Skeptoid Podcast: Organic Food

[Jeff Wagg]

GREAT episode on organic stuff, and yes, I'm saying that because it agrees completely with my point of view.

One small quibble though.. I find Trader Joes to be less expensive than supermarkets, not more expensive. For example, their noodle bowls are half the price of the same product at the supermarket. Their nuts and chocolate are also much cheaper.

And no, I don't buy their produce.

 

[TsarBomba]

One small quibble though.. I find Trader Joes to be less expensive than supermarkets, not more expensive. For example, their noodle bowls are half the price of the same product at the supermarket. Their nuts and chocolate are also much cheaper.

I agree. Trader Joes is not your typical "Organic Foods" store like Whole Foods or Wild Oats. Their business model appears to allow them to sell their products for about 50% less than the traditional "Organic" stores. The best news in the Podcast was the huge amount of money that Trader Joes makes. A Trader Joes on every street-corner, I say!

 

[Loss Leader]

For a fantastic discussion of what "organic" food really is and isn't, read Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."

It's not a panacea, but it is one way to get some of the petrolium out of our food.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

For a fantastic discussion of what "organic" food really is and isn't, read Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma."

It's not a panacea, but it is one way to get some of the petrolium out of our food.

Hmm, my understanding is that because it must be trucked a long way, organic food actually increases the use of petroleum.

 

[Loss Leader]

Hmm, my understanding is that because it must be trucked a long way, organic food actually increases the use of petroleum.

Your understanding is incomplete. The fertalizer that is used to grow non-organic crops is made from petrolium. In fact, it takes two calories of petrolium energy to grow one calorie of corn energy. And when our petrolium-soaked corn is fed to cows and chicken and pigs, it turns out most of our calories come from Saudi (and other) oil fields. In fact, the agriculture industry accounts for a third of America's petrolium consumption.

Another problem is that petrolium-based fertilizers deliver the bare minimum to keep plants alive - nitrogen, phosphorus and potasium. Crops grown with organic fertilizer pick up a lot more vitamins and minerals and use them better.

Did you know, for instance, that grass-fed beef has a better Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio than corn-fed salmon?

"Organic" isn't the whole answer. As your comment suggests, eating locally is also important. However, it is a whole lot better than non-organic. And with the right government incentives, it would be equally cheap, too.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I'll have to take what you say at face value. It seems reasonable.

I'm not sure what the problem is with using petroleum for fertilizers though. Are you saying that petro-chemical fertilizers contribute to global warming more than cows do? Or is it just the supply/demand of oil that concerns you?

The reason I ask is that cows are known producers of CO2, where as petro-chemical fertilizers would seem to me to be carbon sinks, as the carbon ends up in the food.

On the whole, I think the Skeptoid article pointed out that much of what we hear about "organics" is pure hype. It promulgates the "natural = good" fallacy.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Actually, something you said intrigued me.. "Organic isn't the whole answer..."

What is the question?

 

[Loss Leader]

I'll have to take what you say at face value. It seems reasonable.

I'm not sure what the problem is with using petroleum for fertilizers though. Are you saying that petro-chemical fertilizers contribute to global warming more than cows do? Or is it just the supply/demand of oil that concerns you?

Of the two choices, my concern is primarily with our dependence on oil - a non-renewable and foreign energy source. However, you have created a false dichotomy. I am not arguing for fewer cows. Whatever amount of CO2 cows produce, it would be unchanged regardless of their diet. So, whatever savings in CO2 organic fetilizers provide would be all positive. It wouldn't add more cows or increase cow carbon emissions.

The reason I ask is that cows are known producers of CO2, where as petro-chemical fertilizers would seem to me to be carbon sinks, as the carbon ends up in the food.

Actually, fertilizers deliver nitrogen. They are not generally the source of carbon for plants. That still comes from the soil. However, using organic fertilizers and not growing in monoculture allow the soil to remain rich in carbon instead of becoming depleated.

On the whole, I think the Skeptoid article pointed out that much of what we hear about "organics" is pure hype. It promulgates the "natural = good" fallacy.

The "organic" label does not guarantee that food was not grown in monoculture. It does not guarantee that animals were fed a diet similar to what they would eat on their own. It does not guarantee that chickens are not kept in cages or even that chickens, in their 57 day lives, ever set foot outdoors. It does not guarantee that we are supporting local or even American farms. And it does not guarantee that the naturally derived chemical insecticides are any less toxic than their manufactured cousins.

A lot of "organic" is just marketing and confusion on the part of the consumer. However, on balance, I've found that the "organic" label is at least a place to start. I eat organic because of the truth about it, not because of the lies.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Of the two choices, my concern is primarily with our dependence on oil - a non-renewable and foreign energy source. However, you have created a false dichotomy. I am not arguing for fewer cows. Whatever amount of CO2 cows produce, it would be unchanged regardless of their diet. So, whatever savings in CO2 organic fetilizers provide would be all positive. It wouldn't add more cows or increase cow carbon emissions.

You're right, I'm guilty as charged. Me culpa. Cows do produce CO2, but there's no reason to think that organic farming will increase the number of cows.

A lot of "organic" is just marketing and confusion on the part of the consumer. However, on balance, I've found that the "organic" label is at least a place to start. I eat organic because of the truth about it, not because of the lies.

Perhaps you're right and I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but man, that's some dirty water.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps you're right and I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but man, that's some dirty water.

Is there anything that does not have at least some "dirty water" to throw out?

 

[Loss Leader]

Perhaps you're right and I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but man, that's some dirty water.

You know, the interesting thing about this is that you live in Vermont, Jeff. It's one of the greenest states in the union. You would have it ten times easier if you decided to eat local, pasture-raised meats and organic vegetables than I do here near New York City.

If this topic holds any interest for you, pick up the very readable "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan. Then, when spring comes, try some pasture-raised chicken, eggs and produce and make your own decision. Trust me, you won't have the least trouble finding them.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Actually, that's not true. There are very few places to buy food at all. We have no Whole Foods or Trader Joes. There's one co-op but it's in the city and they sell so much woo-stuff that I can't bear to go in. There is a tiny organic store, and their stuff comes from California. The organic section in the supermarkets is small and from out of state.

Our green-ness is talked about, but I don't think it's real. We have no public transportation. Our recycling program, like most of them, contributes more pollution than it saves. We do get a lot of our power from hydro-electric, but that's questionably a good thing. We've voted down wind farms...the dairys are closing up fast, and many people still burn their trash. Many people use wood and coal for heat. Oh, and the rivers are too polluted to eat fish from them.

We have a lot of people who give lip-service to green, but they're doing it because it's trendy, not because it's smart. I love Vermont, by the way.

I'll consider Ominivore's Dilemma as my mother just picked it up. I watched the book review with Bill Maher, and it looks like a left-wing hatchet job, but I'll need to see it before I make that proclamation.

You know, the interesting thing about this is that you live in Vermont, Jeff. It's one of the greenest states in the union. You would have it ten times easier if you decided to eat local, pasture-raised meats and organic vegetables than I do here near New York City.

If this topic holds any interest for you, pick up the very readable "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan. Then, when spring comes, try some pasture-raised chicken, eggs and produce and make your own decision. Trust me, you won't have the least trouble finding them.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Is there anything that does not have at least some "dirty water" to throw out?

Is there any thread you won't besmirch with off-topic comments like this? Please, Claus, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

 

[tkingdoll]

The "organic" label does not guarantee that food was not grown in monoculture. It does not guarantee that animals were fed a diet similar to what they would eat on their own. It does not guarantee that chickens are not kept in cages or even that chickens, in their 57 day lives, ever set foot outdoors.

It does in the UK - in fact the standards for 'organic' eggs and meat are much, much stricter than 'free range' - if you want a truly free range egg then the only way to guarantee one is to buy organic.

There was a really long and interesting thread on organic a while back, I'll see if I can find it, some good info was posted there.

 

[Loss Leader]

Actually, that's not true. There are very few places to buy food at all. We have no Whole Foods or Trader Joes. There's one co-op but it's in the city and they sell so much woo-stuff that I can't bear to go in. There is a tiny organic store, and their stuff comes from California. The organic section in the supermarkets is small and from out of state.

Our green-ness is talked about, but I don't think it's real. We have no public transportation. Our recycling program, like most of them, contributes more pollution than it saves. We do get a lot of our power from hydro-electric, but that's questionably a good thing. We've voted down wind farms...the dairys are closing up fast, and many people still burn their trash. Many people use wood and coal for heat. Oh, and the rivers are too polluted to eat fish from them.

We have a lot of people who give lip-service to green, but they're doing it because it's trendy, not because it's smart. I love Vermont, by the way.

I'll consider Ominivore's Dilemma as my mother just picked it up. I watched the book review with Bill Maher, and it looks like a left-wing hatchet job, but I'll need to see it before I make that proclamation.

I'm surprised to hear Vermont described that way. Burlington looked so much more "granola" than it's New York twin, Plattsburg. I'm sure there are some good farm stands in the summertime but you'd know better than I would.

Omnivore is anything but a left-wing anything. Unlike Fast Food Nation, Pollan investigates all types of food systems - industrial, organic-industrial, organic, sustainable and even hunting and foraging. His insights into all of them are amazing. It's important to step back and consider how the things that we encounter every day get into our hands. That's all he does.

The only way you would find this book political is if you believed that even knowing how our food supply works is somehow anarchistic. And, of course, I don't think that you believe that learning about our world can be anything but beneficial.

 

[CFLarsen]

Is there any thread you won't besmirch with off-topic comments like this? Please, Claus, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

My point is that I doubt you can find any area within the food industry where we cannot find "dirty bathwater". Regardless of whether the food is organic, ecological, genetically modified, or just plain old-fashioned meat full of Trichinella spiralis.

Dismissing organic food because of "dirty bathwater" makes no sense. We have had food scandal after food scandal in Denmark the past couple of years, where the "dirty bathwater" was, so to speak, overflowing. Scandals in the "ordinary" food sector, mind you. Meat, 5-10 years old, marketed as "fresh". Widespread fraud. Political crisis. I'm sure you have your own scandals.

Even if it is fresh, you don't want to know what is in your wiener. You really don't.

 

[brodski]

It does in the UK - in fact the standards for 'organic' eggs and meat are much, much stricter than 'free range' - if you want a truly free range egg then the only way to guarantee one is to buy organic.

There was a really long and interesting thread on organic a while back, I'll see if I can find it, some good info was posted there.

here are the UK standards for the "soil association", the major approved organic certification body (there are others working to similar standards).
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/...389b373f825f68e180257149004c2a1c!OpenDocument
They do have some good policies, however they have some bad ones to, for example they tend to favor farmers using homeopathic remedies over antibiotics.

 

[tkingdoll]

here are the UK standards for the "soil association", the major approved organic certification body (there are others working to similar standards).
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/...389b373f825f68e180257149004c2a1c!OpenDocument
They do have some good policies, however they have some bad ones to, for example they tend to favor farmers using homeopathic remedies over antibiotics.

Agreed - I was referring specifically to eggs as there is a real misconception in the market that 'free range' means the chickens run around outdoors all day and sit in nice roomy perches at night to lay cosy eggs, when in fact the closest you'll get to that is from Organic standards. Sometimes 'free range' is little better than battery conditions.

The REAL question is, in a blind taste test, is there any damn difference? Myself, I think not, although there are differences in mouthfeel and colour. The only real way to get the best egg is to get the freshest, which usually means going to a local farm and buying today's. And little local farms which sell direct to the public are usually the organic cosy free-roaming bird type.

I can wax about eggs all day, it's one of my pet subjects, bizarrely. Ask me anything, from their chemical composition to storage and cooking methods. I'm like an eggcyclopedia.

 

[brodski]

I can wax about eggs all day, it's one of my pet subjects, bizarrely. Ask me anything, from their chemical composition to storage and cooking methods. I'm like an eggcyclopedia.

Ah, a challenge.
How do you successfully "boil" an egg in a microwave?

 

[tkingdoll]

Ah, a challenge.
How do you successfully "boil" an egg in a microwave?

Why would you want to?

That's like food murder.

However, if you must, then crack it into a microwaveable egg-cup and pierce the yolk (else it'll a-splode). Cook it on a medium heat for blasts of 15 seconds for a max of about a minute and a half.

Then take it out and put it in the bin and boil one properly with a pan of water