Organic food

[James]

What are people's thoughts on organic food? Would/do you buy organic? If so, why? If not, why not?

[womanofdulwich]

I like the idea but not the price.

I would not pay more for organic.

I care more about the freedom given to the animals while they are alive than to whether it is organic or not.

[James]

But you do know that organic means higher welfare standards?

e.g. organic eggs mean the chickens have superior space per bird & access to outdoors than free range? Organic standards are the highest welfare standards for livestock.

[womanofdulwich]

no I did not know that- how much more exactly?

[Annette Curtain]

I'm into Biodynamic myself

Organic is sooo-soooo last year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/6230162/Is-biodynamic-the-new-organic.html

[Voyageur]

I would pay extra for meat that had been reared in a pleasant and stress free natural environment and slaughtered in as 'humane' a way as possible. I must admit I am verging on veggie as if I think about the animal that I am eating and how it has probably died my appetite disappears. I wouldn't expect others to share my views though.

[civilservant]

Voyageur Wrote:

> I wouldn't expect others to share my views though.

I seem to share your views exactly, on all counts!

[Marmora Man]

If it tastes good - I'll eat it. In my experience flesh, fowl and veg reared by a caring farmer and slaughtered appropriately will taste better. Game and line caught fish equally benefit by not being "farmed".

[aquarius moon]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Voyageur Wrote:

> > I wouldn't expect others to share my views

> though.

>

> I seem to share your views exactly, on all counts!

I share both your views!

[Voyageur]

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> civilservant Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Voyageur Wrote:

> > > I wouldn't expect others to share my views

> > though.

> >

> > I seem to share your views exactly, on all

> counts!

>

>

> I share both your views!

That's good to hear. I guess part of the point is though that I don't expect others to agree or to change their own views - my partner is a confirmed carnivore and is not concerned re provenance. I am happy to live and let live.

[James]

To all who share Voyageur's views, take a look at this:

http://www.soilassociation.org/whatisorganic/organicanimals

I take it when most people hear the word 'organic' they think of food with less pesticides/chemicals/additives etc. The fact that organic livestock are raised with more space, more natural food, superior outdoor access, more space per animal etc. seems less commonly known!

[Alec John Moore]

Hi James

I think it's useful to point out that the first part of the Soil Association's strap line is healthy soil. A bit obvious, perhaps, but really important given that the organic approach to food production is based on sustainability. See this link for info about the serious soil degradation problem the planet faces:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/04/12/why-soil-matters/

Apart from that, organic food just tastes better, in my view, anyway.

Alec

[DaveR]

"The fact that organic livestock are raised with more space, more natural food, superior outdoor access, more space per animal etc. seems less commonly known!"

....but obviously those conditions for raising livestock are not unique to farms that have gone to the trouble of being certified organic. My problem with organic food is that the process of certification implicitly draws a bright line between "good" and "bad" when the reality is less clear (for me at least). For example, the Soil Association promotes the use of homeopathic remedies for livestock, which kind of undermines their credibility.

[Jeremy]

Homeopathy for farm animals... whatever next, I thought? Reiki for sheep? Acupuncture for cows? Then I looked it up - and all this stuff actually already exists.

Anyway, I generally avoid organic stuff, because I don't want to pay the extra price, and I am cynical about the benefits.

[polla2256]

It's much better but has limitations.

I don't beleive it is suistainable for everyone to eat organic, in the same guise however I think that over production of processed, chemically enriched, irradiated, preserved food is not the answer either.

I eat organic where I can but generally go for the in season, grow together goes together approach.

One thing is for sure summer fruits are for summer or I aint going near them.

[James]

.but obviously those conditions for raising livestock are not unique to farms that have gone to the trouble of being certified organic.

Agree Dave but isn't it good to have a standard anyway?

[LondonMix]

Well, recent research suggests that there really aren't any significant nutritional benefits for organic produce. Regarding safety, both organic and non-organic produce have pesticide residues below current safety standards but if you believe current safety standards aren't robust enough then I can see why you'd go for organic. While organic farms are more environmentally friendly per unit of land, they actually use more energy etc per unit of production as yields are so much lower. So that organic produce you are eating on average requires more resources to cultivate and therefore creates more greenhouse gases during its cultivation.

I think the strongest arguments for buying organic concern farming practices (free range etc) and, if you think so, taste (which of course is entirely subjective). However, it?s clearly not the panacea some believe it to be.

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120904.html

Jeremy Wrote:

>

> Anyway, I generally avoid organic stuff, because I

> don't want to pay the extra price, and I am

> cynical about the benefits.

[Alec John Moore]

Interesting take on the purpose of standards in food production. Distinctions between good and bad are subjective, moral, views - in my view. Standards related to food production give producers objectives to meet in animal husbandry, use of chemicals etc and consumers reassurance that the produce meets their requirements, given an effective regulatory system.

There are lots of different standards systems but they are actually about ensuring commercial viability of the ethical proposition more than moral judgements about good and bad.

[fl0wer]

If you make a switch to organic food can I add that unless you buy it as locally grown & distributed as possible, you'll be paying some extra percentage for air miles. Many supermarkets are just flogging you fancier stuff from far far away, at maximum profit to themselves and far costlier than necessary to local economies and the environment.

The box schemes don't air freight produce. Their associate farms in Spain and France send us winter fresh stuff overland and sea.

Another point worth making, it's hard being an organic grower, & to exist free of supermarket buyers. If households order a veg box, the company will have supported the grower right the way through with extra help when needed,

e.g. to prepare the soil appropriately,

choose disease-resistant varieties,

predict within a fortnight when stuff's ready to pick,

& pay ahead of time for an entire field,- all to help this method's sustainability.

[LondonMix]

Sorry, but food being produced locally doesn't mean it will be cheaper to produce / sell or that it will require less fossil fuels to be cultivated (including shipping). The reason why some imported food is cheaper is because it is easier to produce in other parts of the world due to climactic conditions, labor costs etc (thus requiring less fossil fuels during the cultivation process). Neither organic food nor locally grown food is by definition more environmentally friendly than their non-organic / imported counterparts. It is just not that simple.

[DaveR]

"Agree Dave but isn't it good to have a standard anyway?"

I question the usefulness of a standard that bundles up sensible criteria with stupid ones, because sensible people will not want to adhere to it.

[fl0wer]

"Neither organic food nor locally grown food is by definition more environmentally friendly than their non-organic / imported counterparts."

That statement is not quite clear. One part is about whether organic growing is less environmentally costly, and the other is about whether local growing is less environmetally costly. Then you have included another point about imports and this again falls into two aspects, one which concerns non-organic production (I think). All parts of your post merit support with references, please LondonMix.

[LondonMix]

I'm not sure what's not clear. Food being produced organically or locally doesn't mean it is less damaging to the environment. Regarding organic food's environmental impact you can read the link to a recent Oxford university study in my earlier post. Regarding locally grown food there have been a few articles on this over the last few years. I'm on my phone but will try to find a link this evening.

[LondonMix]

Regarding why locally grown food is not always 'greener' please see the link below. Production techniques / natural resources have a significant impact on the amount of fossil fuels required to cultivate produce. These differences can wipe out transport miles differences (you can search for the case study of Swedish local tomatoes vs imported Spanish ones).

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6064

[Alec John Moore]

If you are saying it's complex, LM, then we would all have to agree on that. There's lots of potential for cherry picking - pun intended - your favourite bit of the system to make your point. I noted from my skim of the World Watch article that eating lower down the food chain would make a difference - something I pointed out in my earlier post. The article ends on a brief examination of transportation systems which could be made more carbon neutral but for a truly local to us example of how this can work you only need to look at the electric van used by Local Greens, the local veg bag scheme.