Do you buy organic?

[really]

No, not particularly.

Antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides, artificial fertilizer and the like have a place in food production for the 21st century. I do have qualms about the excessive use of those items.

A good insult I heard about a farmer once was that he was organic without intending to be - he was too cheap to pay for anything artificial.

 

[Farm Boy]

That would be an insult. It would mean he was blind enough to be missing out on the significant price markup his goods would be worth if marketed correctly to the right demographic flush with enough cash to purchase food in such a manner.

 

[civvver]

Eh, no, the US is basically the only first-world country where milk isn't free of bovine somatotropin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

Oh well, all the non organic milk at my grocery store is hormone free and half the price of the organic stuff. I assumed it was like that everywhere.

But I agree with FarmBoy, organic has so many levels of meaning, just cus something is labelled organic does not mean it's healthier for you or better for the environment. It's like seeing fat free salad dressing then realizing it has 3x the sugar of regular dressing and just as many calories. Organic is a marketing technique more than anything.

 

[illram]

I try to buy organic and local when I can and I disagree with the idea that it is meaningless. "All natural" is meaningless. Also there are third party organic certifications that are more rigorous than the USDA label. For meat I try to buy cage-free, grass-fed, etc.

 

[Farm Boy]

Despite my labeling of it as hedonistic, which I think it is, please don't read that as a personal attack on your purchasing choices. It's hard to encapsulate an issue as broad as global food supply, transport, distribution, production, etc. I certainly can't do it. But land and affordable food isn't infinite, the amount of arable production we have globally is finite. It can be stretched, to a limit, by destroying what virgin territory is left and pressing that ground, within it's capabilities, into production. Seeing as the global population doesn't seem to be on the verge of shrinking, barring something absolutely terrible happening, the future of foods aren't in the niche and fancy. 18 minute TED talks video about bread.

 

[El_Machinae]

For meat I try to buy cage-free, grass-fed, etc.

For awhile, I had access to an butcher that produced 'ethical' meat. My conscience was a lot cleaner back then.

 

[Adjuvant]

There's no such thing as "hormone free milk" unless it is "synthetic milk". As a matter of fact, any container of "hormone free milk" may have twice or three times the amount of bovine hormone as another container if "your cow" happened to be pregnant.

Even if the label said "rbST free", that would be quite a trick because it's made in the pituitary gland of every cow. The real issue is whether rBST adversely affects humans and so far the Food and Drug Administration says "no".

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm

"The FDA's review of rbGH has been scrutinized by both the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) and by GAO, as well as by JECFA. On February21, 1992, the OIG announced that an audit of issues related to FDA's review of rbGH found no evidence to question FDA's process for determining the human food safety of rbGH. The OIG found that sufficient research had been conducted to substantiate the safety of the milk and meat of rbGH-treated cows for human consumption. In addition, the OIG found no evidence that indicated that FDA or Monsanto engaged in manipulation or suppression of animal health test data. As noted above, the August 6, 1992 GAO report found that FDA's review of rbGH had met all established guidelines and concluded that bovine growth hormone did not pose a risk for human consumption. In its reviews, JECFA also came to the conclusion that rbGH can be used without any appreciable risk to the health of consumers."

rbST and rbGH are the same thing.

It's a marketing issue, and it's the fear perpetuated by the people who "buy into" the marketing, at least according to the experts.

edit: Also, I don't believe for one minute "big farming" has curtailed the use of antibiotics. Why would they? It has not yet been mandated. It would be like saying, "Hmm, I think we will make less food and thus less profit this year."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nope. I grow it.

 

[Samson]

There a lot I agree with in Adjuvant post (surprisingly), but I will take issue with a couple of points:

Even if the label said "rbST free", that would be quite a trick because it's made in the pituitary gland of every cow.

Not quite. The "r" stands for recombinant, so it is made in bacteria. While the amino acid sequence may be the same, it is not quite the same as bovine produced somatotropin (though almost certainly biologically identical).

The real issue is whether rBST adversely affects humans and so far the Food and Drug Administration says "no".

In the UK at least the human health effects are less talked about than the animal welfare aspects. So another issue is does the milk production levels achievable using rBST cause unacceptable suffering to the animals involved. Much the same argument can be made for the use of modern "black and white" dairy cattle (sometimes called Holstein - Friesian).

 

[Adjuvant]

You agree with alot of what I say if you weren't fixated on one or two things.

 

[Samson]

You agree with alot of what I say if you weren't fixated on one or two things.

What things do you think I am fixated on?

 

[Farm Boy]

I was under the impression that schedule of milking was more of a concern regarding the comfort of dairy cattle than most anything else.

 

[Adjuvant]

What things do you think I am fixated on?

Why is it "surprising" you agree with me? Is that supposed to elicit you approval from a group of people who disagree with one or more of my contentions, or is it intended to offend me personally?

 

[Samson]

I was under the impression that schedule of milking was more of a concern regarding the comfort of dairy cattle than most anything else.

I am not an expert on it (and neither agree nor disagree with with the position). I have heard people putting down the high incidence of mastitis and the (far lower) incidence of malnutrition to the "artificially" high levels of milk production in a modern dairy cow. This is caused by the intensive selective breeding that has gone into "black and white" cows, as well as other things such as the use of rBST.

Why is it "surprising" you agree with me?

I read this site quite a bit and this is the 1st time I have found myself agreeing with your position.

Is that supposed to elicit you approval from a group of people who disagree with one or more of my contentions, or is it intended to offend me personally?

No, just stating a fact. For your opinions here I would surmise that you are not easily offended, and I would not expect anyone here to give my opinions any weight dependent on such a statement.

I am really interested however to know what it is you think I am fixated on. While I do have strong opinions, I do not feel I have any particular fixations so would be interested in knowing how I could come across as such to others.

 

[Adjuvant]

I'm not going to hijack this thread with this. You're ignored.

Carry on.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess I would be somewhat surprised if mastitis, the bacterial infection, was strongly related to level of milk production itself rather than milking hygiene. But, the world's a complicated place, it's possible that selective breeding has created common lines of dairy cattle that have an immune system less able to control this particular communicable disease as opposed to other communicable diseases.

 

[Samson]

I guess I would be somewhat surprised if mastitis, the bacterial infection, was strongly related to level of milk production itself rather than milking hygiene. But, the world's a complicated place, it's possible that selective breeding has created common lines of dairy cattle that have an immune system less able to control this particular communicable disease as opposed to other communicable diseases.

I think the relationship between milk output and mastitis incidence on an individual level is well proven. I cannot be certain of the reasons, but probably include:

- The amount of rich bacterial culture medium (milk) present in the udder
- The increase in milk productive tissue as opposed to immune tissue within the udder
- The load on the animal generally of diverting so much available energy to milk production
- Reduced "dry cow" periods between finishing milking after one calf and giving birth to the next one

 

[illram]

Despite my labeling of it as hedonistic, which I think it is, please don't read that as a personal attack on your purchasing choices. It's hard to encapsulate an issue as broad as global food supply, transport, distribution, production, etc. I certainly can't do it. But land and affordable food isn't infinite, the amount of arable production we have globally is finite. It can be stretched, to a limit, by destroying what virgin territory is left and pressing that ground, within it's capabilities, into production. Seeing as the global population doesn't seem to be on the verge of shrinking, barring something absolutely terrible happening, the future of foods aren't in the niche and fancy. 18 minute TED talks video about bread.

I would disagree with the concept of organic being niche and fancy. I am not offended that you think me buying organic is self indulgent or done solely for my pleasure. I would simply say that you are wrong.

Yes organic food can be sold for more money. Yes the organic label can be BS and gamed. But that doesn't mean non-organic is somehow not fancy or "for the people" or something like that. I have way more of a problem with, for instance, screwing over farmers with patented crops, which to me is way fancier and bad for humanity. Tyson can mass produce horrifically grown and processed chicken way cheaper than Farmer Joe can produce free-range "organic" chicken, because he lacks the economy of scale and efficiencies of a large producer. That doesn't make Farmer Joe "fancy" to me, nor does it make my decision to spend more on local Farmer Joe chicken vs. Tyson frozen nuggets "fancy." Fancy in this context is a by-product of the food economy created and controlled by the mass producers who sell America and the world cheap mass produced and distantly processed crap. They have essentially monopolized the means and methods of making it cheaply and in the process have undercut objectively better ways for communities to buy and grow their food. I would much prefer if, for example, buying Tyson chicken created thousands of miles away was actually much more expensive than buying locally grown chicken from 40 miles away, but this is a free market. Thus the food I want, that I think is actually objectively healthier and better, is usually more expensive.

That the organic label has been hijacked by many of these same mass producers is unfortunate.

 

[bhsup]

Have you people that insist on eating organic considered that maybe you are contributing to the delay in humanity evolving to properly handling highly processed foods??

 

[El_Machinae]

I eat organic for health. I force-feed my offspring highly processed foods, and just replace any deaths with more offspring. -> evolution.