Organic Vs Non-Organic Milk

[Sally]

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.

That seems more of an issue of turnover, demand, and supermarket quality control. Not really an question of the produce itself.

I do a large amount of shopping at Trader Joes and some at Whole Foods the quality of their organic produce in my humble opinion is much better than the quality of the non organic (or organic for that matter) at the local supermarket.

 

[Pipirr]

As I understand it, "organic" is a process standard, not a product standard.

The cows have to be raised according to the organic rules (Soil Association, in the UK). These rules may, or may not, lead to a product that is quantifiably different to that from conventionally raised cows.

If the quantifiable difference of interest is the omega 3 content, and a higher content makes milk 'healthier', there may be a higher probability that organic milk will have the higher omega 3 content and be the 'healthier' product. I say that because organic cows may have a higher probability of being fodder or grass fed, and this may result in higher omega 3.

However: IIRC, cows can also be organically raised on organic grain, and the milk that is produced thereby will be equivalent to the conventional raised cow milk in omega 3 content. If grain feeding cows is the more efficient and economic means of raising cows, and it can be done organically, then the supposed benefit for organic milk may be lost.

Sensible solution: use a product standard instead. Set thresholds of cell counts, B12, omega 3. If the milk passes, put a premium price on it. It may well be that grass fed, zero-hormone, free range cows produce milk that best fits that standard. But such cows are not always organic. The organic label is not a guarantee at present that the milk is of a better quality. Depends where the milk is sourced. And of course some conventional operations will produce high quality milk that also fits the product standard.

Pay for the product, not the process... And just possibly, the better product requires the more 'organic' process anyway.

(Apologies for any inadvertent strawmen in the above. They don’t seem to be too popular in this thread…)

 

[Jorghnassen]

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.

But this could be simply due to the fruits and veggies staying on the shelves longer because they are more expensive and thus less likely to be bought.

 

[exarch]

Sensible solution: use a product standard instead. Set thresholds of cell counts, B12, omega 3. If the milk passes, put a premium price on it. It may well be that grass fed, zero-hormone, free range cows produce milk that best fits that standard. But such cows are not always organic. The organic label is not a guarantee at present that the milk is of a better quality. Depends where the milk is sourced. And of course some conventional operations will produce high quality milk that also fits the product standard.

I think this is the way to go. Like humane investments (your money is not invested in companies that make weapons or any other kind of company that's thriving directly or indirectly on war or strife in certain parts of the world.

Like the way some ISO certifications require that all your suppliers are also ISO certified.

It wouldn't be a product quality standard, merely a procedural standard. But I wouldn't mind paying a fraction more for food that was grown in an environmentally conscious way, or prodcuts derived from animals that were treated humanely (like "free-range" eggs). Just as long as it was clear that this is all the label means (which I suspect might even have been the original intent of the "organic" label?), not that it's more healthy, because that would be irrelevant to the goal of the label.

 

[Sally]

I think this is the way to go. Like humane investments (your money is not invested in companies that make weapons or any other kind of company that's thriving directly or indirectly on war or strife in certain parts of the world.

Like the way some ISO certifications require that all your suppliers are also ISO certified.

It wouldn't be a product quality standard, merely a procedural standard. But I wouldn't mind paying a fraction more for food that was grown in an environmentally conscious way, or prodcuts derived from animals that were treated humanely (like "free-range" eggs). Just as long as it was clear that this is all the label means (which I suspect might even have been the original intent of the "organic" label?), not that it's more healthy, because that would be irrelevant to the goal of the label.

That is my understanding also.

I do not like pipirr's thoughts for I am not looking at the organic label as a statement of the quality of product (for that it is a matter of brand and store trust). I look for the organic label as a sign for what is (in my mind) humane farming practices. I am willing to pray a premium on my produce, milk, eggs, and meat (especially meat) because I feel better ethically that the farming took place under more humane conditions.

Quality is a secondary often plesant bi-product from buying organic. I am not sure if that is simply because I feel better about the food bought and thus have an expectation for it taste better or if the product does have a physically better structure that improves taste (ie juicer meat, richer tasting milk...) I suspect its a combo of both things...

 

[The Don]

I am willing to pray a premium on my produce, milk, eggs, and meat (especially meat) because I feel better ethically that the farming took place under more humane conditions.

I agree with you totally which is why Mrs Don and I buy as much of our meat as possible from farms we can visit to look at the way they farm. I couldn't care less whether it's organic but I do care whether the animal had an acceptable quality of life.

I do note however that:

The use of alternative or complementary medicines is encouraged

from this organic animal rearing site which makes me worry.

 

[Jorghnassen]

I agree with you totally which is why Mrs Don and I buy as much of our meat as possible from farms we can visit to look at the way they farm. I couldn't care less whether it's organic but I do care whether the animal had an acceptable quality of life.

Completely agree with you there (and am also worried by the promotion of alternative medicine for "organically" raised animals).

 

[Sally]

I agree with you totally which is why Mrs Don and I buy as much of our meat as possible from farms we can visit to look at the way they farm. I couldn't care less whether it's organic but I do care whether the animal had an acceptable quality of life.

I do note however that:

from this organic animal rearing site which makes me worry.

See I do not think this applies to the markets in the USA.

Our organic standards and labeling laws differ. I never heard of the alternative medicines being used in livestock in the US. I would be interested to know if that was the case.

 

[Demigorgon]

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?

My bad, I was mostly refering to fruits and vegtables when speaking of quality. Organic milk sounds mostly like a marketing ploy. Does anyone know what the OP's definition of "organic milk" is?

more later, gotta run.

 

[Sally]

My bad, I was mostly refering to fruits and vegtables when speaking of quality. Organic milk sounds mostly like a marketing ploy. Does anyone know what the OP's definition of "organic milk" is?

more later, gotta run.

How is it a marketing ploy.

I read organic I know there is a certain standard behind it. I am willing to pay more because its a standard I agree in.

The lower quality of fruits and veggies that you may witness is much more likely a problem with the stores turn over and quality control issues. You shop at a place that has a high quanity of organic produce turn over and I would suspect your thoughts on quality would change drastically.

 

[exarch]

How is it a marketing ploy.

I read organic I know there is a certain standard behind it. I am willing to pay more because its a standard I agree in.

The lower quality of fruits and veggies that you may witness is much more likely a problem with the stores turn over and quality control issues. You shop at a place that has a high quanity of organic produce turn over and I would suspect your thoughts on quality would change drastically.

No, he's right about that. "Organic" produce sometimes looks a bit less "clean" because, supposedly, less pesticides were being used. I wouldn't be surprised if some shrewd marketing folks were using that ploy to get people to pay more money for fruit and vegetables that aren't top quality, because they look "organically" grown ("Guaranteed not to turn pink in the can"). And because people have the mistaken impression that it's healthier.

 

[Sally]

No, he's right about that. "Organic" produce sometimes looks a bit less "clean" because, supposedly, less pesticides were being used. I wouldn't be surprised if some shrewd marketing folks were using that ploy to get people to pay more money for fruit and vegetables that aren't top quality, because they look "organically" grown ("Guaranteed not to turn pink in the can"). And because people have the mistaken impression that it's healthier.

Exhibit a.

A supermarket ready, well traveled tomato: Non-Organic, Hydroponically (sp?) grown.

The subject has a perfectly rounded shape and dimple on the top. A uniform reddish color. A slight give at the touch.


Exhibit b.

A tomato from my own garden.

A non uniform shape slightly bulging on one side. Small darkish lines along creases in the top. A somewhat reddish color with patches of light yellow and light green. A slight give to the touch.


Which tomato is of better quality?



I base my answer off taste. Which when shopping out because trust of brand, supermarket and past experiences and from that experience tomatoes that look less than perfect often have better flavor. I would argue on this case that the "worse" looking tomato is the better quality one...

Edit:

And I readily submit that orgainically grown produce probably has a lower shelf life. That is why I think turn over is important in the quality of organic produce. I just do not play shelf life or a little dirty into my factor of quality when selecting produce to me its all about taste...

 

[SirPhilip]

Which claims are misrepresented?

I've already answered this, see below.

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

Quantum microscopy or a double-blind test, of course. How else would anyone be able to tell the difference?

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.

This was my entire point. (?)

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."

No disagreement here. There should be an recognized standardization for organic products.

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.

Organic means, in the case of milk I would assume, traditional farming practices and the use of the absolute minimum of foreign chemicals to produce it, as well not using techniques which industrial farming use to maximize milk production.

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.

Drugs aren't food, although undeniably some fradulent companies try to unite the two. People generally find the idea of any food which contains foreign chemicals unappealing, and those cultivated with the optimum natural conditions and care, most.

 

[exarch]

I base my answer off taste. Which when shopping out because trust of brand, supermarket and past experiences and from that experience tomatoes that look less than perfect often have better flavor. I would argue on this case that the "worse" looking tomato is the better quality one...

I think there's a chance that the mass-produced tomatoes are grown to look as large as possible (i.e. they contain more water), which could affect the taste. They probably also get optimum sunlight, watering and nutrients, while your backyard tomatoes might have a tougher time, making them perhaps smaller, but with more taste. I've personally noticed the same with homegrown strawberries.

That said, soil quality is important too. For example, there's still people near Tchernobyl growing vegetables in their back yard, and the fact they may not be spraying them with insecticides doesn't make them any healthier than produce grown in slightly less contaminated soil.
Supermarket stuff gets checked for things like that, your back yard doesn't.
I'm not saying your house is built on a toxic waste dump site, but it's something to be aware of when growing your own food, or buying home grown food from someone in the neighbourhood.

 

[SirPhilip]

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".

It's the same thing as regular Captain Morgan Spiced Rum compared to Private Stock, which is much more expensive and has a subtle, more complex difference in flavor. In the same way, organic products are "healthier" (by implication) of not subjecting cattle to factory farming conditions or the various techniques used in mass production, although some organic dairies claim to have a higher nutritional content, which is easy to believe, considering the fuller bodied, flavorful taste.

 

[SirPhilip]

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?

Nope, I made it up as I went along.

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

Please read up on factory farming conditions vs low-production, organic farming.

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.

There are clear differences between organic and non organic food.

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.

Neither is flouride at small levels. However, if someone is selling a different type of toothpaste without flouride that is superior, this is then healthier; and the point is, food produced without these is inherently healthier and has a better, proper taste.

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.

Organic milk is healthier because of the non mass production farming conditions.

 

[SirPhilip]

The use of alternative or complementary medicines is encouraged..

This is a very valid concern with organic growers, on the other hand.

 

[SirPhilip]

How is it a marketing ploy.

I wish all marketing ploys were this entertaining.

 

[dogbite666]

It's the same thing as regular Captain Morgan Spiced Rum compared to Private Stock, which is much more expensive and has a subtle, more complex difference in flavor. In the same way, organic products are "healthier"

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.

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. 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

Neither is flouride at small levels. However, if someone is selling a different type of toothpaste without flouride that is superior, this is then healthier; and the point is, food produced without these is inherently healthier and has a better, proper 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.

Organic milk is healthier because of the non mass production farming conditions.

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? 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?

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.

 

[jon]

Organic milk is healthier because of the non mass production farming conditions.

I never 'got' why people see organic farming in opposition to mass production farming. Organic farming is *big* business, and some organic farms are massive agribusinesses, using mass production techniques and shipping their food all over the world. The animals may be kept in better conditions than in the worse non-organic factory farms - I'd certainly rather buy an organic chicken than a battery one - and the quality of organic produce may be good, but it's still mass production. Some types of organic mass production - for example, salmon farming - are actually pretty damaging to the environment. Developments today - especially walmart's move to sell more organic food - is likely to make this even more the case in the future.

Obviously, it's worth noting that some mass produced food can be extremely good - for example, Yeo Valley mass produce huge amounts of organic yoghurt, and it's pretty nice Looking for food that's not mass produced can also mean eating non-organic food, though: for example, I'm heading into town soon to buy a nice wild rabbit, (not organic,but not mass produced and a meat with little environmental cost - they're shot as pests) and some non-organic cuddy's cave cheese (produced on a fairly small-scale - the dairy's much smaller than yeo valley - and very tasty ).