The not-so-recent trend of this "Organics" movement has really begun to boil my blood, if for no other reason than sheer symantics! Websters english dictionary [arguably the most widely used and accepted dictionary of our language] defines Organic as:
1. (Biol.) Of or pertaining to an organ or its functions, or to objects composed of organs; consisting of organs, or containing them; as, the organic structure of animals and plants; exhibiting characters peculiar to living organisms; as, organic bodies, organic life, organic remains. Cf. Inorganic.
***For more definitions visit below, or pick up the book. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/organic
Basically, to define something as organic simply means that it is carbon based (like you and me)...therefor the only INORGANIC thing would be crystals, rocks and other non-carbon based objects.
To say that your meal is better for you because it is 'organic' is complete idiocy. What else would your food be if not Organic? To say that one chicken is better "because its oganic" is implying that the other chicken is not organic [therefor INorganic]...is the other chicken made of rocks?
They are capitalizing on a generality.
People now define organic as:
A system that is designed and managed to produce agricultural products by the use of methods and substances that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products until they reach the consumer. This is accomplished by using, where possible, cultural, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using substances, to fulfill any specific function within the system so as to: maintain long-term soil fertility; increase soil biological activity; ensure effective pest management; recycle wastes to return nutrients to the land; provide attentive care for farm animals; and handle the agricultural products without the use of extraneous synthetic additives or processing in accordance with the Act and the regulations in this part.
When the hell did this deffinition change occur!? You can't just waltz around changing the meaning of words to suit your own ends. A great steaming pile of poop is organic...does that make it healthier for me?
Why does this whole thing bug me so much? Well because people are changing their entire lifestyle to become "more organic" and paying a premium to do so. Check out the organics isle next time you're at a store. Almost every store now has one, selling herbal enemas, clensing teas, organic meats, fruits and veggies (as opposed to those crunchy inorganic foods *eye roll*)...they are THE SAME bloody product as what you find in the normal food isles, only not sprayed with pesticides and therefor infinitely more expensive.
Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious. The nutrient content of plants is determined primarily by heredity. Mineral content may be affected by the mineral content of the soil, but this has no significance in the overall diet. If essential nutrients are missing from the soil, the plant will not grow. If plants grow, that means the essential nutrients are present. Experiments conducted for many years have found no difference in the nutrient content of organically grown crops and those grown under standard agricultural conditions.
Many "organic" proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [1].
Many buyers of "organic" foods believe that the extra money they pay will ultimately benefit the environment by encouraging more farmers to use "organic" methods. But doing this cannot have much effect because "organic" agriculture is too inefficient to meet the world's food needs. Moreover, the dividing line between organic and conventional agriculture is not sharp because various practices are not restricted to one or the other. For example, "organic" farmers tend not to use pesticides, but faced with threatened loss of crops, they may change their mind. If certain patterns of pesticide use cause more harm than good and there is a way to remedy the situation, the people concerned about it can seek regulatory solutions. I don't believe that paying extra for food will benefit anybody but those who sell it.
In closing...
WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE!!! Organic means Carbon Based - NOT environmentally friendly...or healthier...or cleaner! A note to marketers: Stick to calling them 'natural' foods...it may not have the same neat sound-bite, but it makes slightly more sense.
*Deep breath*
There, I feel better now.
Signed - your neighborhood Karate Studio and mad-house.
(Angry replies can be thrown through our studio window at 186 King Street)
1.Newsome R. Organically grown foods: A scientific status summary by the Institute of Food Technologists' expert panel on food safety and nutrition. Food Technology 44(12):123-130, 1990.
Comments
Thank-you for taking the time to share your incredibly stilted commentary on this issue.
I would like to point out that there is at least one reason people pay a premium for organic food that you may not have considered. Many people have educated themselves and have come to the correct conclusion that our current methods of food production are simply not sustainable. I would suggest that you take the time to educate yourself on the issues of peak oil, network and complexity theory, infrastructure collapse, environmental degradation, peak water, aquifer depletion and modern agricultural methods.
In contrast to our current unsustainable approach, which can be thought of as the industrial process of turning oil into food, (pesticides, chemical fertilizers and global transport of food all require massive inputs of oil), organic food production if done correctly is a closed-loop approach which can drastically reduce or in many cases eliminate our reliance on oil for food production.
Have you noticed that almost all of the garlic for sale in London comes from China? Why is that? We can grow it here, so why do we waste oil to ship it literally from the other side of the world? The fact of the matter is that the extra energy we are squandering from oil makes it cheaper to ship food from China than to grow it here. While I agree that cheap, plentiful food is a benefit, organic food costs more for two reasons 1) the market for it is currently smaller because most people would prefer to buy cheap food and not think of the negative impacts from how it is produced/transported and 2) people refuse to educate themselves and so, as you have identified, there is a misconception that organic food is more healthful and therefore can demand a premium price.
Our free lunch from oil will eventually come to an end. When it does, the ability to grow food in an organic and sustainable fashion will once again become our primary method of production, and it will likely support a smaller population than our oil-glutted system does now. But that's life, right? Feast and famine, boom and bust.
Cheers. Happy gardening.
Agreed. Thanks nikharron!
Nikharron,
Thanks for the thought out reply. You'll find controversy makes for the best conversations.
I see the direction you are coming from, and trying to lead me in - and feel the need to clarify for you that (perhaps much to your surprise) I have educated myself on agriculture, sustainable living and ecology and am an avid supporter of the need to change the way our world runs. Implying my ignorance on those issues in the hopes to discredit my above commentary would be pure misinformed arrogance; but I am sure I simply misunderstood the intent.
That aside, you make great points about our current situation being unsustainable as well. I spent the first 21 years of my life growing up in the country surrounded by, living on and around farms...almost all of which have now been bought and slotted for "land change use" to increase our urban sprawl.
However, that and the evils of Oil aren't part of the intended aim of the 'rant' above...
I am writing about the Semantics and misuse / misunderstanding of the term Organic, and how it is applied to everything possible because the masses are foolish enough to buy a soundbite. Unfortunately a lot of "certified organic" products are not what people think they are. Legally, so long as the item is carbon based, a company can (and does) slap an "Organic" label on it in order to boost sales...and people eat it up.
The majority of my rant spoke of the misconception that Organic foods and products are somehow more healthy. Here we both agreed to some extent, that too many people have been and remain misinformed in regards to this...and pay for it. Most people are not eco-warriors and really don't care to think about their impact on the world around them; they are concerned with their own health and well-being (More than a little ironic I suppose, since the health of the world around them regulates their personal health in many ways)...it is these people, I daresay the majority, who are being duped by the term, and this rant was / is intended to give them a blunt bash to the head and get them thinking about it a little more. It is not a commentary on how we should or could be farming.
No more, no less.
But since you brooch the subject; what do you think of Vertical High-Rise Farming?
(Have you read of or seen this concept?)
I would pick certified organic over regular produce any day. I have defintely noticed a difference in quality. You can rant about the "misuse" of a word from the dictionary but that doesn't really make the certification bogus (besides definitions of words change all the time, why art thou so pissed?). Organic certification is a real thing regardless of what the dictionary says.
Sure some products might say organic and not really be organic certified. Sure some products that are not organic might not be as harmful as others. Ultimately I think a consumer market who reads labels, ingredients, product origin and certifications is definitely advancing in a positive direction. Why do you think corporations have had so much control over the world and f'd things up so much? Maybe it's because the masses over the past 60 years have been giving them loads of money for things without really questioning what it is, where it came from, how it was made or how it got to their city. Since shopping for organic foods I find I'm more consious of ingredients, nutrition charts and product origin.
I really don't get how organic food in your grocery store pisses you off so much. Other people spending more money on things you think they shouldn't.. is this really a new trend? let's talk about cars, houses, fashion, technology.. OMG I just want to kill myself thinking about all that wasted money
As for organic being more healthy.. it is because there are no pestecides being used. Carrots are healthy.. carrot cake is not so healthy. It's not about the nutrition of the produce it's what comes with it. Have you seen or heard about the recent news linking pesticides to adhd? What about the use of growth hormones or the antibiotics they feed animals for their entire lives to prevent sickness due to poor and over populated living quarters?
Pesticides and ADHD:
Pesticides in kids linked to ADHD
A clip from The Corporation about the use of BST in cows:
You and Your Milk (From "The Corporation")
MMMM adhd salad washed down with a nice refreshing glass of puss milk. NO THANKS!
Cailen, the study linking pesticides and ADHD is in no way definitive and shouldn't be taken as the final word on the subject.
here is a good article discussing the results of the study and what context they should be viewed in:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1962
I don't believe there is alot of evidence for organic food being healthier either, which has been mentioned in the previous comments.
I agree that the current model for agriculture is not sustainable but I'm not so sure that the organic model is either. I would like to see examples of organic methods that have achieved a "closed-loop". As far as I know that is a very difficult task. Also, the organic method of production cannot be scaled up and still meet the needs of a growing world population. clearly the current method of food production is messy and unsustainable but an organic method just isn't a viable replacement for it.
maybe I'm wrong on this, in that case educate me.
Spiritual Martial Arts Center,
Thank-you for the response. You ranted, I ranted. No offense was intended. :-)
Regarding vertical high-rise farming, in principle I think it is a good idea, but so far I haven't yet seen a realistic proposal that addresses the need for sustainable, fertilizer inputs. It seems that there are a lot of architects out there that are drafting up pretty concept images without providing the necessary plans to address the energy costs of irrigating and fertilizing those structures.
I can only assume that the concepts I have seen rely on chemical inputs, otherwise, realistically, the drawings should also show the grazing land you would need to generate the manure necessary to make those concepts sustainable, closed-loop approaches. Perhaps the consumers could provide the manure themselves, but I think most people would balk at the idea.
I think that a more pragmatic approach to producing food within a city should focus, at least on the short-term from both an energy,resource and cost perspective, on converting waste municipal land such as boulevards and rooftops into productive spaces.
At this point, I honestly don't think that these vertical farms are the answer. They make nice cover pics for magazines, but if urban populations want fresh food grown within city boundaries then they should think about relaxing restrictions that prevent people from practicing sustainable food production on their own land and common spaces within the city. That would seem to be a sensible step forward. This would include backyard chickens both as a pest control method and as a source of fixed nitrogen - soemthing which the city has resisted since banning the practice for unfounded reasons during the recent avian-flu "crisis".
Regarding the comments in the thread that organic farming is not as efficient, and results in higher-priced produce I would like to point out that the current chemical agriculture approach relies heavily on massive government subsidies that hide the true cost of production. If you don't see the cost of food production at the checkout you do certainly see it at tax time.
A great article that addresses some of the points raised can be found here:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
It would seem that organic food production is not only competitive in yields to conventional approaches, but that it is economically competitive as well when all the external costs, including the loss of "eco-system services" such as water purification for example.
KYLE: Organic approaches do scale actually. But population stabilization (or better yet reduction) would obviously help.
Regarding the idea that the word "organic" is being misued, I long ago gave up any notion that English is a static language. Word usage is a constantly evolving and natural part of any language - especially English - as the history of our language shows that it has a remarkable ability to absorb other languages and generate new forms.
A quick search shows that the disputed use of the word organic as meaning "free from chemical pesticides and fertilizers" is attested to 1942, so there's nearly 70 years of usage in that sense. It's not unusual for words to carry several, equally valid definitions, which are not mutually exclusive. i will admit that when I hear the word organic the first thing I think of is the idea "pertaining to the chemistry of carbon compounds" but that's coloured by my less that stellar memories of high-school chemistry classes.
Cheers
=)
This has really sparked some great discussion. Thanks for responding guys.
Actually, the difference between "organic" and "natural" in food is regulation. Certified organic food has to comply with production standards, while "natural" is meaningless from a consumer standpoint, as anyone can (and does) slap it on their package. If the CO lable is used illegally, then the companies are charged. So, while there are issues with it, it's the only labling that we have to help us make informed choices.
RE highrise gardens, i HAVE seen a model in which livestock occupies higher floors and the waste is funnelled down, but only in concept drawings. The important thing is considering all energy imputs required for food production, and finding solutions that aren't going to leave us dependant on chem fertalizers and pesticides. When the gravy train runs out on industrial ag methods, we'll be left with acres of dead soil, and then we'll REALLY know high food prices (not to mention the super weeds/insects/bacteria that conventional ag has produced through overdosing of chems and antibiotics).