re: Organic foods. Better or scam?

quote:

---

Organic foods. Better or scam?

---

Depends on which food it is. Beef? Scam.

Theres a book called "The Rational Optimist" published a few years ago which tackles the subject of organic farming among other things.

The authors position in short is that organic farming ultimately does more harm than good because organic farming practices are inefficient when compared to modern farming intensification. The amount of land necessary to get similar volumes of organic crops is sometimes 10 or more times the size of comparable modern farms. That land is often found by claiming forest or other land. In addition, the use of manure based fertilization causes problems of its own.

In the end, he believes the ill effects of deforestation and methane gas from cows offsets any benefits of organic farming.

quote:

---

I hate getting those huge 1.5 lb chicken breasts from sanderson farms unless I plan on cutting it up to put in something

---

From a local restaurant here in ATL, which does serve good food:
"Ashley Farms Organic Chicken
20 ounce chicken breast, goat cheese & chive whipped potatoes, Chef’s select vegetable"

How does a chicken breast get that big "organically"? A Stanford research paper from about a year ago indicated no measurable benefits from organic produce over traditional, who knows...

quote:

---

chicken is one thing that I eat a lot of that I don't mind paying a little more for to get organic

---

what exactly is organic chicken?

without googling, do you know what qualifies as organic chicken?

quote:

---

steroid free.

---

Chickens are not injected with steroids or growth hormones.

quote:

---

I hate getting those huge 1.5 lb chicken breasts from sanderson farms unless I plan on cutting it up to put in something

---

why is that?

whats wrong with their chicken?

would have never dreamed about buying organic milk back in the day when the teenage boys and their friends and their friends friends went through gallons a day,,, but now the organic half gallon lasts longer in the fridge than the regular stuff.

quote:

---

Organic chicken

---

Any duffuss knows that organic chickens are chickens with organs. I personally like a little checker liver. I am still uncommitted with gizzards.

Thought this was interesting. From LINK :

"ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES
Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.

Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe."

Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds

That Flawed Stanford Study

Grow your own. Much better for you

So is Bittman a hack or merely serving his own agenda?

"Because the study narrowly defines “nutritious” as containing more vitamins. Dr. Dena Bravata, the study’s senior author, conceded that there are other reasons why people opt for organic (the aforementioned pesticides and bacteria chief among them) but said that if the decision between buying organic or conventional food were based on nutrients, “there is not robust evidence to choose one or the other.” By which standard you can claim that, based on nutrients, Frosted Flakes are a better choice than an apple.

But they’re not. And overlooking these key factors allows the authors to imply that there isn’t “robust” evidence to choose organic food over conventional. (Which for many people there is.) Under the convenient cover of helping consumers make informed choices, the study constructed a set of criteria that would easily allow them to cut “organic” down to size."

Seriously, FF > apple, organic or otherwise? Yeah, that is great logic. I just recalled skimming the Stanford meta study last year, didn't peer review nor tout it as gospel. Regardless, how much of the current food demand can be met by organic supply? I will say I have seen locally produced organic vegetables that I would not buy for various reasons, much like I have seen conventionally grown items I would not buy.