Organic Vs Non-Organic Milk

[dogbite666]

I am curious about that site.

Where is this claim being made? That organic milk is HEALTHIER that non-organic.

Sure it may say rBGT free or no Antibotics but I never saw a claim of being healthier.

It is peoples impression ..ohhh organic must be healthier the government can not regulate people being misinformed. The organic v. non organic food question really is one of personal preference.

I believe organic milk taste better so I drink it. I believe organic meat to be juicer so I eat it.

The site in question is against the claim that organic milk is healthier than non organic. No where on the site does it make a claim that organic is better.

If you want to see an organic milk site that does make that claim go here:

http://www.organicmilk.co.uk/

If you then browse to this page;
http://www.organicmilk.co.uk/index.cfm/yeovalley/Omsco.Custom/page_id/8/subject/happy_healthy_cows

You'll see why the claim is so stupid!

"Homeopathic and herbal medicines are used to keep organic cows healthy and to treat ailments. Organic farmers use antibiotics only when the cow is actually ill, never just as a routine preventative treatment. They may also be used to alleviate suffering."

I rest my case!

 

[Sally]

The site in question is against the claim that organic milk is healthier than non organic. No where on the site does it make a claim that organic is better.

If you want to see an organic milk site that does make that claim go here:

http://www.organicmilk.co.uk/

If you then browse to this page;
http://www.organicmilk.co.uk/index.cfm/yeovalley/Omsco.Custom/page_id/8/subject/happy_healthy_cows

You'll see why the claim is so stupid!

"Homeopathic and herbal medicines are used to keep organic cows healthy and to treat ailments. Organic farmers use antibiotics only when the cow is actually ill, never just as a routine preventative treatment. They may also be used to alleviate suffering."

I rest my case!

That is the confusion.

Its a british claim. US packaging makes no such health claims.

 

[SirPhilip]

I just did a quick taste test between MacArthur 2% and Promised Land 2% (both packaged in plastic containers). MacArthur (which is among the best non-organic milk) was actually superior in taste than the latter, more expensive brand. I'll do further tests later this week, and everyone can compare with their own experience.

 

[dogbite666]

As far as I can tell from reading the site you posted and www.organicmilk.co.uk people seem to prefer the taste of organic milk because it tastes richer / creamier etc....

It seems that the organic cows are getting better treatment, longer hours out doors, less cramped milking sheds, more attention payed by the farmer to the quality of the grazing fields.

Maybe these are the factors which make organic milk taste better. Rather than the claim that the cows don't get any nasty anit-biotics and are given 'natural' or homeopathic remedies.

Maybe we could devise a test. Put some non-organic cows of the same breed / age/ etc.. in with the non-organic cows and see if the milk they produce tastes any better or worse than that from organic ones. I wonder if JREF would accept that for the $milllion?

 

[SirPhilip]

So, because something tastes better to you it must be better for everyone. You make two grave mistakes in your assumption. 1 - Just because it tastes better doesn't mean it is actually doing your body any more or less good than other milk.

That however, is not the issue. The issue is care taken during the process of production (and quality ingredients, like normal cows). I'm sure Hershey could come up with a $1 chocolate bar with 70% dark chocolate or the same anandamide content as Toblerone or Godiva, products with superior ingredients and care taken in their production; that doesn't make it equal, nor does it mean people are being ripped off for paying nearly twice as much. The fact is, not stressing cows to produce higher levels of milk than they normally would and keeping them in stressful, confined conditions, along with shooting chemicals into them to increase that production, would yield a superior tasting product, isn't hard to wrap your head around. In any event, drinking milk that is more ethically produced feels a lot better.

Skimmed milk is arguably better for you than full fat, although it tastes like dishwater.

Fats are healthy except in excess.

2 - Other people might not agree with you that organic milk tastes better. The only way to tell is by doing a taste test over a large randomized group. The fact you say it tastes creamier make me think it has higher fat content, which isn't better for you!

Cute attempt at rationalization, there. That was almost as bad Gumboot's.

According to you it is superior. Superior in which way? taste? Fat content?

Next time you go to the store, try some Organic Valley and compare it to the milk you usually drink, then decide which you'd prefer in stuff like puddings, sauces, or simply for dipping cookies into.

No, the claim of organic milk, or organic products in general is that they are better for you because they contain less 'man-made' chemicals, (if there is such a thing!).

Explain why the site conveniently ignores this study, then.

The reality is that they cannot make this claim without stating which harmful compound is present in non organic milk which isn't in organic milk.

The reality is, given a choice, health-wise consumers will choose milk with the least amount of chemicals and the most care taken in production, as well as taste.

I'm yet to meet anyone who can answer that question with regard to organic food in general. If non organic milk contains harmful compounds then it is up to the Food Safety Standards Board to remove them from the milk, organic or non organic.

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.

Organic food is simply a fashion band wagon which the marketing companies have jumped on to make us pay more for less.

While it's inevitable some companies will falsely claim to be organic, this is an idiotic, sweeping generalization you just made.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

They misrepresent the claims of organic milk manufacturers, while claiming both types of milk are of the same quality. They aren't.

Which claims are misrepresented?

The same way you measure the the quality of a Godiva chocolate bar to a Hershey. Organic milk has a fuller bodied, creamier, fresher taste. Common store brands taste watery and bland by comparison. It would be childslplay to discern either blindfolded (although arguably, Parmalat still makes the most delicious tasting milk in the world).

...How do you measure the quality of a Godiva chocolate bar?

It is declaring "milk is milk", while misrepresenting how organic milk products are marketed, and why people consume them. Milk is not just milk. Organic milk is superior.

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks organic is simply better because it tastes better. My friends who prefer organic do so because they think it's inherently more healthful, and my friends who strictly buy organic do so because they think it's better for the environment.

Promised Land, for one, has this exact statement on the carton.

But the site isn't claiming every label is wrong. They have a gallery of labels that have clearly left that out.

Where is this claim being made? That organic milk is HEALTHIER that non-organic.

You're right that the website doesn't have any examples of that claim being made. In this sense, I guess it could be considered a strawman.

But it's very easy to find this claim on the websites of organic milk companies. For example, Olympic Dairy Products says, "Products that are guaranteed free from pesticides, herbicides and other chemical substances provide you a means towards optimum health and wellness."

The issue is care taken during the process of production (and quality ingredients, like normal cows).

The care given is not a requirement for organic certification, as far as I know (Don't take my word on that). I thought the only difference was the lack of pesticides, growth horomone, antibiotics, and occasional grazing on a pasture. You can feed your cows the best ingredients out there and give them lots of care every day, and your milk still won't be organic. If what you say is "the issue", I fail to see what the difference is.

Fats are healthy except in excess.

How many Americans have trouble filling their daily fat quota?

Cute attempt at rationalization, there. That was almost as bad Gumboot's.

I don't see how it's invalid. Certain people prefer skim milk while others only drink 3.5% It is very hard to make the claim that everyone prefers a higher fat content.

Explain why the site conveniently ignores this study, then.

Interesting. Do you have a source for that that isn't the BBC? (i.e. the abstract, or maybe even the full paper?)

The reality is, given a choice, health-wise consumers will choose milk with the least amount of chemicals and the most care taken in production, as well as taste.

I know you mean inorganic chemicals, but it's usually helpful to specify...nobody complains about the milk content in their milk.

Do you think the choice of having milk with less chemicals is a rational one, if those chemicals do absolutely no harm? I think people prefer less chemicals just because of the connotation, just like people often prefer "all natural" medications.

 

[jon]

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks organic is simply better because it tastes better. My friends who prefer organic do so because they think it's inherently more healthful, and my friends who strictly buy organic do so because they think it's better for the environment.

I do Admittedly, I'd expect the better taste is down to interesting varieties being used, the food being fresher, better-fed, better-prepared etc., rather than it being organic as such. But if I want to buy, say, locally grown 'heritage' tomatoes, they have to be organic....

The care given is not a requirement for organic certification, as far as I know (Don't take my word on that). I thought the only difference was the lack of pesticides, growth horomone, antibiotics, and occasional grazing on a pasture. You can feed your cows the best ingredients out there and give them lots of care every day, and your milk still won't be organic. If what you say is "the issue", I fail to see what the difference is.

At least in the UK, there are some standards of care associated with raising organic animals - http://www.soilassociation.org/web/...b74f2bfcf9e96dde80257149004cb426!OpenDocument. There's also some potentially cruel practices - like homeopathy - which seem to be encouraged. The organic label can be a useful way of ensuring that your meat etc. at least meets a minimum standard (e.g. chicken won't be from a battery hen, beef will have been largely grassfed...) Of course you can - and do - get great quality products from animals raised with care, but not to 'organic' standards.

Interesting. Do you have a source for that that isn't the BBC? (i.e. the abstract, or maybe even the full paper?)

I think this was just a conference presentation, although the soil association might be able to help with something in writing - see here http://www.soilassociation.org/web/...b1ab478889d5122180256f7d0041ec34!OpenDocument

The paper has been used to campaign for official recognition in the UK that organic milk is healthier - http://www.omsco.co.uk/index.cfm/or...ognise_nutritional_difference_of_organic_milk
Actually, the BBC article that was linked to seems a pretty fair summary: the better health qualities were due to the cows getting a better diet (which can be - and is - also achieved on some non-organic farms) and the nutritional benefits of the organic milk, while real, are unlikely to be particularly significant. I can see why people would buy organic dairy products for the taste, or due to animal welfare concerns - but don't think health should be much of an issue...

 

[jon]

I know the better types of French Brie or Camembert are apparently made with "lait cru" (i.e. "raw" milk). I'm assuming this means the milk wasn't pasteurized?
Of course, when they turn the milk into cheese, there's other processes taking place that probably kill the bacteria. Like having fungus growing on it.

'raw' in the US just means the milk wasn't heated enough to be classed as fully pasteurised. You can buy cheeses made with unpasteurised milk (inc. good bri/camembert), but in the US they legally must be over 60days old (http://archive.salon.com/travel/food/feature/2000/01/28/cheese/print.html). Apparently, many/most bacteria will die in those 60days. There is still a risk, and a greater risk from younger cheeses (they're not recommended for pregnant women, for example), but I'll happily take a small risk of food poisoning to eat camembert that tastes of camembert

The risk from drinking unpasteurised milk is greater (I certainly wouldn't bother) - but in societies that allow stupid behaviours like smoking, I think that people should be allowed to drink raw milk (and certainly to eat unpasteurised cheeses as young as they want), so long as they're aware of the risks...

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I do Admittedly, I'd expect the better taste is down to interesting varieties being used, the food being fresher, better-fed, better-prepared etc., rather than it being organic as such. But if I want to buy, say, locally grown 'heritage' tomatoes, they have to be organic....

I stand corrected. Do you pick varieties because they're organic, or do you pick organic tomatoes because you like the varieties? Or am I completely misunderstanding the realm of tomato varieties?

At least in the UK, there are some standards of care associated with raising organic animals - http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/b74f2bfcf9e96dde80257149004cb426!OpenDocument. There's also some potentially cruel practices - like homeopathy - which seem to be encouraged. The organic label can be a useful way of ensuring that your meat etc. at least meets a minimum standard (e.g. chicken won't be from a battery hen, beef will have been largely grassfed...) Of course you can - and do - get great quality products from animals raised with care, but not to 'organic' standards.

Gotcha. It's a shame organic certifications are so broad. It seems as though any company that feeds cows food that was sprayed with pesticides automatically has no incentive to treat their animals with anything more than a feedlot, since they're not going to be certified organic anyway. Take crops for example. While I support ecological agricultural practices, I also strongly support GMOs, and I think they have even more ecological potential that organics. Nevertheless, people tend to think of GMOs and organic foods to be polar opposites.

I think this was just a conference presentation, although the soil association might be able to help with something in writing - see here http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/b1ab478889d5122180256f7d0041ec34!OpenDocument

The paper has been used to campaign for official recognition in the UK that organic milk is healthier - http://www.omsco.co.uk/index.cfm/or...ognise_nutritional_difference_of_organic_milk
Actually, the BBC article that was linked to seems a pretty fair summary: the better health qualities were due to the cows getting a better diet (which can be - and is - also achieved on some non-organic farms) and the nutritional benefits of the organic milk, while real, are unlikely to be particularly significant. I can see why people would buy organic dairy products for the taste, or due to animal welfare concerns - but don't think health should be much of an issue...

That seems a little sketchy. If all they did was sample milk from different companies, I wouldn't consider that a reliable experiment. In order to figure out whether the actual organic part played a role, all the cows would have to be raised the exact same way, with the exception of the organic rules in one group. The BBC article only says, "Milk was tested from cows who were farmed organically and conventionally."

Also, the nutrients that were more abundant were pretty unnecessary. To quote the article again, 'Dr Anne Nugent, of the British Nutrition Foundation, said: "It is important to note that there were no differences highlighted between the two milks for some of the major nutrients that milk provides, such as calcium and vitamin B12..."So even if regular milk is slightly lower in these nutrients than organic milk, chances are you will be already be meeting your dietary needs for these nutrients by consuming other foods."'

 

[dogbite666]

The fact is, not stressing cows to produce higher levels of milk than they normally would and keeping them in stressful, confined conditions, along with shooting chemicals into them to increase that production, would yield a superior tasting product, isn't hard to wrap your head around. In any event, drinking milk that is more ethically produced feels a lot better.

Not stressing cows has nothing to do with the Organic Certification. Do you have any evidence to suggest that cows treated in the same way, except having been shot up with 'chemicals' produce worse tasting, less healthy milk?

Next time you go to the store, try some Organic Valley and compare it to the milk you usually drink, then decide which you'd prefer in stuff like puddings, sauces, or simply for dipping cookies into.

You don't seem to grasp the real issue here. If something tastes better it doesn't make it superior. The issue I am trying to get over to you is that organic milk is no more or less healthy than non organic milk. Remember, being organic means that the product complies with the Soil Association Organic Certification, nothing whatsoever to do with cows being stressed.

The reality is, given a choice, health-wise consumers will choose milk with the least amount of chemicals and the most care taken in production, as well as taste.

Thats because people have a natural fear of things they don't understand. If the organic movement could actually say which harmful chemical compunds are present in non organic but not in non-organic food stuffs and why those chemicals are harmful they might actually have a case. The fact is people buy organic because they have been told it is healthier than non-organic which is an unsubstantiated claim.

While it's inevitable some companies will falsely claim to be organic, this is an idiotic, sweeping generalization you just made.

If you believe that organic milk is healthier than normal milk, simply because of the missing 'chemicals' and not because the cows are treated any different, then you have fallen for the marketing ploy. There is no credible evidence to suggest that chemicals which are present in non organic foods and not in organics are harmful.

I dont think you do believe it is healthier, I think you prefer organic milk because it tastes better and thats because the cows are treated differently.

 

[exarch]

...How do you measure the quality of a Godiva chocolate bar?

Duh! You just count the number of skepchicks around you.

 

[exarch]

You don't seem to grasp the real issue here. If something tastes better it doesn't make it superior.

Ehm ... I think YOU are the one who doesn't grasp the issue. Something that tastes better IS superior. It doesn't have to be healthier, or more expensive, but it will be "better" because it is like you just said, better. Taste is subjective, but what is the reason you prefer your favorite food? Taste, right? I can say that such-and-such is the best pizza I ever ate. So in your opinion, my favorite food is not the best I've ever eaten. You say: "No, you're wrong, that pizza can't be the best you've ever eaten, because plenty of other pizzas are healthier".

I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that most people buying "organic" food are just doing so because somewhere along the way they have picked up the mistaken notion that it's healthier. And there's probably some animal-lovers out there who'll buy organic because they believe the animals were treated better (which they might, although it's not a requirement to be labeled "organic" as far as I know).
Further more, organic food items claiming to be "healthier" simply because they carry the label "organic" are guilty of false advertising. Nobody is contesting that either. But to assume that ALL organic food producers are guilty of false advertising is incorrect too. They are allowed to say their food was raised organically, because according to the regulations, it was.

 

[jon]

I stand corrected. Do you pick varieties because they're organic, or do you pick organic tomatoes because you like the varieties? Or am I completely misunderstanding the realm of tomato varieties?

No, because I like the varieties. I get the sense that, if you're farming 'heritage' tomatoes round here, you'd want to do it organically to get a decent price premium.

Gotcha. It's a shame organic certifications are so broad. It seems as though any company that feeds cows food that was sprayed with pesticides automatically has no incentive to treat their animals with anything more than a feedlot, since they're not going to be certified organic anyway. Take crops for example. While I support ecological agricultural practices, I also strongly support GMOs, and I think they have even more ecological potential that organics. Nevertheless, people tend to think of GMOs and organic foods to be polar opposites.

Yes and no - there are still farms that sell 'quality' meat and dairy products, without having organic status. This can work pretty well with smaller shops paying for better quality produce, with farmers market so farmers can sell direct at a premium, etc. With the move to big supermarkets, though, consumers are left relying on labels like 'organic'

That seems a little sketchy. If all they did was sample milk from different companies, I wouldn't consider that a reliable experiment. In order to figure out whether the actual organic part played a role, all the cows would have to be raised the exact same way, with the exception of the organic rules in one group. The BBC article only says, "Milk was tested from cows who were farmed organically and conventionally."

Also, the nutrients that were more abundant were pretty unnecessary. To quote the article again, 'Dr Anne Nugent, of the British Nutrition Foundation, said: "It is important to note that there were no differences highlighted between the two milks for some of the major nutrients that milk provides, such as calcium and vitamin B12..."So even if regular milk is slightly lower in these nutrients than organic milk, chances are you will be already be meeting your dietary needs for these nutrients by consuming other foods."'

Absolutely - I doubt the health benefits are significant, and this could be achieved through good non-organic farming practices.

 

[dogbite666]

When I said superior I was refering to the benfits to health, not superiority of taste. Guess I should have made that clearer for you.

But to assume that ALL organic food producers are guilty of false advertising is incorrect too. They are allowed to say their food was raised organically, because according to the regulations, it was.

In that respect they are not guilty of false adverstising, and I never suggested that they were. If you speak to people who buy organic produce the majority will say they buy it as it is healthier because it contains less chemicals, which is a misconception as we all agree. Many sources suggest this is true and Marketing companies thrive on this misconception and use it to their advantage.

 

[fuelair]

How is that mislabeling? It's up to the consumers to decide if they want milk from rbST treated cows or not, whether there is an actual difference in the milk or not. Might as well go on a crusade against any health claims on food packaging (but, as that website is probably funded by other milk producers who want to sell their own stuff, it's not going to happen). Tons of foods are labeled "cholesterol free" or "no trans fat" to make them appear healthier than they actually are, it's not like this kind of "mislabeling" tactic is exclusive to organic milk producers...

But the Organic (so-called) producers are making a fetish of producing stuff that is believed by the deluded to be healthier and relying on that to get WOOs to buy their products - so it is fair to force written disclaimers of any unproven "benefit". Actually, I would prefer a law prohibiting any statement about products in advertising or on packaging that is A)not provable/disprovable by real science and B)meaningful ( example: "unlike other companies our soups contain no processed manure" meaning "unlike companies that sell fertilizer, our companies' soups do not contain processed manure" but meant to imply "unlike other soup companies, our soups do not contain processed manure - but theirs' do! Nyaaah,Nyaah,Nyaah!" -and that for all products, not just organic.

 

[exarch]

Actually, I would prefer a law prohibiting any statement about products in advertising or on packaging that is A)not provable/disprovable by real science and B)meaningful ( example: "unlike other companies our soups contain no processed manure" meaning "unlike companies that sell fertilizer, our companies' soups do not contain processed manure" but meant to imply "unlike other soup companies, our soups do not contain processed manure - but theirs' do! Nyaaah,Nyaah,Nyaah!" -and that for all products, not just organic.

I remember a sci-fi story where a guy from a particular time period was commenting to others about 20th century ads, saying "can you imagine companies were allowed to make their own advertisements back then?".

 

[Demigorgon]

I didn't read all of the replies so I don't know if this was covered but: When you compare the two milks, you must compare them at the same fat content level. So what was the fat content on the organic? Since it is the fat content which gives it its "fullness and richness". Hell, you could be drinking heavy cream labeled milk for all we know.

Typicaly, "organic" translates to "lower quality and more expensive".

 

[Jorghnassen]

Typicaly, "organic" translates to "lower quality and more expensive".

More expensive is usually true (except for say, kids' cereals). "Lower quality" not so much. I've personally found little difference between organic and non-organic food of similar nature. Besides, consumers often have funny conception of what "quality" is. This explains the existence of "Red Delicious" apples which are uniformly red (what's wrong with partially green skin?) but taste like cardboard.

 

[Sally]

I didn't read all of the replies so I don't know if this was covered but: When you compare the two milks, you must compare them at the same fat content level. So what was the fat content on the organic? Since it is the fat content which gives it its "fullness and richness". Hell, you could be drinking heavy cream labeled milk for all we know.

Typicaly, "organic" translates to "lower quality and more expensive".

I can see an argument for equal quality and more expensive but what are you basing the lower quality argument off of?

If you compare at the same fat content the milks should be chemical almost identical. Why would you say organic would be of LOWER quality?

 

[The Don]

I can see an argument for equal quality and more expensive but what are you basing the lower quality argument off of

Certainly in my local supermarket, organic produce has less eye appeal. I'm not too worried about the fact that the fruits and veggies are unwashed or even that they're odd sizes and shapes, it's just that a higher proportion seem to be damaged, rotten or spoiled.

Once you've managed to get the pick of the litter then what you're left with is the same quality at a much higher price.