Farmers’ markets often feature organic produce from nearby farms, but not everyone lives near a farmers’ market—and most products at the markets aren’t organic. “I’ve been to farmers’ markets, and there’s people hauling stuff from the truck that they got at a wholesaler,” says Joseph Mendelson III, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a liberal Washington group that supports strong organic standards. Mendelson prefers the “gold standard” of locally grown organics, but he is rather frightening on the subject of nonorganic food, whatever its origin. When I asked him whether I should favor local products, he replied, “I don’t know what local means. Do they use local pesticides? Does that mean the food is better because they produce local cancers?”
All of which further tangles my original question: The organic apple or the conventionally grown local one?
It turns out to be a frustratingly layered choice, one that implicates many other questions: What’s the most efficient way to grow food for all? Should farms be big or small, family- or corporate-run? How do your choices affect the planet? What tastes better? And then there’s that little matter of cancer…
BBC just reported on a study that essentially said - organic provided no significant health benefit to the consumer ... of course it didn’t address the impact long term on the land and neighboring eco systems ....
My feeling is the sooner we can support a sustainable regional economy the better off we will be as a regional community .... if we have to create a pragmatic organic designation then I am all for it .... I can’t feel as if I am making a better choice buying organic if the carbon footprint from oregon is worse than the small pesticide they may have used ....
maybe we can create a formula on determining carbon footprint based on miles against some quantified formula for pesticide impact ....
For me, the decision is a no brainer because we have a great variety of “organic” and local food in Asheville, farms nearby, and I can walk to a farmers market. I like knowing the people who grow my food and how it was grown. It’s a matter of trust, but I know local farms with produce that doesn’t quite meet the official standards but is “organic” enough for me. Fresh food tastes better, is better for me, provides a living for people I want to keep in my community, uses less gas, pollutes less, and adds less traffic to our roads so I weigh all that in the organic vs local debate. Best of all, I can trade labor for food. Ok, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
BBC just reported on a study that essentially said - organic provided no significant health benefit to the consumer ... of course it didn’t address the impact long term on the land and neighboring eco systems ....
Yeah, I read that, too. It didnt take a lot of things into account, like freshness, not to mention the obvious factors of local economics, sustainability, etc. The fact that it doesnt even mention any of these factors makes me think it was total horse shit. But, at the same time, if it proves to people that that fancy lettuce from CA isn’t actually any better than some locally grown stuff, then maybe its good.
My feeling is the sooner we can support a sustainable regional economy the better off we will be as a regional community .... if we have to create a pragmatic organic designation then I am all for it .... I can’t feel as if I am making a better choice buying organic if the carbon footprint from oregon is worse than the small pesticide they may have used ....
maybe we can create a formula on determining carbon footprint based on miles against some quantified formula for pesticide impact ....
Well, to some extent there is. There are certain fruits and veggies that have a lot of chemical input that enters the food supply, like strawberries, peaces, plums, etc. If I was gonna eat those, i would seek out organic. But 9 times outta ten i’;d rather just wait for some good in season local stuff.
OT: Can genetically modified food be labeled organic? Is there anyway to really enforce this as genetically modified plants are “in the wild” now?
GMO can not be certified organic by any recognized standards i know, but they also say that as far as the big crops like corn and soy tend to be stored and processed in the same facilities, and can therefor not really be 100% secure in its ‘purity’. As far as GMO’s now in the wild, that is a concern many have had for a while. from what i’ve seen, it happens a lot, and ruins the crops organic ‘status’.
My sense is local is almost always better, because it gives you buying power/leverage with the farmer to make potential changes in their production methods… and much of what people buy labeled “Organic” is from massive monoculture factory farms with agricultural practices that would frighten the average consumer. I’d rather my money stay in my community.
My point is really more abou the people that are hard core for a particular measure of organicness or localness .... how close is local and what is the measure of pure organic if we polluted the air to a greater extent by bringing it in from California ....
Everyone finds their own stats to support what they choose, I thinnk staying as local and as organic as we can is the first option .... if a local item is not pure organic at least in my mind the study discussed in the BBC makes me tend to think I am not damaging my health to a great extent for choosing something that may have been in slightly impure soil .....
I would much rather rely on my local farmers by supporting them as opposed to counting on CA farmers that may decide to sell all their produce to a higher bidder in Texas ....
“Organic” has become such a watered-down, meaningless term anyway… a lot of small farms cant afford the certification…
And if people ever visited those massive monoculture “Organic” farms in CA, they might realize how ‘unnatural’ the process is… hundreds of acres in intensive cultivation… diesel-powered tractors and under-payed migrant labor…
My take on pesticides is the ones used on fruits that are directly applied can be quite bad for people… but the short-term effect of chemical-based fertilizers are negligable on a typical, healthy person…and that the long-term effect of ANY intensive fertilizer-based agriculture (which includes the vast majority of major “Organic” farms) is harmful to the soil/ecosystem/environment…
a little 10 10 10 to make your tomatoes bigger aint gonna hurt you very much in the short term… but it will slowly strip your soil of nutrients in the long-run…but then again, so does any intensive NPK input…
if we would support locals that provide produce grown using no till practices ... staying as organic as possible ....
there are so many options for choosing plant hybrids that are much closer to the regional “heritage” plants that existed in this region and evolved to thrive here even if they weren’t the most productive they may be the most resistant .... and typically they are the most tasty ....
if we stay local local local and are staying as organic as we can we will be on the right path
Well, I tend to prefer ‘local’ over ‘organic, and certainly dont think anything shipped 3000 miles can be classified ‘organic’, but i’m not sure thats really the entire story in terms of the The Food Standards Agency study.
For one, it wasn’t addressing pesticides directly consumed by humans, only saying that there isnt enough info to claim “Organic” is more “nutritious”. The problem with this is it allows them to use a very loose definition for “Organic” in terms of the study. So they may have been comparing very “conventional” “organic” produce from massive farms to “non-organic” from similar farms.
If you compare a fresh, locally grown ‘organic’ apple with a ‘conventional’ local apple produced with extensive fertilizer and pesticides, the difference in nutritional value would be obvious, as many other studies have previously shown (a discrepancy the full study actually acknowledges). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7067100.stm
So to claim the study says there is “No difference” isnt quite accurate.
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
“The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
“Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not ‘important’, due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
“Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
“Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health,” he added.
Personally, I find it predictably unfortunate that the study you are referring to is being characterized as saying that any claims to “Organic’s” superiority are false. That isnt really the case at all, unless you are only speaking of USDA Organic standards and the big “Organic” players who have co-opted the term, but not the actual practices associated with responsible farm stewardship.
the data has to include what is being labeled as organic right or wrong since that is what the consumer uses as a guideline for identifying organic ... yes the study is clearly not telling the entire story, but it is beyond the responsibility of the study to cull organics products from one another without something clearly identifiable to connect them either for the study or the consumer ...
you are correct that the travesty of this is how the organic label has been watered down and ends up being perceived as less meaningful and probably less supported as a result .... it should also be a wake up call to consumers to recognize that the labeling of organic may mean they get no real benefits in some instances
I actually am suspicious of local farms that are certified organic, unless, of course, they wholesale. But if you’re selling at market or on the farm, that direct contact and interaction with your customers should be enough to show people what you’re all about. Customers can visit the farm and/or ask farmers specific questions, and then make an informed decision. A good amount of our local tailgate farmers forgo the organic certification, which makes sense. If they are certified, however, it makes me wonder whether they’re not just jumping on the green bandwagon, relying on buzzwords and checklists in place of thoughtful land management.
That said, when it comes to food, my number one criteria is that it’s local. Second is that it’s beyond organic. I care about my health, so I try to avoid ingesting under-tested chemicals or foods with manipulated genes. But I also care about how the farmer treats the land and what their food philosophy is—both areas in which I think the national organic standards mostly fail.
I don’t know about that. My friend’s farm in Sandy Mush grows great produce, but I think that the land that they live on was pretty abused throughout the years and soil testing would probably prevent it from having the organic seal of approval.
