Organic Vs Non-Organic Milk

[aargh57]

I don't get the whole "environmental" argument for organic foods. How is going back to small family farms that produce less food per acre environmentally friendly. I grew up in a rural community and my Dad was a farmer until I was 18. I remember in agricultural class the teacher saying how we went from one farmer feeding 6 people per acre to one farmer feeding 60 people per acre (this was in the late 80's/ early 90's). He didn't do this just by farming more land either, but also by producing more food per acre because of the use of things like pesticides, ferilizers and genetic engineering. If you like organic foods because (in your opinion) they taste better or are better for you, fine. I buy some organic berries and a few other things from time to time myself. Just don't use the "environmental" argument, it doesn't hold water.

 

[Sally]

I don't get the whole "environmental" argument for organic foods. How is going back to small family farms that produce less food per acre environmentally friendly. I grew up in a rural community and my Dad was a farmer until I was 18. I remember in agricultural class the teacher saying how we went from one farmer feeding 6 people per acre to one farmer feeding 60 people per acre (this was in the late 80's/ early 90's). He didn't do this just by farming more land either, but also by producing more food per acre because of the use of things like pesticides, ferilizers and genetic engineering. If you like organic foods because (in your opinion) they taste better or are better for you, fine. I buy some organic berries and a few other things from time to time myself. Just don't use the "environmental" argument, it doesn't hold water.

The number one problem from farming at that heavy of a level is soil destruction. Soil needs crop rotations and periods of dormancy to maintain a good level of nutrients to produce good crops. If we continue to overfarm the soil we are setting ourselves up for a big collapse.

Also a lot of factory farms use genetically engineered foods that all have the exact same chemical make up (no variety from plant to plant) this allows the farm to produce a consistent product but also opens up the chance for a disease wiping out an entire crop instead of some of the plants. To counter that antibotics are introduced into the soil pestides are heavily used and run off takes those types of chemicals into our water supply.

I agree with many local farming is the best way to go but factory farming is extremely hard on the soil and bad for the environment. The organic label allows the consumer to at least put money behind there decisions to promote more sustainable farming techniques.

 

[The Don]

The number one problem from farming at that heavy of a level is soil destruction. Soil needs crop rotations and periods of dormancy to maintain a good level of nutrients to produce good crops. If we continue to overfarm the soil we are setting ourselves up for a big collapse.

Crop rotation and letting land lie fallow is only a requirement if you don't replace the nutrients that the plants are extracting from the soil

Also a lot of factory farms use genetically engineered foods that all have the exact same chemical make up (no variety from plant to plant) this allows the farm to produce a consistent product but also opens up the chance for a disease wiping out an entire crop instead of some of the plants. To counter that antibotics are introduced into the soil pestides are heavily used and run off takes those types of chemicals into our water supply.

As opposed to "natural" plant populations like the elm in the UK which were just wiped out ?

I'm not aware of deliberate introduction of antibiotics into the soil. Perhaps that's just a U.S. thing

I agree with many local farming is the best way to go but factory farming is extremely hard on the soil and bad for the environment. The organic label allows the consumer to at least put money behind there decisions to promote more sustainable farming techniques.

Organic farming doesn't have to be any more sustainable. As an organic farmer, I could choose to keep growing the same crop and depleting the soil in the process. In the UK there is no requirement on the grower to carry out crop rotation or to let land lie fallow.

 

[Sally]

Crop rotation and letting land lie fallow is only a requirement if you don't replace the nutrients that the plants are extracting from the soil

As opposed to "natural" plant populations like the elm in the UK which were just wiped out ?

I'm not aware of deliberate introduction of antibiotics into the soil. Perhaps that's just a U.S. thing

Organic farming doesn't have to be any more sustainable. As an organic farmer, I could choose to keep growing the same crop and depleting the soil in the process. In the UK there is no requirement on the grower to carry out crop rotation or to let land lie fallow.

Crop rotation is required under the USDA organic labeling law. I think this is an important point in the standard.

I also am wary of chemical replaced nutrients vs. natural occuring ones especially in regards of washoff into water supply but that is a preference.

I am not labeling all non-organic farming to be environmental unfriendly and all organic to be sustainable practices. I just find organic standards to be a good step in the right direction. The consumer is the one that must choose on a company by company basis of who they care to support.

 

[Sally]

Here is the US regulartory text on the issue

§ 205.202 Land requirements.

Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as "organic," must:

(a) Have been managed in accordance with the provisions of §§ 205.203 through 205.206;

(b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in § 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop; and

(c) Have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones such as runoff diversions to prevent the unintended application of a prohibited substance to the crop or contact with a prohibited substance applied to adjoining land that is not under organic management.

§ 205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard.

(a) The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.

(b) The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal materials.

(c) The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances. Animal and plant materials include:

(1) Raw animal manure, which must be composted unless it is:

(i) Applied to land used for a crop not intended for human consumption;

(ii) Incorporated into the soil not less than 120 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion has direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles; or

(iii) Incorporated into the soil not less than 90 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion does not have direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles;

(2) Composted plant and animal materials produced though a process that

(i) established an initial C:N ratio of between 25:1 and 40:1; and

(ii) maintained a temperature of between 131 F and 170 F for 3 days using an in-vessel or static aerated pile system; or

(iii) maintained a temperature of between 131F and 170F for 15 days using a windrow composting system, during which period, the materials must be turned a minimum of five times.

(3) Uncomposted plant materials.

(d) A producer may manage crop nutrients and soil fertility to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances by applying:

(1) A crop nutrient or soil amendment included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production;

(2) A mined substance of low solubility;

(3) A mined substance of high solubility, Provided, That, the substance is used in compliance with the conditions established on the National List of nonsynthetic materials prohibited for crop production;

(4) Ash obtained from the burning of a plant or animal material, except as prohibited in paragraph (e) of this section: Provided, That, the material burned has not been treated or combined with a prohibited substance or the ash is not included on the National List of nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production; and

(5) A plant or animal material that has been chemically altered by a manufacturing process: Provided, That, the material is included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production established in § 205.601.

(e) The producer must not use:

(1) Any fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contains a synthetic substance not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production;

(2) Sewage sludge (biosolids) as defined in 40 CFR Part 503; and

(3) Burning as a means of disposal for crop residues produced on the operation: Except, That, burning may be used to suppress the spread of disease or to stimulate seed germination.

Full standards available here:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/NOPhome.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

People like as little inorganic chemicals in their food as possible used to produce the food they eat, regardless of whether they are harmless or not, or whether it is in fact healthier (unlikely) or not. This sells organic products.

Me, I like salt and baking soda and such. Better eating through chemistry.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The number one problem from farming at that heavy of a level is soil destruction. Soil needs crop rotations and periods of dormancy to maintain a good level of nutrients to produce good crops. If we continue to overfarm the soil we are setting ourselves up for a big collapse.

I agree that organic is probably better on the soil, in relation to the amount of land used. But what do you think the destruction would be in relation to the yield? Surely a low-yield farming method like organic would take up a significantly higher amount of farm land to get the same result.

Also a lot of factory farms use genetically engineered foods that all have the exact same chemical make up (no variety from plant to plant) this allows the farm to produce a consistent product but also opens up the chance for a disease wiping out an entire crop instead of some of the plants.

Do you have a source for this?

To counter that antibotics are introduced into the soil pestides are heavily used and run off takes those types of chemicals into our water supply.

But with, say, GMOs, we can significantly reduce the amount of pesticides and the runoff by allowing for no-till farming. Even organic farms can cause eutrophication (I know that's not what you were talking about, but it's a similar risk).

 

[SirPhilip]

Bull! The difference between two types of Rum is subjective. If I prefer one over the other I'll buy that one. If most people prefer one over another then that one will be deemed to be of better quality and hence more expensive. There is no suggestion that one type of rum is healthier than the other, or that it tastes different because it contains no man made compounds.

Out of the ballpark rationalization. Next.

The difference in taste between organic and non organic milk is also subjective and most people will prefer organic because of the higher fat content.

"Oops. You blew it." - Jake Preston, Fire Birds (1990)

But hey, you may not have completely pulled this out of your ass, so I'll nicely ask you to substantiate it.

This is nothing to do with the fact that it is produced to the organic standard. Organic products are marketed as healthier because simply because they do not contain the same compounds as non organic.

If I get a doctor's note that I'm free from diseases, can I relieve myself a bit in your milk or tea carton? And don't give me that lemon face either, it won't harm you and you'll hardly notice the difference in taste.

So small amounts of floride are harmless but if one product contains no floride it is healthier than one which contains a small amount!!!! This is a completely irrational statement.

In the context of consumer preference, no it isn't.

Rubbish! Organic certification has nothing to do with conditions. It is specifically about removing man made chemicals. How do you know that the non organic milk doesn't come from a farm with exceptionally good conditions?

Unlike you, I do cursory research before responding. How do I know milk doesn't come from a farm with exceptionally good conditions? I've already pointed out the differences between "organic" and factory farming conditions. MacArthur arguably qualifies as a "good" non-organic dairy, but I'm not writing a thesis because you refuse to accept there's an obvious difference.

Organic farms may choose to have better conditions but the produce being healthier has nothing to do with the compounds present being of a naturally occuring source or synthesized by humans. If Organic means that the animals are better cared for then why does the Soil Association tell us to use cow **** on fields rather than Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer?

I'm referring to genuinely "organic", low-production, traditional farming techniques as opposed to factory farming conditions which are completely intended to maximize production and profit.

The fact is companies who sell organic produce are abusing peoples misconceptions that it is healthier in the same way that Boots Chemist abuses peoples misconceptions that homeopathic medicine works.

The words "abuse" and "misconception" hit home pretty hard visiting a factory farm; take a tour of one sometime.

 

[jon]

Unlike you, I do cursory research before responding. How do I know milk doesn't come from a farm with exceptionally good conditions? I've already pointed out the differences between "organic" and factory farming conditions. MacArthur arguably qualifies as a "good" non-organic dairy, but I'm not writing a thesis because you refuse to accept there's an obvious difference.

I'm referring to genuinely "organic", low-production, traditional farming techniques as opposed to factory farming conditions which are completely intended to maximize production and profit.

To say it again, organic farming does *not* need to be low production - for example, yeo valley organic dairy processes over 500,000 litres of milk per week. To do this, it needs to use industrial processes. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - but 'organic' is just a label awarded for meeting a minimum standard, and so long as the product meets this minimum standard it can be produced on as big a scale as the producer wants.

Non-organic farms can also have excellent animal welfare standards - every bit as high as or higher than most organic farms. For example, lots of the (organic and non-organic) lamb in the UK comes from animals that spend much of their time outside doing what lambs do - just cause grazing lambs outside is a fairly efficient way to farm the things. Likewise, quite a few farms here raise 'premium' rare breed pigs; these are normally kept as free range animals - in pretty good conditions - in order to produce quality meat. In such circumstances, I really doubt the animals care whether their food is certified organic or contains GMO

There's also considerable deviation in animal welfare standards between different organic certified producers. For example, although the organic standard means hens must be given access to the outside, the degree of access they get will vary between farms (and generally be greater on the smaller farms than at big organic agribussinesses). If food is certified organic this just sets a minimum standard for animal welfare - not a bad thing (I'd be happy to see the end of battery chicken farming, for example), but certainly not the only way to buy food from animals that lead 'happier' lives (until killed to be eaten )

 

[SirPhilip]

To say it again, organic farming does *not* need to be low production - for example, yeo valley organic dairy processes over 500,000 litres of milk per week.

Well, by "low production" (perhaps not the best term), I meant the cow is not stressed to produce far more milk than it would normally.

To do this, it needs to use industrial processes. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - but 'organic' is just a label awarded for meeting a minimum standard, and so long as the product meets this minimum standard it can be produced on as big a scale as the producer wants.

No disagreement. The companies I'm referring to are those that don't compromise in any way (e.g not Horizon), as opposed to companies that compromise to an unethical degree. I know a grey area exists, but for the sake of conciseness, I've made it a black and white issue between these two completely different types of farming practices square overall product quality and health.

Non-organic farms can also have excellent animal welfare standards - every bit as high as or higher than most organic farms.

No disagreement.

There's also considerable deviation in animal welfare standards between different organic certified producers.

Indeed there is, and that's fine to make consumers aware of; especially if they dare to use homeopathic solutions for their products. Many "organic" products are no different than non.

 

[dogbite666]

But hey, you may not have completely pulled this out of your ass, so I'll nicely ask you to substantiate it.

Ive completely lost what your point is supposed to be now! Organic milk I have seen has a higher fat content. I'm not even going to produce a picture. The two cartons of milk in your picture have different contents, wether this is due to 'happier cows' or lack of 'man made' chemicals is not known, my money is on the 'happy cow' factor which has absolutly nothing to do with Organic Certification!!

If I get a doctor's note that I'm free from diseases, can I relieve myself a bit in your milk or tea carton? And don't give me that lemon face either, it won't harm you and you'll hardly notice the difference in taste.

So long as it is going to do me no harm what so ever and I don't know about it then I couldn't are less. The water molecules I drink have probably passed through many people. Do you worry that the water you drink contains fish pee?

In the context of consumer preference

What is it you dont understand? We are not talking about consumer preference, we are talking about wether food which is produced in accordance with the Organic Certification is safer / healthier than non organic food. In the example you gave people prefer toothpaste with no floride even though they might well be aware that low concentrations of floridie are harmless. This is a great example of irrational fear.

How do I know milk doesn't come from a farm with exceptionally good conditions? I've already pointed out the differences between "organic" and factory farming conditions. MacArthur arguably qualifies as a "good" non-organic dairy, but I'm not writing a thesis because you refuse to accept there's an obvious difference

Absolutley nothing to do with organic certification! And you know it! I could adhere to the certification call my milk organic and keep my cows in bad conditions.

Unlike you, I do cursory research before responding.

from your last two posts this is quite obviously not the case.

I'm referring to genuinely "organic", low-production, traditional farming techniques as opposed to factory farming conditions which are completely intended to maximize production and profit.

what on Earth is genuinely "organic"? Are there different levels of organic food? if so are more genuinely organic foods more safe? do they taste better? I don't suppose Yeo-Valley are concered with maximizing profit? The reason the exist is to make money just like every other business. They produce organic food because it is currenlty a good seller. I wonder, when organic food goes out of fashion will Yeo-Valley continue to sell it, even if they make a loss? Lets see shall we.

 

[Demigorgon]

All cows that are in exsistance today have pretty much been bio-engineered in some way or another from past generations, whether or not they are receiving supliments now or how they are treated.

What in the hell are you'all arguing about anyway? Arguing the taste of something is like arguing my prefrenece in music is better than yours.

 

[dogbite666]

What in the hell are you'all arguing about anyway?

Well, seeing as I've been booted off all the woo forums for trailing my coat I need some place to vent my spleen. I just hate the misconceptions surrounding the whole organic thing. Organic milk is a good example of the abuse of those misconceptions. Wether it tastes better or not might be the issue for sirPhilip but for me it is the fact that organic is marketed as healthier.

 

[YoPopa]

late breaking news

Raw organic milk blamed for sickening 3 California children.

No mention of whether or not the kids liked the taste of the tainted milk better but what do you want to bet that the parents were buying the stuff because they bleeved it was healthier?

ETA:And this from the website of the farm producing the organic milk:

If you've been drinking pasteurized milk and you switch to this raw milk, you'll likely start experiencing a very positive difference in the way you feel, which is in basic terms your body "telling you" this natural food is good for you.

 

[YoPopa]

The FAQ page from that website is just too funny to miss. See it now before they take it down to cover their butts.

and with raw milk (exercise, good hydration, a whole-food diet, and plenty of love) you need not become ill…ever. Be strong…it is a life choice.

Imagine that, you need never become ill!

 

[jon]

what on Earth is genuinely "organic"? Are there different levels of organic food? if so are more genuinely organic foods more safe? do they taste better? I don't suppose Yeo-Valley are concered with maximizing profit? The reason the exist is to make money just like every other business. They produce organic food because it is currenlty a good seller. I wonder, when organic food goes out of fashion will Yeo-Valley continue to sell it, even if they make a loss? Lets see shall we.

One (sometimes worrying) development is that different 'better than organic' standards are emerging. Some of these are a big, steaming pile of BS. For example, biodynamic farming which is a technique where "Since Steiner viewed the full moon, Venus and Mercury as cosmic powers influencing the fertility of plants, the biodynamic techniques for pest control involves blocking the fertility influence from said planets on different pests." Animal welfare standards etc. are a great idea, but it'd be too easy to get to the point where more s*** is coming out of people promoting new 'better than organic standards' than out of the animal.

Obviously organic companies by and large want to make money (though there's perhaps more not-for-profits, co-ops, community assisted agriculture etc. than in other areas). This isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it's worth noting that occasionally the 'organic' standard can be used as a pretty crude way of making more money. For example, coffee in some areas (relatively high on mountains, in particular) was often grown with little pesticide/fertiliser input anyway, so changing to organic certified farming isn't too much hassle; organic coffee attracts a price premium, and people are seemingly more ready to pay high prices for lousy coffee if it's 'organic' (not to say you can't get v nice organic coffee)

 

[SirPhilip]

Imagine that, you need never become ill!

They obviously mean it as "You'll need never become ill due to any health risks of milk", not "Drink our milk it's the elixer of health".

 

[SirPhilip]

No mention of whether or not the kids liked the taste of the tainted milk better but what do you want to bet that the parents were buying the stuff because they bleeved it was healthier? ETA:And this from the website of the farm producing the organic milk:

Raw milk has nothing to do with the context of this thread. The topic of this thread is a biased agribusiness-funded site trying to invalidate why organic milk (which is becoming increasingly popular) is superior to milk often produced in a mechanized, un-natural and in many cases unethical enviornment, while completely ignoring the quality benefits of milk not produced in this way.

 

[SirPhilip]

It's My Party And I'll Bicker If I Want To.

(Happy Birthday)

Ive completely lost what your point is supposed to be now! Organic milk I have seen has a higher fat content. I'm not even going to produce a picture. The two cartons of milk in your picture have different contents, wether this is due to 'happier cows' or lack of 'man made' chemicals is not known, my money is on the 'happy cow' factor which has absolutly nothing to do with Organic Certification!!

I'd like to know how you determined this. I just bought another carton of Organic Valley whole milk and the fat content is the same as non (although the taste is, as always, far more exceptional).

So long as it is going to do me no harm what so ever and I don't know about it then I couldn't are less. The water molecules I drink have probably passed through many people. Do you worry that the water you drink contains fish pee?

I drink only Kaballah water. It's blessed by a millionare, I'm told.

What is it you dont understand?

Well, besides, how organic milk can have a higher "fat" content yet not be labeled as such, how you can subject animals to very stressful conditions, shoot them full of chemicals which are not necessary (except on a factory farm), and expect to get anything approaching an ideal representation of cows milk.

We are not talking about consumer preference, we are talking about wether food which is produced in accordance with the Organic Certification is safer / healthier than non organic food. In the example you gave people prefer toothpaste with no floride even though they might well be aware that low concentrations of floridie are harmless. This is a great example of irrational fear.

I've avoided steering this thread into an in-depth discussion about organic certification, and limited myself to only using farms which produce milk in conditions which are closest to how cows normally do vs others that don't in any sense of the imagination (with some exceptions), as examples.

Absolutley nothing to do with organic certification! And you know it! I could adhere to the certification call my milk organic and keep my cows in bad conditions.

This is a different subject; I never disputed organic certification connotes superior product quality. The easiest way in fact, to tell if an "organic" company is being misleading is how it tastes.

What on Earth is genuinely "organic"?

Food products, either plant or animal, in which product quality (in a naturally grown enviornment) is the top priority, not profit.

Are there different levels of organic food? if so are more genuinely organic foods more safe? do they taste better? I don't suppose Yeo-Valley are concered with maximizing profit? The reason the exist is to make money just like every other business. They produce organic food because it is currenlty a good seller. I wonder, when organic food goes out of fashion will Yeo-Valley continue to sell it, even if they make a loss? Lets see shall we.

I've never had Yeo Valley products, and their statement that they use "homeopathic" solutions doesn't make me want to, either. As for business, profit is the lifeblood of a business, but it isn't the mission statement. Lotus and Maserati aren't a fraction as rich as GM or Ford. That doesn't mean GM or Ford couldn't make a high-quality product if they wanted (like Toyota), but it's not the type of company they are.

 

[SirPhilip]

One (sometimes worrying) development is that different 'better than organic' standards are emerging.

Another good series of points and observations. I'm not an expert, but in the case of milk, I'd imagine several simple principles determine superior quality:

1. Animals are not subjected to very stressful and unnatural mechanized conditions and are allowed to live normal lives.
2. Techniques and practices are used that safely limit as many foreign chemicals as possible in diet that may affect the end-product.
3. Superior or enhanced cow nutrition.