Where did this anti-intellectual organic/alternative craze come from?

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, so my town's newspaper has a food site, which in turn has several food blogs. The most recent article is about how margarine is bad for you. Now, it might well be, I wouldn't know, but the author seemed to use as her main arguments that margarine was 'industry-produced' and a 'surrogate', as if this somehow made it inherently dangerous. This is about as ridiculous as me saying that a given good is unsafe because it's imported, or for that matter, that a given individual is untrustworthy because he has dark skin.

One of the comments added to the atmosphere by stating that butter was also dangerous, because the cows hadn't been fed "natural" ingredients, that they were "supposed to" eat grass, and that some of their food was "guaranteed" to be genetically manipulated - again, this buzzword came with no explanation of how this had any bearing on whether or not the food was safe.

This prompted me to make this thread - where did this craze for "natural" foods and medicine come from? Is it just that organic farmers and altmed people are very good at marketting? Has it got to do with AGW, which has strengthened the "human industry is destroying the environment" stance?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's just an appeal to romance. Some people like to picture their milk coming from free-roaming, clean, good-smelling cows that wander around a grassy sunlit field with daisies. They don't like the idea that milk comes from great big dirty beasts penned up in giant buildings. Of course, none of that has anything to do with the quality or safety of the milk, but people are foolish and susceptible to romantic notions, and confuse one thing with another because of prejudices about "atmosphere".

You can test this by filling two bottles with tap water and putting labels on each, one reading "Crystal Clarity Norwegian Glacier Spring Water" on one and "Passaic NJ Municipal Water" on the other. Bet you people will not only find the first one tastes better, they'll have to be forced to sample the other one.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You can test this by filling two bottles with tap water and putting labels on each, one reading "Crystal Clarity Norwegian Glacier Spring Water" on one and "Passaic NJ Municipal Water" on the other. Bet you people will not only find the first one tastes better, they'll have to be forced to sample the other one.

Two of my collegues are supporters of organic food, I've been wondering if I should pull such a trick on them. Or buy one bag of organic apples and one bag of apples from a conventional farm, and see if they can tell which is which.

 

[GreNME]

The "organic" thing isn't simply a craze, and the example you give is one of people who obviously are not looking at food issues critically. One can be supportive of "organic" foods and not be the type of nutball to fall into a naturalistic fallacy every time the question comes up. It's a matter of education more than it is anything else.

I support "organic" foods for two reasons: biological and economic. For the biological reason, my concern is that there are so many foods being made with some form of corn-- and not just any corn, almost entirely from genetically engineered corn that supposedly produces more resistant and stronger crops (though tests are often inconclusive)-- that not only are our diets regularly imbalanced (lots of HFCS), but that these strains of crops are not regulated sufficiently to avoid problems if a strain mutates (or the insects and/or the plant diseases adapt to the preventative measures, spreading further). Now, on the converse of this, most of the engineered strains are highly patented and only good for a season-- in other words, farmers must buy new seed every year for their crops, they can't rely on planting seed from some of their harvested crop (it usually won't grow). However, since I'm unaware of any significant test results supporting the claims of these companies that produce the engineered crop seeds, I err on the side of caution that unintended consequences could be worse for agriculture in general than the expected rewards of using the engineered crops.

This also leads me into the economic problem: first and foremost, the fact that farmers have to buy new (and more expensive) seed every year results in either higher costs for the end product or a lower profit margin for the farms, most notably in the farms that are not huge industrial-sized farms where the low margin is offset by the huge quantities. The industrialization of agriculture from about the 1950's forward has steadily lowered and lowered the ability for provincial non-industrial-sized farms to have a workable profit, which has pushed more agricultural business to move to the industrial-sized model, which has increased helping sizes and led to HFCS (in some form) being used in practically everything, which continues to feed the huge cycle of industrializing agriculture but at the same time putting farmers out of business-- yet we're subsidizing farmers now who in reality can't compete in production with a megalithic company.

The situation is enough to have those on the right and the left annoyed-- on the right because of the expenditures of public funds to both keep farmers from starving as well as allowing the larger companies to get huge tax breaks (which affect budgets), and on the left where the regulation is so patchy and unevenly applied that the larger the company is the more risk they consider acceptable, as well as the tax break issues also for budgeting concerns (though not necessarily the same as those on the right). The problem, of course, is that much like all ideologies the concept of "organic" has come to mean for many the type of romantic nonsense that TragicMonkey describes, and they tend to approach it as such using the typical naturalistic fallacy arguments.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hippies.

 

[madurobob]

Two of my collegues are supporters of organic food, I've been wondering if I should pull such a trick on them. Or buy one bag of organic apples and one bag of apples from a conventional farm, and see if they can tell which is which.

Easy - the organic apples are the ones with the worms.

 

[Toke]

When woo and ignorance meets GreNM´s very real problems with industrialiced farming you can expect some strange offshots.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, there is an even saner concern there, and one many people aren't even aware of. A lot of the GM crops are genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides, or to be resistant of higher level of more conventional pesticides and herbicides.

E.g., since GreNME mentioned corn, yes, corn is one of the crops which nowadays produces its own pesticides. The gene that produces the toxin of the Bacillus Thuringiensis has been transplanted into corn, which now produces higher levels of it than you could economically spray on your crops. It is now grown all over the USA.

Now the tests I know of claim it's not toxic to vertebrates, although one test by Greenpeace (yes, not exactly disinterested) basically showed that if the dose of the toxin is high enough it produces liver damage in rats. I tend to believe the former, but I really can't blame anyone who's concerned about their food being literally marinated in pesticides at an every-cell level.

And the "OMG, stupid anti-GM wooists" derision that anyone is met with if they express any kind of concern about the matter -- or merely propose to do more testing -- is IMHO counter-productive.

The second very real and documented problem with it, is that the high levels of toxin also kill whole orders of non-harmful insects for miles around. India and China nearly exterminated several species of non-harmful insects with their own GM crops, and both cases are pretty well documented.

Again, personally I couldn't care less, but someone who's in a "save the planet" mindset... well, I can't really blame them for worrying about the near extinction of some species. Even of insects.

And so on. It seems to me like while there is a hideous amount of woo and stupidity, there are also valid concerns around. And a lot of times that woo is just a distorted version of the real concerns. E.g., the concern about the milk being contaminated when cows are fed stuff marinated in pesticides and antibiotics, has been obviously over-simplified by some to the level of "OMG, it's bad because it's not natural stuff", but the original concern behind it is actually a lot less stupid.

 

[dudalb]

It's an unfortunate offshoot of the "Back To Nature" craze of the 60's.

 

[GreNME]

It's an unfortunate offshoot of the "Back To Nature" craze of the 60's.

What an excellent refutation of the points HansMustermann and I brought up.

 

[Lithrael]

Yes, the tree-hugging crystal wavers do seem to very effectively poison the well for anyone who has more down to earth, properly researched concerns about food production.

I will roll my eyes at the hippies with the best of them, and sure without any GM at all you can still accidentally breed strains of potatoes that kill people, but that doesn't make it stupid to have concerns about things like how pollen from GM crops will behave in the wild.

 

[WildCat]

I support "organic" foods for two reasons: biological and economic. For the biological reason, my concern is that there are so many foods being made with some form of corn-- and not just any corn, almost entirely from genetically engineered corn that supposedly produces more resistant and stronger crops (though tests are often inconclusive)--

Why would farmers buy it if the results were inconclusive?

that not only are our diets regularly imbalanced (lots of HFCS),

What does the use of HFCS have to do with GM crops? After all, you can have organic HFCS can't you?

but that these strains of crops are not regulated sufficiently to avoid problems if a strain mutates

Why would a mutated strain of a GM crop be any different/dangerous than a mutated strain of non-GM crop? And all corn is mutated, no one is growing the tiny little corn plants all domesticated corn is evolved from.

(or the insects and/or the plant diseases adapt to the preventative measures, spreading further).

Why would insects be any more likely to evolve resistance to GM crops than to the exact same pesticide sprayed onto the crops?

Now, on the converse of this, most of the engineered strains are highly patented and only good for a season-- in other words, farmers must buy new seed every year for their crops, they can't rely on planting seed from some of their harvested crop (it usually won't grow).

When is the last time US farmers got their seed for next year's crop from saving seed from the curreent crop? It would be absolutely stupid to do so, if you're growing sweet corn and saved the seed for next year it would be contaminated by pollen from neighboring fields of field corn. It wouldn't grow into the strain of sweet corn you had last year, that's for sure. It doesn't matter whether it's GM or not, modern farmers don't get their seed from saving last year's crop. They buy it from seed suppliers who make certain that whatever cultivar they are selling isn't contaminated from other cultivars.

However, since I'm unaware of any significant test results supporting the claims of these companies that produce the engineered crop seeds, I err on the side of caution that unintended consequences could be worse for agriculture in general than the expected rewards of using the engineered crops.

So far you haven't made a single point that withstands scrutiny, or is based on evidence rather than irrational fear and ignorance.

This also leads me into the economic problem: first and foremost, the fact that farmers have to buy new (and more expensive) seed every year results in either higher costs for the end product or a lower profit margin for the farms,

Why the hell would farmers buy the seed if it lowered their profits? Do you think that farmers are stupid? Ignorant? Fools?

most notably in the farms that are not huge industrial-sized farms where the low margin is offset by the huge quantities. The industrialization of agriculture from about the 1950's forward has steadily lowered and lowered the ability for provincial non-industrial-sized farms to have a workable profit, which has pushed more agricultural business to move to the industrial-sized model, which has increased helping sizes and led to HFCS (in some form) being used in practically everything, which continues to feed the huge cycle of industrializing agriculture but at the same time putting farmers out of business--

Ah, so your concerns are really based on your hatred of corporations. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

yet we're subsidizing farmers now who in reality can't compete in production with a megalithic company.

We subsidize the corporate farms also. In fact, they get subsidized more than the small farmers do.

The situation is enough to have those on the right and the left annoyed-- on the right because of the expenditures of public funds to both keep farmers from starving as well as allowing the larger companies to get huge tax breaks (which affect budgets), and on the left where the regulation is so patchy and unevenly applied that the larger the company is the more risk they consider acceptable, as well as the tax break issues also for budgeting concerns (though not necessarily the same as those on the right).

More off-topic rantings against corporate farms. You do realize that most organic farms are also corporate farms, don't you? You think that giant corporations haven't noticed how suckers will pay more for organic produce and jumped on the bandwagon?

The problem, of course, is that much like all ideologies the concept of "organic" has come to mean for many the type of romantic nonsense that TragicMonkey describes, and they tend to approach it as such using the typical naturalistic fallacy arguments.

While others like you think it means small family farms and not gigantic agricultural corporations.

 

[T.A.M.]

Hippies.

lol....well said.

TAM

 

[Ladewig]

Two of my collegues are supporters of organic food, I've been wondering if I should pull such a trick on them. Or buy one bag of organic apples and one bag of apples from a conventional farm, and see if they can tell which is which.

Some people who prefer organic foods will admit that there is no noticeable difference in quality or taste. They prefer organic foods because they believe that the pesticides used in conventional farming are harmful to the ecosphere.

 

[dudalb]

Ah, so your concerns are really based on your hatred of corporations. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I am convinced that a lot of the "Frankenfood" fanatics would praise a lot of the GM products they condemn if the products were developed by some Government Agency in a
"Progressive" country rather then by a Big Bad Coporation.

 

[johnny karate]

I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals. But paying a premium for "organic" produce is just silly.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

most notably in the farms that are not huge industrial-sized farms where the low margin is offset by the huge quantities. The industrialization of agriculture from about the 1950's forward has steadily lowered and lowered the ability for provincial non-industrial-sized farms to have a workable profit, which has pushed more agricultural business to move to the industrial-sized model, which has increased helping sizes and led to HFCS (in some form) being used in practically everything, which continues to feed the huge cycle of industrializing agriculture but at the same time putting farmers out of business--

You realize, of course, that there exist huge organic farms as well. Size and level of industrialization do not necessarily correlate.

 

[slingblade]

Seems to me anything like this can be traced to people feeling a loss or lack of control in their lives.

If you grow your own food, you know where it comes from. If you get salmonella or other problems from your own food, you know who to blame, don't ya? But if you don't grow your own food, and don't really know where it comes from, you don't know jack about it. You could be poisoned, you could get sick, you could die. But you pays your money and you takes your chance, because you can't grow your own food, for whatever reason. You're kind of trapped. You're powerless. You're under someone else's control.

It scares people, this lack of control. So they try to take it back wherever or however they can. Scaremongering about the food is a symptom of this.

That there is my 'umble .02

 

[MikeMangum]

I buy organic when it comes to processed foods. I prefer whole ingredients to a list of polysyllabic chemicals.

I agree. You should really watch out for that Dihydrogen-Monoxide. It's an ingredient in almost all processed foods. For crying out loud, that stuff is used as an industrial solvent! Many foods have other nasty chemicals with polysyllabic names, like Carbamoyl Phosphate Synthetase, Triose Phosphate Isomerase and Methionine found in many meats raised on industrial farms. Then there are thing like the long-chain polysaccharides that are the primary chemical in most GMO and non-organic fruits and vegetables.

The really hard thing is to find food that doesn't have any deoxyribonucleic acid. At 10 syllables, it must be absolutely terrible for the body.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Also, lest we forget, a chemical is a material with a chemical composition. Which materials in the world have chemical compositions?

Only all of them.