• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Is the Organic Movement Dangerous

ahhell

Philosopher
A
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
8,585
I was listening to Skeptiod and he called the organic movement dangerous.


Sure, it is basically pseudo-scientific crankier but is it actually dangerous or just a fad for rich people? Loose definition of rich here. Basically, middle class folks in the industrialized nations and richer.

Side note, my wife bought some Prime Hydration, basically a gatorade knock off. My 7 year old niece got a look of fear and said its dangerous. Started with cancer and then claimed a child died of a heart attack from drinking one.
 
theprestige said:
Seems like yours is a question for Skeptoid to answer. Did he actually answer it, or just throw it out there with no justification?
Click to expand...

I'd have to relisten, the broader subject of the episode was why BS documentaries are so common. His contention is, they appeal to the broader audience.
 
Staying away from processed foods is probably a healthy choice. But is that what was being referred to? No link in the OP that I see.

Organic can only mean they didn't use certain pesticides on the farm where the food was grown. It has a couple meanings, depending on the speaker.

Whenever my hippy dippy SIL talks about some food stuff being pure and all natural and therefore good for you, I start ticking off uranium, plutonium, arsenic, lead, mercury...
 
Thermal said:
Organic can only mean they didn't use certain pesticides on the farm where the food was grown. It has a couple meanings, depending on the speaker.
Click to expand...

What I've heard reported (many, many years ago now) is that organic farmers can use certain other pesticides, mostly those from the "analog" years of pesticide development that don't use modern methods that the organic movement espouses. For me, that's what would top the list of potential dangers. We know older agricultural chemicals have certain effects on the food produced and on the environment in general.
 
It could be low-level dangerous if taken to absurd extremes.

Organic farming has lower yields per acre (or whatever unit of area you prefer). If we tried to implement it across the board, we'd need to clear more land for agriculture to produce the same amount of food, and of course there is not unlimited land available.

That's one of the main objections. Efficiency.
 
Thermal said:
Staying away from processed foods is probably a healthy choice. But is that what was being referred to? No link in the OP that I see.

Organic can only mean they didn't use certain pesticides on the farm where the food was grown. It has a couple meanings, depending on the speaker.

Whenever my hippy dippy SIL talks about some food stuff being pure and all natural and therefore good for you, I start ticking off uranium, plutonium, arsenic, lead, mercury...
Click to expand...

https://skeptoid.com/

I think everything you say there is correct. Assuming you meant to write Can't not can only mean. But, for the most part, I think here we all know that but when we talk about organic food or the organic movement, its the naturalistic fallacy based arbitrary system of producing food in a manner to get certified as such by various groups or agencies.

There's also that most consumer's think it means one thing and the actually organic certification means another.
I suspect with anecdotal evidence that most consumers think organic means natural, free of pesticides and generally safer. Certification usually means complying with mostly arbitrary rules, some are probably good most are neither here nor there. But I don't know that its actually dangerous, but as Zaganza says, wasteful.

@Puppy, I tend to agree. At extremes, folks will starve but we aren't anywhere near that now. It might convince some folks that can't afford that they must be eating organic or they are bad parents for giving their kids food that isn't certified organic.

The venn diagram of anti-gmo and "organic" has a lot of over lap so anti-GMO will delay things like Golden Rice which will harm folks and possibly kill people but, its not totally the same thing.
 
Last edited:
I worked at a huge grocery chain along time ago. The apples not meeting store standards were set aside and a particular buyer would come for them thrice a week.
These were not organically grown by any stretch, but the low price point the chain could get in bulk.
I helped him load them in his truck often.

Guess who I seen selling "organic" grown apples at his stall in the farmers market when my sister and I went.

I am certain a lot of the available produce of this type is lower grade regular produce in boxes not branded by the farms. The farm didn't lie, but the sellers are getting more price per pound than the chain store did for prime apples.

Dangerous? Fact is food is food but paying more for lower grade blemished produce is silly. And still no guarantee what you bought today is actually from the place certified organic the vendor touts.
You only believe that you dodged the GMO/pesticides bullet.
 
I refuse on principle to buy anything labeled "organic" unless there is no other choice. To me it's a word that means nothing, like "natural", except that it's more expensive. I don't think there are consistent legal guidelines for that type of labeling, either.
 
alfaniner said:
I refuse on principle to buy anything labeled "organic" unless there is no other choice. To me it's a word that means nothing, like "natural", except that it's more expensive. I don't think there are consistent legal guidelines for that type of labeling, either.
Click to expand...

In the UK organic is defined in legislation so it isn't only a marketing term. I'm sure there will be some fraudulent use of the term but suspect it's a low percentage. There isn't anything inherently better with organic farmed food but it tends to be not as intensive in terms of direct inputs as other farming methods and often uses different varieties of vegetables and fruits. It isn't even a way of being sure of no pesticide residues as some pesticides are still allowed.
 
alfaniner said:
I refuse on principle to buy anything labeled "organic" unless there is no other choice. To me it's a word that means nothing, like "natural", except that it's more expensive. I don't think there are consistent legal guidelines for that type of labeling, either.
Click to expand...

In most places, there are either legal or certifying bodies for Organic at least, I don't think there is for "Natural".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

The rules are all arbitrary and typically a mix of possibly beneficial, meaningless, potentially dangerous.

And just because its defined by legislation, as it is in the UK and US, doesn't mean its not just a marketing term, because that is its only value.


ETA: I mean, it doesn't even mean what most people think it means and often doesn't address the biggest problems with modern agriculture. Still uses pesticides, monocultures, proprietary seed, and in some case even GMO crops, those grandfathered in and produced by the old fashioned mutengenic processes.
 
Last edited:
Odd. I was raised chiefly if not exclusively on 100% pesticide and fertilizer free vegetables from our garden. This was long before Organic and Natural entered the .market. We just couldn't afford chemicals of any kind.

We also followed the sarcastic hippy slogan, "Eat what you kill." Had to. Without wild animals and fish, we would've been reduced to a near-Jain diet -- minus the ghee.

I remember how welcome a head of store-bought lettuce was now & then: juicy, crunchy, sweet! Or a rare dinner of pork, after a long winter of monotonous elk.

Life could be good sometimes, before all the begrudgers came along.
 
sackett said:
Odd. I was raised chiefly if not exclusively on 100% pesticide and fertilizer free vegetables from our garden. This was long before Organic and Natural entered the .market. We just couldn't afford chemicals of any kind.

We also followed the sarcastic hippy slogan, "Eat what you kill." Had to. Without wild animals and fish, we would've been reduced to a near-Jain diet -- minus the ghee.
Click to expand...

Awkward diet restriction when you gotta cap a home intruder.

I remember how welcome a head of store-bought lettuce was now & then: juicy, crunchy, sweet! Or a rare dinner of pork, after a long winter of monotonous elk.

Life could be good sometimes, before all the begrudgers came along.
Click to expand...

Thing is, even when we were young, pollutants that made their way into "wild" animals had deeply entrenched. They were eating out of the garbage we've been relentlessly pumping into the environment for generations.

I remember a whitetail we got on some farmland (only technically) that I lived on. It's stomach was full of cigarette butts. "Expressway deer", my father said. They smelled the sweet tobacco and ate the butts that motorists flicked on the side of the expressway.
 
alfaniner said:
I refuse on principle to buy anything labeled "organic" unless there is no other choice. To me it's a word that means nothing, like "natural", except that it's more expensive. I don't think there are consistent legal guidelines for that type of labeling, either.
Click to expand...
No, it does not mean nothing.

A growing number of important findings are being reported from observational research linking demonstrable health benefits to levels of organic food consumption.
Click to expand...
link​
 
varwoche said:
No, it does not mean nothing.

link​
Click to expand...

Consumer Reports regularly reports on organic food and pesticides in "regular" food. I can't seem to find a link that does not require a subscription (I have one) but they have moved my opinion from "organic" being a complete scam to something to take into consideration when buying some foods, particularly fruit and vegetables.
 
Price is the major consideration for many consumers, maybe for most. If your local grocery has inorganic produce at a lower cost, that's what you'll buy.

If the only vege or fruit you want is in the Orgasmic case, you'll probably buy it. Resentfully.
 
Thermal said:
Awkward diet restriction when you gotta cap a home intruder.



Thing is, even when we were young, pollutants that made their way into "wild" animals had deeply entrenched. They were eating out of the garbage we've been relentlessly pumping into the environment for generations.

I remember a whitetail we got on some farmland (only technically) that I lived on. It's stomach was full of cigarette butts. "Expressway deer", my father said. They smelled the sweet tobacco and ate the butts that motorists flicked on the side of the expressway.
Click to expand...

Wellsir, we're comparing different worlds. I'm 82. I grew up in Wyoming in the 50s and early 60s. The edge of the wilderness was right over there. Yes, we knew that muleys and whitetails ate tobacco, and we weren't amused. Yes, one year we shot some extra fat elk that had muscled their way into a farmer's feedlot and tanked up on artificial -- we called it chemical -- feed. We found that amusing, I admit.

But home invaders? Freeways? Paunches full of filter tips? Hell, I was just gassing about over priced bok choy.
 
Injesting chemicals can be bad. Sometimes fatal. But some chemicals have a benefit fsr greater than any known or obvious damages they bring.

The Organic label only really applies if you personally grew whatever after testing the soil for residual chemicals. Good luck with that last detail.

Trust another to feed your fantasy as you fill his wallet has a nasty side effect of the money outweighs the honesty factor at times. Oh, now you want red potatoes and Romaine lettuce too? I have a friend that....
Yeah.

Much like homeopathic medicine organic means many things to everyone involved. Working doubly hard for pockmarked apples and scrubby potatoes isn't usually on the list.
If you must buy them get to know the farm and only buy seasonal produce. It's about as sure as it gets.

Past first world problems there are poor worldwide that see a sack of gmo rice as a blessing from whatever gods.
And are very thankful. They can feed thier kids well for a while.
 
8enotto said:
The Organic label only really applies if you personally grew whatever after testing the soil for residual chemicals. Good luck with that last detail.
Click to expand...
This amounts to vapid scare-mongering for at least two reasons:

(1) The label is no more suspect than any other label on a food product. Maybe even less so.
(2) Obtaining certification is a big deal. It takes several years. There's an annual inspection. Link The notion that farmers are resorting to disallowed chemicals (at any meaningful level) after gaining certification is far-fetched.

Working doubly hard for pockmarked apples and scrubby potatoes isn't usually on the list.
Click to expand...
I remember when organic produce tended to be funky looking. That was a loooong time ago.

Your valid points (which I snipped) are diminished by this nonsense.
 
I am more worried for dishonest resellers than the actual farmer.

I am certain farm certification isn't easy. But unless the buyer knows the grower a middleman is present.
Eat what you want, pay whatever price gives you comfort it's the best possible.

But my experience says there are cheaters in the food chain. I loaded boxes on thier trucks. Woodmans didn't buy organic anything at that time. They bought bulk and cheapest possible from regular sources.
 
For what it's worth my FIL and his wife planted fruit trees and I have continued.

Tangerines, limes, mangos, avocados, nanches, bananas and a couple other things around the yard. No pest control, fertilizer or herbicides in sight for at least two decades.

The very definition of organic maybe. All around my house. Yet not far off are corn and sugar cane crops in rotation that do get all the chemical help the government deemed good to ensure good production per acre. Add in decades of burning household trash around the house before pickup was available and god only knows what joys that left in the soil.

The family eats whatever the birds and bugs don't, no worries at all. As well as the stuff picked up at local markets from wherever it comes from.
Mostly stuff in season from small farmers like those around us at home.

You would go stir crazy with an organic fetish here. No guarantees of anything except what you see in your hand at the markets. The sellers got it from a middleman at a larger bulk buyer market probably not too far away. Nobody tests it for anything from farm to table. Nobody seems too affected by it all either.
 
Last edited:
8enotto said:
For what it's worth my FIL and his wife planted fruit trees and I have continued.

Tangerines, limes, mangos, avocados, nanches, bananas and a couple other things around the yard. No pest control, fertilizer or herbicides in sight for at least two decades.

The very definition of organic maybe. All around my house. Yet not far off are corn and sugar cane crops in rotation that do get all the chemical help the government deemed good to ensure good production per acre. Add in decades of burning household trash around the house before pickup was available and god only knows what joys that left in the soil.
The family eats whatever the birds and bugs don't, no worries at all. As well as the stuff picked up at local markets from wherever it comes from.
Mostly stuff in season from small farmers like those around us at home.

You would go stir crazy with an organic fetish here. No guarantees of anything except what you see in your hand at the markets. The sellers got it from a middleman at a larger bulk buyer market probably not too far away. Nobody tests it for anything from farm to table. Nobody seems too affected by it all either.
Click to expand...
My cousins had a ranch, my first job was picking fruit, the burn piles and self administered garbage pits were disturbing even by 80s standards.
 
JayUtah said:
What I've heard reported (many, many years ago now) is that organic farmers can use certain other pesticides, mostly those from the "analog" years of pesticide development that don't use modern methods that the organic movement espouses. For me, that's what would top the list of potential dangers. We know older agricultural chemicals have certain effects on the food produced and on the environment in general.
Click to expand...
This. Copper sulphate being a prime example.
Also "organic" food tends to use more water, have lower yields (and thus requires more land) and spoils more quickly.
 
catsmate said:
This. Copper sulphate being a prime example.
Click to expand...
To be fair, copper sulfate is used in conventional agriculture too.

According to this article in the journal "Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry" in Germany in 2013, 76% of the total copper applied in crop protection was used in conventional agriculture, with the remaining 24% used in organic cultivation.

And not just agriculture. The European Chemicals Agency's copper sulfate infocard says it is also used in "coating products, fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay, leather treatment products, lubricants and greases, photo-chemicals, polishes and waxes, textile treatment products and dyes, washing & cleaning products, cosmetics and personal care products, adhesives and sealants, polymers and inks and toners."

Also "organic" food tends to use more water, have lower yields (and thus requires more land) and spoils more quickly.
Click to expand...
OTOH, overproduction of cheaper 'conventional' food tends to create more waste - and therefore use more water and require more land.

How much food waste is there in the United States?
In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply. This estimate, based on estimates from USDA’s Economic Research Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010. This amount of waste has far-reaching impacts on society:

- Wholesome food that could have helped feed families in need is sent to landfills.

- Land, water, labor, energy and other inputs are used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing, and disposing of discarded food...

Between the farm gate and retail stages, food loss can arise from problems during drying, milling, transporting, or processing that expose food to damage by insects, rodents, birds, molds, and bacteria. At the retail level, equipment malfunction (such as faulty cold storage), over-ordering, and culling of blemished produce can result in food loss. Consumers also contribute to food loss when they buy or cook more than they need and choose to throw out the extras
Click to expand...
 
The Organic industry (Big Org?) is "dangerous" for two basic reasons - and yes, I put "dangerous" in quotes:

First, it is not possible to feed the world's population purely on "organic" products, as the goal of the industry seems to be. A planet of eight billion people requires industrial farming techniques and technology. Organic is fine in small amounts, but small amounts aren't going to feed everybody.

Second, like religion and the paranormal, it teaches people that it's okay to accept claims based on insufficient evidence. They start to devalue science, lose their critical thinking skills, and become easier victims of scams and frauds.

Neither of these things present an immediate "danger" to life or civilisation, but they are undesirable consequences.
 
Puppycow said:
Well said. Likewise, horoscopes in the newspaper aren't dangerous, except in the sort of thinking they encourage and reinforce.
Click to expand...
Not well said by either of you.

Just because people go overboard in their thinking doesn't make it any more dangerous to people's thought processes than countless other things. People also react irrationally to vaccinations, but I don’t think you or Arth would call vaccinations dangerous.

Likening organic food, which has tangible benefits, to horoscopes is flat out inane.
 
Is organic food an absolute or merely acceptable levels of _______ at a tiny percentage?

Assuming everyone in the chain is honest and Happy Valleys farm hasn't seen chemicals since 1997, there is still a chance there is unacceptable things present in the soil. Or in the runoff from an area upstream.

I worked in places where used motor oil had been dumped in a spot between buildings for 50 years. 20' from the hole the soil was more like oil shale than clay mix. A neighbor's well was 50' away. They never knew.
The guy I worked for tore down two small sheds and built a cement slab and pole barn over the entire area and hid his father's sins perfectly.
A farm I worked at had a big pit with two generations of agriculture type waste including herbicide/pesticide containers.
One day after a good rain the boss lit it up and "cleaned up" the pit before the farm went up for sale.
He wasn't going to tell anyone.
That area around the pit had different weeds than areas elsewhere.

All stuff the current owners would be ignorant of and the seller won't mention.

Soil testing is important if you are serious, can't do it from a farmers market in Seattle.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
First, it is not possible to feed the world's population purely on "organic" products, as the goal of the industry seems to be.
Click to expand...
Conventional farming practices are not sustainable so the same could be said for their products too. If the goal of most industries was achieved (making as much money as possible and too bad about the environment) the World would revert to pre-industrial times and billions would starve. The Planet is overpopulated already and will be more so in the future. One way or another it will have to go down in order to be sustainable.

Personally I don't think organic farming goes far enough. They should drop the use of all chemicals that have harmful side effects.

I was employed by a research facility to deploy sterile insects for eliminating codling moth from orchards. The trial initially excluded the organic orchards because they needed time to certify the use of moths sterilized by 'nuclear radiation' (which, to be fair, it was. In production we would use x-rays). The goal here was to eliminate the need for pesticides of any type. Unfortunately Covid killed that particular project, but others are doing similar stuff. Organic farmers should be keen to see techniques like this used because it makes their product even more desirable, as well as potentially cheaper.

A planet of eight billion people requires industrial farming techniques and technology. Organic is fine in small amounts, but small amounts aren't going to feed everybody.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there is no danger of organics displacing conventional farming unless they can achieve price parity. If they do that then by the laws off economics their techniques are just as effective. OTOH most westerners eat too much anyway. Not being able to afford as much food could be good for them.

Second, like religion and the paranormal, it teaches people that it's okay to accept claims based on insufficient evidence. They start to devalue science, lose their critical thinking skills, and become easier victims of scams and frauds.
Click to expand...
Too late, they already do!

For example, all those scams saying that coffee is good for you. The coffee industry loves it, and billions of addicts use it as an excuse to continue their habit. Hate to break it you people, but caffeine is a pesticide. A natural one for sure, but plenty of natural things are bad for you.

If that was the only problem with coffee it wouldn't be so bad, but it is high on the list contributors to environmental damage. Coffee plantations are a major cause of deforestation. Water use is high too. It takes about 39 gallons of water to make enough coffee for one cup. Nobody's talking about that though, because there are too many addicts who get upset when we suggest they give it up for the sake of the planet (and themselves).
 
I think one reason why people like “organic” food is that organic farmers sometimes use heirloom varieties of fruit and veg, which can taste better because they’re different, and not bred for sitting in supermarkets.

However “heirloom” does not mean “organic”.
 
In blind taste tests, organic vegetables can't be distinguished from non-organic vegetables. They don't have a greater nutritional value. The only difference between organic and non-organic vegetables is that the organic vegetables are more expensive, because they're harder to produce in quantity.
 
arthwollipot said:
In blind taste tests, organic vegetables can't be distinguished from non-organic vegetables.
Click to expand...

Is this directed at me? That’s not what I was claiming.

I was talking about heirloom fruit tasting different, and possibly better. Heirloom does not mean organic, but some organic fruit is heirloom.

“The most obvious reason to preserve heritage apples, though, is the taste. Kortman is particularly enthusiastic about this. “Apricots have similar shape, colour and taste but apples have a range of flavour, size, shape and colour. McIntosh apple has hints of strawberry. Yellow Transparent is a Russian apple that tastes like lemon sherbet. I also grow Winter Banana apple, which smells a bit like banana. That’s how I know when it is ripe.”“

“Finlay and Kortman both lament how commercial apples have become uniform in flavour and colour because they are bred for durability. “Take the variety, Gravenstein. You pick it in February and it stays crunchy and tart for about two weeks. It is suitable for farmers’ markets but not large agricultural practices,” Finlay says.”

“While a few varieties dominate supermarket shelves, Australia is home to more than 200 kinds of apple – with huge variance in colour, size and taste”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...growers-preserving-australias-heirloom-apples
 
varwoche said:
No, it does not mean nothing.
A growing number of important findings are being reported from observational research linking demonstrable health benefits to levels of organic food consumption.
Click to expand...
link​
Click to expand...

So, the sentence you quoted cites "observational research".

Here's what that means:

What is observational research?
Observational research is a broad term for various non-experimental studies in which behavior is carefully watched and recorded.

The goal of this research is to describe a variable or a set of variables. More broadly, the goal is to capture specific individual, group, or setting characteristics.

Since it is non-experimental and uncontrolled, we cannot draw causal research conclusions from it.
Click to expand...

In other words, there's likely to be confounding factors when you compare people who consume organic food with those who don't. Such as income, lifestyle differences, and so on. That's why there's also this sentence, which you omitted from your quote:
The current evidence base does not allow a definitive statement on the health benefits of organic dietary intake.
Click to expand...

Here's another commentary:
No Health Benefits from Organic Food
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom