Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Biggest Myth About Organic Farming
by Ross Pomeroy June 6, 2014
The majority of Americans believe that organic foods are healthier than food grown using conventional methods. The majority of Americans are wrong. Two systematic reviews, one from Stanford University and the other by a team of researchers based out of the United Kingdom, turned up no evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or lead to better health-related outcomes for consumers.
But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides."
In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*
Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."
But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides."
In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*
Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."
More at the link...
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
eating organic in the '70s but didn't always adhere to it until about 20 years ago give or take.
Good luck! 
Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)
From this snarky but unimpeachable source:
Confirming what everyone with eyes had already noticed years ago, a study commissioned by the British Government's Ministry of Culinary Obviousness concluded that so-called "organic" foods are four times more likely to appear blanched, tired, and generally ill-favored. A random sampling of 1,000 people across Britain found that "sallow" was the word most commonly chosen to describe organic produce, followed closely by "expensive."
Indeed, organic foods typically cost between 1.5 and 2 times more than equivalent non-organic foods.
"The whole thing's a ruse," noted Kirsten Smythe, a lead researcher in the study. "'Organic' simply means that the food contains carbon, and that describes nearly everything you're apt to eat, save perhaps an ice cube."
Nonetheless, researchers predicted that eager consumers will still happily pay much more for foods with little or no proven benefit beyond anecdotal testimony.
"I don't mind paying five pounds for an organic banana," said Nigel Sinclair, a London-based commodities broker, "as long as I feel as though I'm getting something more nutritious."
Curiously, sales of the dubious yet aggressively marketed produce have risen in the weeks since the release of the report. Further studies are planned to assess the impact of unpleasant facts upon the purchasing habits of people suspicious of such facts.
