I can has rant now?

[Blue Mountain]

Yuri, I think I love you.

I thought I was the only person who got aggravated by the misuse of "organic". As opposed to silicon-based?

What condition do you have that is made worse by the misuse of the word "organic"?

(The word you want is probably "annoyed", not "aggravated".)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

What condition do you have that is made worse by the misuse of the word "organic"?

(The word you want is probably "annoyed", not "aggravated".)

Incorrections aggravate me...

ag·gra·vate (

g

r

-v

t

)
tr.v. ag·gra·vat·ed, ag·gra·vat·ing, ag·gra·vates
1. To make worse or more troublesome.
2. To rouse to exasperation or anger; provoke.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aggravated

 

[Ocelot]

19th century sanitation wasn't too bad. The London sewerage system built in the 19th century was pretty good.

Yeah I take it to work every morning

 

[big-E]

Declarations first: I do buy organic quite a lot. However, not as a one-size-fits-all "organic = better" solution.

I'm very fortunate in that I have a 'proper' butcher on my West London street (I know...) that actually sources its meat and eggs with great care, (and I'm also fortunate that I can afford to shop there... I could probably buy three or four times as much at supermarket prices...). They even have a bunch of photos left by the counter showing the actual farms and the animals - not as twee as it sounds. The meat is certainly a lot better than supermarket standard - in terms of flavour & texture, anyway. I'm perfectly willing to concede it may be no more nutritious, but it's definitely nicer to eat.

I don't choose/try to buy organic because "OMG the chemicals are unnatural" - I have a science education! What I really am after is a label that says the product/food etc. was created/reared/grown in as thoughtful, sustainable manner as possible, so that I can support that as a general aim and also avoid supporting the worst offenders. Keeping the insects alive should mean more wild birds too, which I'm all for.

There is no such label, of course. Organic, I believe, is more likely - though far from guaranteed - to fit my criteria than otherwise. On the production Venn diagram the overlap is biggest there. Not all organic will be 'big-E approved' but a lot of 'big-E approved' will be organic...

What's irritating is the rush for labelling in the letter rather than the spirit of the concept - the tolerance of disease to avoid losing the 'organic' certification, the use of abundant 'permitted' chemicals rather than trying to minimise spraying on general principles (how did copper sulphate solution get on the approved list anyway?), farmers converting to organic purely because they can charge more for the results...

Unfortunately I don't think there will ever be such a label. RSPCA Freedom Foods is helping, maybe. Re. the OP - it seems amazing that could happen on a genuine Free Range farm. What passes the certification is certainly a long way from what people fondly imagine when they read the words.

Ultimately I want my purchasing to be stacked on the side of 'people who (try to) care about where their food comes from' rather than 'people who just want cheap food'. Probably a lost cause, but you have to try...

 

[Dymanic]

I thought I was the only person who got aggravated by the misuse of "organic".

In the context of farming methods, its origin is a reference to "the farm as organism". What aggravates me (even more than dictionary thumpers who refuse to acknowledge shifts in the usage of English words such as "aggravate") is pedant chemists who seem not to realize that they do not own the word "organic", which has specific meanings within a variety of contexts: law, economics, military terminology -- all of which are equally valid.

As opposed to silicon-based?

As opposed to petroleum-based. The observation: "petrol is an organic molecule" takes on a special significance when one considers the degree to which industrialized monoculture farming depends upon products synthesized from petroleum (in particular, natural gas, the primary feedstock for production of ammonium nitrate fertilizer).

Within the context of farming methods, the term: "organic" got hijacked again as Big Agrobiz, USDA, Safeway, et al, wrested it away from the sandal people and adapted it to suit their own purposes. It now means so many different things to so many different people that nobody can really say what the hell it means.

 

[EHocking]

Declarations first: I do buy organic quite a lot. However, not as a one-size-fits-all "organic = better" solution.

I'm very fortunate in that I have a 'proper' butcher on my West London street (I know...) that actually sources its meat and eggs with great care,...

Similarly over in the east. Butcher and grocer source locally. Thus, for the latter, I have to wait for July before I can get corn on the cob and I witnessed this anecdote in the butchers;

Harrassed husband rushes in with shopping list.

Husband, "Do you have organic chickens?"
Butcher, "No, I have free range chickens from a farm that I visit regularly."
H, "Are they organic?"
B, "I'd suggest your marraige would be safer if you went up the road to the supermarket and bought a chicken with an "Organic" sticker on the packaging."
H, "Oh. They're better are they?"
B, "No. But they DO have a sticker saying "Organic" on them.!"

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't choose/try to buy organic because "OMG the chemicals are unnatural" - I have a science education! What I really am after is a label that says the product/food etc. was created/reared/grown in as thoughtful, sustainable manner as possible, so that I can support that as a general aim and also avoid supporting the worst offenders. Keeping the insects alive should mean more wild birds too, which I'm all for.

Define 'sustainable'.

 

[Dymanic]

Define sustainable

From that link:

"Among other benefits, modern hybridized crops are designed for specific soil types, and to leave those soils less depleted so that they can be replanted for more seasons before being rotated."

Among the points I gleaned from Michael Pollan, the author I mentioned above, is that in industrialized monoculture farming, crop rotation has more to do with reducing losses from pests and pathogens than with depletion of nutrients, which are added every growing season anyway, and in amounts exceeding what is actually required (since it's cheaper to err on the side of excess). It's one of the "facts" I'm interested in checking. If anyone has the skinny on this already, please lay it on me. I'm also given to understand that higher tolerance for herbicides and pesticides is a primary goal of hybridization, as well as attributes that facilitate methods relying heavily on mechanized harvesting and accomodate certain processing and shipping considerations.

Also central to Pollan's thesis is that political, economic, and philosophic motivations are at the heart of the transformation of agriculture in the U.S. that began in the late forties. Pollan lists Earl ("big shoes") Butz, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower and Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon and Ford, among the chief movers. According to Wikipedia, Butz's mantra to farmers was "get big or get out," and he urged farmers to plant commodity crops like corn "from fencerow to fencerow", policy shifts which coincided with the rise of major agribusiness corporations, and the declining financial stability of the small family farm.

My current view on all of this is also heavily influenced by Jared Diamond's thesis that historical societal collapses can be traced largely to soil depletion due to poor forest management and unsustainable farming practices. Can anyone provide evidence refuting the claim that industrialized monoculture depletes topsoil?

 

[Lonewulf]

Uh, sorry if I missed this, but can someone explain to me why all of the focus is on "organic"? Would we not have the same animal welfare problems if they weren't "organic"? After all, it was them being bunched up and not fed correctly that was the main problem, wasn't it?

 

[Dymanic]

Uh, sorry if I missed this, but can someone explain to me why all of the focus is on "organic"? Would we not have the same animal welfare problems if they weren't "organic"? After all, it was them being bunched up and not fed correctly that was the main problem, wasn't it?

One question is whether the "free range" distinction means much if the animals don't actually avail themselves of the opportunity to take a stroll outside even if they are provided with the means to do that. They'll usually tend to hang around wherever the food is. If that happens to be inside, they'll mostly stay inside, but producers are allowed to slap the "free range" label on anyway as long as there's a door the birds could, (hypothetically), go out through.

If the animals are crowded together standing in their own droppings, pathogens won't care if that's by choice or by force. You can get away with confining animals like that if you acknowledge that the conditions are ripe for pathogens, and apply, say, antibiotics accordingly. If you're trying to uphold an ideal that is little but a fantasy in the minds of the consumer, and you're actually making only a token gesture toward that -- if the reality is that you haven't really recreated the conditions that would permit the birds to escape their pathogens by moving around freely over large areas of ground sterilized by sunshine, rain, and natural soil flora and fauna -- then the name of the game is what is known in marketing as: "perceived value" (and the price at the store will reflect additional costs to the farmer which can be expected to result from some birds lost to disease).

 

[Rolfe]

Uh, sorry if I missed this, but can someone explain to me why all of the focus is on "organic"? Would we not have the same animal welfare problems if they weren't "organic"? After all, it was them being bunched up and not fed correctly that was the main problem, wasn't it?

Thinking about it more dispassionately, this is really a failure of the free range designation, and strictly speaking isn't directly related to organics or homoeopathy. The big problem with organic livestock husbandry is the prohibition or discouragement of the use of prophylactic or therepeutic medication. And that the content-free woo of homoeopathy is encouraged as a way of not treating the animals while pretending that you are.

However, I have no evidence that these hens were suffering from anything that required medication. So that criticism isn't really appropriate. However, free range really should be high-welfare husbandry, and hens in such systems should not be into vent-pecking.

It was mainly "this guy has a horrendous management problem he doesn't understand. And he's organic. What a surprise."

I don't choose/try to buy organic because "OMG the chemicals are unnatural" - I have a science education! What I really am after is a label that says the product/food etc. was created/reared/grown in as thoughtful, sustainable manner as possible, so that I can support that as a general aim and also avoid supporting the worst offenders. Keeping the insects alive should mean more wild birds too, which I'm all for.

There is no such label, of course. Organic, I believe, is more likely - though far from guaranteed - to fit my criteria than otherwise. On the production Venn diagram the overlap is biggest there. Not all organic will be 'big-E approved' but a lot of 'big-E approved' will be organic...

Well, your mileage obviously varies, but any label that says, we discourage or ban the use of properly licensed and tested veterinary medicines, and actively promote homoeopathy, is not going to fit my criteria on a bet.

Rolfe.

 

[jj]

All of this "organic" leads me to an inevetable conversation I have with people who say 'but there's no chemicals in it'!

What they MEAN is 'no chemicals that man made', usually, but it's not clear.

They often fail to grok when I ask, 'Well, then, how nutritious is it?'.

 

[shadron]

What's going to happen if (when?) the antibiotics stop working?

We all start re-establishing personal immunity to various organisms the hard way - nature's way, where individuals don't count for much.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Scary anecdote- Overheard in Clyde Valley Garden Centre-
1st Lady "I thought you can't use chemicals if you're organic".
2nd Lady. "You can use the organic phosphates".

I'd stress these were customers, not staff.
Gods forfend I ever have to eat whatever they're growing.

 

[macdoc]

organic phosphates

aka guano

 

[geni]

aka guano

Most nerve gasses are organo phosphates

 

[RationalVetMed]

What was the name of the magazine?

Poultry world (June 2006 edn)

Yuri

 

[Toke]

So organic mercury is good for you?

 

[macdoc]

Vinegar must not be organic then.... Manmade ethanoic acid....

 

[big-E]

It was mainly "this guy has a horrendous management problem he doesn't understand. And he's organic. What a surprise."

Noted, and I don't disagree. The Venn diagram intersection of 'clueless amateur farmers' and 'organic' is probably large too.

Well, your mileage obviously varies, but any label that says, we discourage or ban the use of properly licensed and tested veterinary medicines, and actively promote homoeopathy, is not going to fit my criteria on a bet.

Mmm. A very valid point. Perhaps I have been too willing to believe the (alleged?) positives. I certainly don't want my purchasing to imply that I 'support' homeopathy - couldn't be further from the truth. It hadn't really occurred to me that it would. I'm going to ask the butcher tomorrow if his suppliers use homeopathic 'remedies'. I don't think a 'yes' would be enough to make me switch back to standard supermarket meat though... but I could express my total disapproval and ask that he lets the farmers know (for all the good that will do)