposed to mean...

The meaning of "organic" is kinda fuzzy.

|9.14.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Jake Boone,

The connection between oil companies and industrial agriculture is closer than you would think. Not saying anything about your point, only that there is such a connection.

Matt,

There is such a class of pesticide known as 'organic'. These are usually toxins of biological origin (as opposed to lab) that theoretically degrade before hitting your mouth. Using predator species (everything from nematodes to bacilli to arthropods) is part of a practice called integrated pest management. These are two different practices, though both are commonly used in organic operations.

|9.14.07 @ 1:20PM|#

So when did Libertarianism turn into making fun of people's free choices?

Just a reminder. The word "Libertarianism" with a capital L refers to the Libertarian Party. The word "libertarianism" with a lower-case L refers to a broader political philosophy.

|9.14.07 @ 1:23PM|#

I also find it curious that these harmless pesticides have to be handled by farmers wearing what looks to be MOPP gear. If it is so harmless whats with all the gas masks and protective covering?

Anonymous|9.14.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Why were no sources of any of these studies or experts cited?
This is a wonderful piece of writing except for the fact that the author didn't provide the information for intelligent individuals to follow up on whether or not any of it is even true.

Perhaps the author is unconcerned about the quality of his writing or actually informing the public, but there are a couple of flaws in this article that do nothing other than diminish the credibility of the author, such as:

- Referring to "studies" and "scientists" which are not named specifically, giving no method for the reader to follow up and verify the claim.

- Writing about the Agricultural Health Study as though it were completed and had reached a conclusion; this study is on-going to this day. To refer to the findings of it without mentioning this fact is premature.

I hope the author will take more time to write quality, informative material in the future instead of wasting the readers' time with what I consider to be only a small amount better than yellow journalism; citing specific sources and empowering the reader to follow up on the information within the article is what separates a mediocre author (Mr. Bailey) from a dedicated, serious journalist.

|9.14.07 @ 1:30PM|#

So even if the organic label is full of crap, literally and metaphorically, can't we take something away from it and still apply it to normal production methods?

|9.14.07 @ 1:33PM|#

"I also find it curious that these harmless pesticides have to be handled by farmers wearing what looks to be MOPP gear."

The article above says that testing farm workers for health problems resulting from pesticides is OK because they are exposed to them more. Guess not. I posted this concern way above, and nobody gave a damn.

|9.14.07 @ 1:35PM|#

I thought it was the lack of chemicals...

Ah, yes, no chemicals. Organic foods are made of pure heavenly spirit matter.

|9.14.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Reason proves once again that there is no fringe belief (global warming is a hoax, organic food is a scam, religion is a disease, the "invisible hand of the market" can solve all our problems, etc) that they won't back, given enough $$$.

|9.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Well, it started out as a rather scientific debate, but it has now turned into "I hate your hippie lifestyle" and "I hate your uptight white lower-middle class fantasy lifestyle."

|9.14.07 @ 1:42PM|#

The article above says that testing farm workers for health problems resulting from pesticides is OK because they are exposed to them more. Guess not. I posted this concern way above, and nobody gave a damn.

This is a difference between acute toxicity and long-term cancer risk.

|9.14.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Yes, pesticides are poisonous. Wouldn't be much good if they weren't, would they?

The workers wear suits because they are handling huge quantities in high concentrations. There are many things besides pesticides that people take precautions for.

The pesticides are the spread over large areas. Only tiny amounts of residues remain (if any) on the surfaces when the produce is harvested.

Just wash your produce and anything harmful on the skin is gone.

You should do that with any produce whether it's "organic" or "conventional".

Doesn't matter. They'll both have nasty residues on them.

|9.14.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Remember, many pesticides have been banned over the years because of proven harm to humans and surrounding ecosystems (here). This means that whatever biocide du jour may be rated as fine today and proven lethal tomorrow. Pesticides make it to market with a few years of study, and years after that - oops! Sorry about all of those birth defects.

Whoa there! A little paranoia is good thing, so more must be better?

And for every study that a pop-sci author can rattle off to prove that toxins are good for you, your children and society, there's another that says quite the opposite.

Yet we continue to be healthier overall and live longer than our parents. Certain cancer rates are falling and years of remission lengthen. (psst, that might be because of [shudder] chemicals.) Funny that.

Be happy overpaying for and eating your organic foods. We will be simultaniously happy for you, while our bank accounts fatten from the savings from not eating it and the poor will continue to enjoy very cheap and plentiful non-organic food.

|9.14.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Yes, James, I got millions for my comments.

Whoops, no I didn't. Or maybe I would if I wrote any of those things.

Or maybe not.

Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 1:45PM|#

So even if the organic label is full of crap, literally and metaphorically, can't we take something away from it and still apply it to normal production methods?

Sure. There's a whole spectrum of possible farming practices between hippy organic farming and better-living-through-chemicals farming brought to you by Monsanto.

Paul|9.14.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Lamar:

"I hate your hippie lifestyle"

What are you talking about? I love your hippie lifestyle!!!

|9.14.07 @ 1:48PM|#

OK, here's the deal:

1. Everyone is going to die, including you.
2. Pick the disease you'd prefer to die from.
3. Eat accordingly.
4. And wear fresh underwear, JUST IN CASE you don't live long enough to die from a good old fashioned disease.

|9.14.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Hopefully this whipping will prevent Mr. Bailey from writing on this topic for at least a week or two.

But I doubt it.

GILMORE|9.14.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Modern organic farming is nothing like the characterizations most of you are ignorantly rattling off...

Uh, right.

I've written about Organic foods for 10+ years, and had been coming to exactly the same point over and over again. You think this is wrong, call up Katherine DeMatteo at the US Organic Trade Association and ask for her rebuttal. She doesnt have one. The industry relies on perception, not reality. The truth is that large scale organic farming (which is the bulk of what you see in stores) is only nominally different than 'industrial' agriculture. The pesticide scare ignores the fact that we've got 100yrs of experience working with these things, and no, the 'birth defects' angle is bullshit. The # of people harmed by synthetics is actually less than people harmed by opportunistic contamination in products that have poor 'natural' resistance

Paul|9.14.07 @ 1:54PM|#

Jodeo:

4. And wear fresh underwear, JUST IN CASE you don't live long enough to die from a good old fashioned disease.

You've presented a Catch-22. Good old fashioned diseases don't let you live very long.

Scop|9.14.07 @ 1:56PM|#

No. Organic is code for "grown in shit."

That's what it means, these days. That's ALL it means.

|9.14.07 @ 1:58PM|#

"This is a difference between acute toxicity and long-term cancer risk."

Exactly. There is also the issue of hormones, which nobody will touch. I don't know the arguments for either side, really, but "hormone free" is plastered on the side of organic products all the time.

Gilmore: I don't think you mean "nominally" different. I think you meant to use a different word. Nominally means in name only.

GILMORE|9.14.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Anonymous | September 14, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Why were no sources of any of these studies or experts cited?

Minor irony alert.

|9.14.07 @ 1:59PM|#

GILMORE: Sounds like a vendetta. A blood feud.

GILMORE|9.14.07 @ 1:59PM|#

Gilmore: I don't think you mean "nominally" different. I think you meant to use a different word. Nominally means in name only.

No, thats more or less what i meant - that in practice, it has little impact on the environment, human health, or economic benefit to justify the difference. Is that clearer?

GILMORE|9.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Vendetta! Vendetta!!

GILMORE|9.14.07 @ 2:06PM|#

FYI - the exception to the point here is Dairy and Meat, both of which can be vastly healthier when organic...

and also mucho expensivo

|9.14.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Oh boy. I'm confused now.

I don't buy organic because I don't want to be seen as one of those hippies, but I don't like the idea of hormones coursing through my food. I guess that only applies to meat and dairy? Expensive? Ah, that's for people who don't work their asses off to worry about.

Minor irony alert was muy funny.

|9.14.07 @ 2:16PM|#

"Dan T. | September 14, 2007, 12:18pm | #
Another problem with Mr. Bailey's article is that he would have you believe that because he read in one journal that there is no scientific reason to think that organic foods are better for you, it must be gospel.

But yet a simple visit to the organic food wikipedia page puts that notion to rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food"

Interesting. I visited this wiki page and found this under the Nutritional heading:

"Nutritional value

Some studies have shown higher nutrient levels in organic fruit and vegetables compared with conventionally grown. However, due to the difficulty with designing such experiments, the evidence is not considered conclusive.[5]

Most studies show that organic food is better for you because it lacks harmful dyes and hormones[citation needed], however, some studies - including a 2002 meta-analysis, which is a review of all past studies on the subject - found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguisable difference in taste. [62] [63] [64] [65]"

It is interesting to note that the only part of this section that supports the hypothesis that organic food is better for you has no citation.
While on the other hand, the notion that there is no difference is supported by four citations.

|9.14.07 @ 2:21PM|#

Nice. Of COURSE no-till farming retains soil better than tilling. What about NO TILL-ORGANIC farming.

This is a poorly researched article, picking a few nuggest to support the assertion. of COURSE USDA is going to only publish articles supporting conventional farming. Did Big Ag pay you well to print this article? We'd have to cut down all our trees to provide green manure for organic farming? What about composting, what about planting winter ground cover that gets turned over to green manure. You don't have to kill a tree to provide green manure.

|9.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#

JW,

Whoa there! A little paranoia is good thing, so more must be better?

When it comes to the health of my family, yes. Though I call it common sense. See my whole post, not just that one graph. I have evolution on my side. You can have Monsanto.

Yet we continue to be healthier overall and live longer than our parents. Certain cancer rates are falling and years of remission lengthen. (psst, that might be because of [shudder] chemicals.) Funny that.

I have no issue with chemicals, nor did I indicate that in my post. I have a problem with taking a proven system and replacing it with a unproven (if more profitable) one. Using chemicals to treat disease, create novel substances and get really, really high are just fine with me.

As for cancer rates, longevity, etc, the US is hardly a leader. Want to live longer? Keep physically active, eat less, stay involved in your community. It's not a secret why some populations live longer than others. Having your food doused with chemicals really has little to do with it. National Geographic did a great article on this in the last year. Check it out.

You can be happy for me all you like. I'm just giving you my take on things. I err on the side of caution, you don't. Whatev.

As a side note: I spend less on groceries now than when I consumed whatever was at the grocery store, as fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper at my local farmer's market and local farms than anywhere else. But congrats on being wealthier and all.

Gilmore,

I agree with almost everything you wrote about industrial organic. I have a problem with your assertion that no harm (or marginal) harm has been done. Working under the assumption that there such a thing as toxic load for living organisms, proving such a thing for positive or negative would be very tricky. Regardless, many pesticides ARE banned, and usually for good reason. Perhaps you and yours were not harmed, but that's small comfort to those that were and will be.

As for the history of pesticides, it's much longer than you indicate. The current classes of pesticides and the intensity of their use is what's different. And no, we do not have 100 years of experience with the current scale and intensity. A handful of decades (1940/1950, perhaps) at most.

Humans tend to be awfully shortsighted about such things, and we create magnified effects due to our practices that we simply could not have predicted (Gulf dead zone, anyone?). My assertion isn't so much that I have iron-plated evidence y'all gonna die from pesticides, but rather I'll go with practices that we're well adapted to as biological organisms. Nature bats last, as they say.

|9.14.07 @ 2:24PM|#

I also find it curious that these harmless pesticides have to be handled by farmers wearing what looks to be MOPP gear. If it is so harmless whats with all the gas masks and protective covering?

Because the dose is the poison. Breathing in pesticide fumes for hours will hurt you, eating 2 ppm of pesticide in your food will not. This is the fundamental principle of toxicology. It is not difficult.

"An 11-year farming experiment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, compared crops grown three ways: conventional tillage, organic methods, or no-till. Compared to the conventional tilled plot, the organic plot was likely to hang on to 30 per cent more soil. But compared to the organic plot, the no-till plot hung on to 80 per cent more soil. "

was there a No-till+Organic plot? it's not like they are mutually exclusive.

Neither Ron B., nor the 'study' seems to make a distinction between 'otherwise conventional organic farming', and 'permaculture (orsimilar up to date tech) organic farming'. It's kinda like ya know important.

I am still waiting for Ron to comment on a recent U. Michigan study on Organic sustainability. It might be junk, but I would like Ron to comment on it.
Here's the popular science magazine link to combat his:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm

As far as my opinon. Organic foods make claims of tatste, health and environmental rightness.

The first is true for fresh foods which haven't gone moldy (those strawberries were expensive dammit!!); dry grains do not seem to benefit in this regard.

When properly grown with natural external pesticides, multi-variety fields, and with healthy predator populations (permaculture) the internal poisons of plants do not develop and are thus not a problem. Otherwise Conventionally grown 'organic' crops however are prone to developing poisins when stressed by unchecked pests.

Organic envirnomental 'rightness' has a lot to do with reducing demand for artificial fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; avoiding runoff of the same (which does awkward things to streams, lakes and coasts.). Organic permaculture farming wastes less water, and reduces soil loss, especially with no-till methods(already mentioned) Another environmental beny is improved biodiversity...not crisply sure how that is a beny, but it sounds like it would make for a more stable environment, making plagues of pests less likely.

I don't know much about the rightness or wrongness of 'organic' meats and dairies. I do think 'organic' dairy tastes better. I also like the thought that an animal I am about to consume was on a regular basis able to get some excercise outdoors, eat real food, and genreally not like in pain and misery of food-factory conditions. Maybe I should go hunting...for WABBITS!

|9.14.07 @ 2:27PM|#

oh yeah...farming these days would be tastier, healthier, more 'organic', less wasteful, etc. etc., if ag-subsidies were simply dropped.

|9.14.07 @ 2:28PM|#

"This is the fundamental principle of toxicology. It is not difficult."

And what do the fundamentals of toxicology tell you about ingesting small quantities of carcinogens over a period of time? Just wondrin'

|9.14.07 @ 2:30PM|#

I like to buy organic food not because it's nutritional but because they will keep going and going with modifying our food. They started out with little things now there is actual plastic in gummy bears... I guess I just don't want them to think I'm cool with them f*&%ing with our food. Did you ever watch the discover channel about modifying food. They basically said (with every new technology) that they didn't know what would happen and how it would affect our food. Anything can happen and our food is good. Leave it alone!

|9.14.07 @ 2:31PM|#

I see that Fark picked this up. Hello, douchebags! Fail. O RLY? Stupid cliche trifecta is now in play.

|9.14.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Kristin,

Right on. Unfortunately many organic farms don't use modern (e.g. cutting edge) practices. Many are conventional farms with their tanks full of organic pesticides instead of synthetic. The tide is turning, and will as inputs become more expensive.

Warty,

Because the dose is the poison. Breathing in pesticide fumes for hours will hurt you, eating 2 ppm of pesticide in your food will not. This is the fundamental principle of toxicology.

So is bioaccumulation. (ignore how poorly written that article is, you'll get the gist)

|9.14.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Lamar

Read Virginia Postrel's interview with Bruce Ames (Reason,November 1994) linked in my 11:49am post.

Dr. Bruce Ames is a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley and something of an expert in these matters if I'm not mistaken.

And of course Virginia Postrel was editor of Reason before it became the degraded birdcage liner it is today. :)

|9.14.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Dan T.
Wow, you went to wikipedia to debunk the contents of a peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal?
Excellent research, Dan T.! Top notch, top notch! How 'bout a Fresca?

Episiarch|9.14.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Just thought I'd pop in at comment 150 and quote myself from comment 5:

I haven't even read this yet and I'm already rubbing my hands with glee over the flamewar to come.

Man, I'm gettin' tired of bein' right!

|9.14.07 @ 2:45PM|#

So is bioaccumulation. (ignore how poorly written that article is, you'll get the gist)

I'm aware of it. I'm also not aware that agricultural pesticides accumulate in the body.

Really, of all things to fear, pesticide residues should be at the bottom of the list. You'd really be better off spending the time and energy fixing the broken railing on your front stairs, or cleansing your city of criminals Charles Bronson-style, or something like that.

|9.14.07 @ 2:49PM|#

The industry relies on perception, not reality.

See bottled water.

|9.14.07 @ 2:51PM|#

No. Organic is code for "grown in shit."

Am I the only one thinking of magic mushrooms all of a sudden?

|9.14.07 @ 2:52PM|#

And what do the fundamentals of toxicology tell you about ingesting small quantities of carcinogens over a period of time? Just wondrin'

That it's perfectly natural? You may talk about poisons and bioaccumulation, but that's nothing new. Fungi have been poisoning us with carcinogenic, bioaccumulating mycotoxins for the entire history of mankind. To live is to be poisoned. I don't take my health lightly by any means, but it seems that a number of people place much more of an emphasis on the esoteric nutrional qualities of food than is really due. I don't know whether this is a manifestion of the boomer generation grasping at straws in the face of impending mortality or not, but it seems slightly pathetic.

|9.14.07 @ 2:55PM|#

I don't know whether this is a manifestion of the boomer generation grasping at straws in the face of impending mortality or not, but it seems slightly pathetic.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. You sound like someone from my roots. Can we please start looking at everything through that lens?

|9.14.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Warty,

Do a find on "Bioconcentration" here if you don't want to be bored to death. There are better resources about this topic (you'll find a lot of them talk about DDT, another libertarian favorite) but I need to get back to work.

I agree with your last point, but only if I were capable of doing one thing at a time to reduce risks in my world. I exercise regularly, eat my veggies, have strong relationships with my family & community, smell the flowers and pet puppies, etc. All uncontroversial ways to improve your life and perhaps live longer. All of them probably rate higher than avoiding pesticides. However, in the course of avoiding eating synthetics, I get to do all of the above by visiting a market or farm, raising my own veggies in my garden, having a few chickens in the backyard, etc. It's more work, but the work fulfills other needs that I'd have to take care of some other way in any case.

|9.14.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Really, of all things to fear, pesticide residues should be at the bottom of the list. You'd really be better off spending the time and energy fixing the broken railing on your front stairs, or cleansing your city of criminals Charles Bronson-style, or something like that.

No kidding. Many people seem to have very little understanding of the real risks of various types of environmental exposures and activities. For example, I can recall a conversation that I had once with a friend of a friend in which she voiced concern about the concentration of arsenic in the local water while sucking on a hand-rolled cigarette.

|9.14.07 @ 3:03PM|#

However, in the course of avoiding eating synthetics, I get to do all of the above by visiting a market or farm, raising my own veggies in my garden, having a few chickens in the backyard, etc. It's more work, but the work fulfills other needs that I'd have to take care of some other way in any case.

No one is saying that you shouldn't be free to grow your own food. If you're going for flavor, it's pretty much the only way to go. Most store-bought vegetables are terribly bland. And properly ripened food may even have more nutritional value.

You sound like someone from my roots. Can we please start looking at everything through that lens?

I have to admit some gen X resentment for the boomers. For a generation that embraced principles of tolerance and non-violence in its youth, they've reversed themselves almost totally.

|9.14.07 @ 3:05PM|#

Isaac Bertram: I am conflicted:

"[R]ecent data have made Ames deeply suspicious of high dosage chemical testing and especially of the notion that man-made chemicals are uniquely dangerous."

My initial concern was that high dosage testing (or culling data from high exposure subjects) is no substitute for long-term data. Ames seems to agree with this. But instead of citing to long-term data, he compares synthetic to natural carcinogens. I guess that was the scope of the interview.

|9.14.07 @ 3:11PM|#

I spend less on groceries now than when I consumed whatever was at the grocery store, as fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper at my local farmer's market and local farms than anywhere else.

That is not an unusual experience. And it suits many people. And, believe me, I can certainly not fault anyone for preferring fresher, tastier goods.

On the other hand I find it hard to believe that produce that was picked last week in California that is now on sale today in Whole Foods in Winter Park, Florida is any better than its conventional counterpart in the Publix a few doors up.

And that goes double for packaged and processed foods.

In no way do I avoid organic food. But purity or safety, nutrition and eco-friendliness do not take a place in my consideration for I do not believe organic has any advantage here. Price and taste are my only concerns.

And freshness and care in handling are likely to be the biggest determining factors here.

|9.14.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Dan T.
Wow, you went to wikipedia to debunk the contents of a peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal?
Excellent research, Dan T.! Top notch, top notch! How 'bout a Fresca?

More like I went to wikipedia to balance out something I found on this blog.

|9.14.07 @ 3:14PM|#

Tacos mmm...

Good lord there's a lot of those out there. Point taken, though what you're really saying is that the world is full of idiots. Amen.

All species are constantly under siege by the world around them, from natural sources of radiation, bacteria, fungi, viruses, Mongol hoards... Most populations have evolved complex defenses against these attacks over millenia. Synthetics are novel substances, though, and as such have an advantage - no evolutionary defense is in place to handle them, since they've never existed before.

An analogy (flawed as all analogies are, but it'll do) is invasive - exotic - species. Ecosystems are a battlefield, with critters fighting for supremacy in their niches. Some live, some die, but overall these systems are in balance until some external event puts them out of balance. However a new critter, from some other ecosystem, is novel. The populations have no way of competing with this new life form, as it has advantages they've not had many generations to evolve defenses against.

You can argue whether exotics are good, bad or indifferent, but when you're talking about your own body, my guess is you'll vote bad. We're very large creatures and have an incredible array of defenses on our side, but the more novel substances we test on ourselves, the more likely we're going to have to deal with collapse.

Urkobold™|9.14.07 @ 3:25PM|#

DAN T.,

THE URKOBOLD AGREES COMPLETELY WITH YOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. IN FACT, IT WAS JUST YESTERDAY THAT THE URKOBOLD WENT TO MEIN KAMPF TO BALANCE OUT SOMETHING HE SAW AT THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM.

|9.14.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Wait....now hold on. That's a valid point. Is there a ringer in control of the URKOBOLD controls today?

|9.14.07 @ 3:27PM|#

"Many people seem to have very little understanding of the real risks of various types of environmental exposures and activities."

Compare the relative risks to farmers of pesticides versus corn pickers.

|9.14.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Synthetics are novel substances, though, and as such have an advantage - no evolutionary defense is in place to handle them, since they've never existed before.

Do you really think that we have highly specific defenses against a massive array of natural toxins? We don't really - we have ways of metabolizing and inactivating toxins that work for broad classes of compounds, natural or not, and ways of repairing damage that are independent of the causative agent in most cases. The body is a very good generalist, and doesn't really care if the DNA damage is caused by natural compound Y or synthetic compound Z. It just repairs the damage either way. I see very little evidence that the human species is heading for collapse due to environmental poisons.

Urkobold™|9.14.07 @ 3:34PM|#

CONTROL THE URKOBOLD, LAMAR? NO ONE AND NO THING CONTROLS THE URKOBOLD. TREMBLE AND WEEP, FOOL. WAIT, THE URKOBOLD MUST GO READ PLATO TO OFFSET YOUR POSTING.

|9.14.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Lamar

The point, as I took it was, that our environment is full of nasty stuff. The artificial nasty stuff is a tiny fraction of the whole set of nasty stuff.

When someone of this guy's stature discounts the effects of pesticide residues (and basically says that the fruit contains natural toxins in much greater quantities*) I pay attention.

I have many more worries in this world than phantom threats of cancer.

*He said that in another piece that I can't find. In the linked piece he refers to the number of natural toxins in a cup of coffee.

|9.14.07 @ 4:10PM|#

The best comment I ever heard on organic foods was made by a veterinarian I know.

"Organic produce?" What's the other kind? Silicon based?

|9.14.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Here is a little something that's missing from the article:
FACTSHEET: Ronald Bailey
DETAILS
Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute. Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine.

FUNDING
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998

|9.14.07 @ 4:18PM|#

MG III

And?

It's not there because all the regulars already know it.

anonymous|9.14.07 @ 4:24PM|#

thanks for completely missing the point Ronald

|9.14.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Tacos mmm...

Well, of course. If we had a single defense for each pressure, leaving gaping holes everywhere else, we'd not exist. The first natural mutation of any given virus would have wiped us out. I did not imply this, nor did I imply the human race is headed for collapse. The analogy was our internal ecosystem to a regional one. And yes, people do suffer serious damage from synthetic chemicals, as well as natural. I can't do anything about the natural ones, but I can about the man made.

I agree with your overall point. I'm not screaming "OMG we're all gonna die!". I'm saying that sometimes, someone dreams something up in a lab, it passes testing, is put on our food, and it fucks someone up good*. It's not every day, nor is it the impending collapse of civilization. But if I can choose between something with more pesticides or fewer - and I can - I'll take fewer any day.

* Case in point: endocrine disruptors. I'll bet no one ever expected them, but evidence is growing that they're extremely prevalent in man-made compounds. No test we had forty years ago existed to test for them. Now we're finding them everywhere, and concern is growing over their lasting effect on our population.

izik|9.14.07 @ 4:28PM|#

here's a study for you:

look at the 1st generation asian population of the united states, all of whom have grown up eating the hormone-injected food products here in the US. compare thier physical development and body structure to that of their relatives raised abroad. you will notice that the US asians are thicker, taller and bigger in just about every way. whether or not food in the US causes cancer is a useless debate. cancer is caused by several factors which can't be traced back to any one cause. yet, the harmful effects of the food sold in US markets is well documented. here's a relevant question: why is corn syrup added to everything? the answer is so Ag companies get rich. does my cranberry juice need corn syrup? no. but some corporate Ag executive DOES need to post big profits to keep his job. therefore, americans will blindly eat chemically-altered food for the rest of their american lives and die of diseases that didn't plague the population 100 years ago. yay.

giftos|9.14.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Figures don't lie but liars figure. This one is a whopper!

SIV|9.14.07 @ 4:37PM|#

|9.14.07 @ 4:40PM|#

I've been thinking about this. I own a decent number of GE shares. I guess that makes me pro-death penalty, since they make electric chairs. And here I thought I opposed the death penalty.

I also was once funded by the NSF even though I thought I was a libertarian. Who knew I was really pro big government all along?

|9.14.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Is there anyone here who can explain izik's 4:28 post? (The content, not what caused it.)

|9.14.07 @ 4:51PM|#

Aresen

Yes it doesn't seem to be entirely relevant, does it?

izik is apparently one of those insiders who knows THE TRUTH!

you will notice that the US asians are thicker, taller and bigger in just about every way.

This is bad?

why is corn syrup added to everything?

Agricultural subsidies are a completely different issue from "organic" vs "conventional" farming. In fact you will probably find that large scale organics farmers are in the handout line along with there conventional brethren.

...die of diseases that didn't plague the population 100 years ago.

Oh, wow, and which diseases would they be?

Name one.

While I can name any number of diseases people routinely died of 100 years ago.

Polio, tetanus, diptheria, whooping cough, TB....

Get a little perspective, kid.

|9.14.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Pro Libertate

You and your GE shares.

Well I, for one, have known all along that your nothing but a shill for BIG TOASTER.

Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 5:01PM|#

MG III,

I agree one should be more wary about an argument from someone who has taken money from a special interest. You still do consider what they have to say, don't you? What about if it were a politician that had taken the cash instead of a think tank?

Having said that, forget contributions form ExxonMobil. The biggest embarassment for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and capitalists everywhere was their stupid "We Call It Life" ad campaign which complelety missed the obvious point that any chemical can become a pollutant in high enough concentrations.

|9.14.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Isaac Bartram

Not to snark, but people weren't dying of AIDS 100 years ago. However, that disease appears to be a product of natural evolution from a disease in a related species rather than "environmental pollution". (Unless, of course, you subscribe to the 'US Government Conspiracy' theory of AIDS origins.)

|9.14.07 @ 5:29PM|#

(Unless, of course, you subscribe to the 'US Government Conspiracy' theory of AIDS origins.)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if izik does.

|9.14.07 @ 5:41PM|#

While I can name any number of diseases people routinely died of 100 years ago.

Polio, tetanus, diptheria, whooping cough, TB....

You missed the biggie Isaac, smallpox.

|9.14.07 @ 5:56PM|#

Actually the smallpox was an early one and was widely used. So while it was a killer even a hundred years ago the disease was on the retreat in the west. It was, however a scourge in the third world until the 1970s.

And, of course, my list was not exhaustive. As the ... suggest it could go on practically for ever.

Of course, Aresen has shown me up with the AIDS reference.

I don't know, it's just that little snots like izik, with their utter lack of any historical perspective, bug the shit out of me when they spout such illinformed blather.

|9.14.07 @ 6:04PM|#

Enjoy your unsweetened cranberry juice! mmmm... OH GOD THE PAIN!

|9.14.07 @ 6:22PM|#

NEWS FLASH!

It has just been discovered that the surface of the sun is hot enough to give a person a nasty burn! Yes, the sun is DEADLY!

Write your local politicians to support the construction of a worldwide protective roof to keep out the sun's deadly rays.

|9.14.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Isaac

No intention of 'showing you up,' I just didn't want someone to get in and suggest that AIDS was a result of "chemicals in the environment."

Technically, every variety of the cold or flu is a "new disease", because viruses are constantly mutating.

The one real complaint I have against the careless use of pesticides is that they seem to be accelerating the evolution of the viruses, bacteria, fungi, insects and even rodents which prey on and compete with us.

|9.14.07 @ 6:27PM|#

I have never seen unsweetened cranberry juice. I understand that nobody likes it that way.

But if izik ever went shopping for his own groceries he would find there are several different brands of cranberry juice blended with other fruit juice like grape or apple for sweetness.

But he'd rather just sit in his Mom's basement imagining new ways that the corporate Ag executives get all corporaty and stuff.

Hey, izik, tell your mom to get you some Northland Cranberry-Raspberry 100% Juice next time you go to the store.

It'll be one step towards not dying of some disease noone died of a hundred years ago.

Of course if you reject modern technology there's no telling if you might die of one of the hundreds of diseases that did kill people regularly a hundred years ago.

|9.14.07 @ 6:37PM|#

you all suck.
eat some monsanto/con agra products and love it. corporate whores

|9.14.07 @ 6:39PM|#

oh and corn syrup really is bad for you

|9.14.07 @ 6:43PM|#

Wow, rok, even if it comes from organically grown corn?

|9.14.07 @ 7:32PM|#

>oh and corn syrup really is bad for you

Make mine a double!

|9.14.07 @ 7:39PM|#

I'm sure someone's beaten me to this point, but after reading the earlier comments I feel compelled to post this. The article only appears to be talking about 'crops,' not dairy, not meats, just edible plant life.

So anyone's points about the advantages of free range meats, milks, eggs, or whatever are technically valid and arguably accurate, they are also completely irrelevant to the point of the article

|9.14.07 @ 8:02PM|#

It has been long known by educated and reasonable people that the whole organic is healthier thing is just one of the latest brand of snake oil. If the "Big Ag" methods were so harmful why is life expectancy increasing? How you live your life is much more important than if you eat the supposedly healthy diet. An active person has a fully realised metobo;ism and will process foods more efficiently. A more swedintary person's metabolism does not and stores more fat. Converts more to cholesterol and so on.

It is all a bunch of hype designed to part you from your hard earned income. Be smart. Eat well but don't be conned and save some money and by the perfectly healthy and safe foods that is available from big ag, small ag and the like.

|9.14.07 @ 8:40PM|#

Ok morons. Organic fruits and veggies may not be any better. Organic farming is non-sustainable as well. Intelligent people have known these facts for years.

I still buy organic ('cept spinach) because I can afford it.

Life expectancy has increased for many reasons, but that does not mean that complex organophosphate and organochlorine chemicals in low doses are not harmful.

No one knows how these buggers might be buggering us. I don't care how many studies you can cite, it is impossible to determine the effects. I don't advise wasting much effort debating or worrying about it.

Subpilot: you are an idiot. Most organo promoters are hard working earnest people who like the idea of being their own boss and working outdoors in a back to the roots mode of a simpler life.

The fact that you are a wage slave drone who lives in a big city and does not know any cops and organic farmers personally gives you a large cynical chip on your shoulder of your own making.

Not that much shit is "designed" Stop hitting the bong and get a real life interacting with the planet, it's plants and critters directly. Then you might have an authentic thought. Until then, you are just a bitch to your ganga pipe dream.

Robert Fischer|9.14.07 @ 9:49PM|#

Hitler ate organic.

Godwin'd.

Can we move on now?

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|9.14.07 @ 10:58PM|#

2. There's one brand of eggs from vegetarian-fed free-range chickens that just tastes better to me. So I'm willing to pay the extra $1.00/pack every now and then.

It's not taste, it's age. Just go to a local farm and buy fresh non-organic and you get the same taste.

|9.14.07 @ 11:44PM|#

I buy organic produce because, most of the time, it tastes and looks better than the non-organic. This is mostly because the "hippy" stores don't coat their apples in shoe polish, wax, and/or whatever else they do to put that 2-bar shine on there.

I don't believe that I'm getting any more or less nutrition no matter what sort of produce I buy, but I do care about taste. It may have a lot to do with the fact that I'm in Phoenix, however. Most all of the organic/natural is grown locally and everything else comes from Mexico. That may be the only real factor affecting the taste, but the end result is the same: organic fuji apples über alles.

If they'd stop using shoe polish on the non-organic fuji apples I'd buy them in a second. (Yes, Fry's, I'm talking to you.)

|9.15.07 @ 12:01AM|#

Organic tastes better. Go to Whole Foods and peruse the organic produce. You'll really notice the difference with tomatoes, cucumbers, milk, and orange juice.

rg|9.15.07 @ 12:40AM|#

I cant wait for all those crops that are treated with hormones. mmmm mmm mmm. WTF people. this is an article about crop farming not cows and or feeding cows or shooting animals up with hormones. It is about pesticides on crops. get a clue. Oh, but i am interesssssteeeeeeddddd in the effects of hormones in meat wahhhh. go find another article that addresses that issue, or better yet, go to google scholar and search for real scientific articles. losers. i hate you. you ruin the internets.

billy joe|9.15.07 @ 12:43AM|#

This just in: if you continue to eat food for the rest of your life, you will die.

Kevin Carson|9.15.07 @ 5:31AM|#

"...the organic folks want to ban competitors..."
--Ron Bailey

That's got to be the sloppiest and laziest generalization I've seen in a long time. Some "organic folks" just want to eliminate the barriers to competition imposed by Monsanto and their ilk. And speaking of which, didja know the "folks" in biotech want to ban competition? That's right--ever hear of patents? And trying to shut down dairies and grocers who advertise milk as rBGH-free sounds an awful lot like, um, "banning competitors."

"One other admittedly cynical thought, if the results had turned out differently would Mother Earth News be touting them?"
--Ron Bailey

Here's another cynical thought: if the evidence as Bailey understood it pointed to the superiority of organic food, would he have chosen that paticular topic to feature prominently in a Hit&Run post?

Keep phoning it in, Ron.

|9.15.07 @ 7:47AM|#

I swear by organic food. I have measured the length of my erect penis regularly since I was 4 years old. I started eating organic foods in 1989, and ever since then, my boners have consistently measured 3/16" longer. I am very happy with these results.

|9.15.07 @ 7:52AM|#

emptyhandkiller "...my boners have consistently measured 3/16" longer." You fat, alcoholic liar. You can't even GET an erection, never mind measure it. Your puny excuse for a sex organ has hung limply ever since you crawled out of your idiot mommy's baby hole. Maybe it DOES measure longer, but only because gravity is pulling it further down.

|9.15.07 @ 8:23AM|#

Lulabelle, apparently you are the type who must "see it to believe it". In order to prove the length of my meat log, I will meet you at a motel and stuff it inside you. Then you will feel it throbbing and thrusting deep inside you. You will feel and smell my rancid hot breath puffing in your face. You will wince under the pressure of my fat hips ramming you again and again. And, finally, you will feel my love sausage squirt its load of hot cream and know that your egg will soon be fertilized. Then you will be convinced.

Monsanto|9.15.07 @ 8:28AM|#

Five! Ron
The check is in the mail as per our usual agreement.

Do you stupid smelly hippies realize what they use for fertilizer on your e coli tainted ugly over-priced produce? Animal excrement.

Except Chinese organic agribusiness (like the "carbon footprint" of your food coming from China Green boys and girls?) which uses human shit. Organic farming is linked to a huge uptick in e coli and hepatitis

|9.15.07 @ 1:04PM|#

"Here's another cynical thought: if the evidence as Bailey understood it pointed to the superiority of organic food, would he have chosen that paticular topic to feature prominently in a Hit&Run post?"

University of Michigan had a study which showed the positive global sustainability of organic foodsl; as soon as I saw it in July I posted links to it on H&R whenever the subject came up. But Ron. B. has yet to respond to it. So there's your answer I guess.
Here it is again:
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936

KilltheHippies|9.15.07 @ 1:22PM|#

So would you patchouli stinkin' leftist libertarian-posing douche bag dopertarians choose organically grown or wild ditchweed over pesticide and chemically fertilized kind bud?

|9.15.07 @ 1:28PM|#

"If chemical pesticides are hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected."

Anyone reading an article purporting to report science should stop at the above-quoted statement. That is a conclusion based on nothing but unfounded supposition.

|9.15.07 @ 1:38PM|#

One assumption this study makes that might not be the best: "These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't."

Pesticides absorbed through the skin might be processed by the body very differently than pesticides ingested. (I don't know if they are or not - but the data presented here doesn't say either way). While the group they studied would have a very large amount of skin exposure, they would probably have approximately the same amount of pesticide ingestion as the general population. So this particular piece of information doesn't actually tell us anything about the safety of the food we're eating. It does tell us that the act of spraying the pesticide doesn't pose much risk to farm workers (which is good!).

To get a real comparison for cancer rates, you would have to study a group of people who ate only organic foods, and compare them to the general population. (Better yet, add in another test group who ate an increased amount of pesticide-treated food). That kind of study could probably be done more easily using a rat model.

|9.15.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Following up on Tel:

Are infants and young children commonly employed as farm workers?

Was the study looking only at the carcinogenic effects of pesticides? What about its effects on kidneys, liver, and endocrine components?

Furthermore, definitively ruling out a causal link between pesticides and cancer would require studies lasting decades since it can take that long for cancers caused by chronic toxin exposure to present.

|9.15.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Sweet jumping jesus, but you bitches are crazy!

|9.15.07 @ 2:13PM|#

Being an ag scientist, I always get sent links to articles like these. It's really disappointing to see that mainstream media is completely incapable of examining this issue objectively and must always favour sensationalism in bashing one side or the other. No wonder I'm constantly confronted by people spouting rubbish they've read in some newspaper or site. I'm going back to my peer-reviewed journals and going to use my time working to find the best compromise (yes! ever heard that word??) instead of arguing one method over the other.

nitin|9.15.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Ron-
It took you a while, but you came around to accepting the fact the we humans are warming the planet. I look forward to the day when you see and accept that pesticides are not good for human consumption.
Just curious- do you have any stock or other financial interest in Big Agro?

|9.15.07 @ 2:36PM|#

"Since organic is an ideology, its ability use of scientific findings to reduce its impact on the natural world is heavily constrained."

Do you ever read Acres USA? The best work being done on organics is all about science, and bridging the gap between organic and conventional farmers. (Granted, I don't have much use for Charles Walter's neo-mercantilist economics...)

|9.15.07 @ 3:24PM|#

|9.15.07 @ 3:27PM|#

"Organic" is Hippie for "kosher". If it weren't, wild fish and game would be considered "organic", would they not?

|9.15.07 @ 3:30PM|#

I've been a 'vegan' for 35 years. I don't necessarily recommend it, because there are terrific advantages to being an omnivore--in fact if there is a 'natural state' for humankind, being an omnivore is it in terms of species survival. Besides, you miss out on lots--not meat, particularly, which I never miss, but other stuff like miso soup (fish stock), dairy, which is increasingly hard to digest, and alcohol (ditto). None of the trendy college kids following in my footsteps realize the longterm effects of such a lifestyle; bloating, loss of hair, lack of energy, poor teeth; lack of natural steroids, etc. On the flip side, I look great, am very slim for my age, and smell good. Unlike most of the rest of you.

Here's my point: a vegan diet necessarily dovetails with eaiting the best possible produce. And that means organic. Why? Because it TASTES WAY WAY BETTER! Duh. Try sniffing inside a pesticide can sometime and you'll see what I mean. Everything gives you cancer, but as with smoking, some things guarantee it--and a broad range of pesticides fall into that category.

Are organic foods mostly hype? Sure. Most of them aren't inspected or really organic anyway. Are they over=priced? Sure--but what isn't? Can they be dangerous? Yep, my wife got E. Coli poisoning from that organic lettuce from Whole Foods. But believe me, non-organics, especially meat (and anything from China, including vitamins) pose far more health risks. Save your outrage for them.

dr_dog|9.15.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Yup. Pure reason and no bias there! You just really care about the environment and our health!

This is what happens when you forget the BaileyDisclaimer.

|9.15.07 @ 4:21PM|#

There are also studies that suggest that organic farming is superior to no till. Please cite your sources and then unearth all available studies . . .

In fact, I'd honestly never seen anything that suggested no-till was substantially superior to organic. (For those not aware, bear in mind that organic farming requires tillage in order to bring nutrients out of the soil).

And the methyl bromide phase-out -- resisted in the US for years -- shows us why we should be cautious about chemicals.

For me -- if I eat the skin, I'll lean toward organic. Lettuce. Berries. Tomatoes. Otherwise, I'll lean toward conventional. E.g. oranges, corn, bananas. And the more fat it contains the more I'll go organic -- meat primarily.

If you want the most dramatic difference between organic and non-organic, try chicken. Trust me on this one. A lot of non-organic chicken tastes like a cross between a medicine chest and a septic system. Hamburger too, although less flagrant. When I used to make chili a lot, I could not get it to taste right with the conventional hamburger meat I was getting at my local store. The organic for about 25 percent more solved the problem.

Mike Laursen|9.15.07 @ 4:30PM|#

"Organic" is Hippie for "kosher".

Did you just come up with that? You win the thread. That really is the definitive definition of the word, "organic".

|9.15.07 @ 6:49PM|#

Interesting but . . .

Let's have more vitamin comparisons and not just phenols. I have heard for instance minerals like sulpher are missing from the three mineral spray fertilizer Ag industry uses.

Top soil comparison was compelling argument however.

|9.16.07 @ 1:36AM|#

What no disclaimer?

Given the title, I can't believe no one has claimed Ron is a shill for Big Shit. ;)

|9.16.07 @ 4:10AM|#

None of the trendy college kids following in my footsteps realize the longterm effects of such a lifestyle; bloating, loss of hair, lack of energy, poor teeth; lack of natural steroids, etc. On the flip side, I look great, am very slim for my age, and smell good.

Yup folks, just another bloated, bald, fatigued, testosterone deprived, toothless, handsome dude.

|9.16.07 @ 4:16AM|#

I enjoy the fact that we have for the most part gotten to the stage where all but the most hardcore organic supporters are no longer even trying to support organics with any but the most lame and subjective of arguments: "it just tastes better". This is the one claim on behalf of organic foods the organics supporter knows cannot be easily demolished, because it is entirely dependent on the organic food consumer's subjective perception.

brettdl|9.16.07 @ 9:28AM|#

I took a look at the Farmer study mentioned in this post. Lower cancer rates were possibly linked to lower smoking rates and increased physical activity.

But let's say for arguments sake that these pesticides are not causing cancer. They've got plenty of other problems to worry about. Here's straight from the study's most recent report:

"Previous studies by other researchers have found that high-level exposure to pesticides
affects the nervous system, causing symptoms like those in the box on the next page.

"These symptoms may persist long after the initial reaction to the pesticide exposure gets
better. It is important to realize that these symptoms may have many causes besides pesticide
exposure. Other exposures or illnesses may be related to these same symptoms. ...

"By studying the information provided at enrollment, we found that farmers who had used pesticides longer and more often said they
had more neurological symptoms than those who had not used pesticides or who had used them less frequently and for fewer years. This was particularly true for insecticides and fumigants. ...

"Farmers who had a history of pesticide poisoning, pesticide-related medical visits, and accidental high-exposure events also had more neurological symptoms than those who had never had an acute pesticide exposure event. In fact, we found that participants who had experienced a high personal exposure event, such as a spill, said they had more symptoms, even if they had never been diagnosed with pesticide poisoning.

"Neurological symptoms that may sometimes be related to pesticide exposure:
• absentmindedness
• blurred or double vision
• changes in smell or taste
• depression
• difficulty concentrating
• difficulty speaking
• dizziness
• excessive sweating
• fast heart rate
• fatigue
• headache
• insomnia
• irritability
• loss of appetite
• loss of consciousness
• nausea
• numbness in hands or feet
• poor balance
• poor night vision
• tension
• tremor in hands
• twitches in arms or legs
• weakness in arms or legs"

Who cares about cancer when your face is twitching, your head is spinning and you get take a deep breath?

|9.16.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Damn, that's some shoddy reasoning on display right there.

Organic produce contains more vitamins and anti-oxidants. But some other crops had higher levels of things that were bad. Therefore...um, what?

No till standard agriculture preserved even more soil than tilled organic agriculture. OK, so organic processes preserves soil, and no till farming preserves soil, too. How is this a knock on organic agriculture? Wouldn't organic no-till be even better?

Typical of the shoddy "science" Bailey chooses to highlight - almost as if his ideology constrains his use of science, or somthing.

|9.16.07 @ 12:19PM|#

I go the free range/organic industry one better. I only eat what I can find running wild in a forest. Only free forest chickens for me.

|9.16.07 @ 12:21PM|#

I've a Fifth Level Vegan.

I only eat things that don't cast a shadow.

Mike Laursen|9.16.07 @ 12:31PM|#

the most lame and subjective of arguments: "it just tastes better".

Subjective, yes. But it's the strongest of the arguments. Well, I'm off to the Sunday morning Farmer's Market.

|9.16.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Joe wrote:
"No till standard agriculture preserved even more soil than tilled organic agriculture. OK, so organic processes preserves soil, and no till farming preserves soil, too. How is this a knock on organic agriculture? Wouldn't organic no-till be even better?"

soemwhere in this thread someone claimed that Organic™ required soil tilling. Never mind that Organic™ also applies to trres and bushes which can't be tilled.

|9.16.07 @ 7:27PM|#

what do we make of accelerated puberty? it was not the subject of this article, but it is disturbing that young girls are getting their periods so early. much research has documented the change, but I've yet to read any cause for it yet. other than hormones in the food.

i agree totally that organic food tastes better. organic milk makes regular milk taste like water. same with eggs.

|9.16.07 @ 7:32PM|#

Subjective, yes. But it's the strongest of the arguments.

I agree that it is the strongest argument in favor of organic foods. That doesn't change the fact that it is a very, very weak argument. Enjoy your farmer's market.

Robert Fischer|9.16.07 @ 8:26PM|#

That doesn't change the fact that it is a very, very weak argument.

Define "weak argument" for me.

If you're a trendy cosmopolitan with some disposable income kicking around, burning it on buying food that tastes better seems like a good plan to me. It at least seems like just as reasonable a plan as burning it on other money-sucks in our culture.

So it actually strikes me as being a pretty strong argument, in that it is a good way to win converts. It sold me.

|9.17.07 @ 1:31PM|#

The insight that organic supporters bring to the table, and the this criticism misses, is that you don't just look at the consumers' and field hands' cancer rates.

You also have to look at those of the people who live near the chemical plants involved in the manufacture of the pesticides.

Ditto the carbon footprint and other outputs.

Remi|9.24.07 @ 1:55AM|#

That's some good info about the benefits of organic foods in your post.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements