Organic

[imoldernu]

Who verifies the product depends on who the Certifier is.

I am active with MOFGA, they originated Certified Organic in 1970. Most organic farms in my area [Maine] use MOFGA. Recently the USDA got into certifying organics [led by a Monsanto exec]. So now it really depends on who the regional certifier is that USDA entrusts to do the certifying.

My wife recently retired from working in a grocery store where she was the Produce Manager. Her surveys documented that on average fresh produce costs 15% more when it is Certified Organic.

I appreciate the intro to MOFGA, and a quick review shows a sincere and quite comprehensive program for guidelines to insure long term healthy protection of farming and the environment. ... and I especially trust the farmers of Maine.

...Still. intentions and profit don't always go hand in hand. Production is based on doing what's best for the optimum crop. The bottom line for profit is a result of the least cost for the greatest production. Rebuilding soil through a natural process is much more expensive than using proven growth and pesticide chemicals. The extra cost of organic is supposed to be because of the extra cost to produce... including the probable lower level of productivity.

The question remains... Specifics for the verification process.

The road to h''' is paved with good intentions.

 

[RobbieB]

I buy whatever looks better. Sometimes it's organic, sometimes not.

 

[NW-Bound]

Our friends daughter had to buy "organic" sand for the kids sandbox. Seemed like a strange attribute of sand to me, but maybe there was more to it.

If sand is contaminated with organic materials, like what is deposited by the neighborhood cats, it cannot be good!

PS. Saw that Amethyst already made the same comment.

Organic? I'd say anything that rots, sooner or later.

It is hard to eat inorganic material. Examples include sand (which is composed of silica, particles of quartz, or calcium carbonate, etc...) and metals. Besides the taste and texture, our body cannot digest and obtain nutrition from inorganic stuff.

 

[sengsational]

I would add “if you think the chemicals used in organic farming as less harmful”, because organic does NOT mean no fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide...

That's why I said "chemical fertilizer". It's accepted that "chemical" means man-made /synthetic. Yes, everything is a chemical, even cow crap, but let's be reasonable. I made no claims as to the results to the product or environment using organic techniques or whether those claiming to follow said techniques actually comply. If the buyer is buying a pig in a poke, that's none of my (or your) business.

 

[USGrant1962]

Am reposting the "organic" website.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling

...

After spending a few hours on the website, I can't see any way of guaranteeing that the government has control of the standards that have been established.

...

I can't say that this upsets me. Why do I as a taxpayer want to pay to certify someone's food preference? And I have nothing against anyone's preference, but that is up to them - not the American taxpayer.

 

[ERD50]

That's why I said "chemical fertilizer". It's accepted that "chemical" means man-made /synthetic. Yes, everything is a chemical, even cow crap, but let's be reasonable. ...

OK, let's be reasonable, let's go to the dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chemical

chemical noun

Definition of chemical (Entry 2 of 2)

1 : a substance obtained by a chemical process or producing a chemical effect

So anything producing a chemical effect, which would be cow crap as fertilizer, is a 'chemical' by definition.

I really think that if we want to specify, we need to say "synthesized". Although I honestly don't know why anyone should care whether something is synthesized in a factory/lab, or derived more directly from a plant or animal. All I care about is does it get the job done at a good price. I would lean towards synthesized, as extracting from plants might bring along other undesirable that might cause problems.

Adding chlorine to water is not 'natural', yet it has saved millions, probably billions of lives. And the list goes on. People should keep an open mind to the benefits of lab produced chemicals, and especially Genetically Engineered Organisms, rather than relying on chance with hybrids or mutations, where we are not even sure what was changed.

-ERD50

 

[Winemaker]

I only buy 100% gluten-free, paleo, low-carb, free-range, cage-free, vegan sheets.

That makes me better than all of you!

Are they solar and do they contain any percentage of previously used sheets?




Some organic pesticides include copper sulfate, nicotine , capsaicin, oils, rotenone, pyrethrum and diatomaceous earth. Manure and dried blood are permitted as fertilizers. I have used them all sparingly in my garden for over 30 years, except I use copious amounts of manure.

 

[mpeirce]

I buy whatever looks better. Sometimes it's organic, sometimes not.

Actually, this is my approach too.

I honestly don't care if produce is "organic" (goodness I loath that term, it's not like the other stuff is inorganic, ahem) or not. I do care about cost, so rarely buy it. But on the other hand since there are now two options for most fruits and vegetables if the cheaper stuff is bruised or whatever I look at the more expensive stuff and sometimes find something better. Then it's worth the price to me.

 

[sengsational]

I really think that if we want to specify, we need to say "synthesized". Although I honestly don't know why anyone should care whether something is synthesized in a factory/lab, or derived more directly from a plant or animal. All I care about is does it get the job done at a good price. I would lean towards synthesized, as extracting from plants might bring along other undesirable that might cause problems.

I guess what I meant was the way most people think about the word, not the exact technical meaning. Water is a chemical under that definition, and that's not what I meant to address. We agree on synthesized.



So say you were forced into a situation where you had to eat 5 pounds of a substance that was "generally regarded as safe". You could pick a plant based substance or one made in a chemical reactor. One may praise the purity of the synthetic substance, but there's a lower likelihood that the human body has "seen" that thing in our evolution, so may not deal with it as well. I certainly would pick the plant based substance if in that situation. Informing my decision is Crisco, was considered safe, still in some foods, but the body doesn't handle the non rotating bonds, so disease is the result. Gimme butter, any day. Not saying it's a perfect food (has only been a food for the tiniest fraction of our evolution), but better than something slammed together at super high temperature and pressure.

 

[HFWR]

That's why I said "chemical fertilizer". It's accepted that "chemical" means man-made /synthetic. Yes, everything is a chemical, even cow crap, but let's be reasonable. I made no claims as to the results to the product or environment using organic techniques or whether those claiming to follow said techniques actually comply. If the buyer is buying a pig in a poke, that's none of my (or your) business.

I think buyers of organic foods mean well, I just don’t think organic farming, generally speaking, accomplishes what they think it is accomplishing....

 

[Bir48die]

I was involved in the food business for most of my career. Near the end we dealt with organic ingredients to develop new products. The rules were extensive and strict. Our people had to source fresh ingredients at the farm level and there were rules on proximity to cattle or animal farms and of course their waste.

The most frustrating part was finding a way to preserve it naturally and organically. There's a huge discussion now on citric acid as a preservative and many of the "strict" organic consumers are all in a huff over it.

Outside of the occasional issue (romaine lettuce) I fully trust the food system as a whole. I don't specifically buy organic unless it's what's offered (Costco). I do not pay the premium for produce. I am okay with chlorine washes in some products because I know the benefits.

That all being said it is certainly up to the individual to spend their money on strictly organic products. It is known that there is a premium on those items and it will result in a larger % of a paycheck going to food. I'm all good with that as it's purely a supply and demand issue. As long as no one preaches to me about what's good for me I could care less. However we are in a time period where everyone wants to tell others what they should and shouldn't do.

 

[misanman]

We had cousins visit with us recently (very enjoyable, btw) and the husband will only drink organic milk. He brought up that it doesn't need to be refrigerated and I think he thought that was because it was so "pure". So I do a quick internet search and find that it indeed can do well without pasteurization. The reason, however, is that it is produced in relatively few locations and has to be shipped longer distances to market. So spoilage would be a problem. The solution is that the pasteurization process for organic milk is much more extreme, and the temperature of the milk is raised so that all or nearly all bacteria are killed. Hence, greater resistance to spoilage. As a result of this process some sugars in the milk are likely to be "caramelized", resulting in a sweeter taste. I have no idea of whether or not the result is worth the much higher price but regular milk is fine for me.

 

[Red Badger]

I guess what I meant was the way most people think about the word, not the exact technical meaning. Water is a chemical under that definition, and that's not what I meant to address. We agree on synthesized.



So say you were forced into a situation where you had to eat 5 pounds of a substance that was "generally regarded as safe". You could pick a plant based substance or one made in a chemical reactor. One may praise the purity of the synthetic substance, but there's a lower likelihood that the human body has "seen" that thing in our evolution, so may not deal with it as well. I certainly would pick the plant based substance if in that situation. Informing my decision is Crisco, was considered safe, still in some foods, but the body doesn't handle the non rotating bonds, so disease is the result. Gimme butter, any day. Not saying it's a perfect food (has only been a food for the tiniest fraction of our evolution), but better than something slammed together at super high temperature and pressure.

Excuse me, but butter IS a perfect food. Expert opinion provided by my taste buds.

 

[Chuckanut]

Informing my decision is Crisco, was considered safe, still in some foods, but the body doesn't handle the non rotating bonds, so disease is the result. Gimme butter, any day. Not saying it's a perfect food (has only been a food for the tiniest fraction of our evolution), but better than something slammed together at super high temperature and pressure.

Therein lies the confusion that affects so many people. We are told one thing is better, healthier for us to consume and then 5, 10, 20 years later are told - "Sorry, we were wrong. And, by the way don't blame us for the bad advice, we were tricked!" Think eating healthy for the heart Fruit Loops instead of eggs for breakfast.

Trans-fats are the poster child for this problem. We were told to get rid of saturated fat and substitute trans-fats (butter is out, margarine is in, remember that?). Bad publicity and threats of legal action followed. Then, the same folks who said trans-fats are OK, got shown wrong. So they flipped and took aim at the companies using trans-fats in their food products. You can't make this stuff up.

JERF - Just Eat Real Food.

 

[Chuckanut]

Informing my decision is Crisco, was considered safe, still in some foods, but the body doesn't handle the non rotating bonds, so disease is the result. Gimme butter, any day. Not saying it's a perfect food (has only been a food for the tiniest fraction of our evolution), but better than something slammed together at super high temperature and pressure.

Therein lies the confusion that affects so many people. We are told one thing is better, healthier for us to consume and then 5, 10, 20 years later are told - "Sorry, we were wrong. And, by the way don't blame us for the bad advice, we were tricked!" Think eating healthy for the heart Fruit Loops instead of eggs for breakfast.

Trans-fats are the poster child for this problem. We were told to get rid of saturated fat and substitute trans-fats (butter is out, margarine is in, remember that?). Trans-fats were later discovered to at least as dangerous as saturated fats and perhaps more dangerous. So the same people who promoted margarine with trans-fats in them flipped and took aim at the companies using trans-fats in their food products.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[ncbill]

We had cousins visit with us recently (very enjoyable, btw) and the husband will only drink organic milk. He brought up that it doesn't need to be refrigerated and I think he thought that was because it was so "pure". So I do a quick internet search and find that it indeed can do well without pasteurization. The reason, however, is that it is produced in relatively few locations and has to be shipped longer distances to market. So spoilage would be a problem. The solution is that the pasteurization process for organic milk is much more extreme, and the temperature of the milk is raised so that all or nearly all bacteria are killed. Hence, greater resistance to spoilage. As a result of this process some sugars in the milk are likely to be "caramelized", resulting in a sweeter taste. I have no idea of whether or not the result is worth the much higher price but regular milk is fine for me.

Sounds like you're referring to UHT pasteurization, used for "shelf-stable" milk.

I don't like the taste either.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

Am reposting the "organic" website.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling

Incredibly complex, but a brush through of some of the links (to me) was doubletalk. Finding out about the actual certification process, involves dozens of videos that don't describe any actual checking of the items being classified... i.e. testing of the soil in which a crop is grown, is not a part of the process. In short, the certification rests on the affirmation of the farmer/grower that the described process (no introduction of unapproved materials) has been followed.

Certification usually requires monthly farm tours of the inspectors. Those guys will snoop around a lot. You can not have non-allowed fertilizers or herbicides on-site.

... FWIW, the latest count was 3.2 million Farmers in the US.

After spending a few hours on the website, I can't see any way of guaranteeing that the government has control of the standards that have been established.

The government would only enforce something is the government were the certifying agency. In my region the predominate certifying agency is MOFGA.

... As to products like meats, the oversight is even more questionable... again, based on the producers statement that he/she has followed the guidelines.

Not to get too far into the weeds, my thinking is that what was good enough for my folks is good enough for me. My suspicion is that generally, the extra price of going organic is not worth it. Frankly, it was seeing the organic sheets that led me into digging deeper.

As they say, trust, but verify.

All Certified Organic producers in my area welcome farm tours by their consumers.

 

[Bamaman]

When it comes to bed sheets, there's no way it's possible. You cannot grow cotton without pesticides. Doesn't happen.

The closest thing you'll find is RedLandCotton.com. It's a large Northwest Alabama cotton farm that gins their cotton and sends it off to be made into a special yarn. The yarn is then sent to an old style weaver that turns the cloth into cloth. And then the cloth is sent to be made into sheets and other products.

This is the real deal--sheets like your great great grandparents slept on.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

I appreciate the intro to MOFGA, and a quick review shows a sincere and quite comprehensive program for guidelines to insure long term healthy protection of farming and the environment. ... and I especially trust the farmers of Maine.

...Still. intentions and profit don't always go hand in hand. Production is based on doing what's best for the optimum crop. The bottom line for profit is a result of the least cost for the greatest production. Rebuilding soil through a natural process is much more expensive than using proven growth and pesticide chemicals.

Hmm, I have done both, and I have never seen anything to confirm your last sentence. I have seen the opposite though many times.

The extra cost of organic is supposed to be because of the extra cost to produce... including the probable lower level of productivity.

'Building good soil' is completely different depending on your worldview.

If you want soil full of worms and micro-organisms, there is only one route.

Using synthetic herbicides and petro-chem fertilizers will leave the soil loaded with nutrients [until it leaches away] but lacking in micro-organisms.

Synthetic herbicides leave trace remnants in the soil which is easily tested during routine farm tours of the Certifying Agency 'certifiers'.

Traditional farming often gets Federal subsidy money, whereas Certified Organic farming costs the farmer to get certified.

Most Certified Organic farmers are drinking the koolaid folks.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

... It is hard to eat inorganic material. Examples include sand (which is composed of silica, particles of quartz, or calcium carbonate, etc...) and metals. Besides the taste and texture, our body cannot digest and obtain nutrition from inorganic stuff.

The approved list of what can go into 'organic' is OMRI

https://www.omri.org/omri-lists

You are thinking in terms of 'organic chemistry'. In terms of farming practice, the distinction is materials that can be mined in nature, as compared to synthetic chemicals that only a chem lab can produce.

Clean sand is used in organic farming. I mix river sand with horse manure to adjust texture, to allow root aeration and avoid compaction, while providing drainage.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

I can't say that this upsets me. Why do I as a taxpayer want to pay to certify someone's food preference? And I have nothing against anyone's preference, but that is up to them - not the American taxpayer.

As a tax-payer you are paying farm subsidies, which go to non-organic or 'conventional' farming.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

We had cousins visit with us recently (very enjoyable, btw) and the husband will only drink organic milk. He brought up that it doesn't need to be refrigerated and I think he thought that was because it was so "pure". So I do a quick internet search and find that it indeed can do well without pasteurization. The reason, however, is that it is produced in relatively few locations and has to be shipped longer distances to market. So spoilage would be a problem. The solution is that the pasteurization process for organic milk is much more extreme, and the temperature of the milk is raised so that all or nearly all bacteria are killed. Hence, greater resistance to spoilage. As a result of this process some sugars in the milk are likely to be "caramelized", resulting in a sweeter taste. I have no idea of whether or not the result is worth the much higher price but regular milk is fine for me.

I have lived in areas where UHT milk is popular, it is shelf-stable and does not require refrigeration.

In my area now 'raw' milk is very popular.

 

[sanfanciscotreat]

still looking for peer reviewed scientific dat proving organic is more nutritional and safer. Anyone who has such data, please reference here.

 

[Chuckanut]

When it comes to bed sheets, there's no way it's possible. You cannot grow cotton without pesticides. Doesn't happen.

FWIW, organic does not mean pesticides cannot be used. As I understand it, some pesticides can be used. Perhaps organic cotton uses the ' approved' pesticides. In any case I figure any pesticides used to grow the cotton in my sheets, probably get removed when the sheets first hit the washing machine before I ever put them on the bed.

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/which-pesticides-can-be-used-for-organic-production-2538082

Some naturally occurring ingredients, such as plant extracts, insect pathogens, and fungal derivatives may be used so long as they're not indicated as prohibited on the National List. Some fairly low-risk synthetic pesticides also are allowed under NOP rules.



Get familiar with Subpart G, §205.600 through §205.606 of 7 CFR 205. These sections offer explicit explanations of what is allowed when it comes to pesticides.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

still looking for peer reviewed scientific dat proving organic is more nutritional and safer. Anyone who has such data, please reference here.

Over the years, I have seen many studies done on this.

Vitamin content varies over a wide spectrum, depending on what crop variety you look at. the old data used by the government was taken from studies in the 1940s and 1950s, and no longer applies to any of our modern crops.

Minerals and proteins are the same, there are no consistent trends.

As a farmer if I wanted to higher level of vitamin B, I can do more from careful selection of what varieties I plant, more so than anything else. And my local state university is more than willing to do the testing for me.

The real difference between Certified Organic and conventional food is the herbicide and pesticide contamination.

In terms of 'nutrition' levels you can not make a solid argument for organic food.

If a woman wants to avoid having round-up in her breast milk, she needs to seriously avoid conventional foods.