That did and in some places does still matter. Homes moving away from heating with coal to natural gas reduces smog. Thus it is seen as clean energy. Because everything is cleaner in the true sense of the word clean. Green is often a better predictor.
Yes, I get that literally clean energy is important and in many places it would be a significant improvement. It can also be easier to explain that we need to move away from fossil fuels based on tangible pollution, not the nebulous “greenhouse gasses” and “global warming”, especially when talking to conservative folks.
Still, I feel like public awareness of the issue is… questionable. Whenever I read about some government program to fund more renewable energy, or hear politiciants discuss it, it’s almost always the literal clean, not green clean. Invisible emissions will still mess up our climate, and more people should know that.
Nothing inherently, you can go ahead and eat apples from your apple tree.
The main issue with “organic” foods is that the term is usually very badly regulated. Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”… besides price. Sometimes “organic” foods use very ecologically unfriendly techniques, or are grown/processed in countries where supply chains are not inspected anyway.
Then there’s the fact that if something is different, it may not always be an environmental or health win. Growing your food in 30cm of water may be one organic and traditional way to avoid using pesticides (see: rice), but doing that with corn in the middle of Arizona would obviously be a terrible idea!
Anyway, overall I don’t think organic foods are worse if you’re well off enough that the price is not an issue. But you shouldn’t feel personal guilt for buying whatever’s cheaper, because quite often the alternative does not justify the price anyway. Eating truly “organic” food unfortunately requires a lot more involvement than picking the green package at a national supermarket chain.
Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”
Probably the most amusing example is strawberries: it’s essentially impossible to grow them without using non-organic pesticides (and there are such things as organic pesticides despite the near-universal but incorrect belief that “organic” means “no pesticides”) so the USDA allows them to be labelled “organic” if they’re grown with non-organic methods but then replanted and treated organically for a few days before being harvested and shipped to market.
I imagine the USDA as a tired underpaid fast-food employee that has to deal with moronic entitled customers.
- “I want an organic strawberry!”
- “I already explained to you that strawberries cannot be grown without non-organic pesticide.”
- “Are you telling me no?!”
- “I’m telling you that what you want is agriculturally impossible.”
- “Do you have any idea who I am!?”
- “Ugh… you know what? Okay.”
* Takes a perfectly regular “non-organically” grown strawberry.
* Slaps an “organic” label on it.
- “Here you go. One organic strawberry. Thank you for shopping with USDA!”
- “Was that so hard?”
I thought people in the US calling food “organic” was akin to our “Agriculture biologique” in France, which is heavily regulated at an european level. Is it nit the case?
The AB label is regulated yes, which is almost equivalent to the EU green leaf. Then there are various private labels. In the US it’s all up to private labels I believe.
Anyone can put “bio” and a vaguely green packaging on anything though AFAIK. And I don’t think the average consumer is very knowledgeable about which label means what; I certainly am not.
Then there’s the problem of fraud, and various issues with the way the EU defines “biological agriculture”, but I don’t really know much about either.
It’s a heavily abused and arbitrary marketing term that doesn’t actually indicate anything about what the food is made of or how it’s made or grown. It also doesn’t indicate anything about how healthy the food is or how good it tastes. At most it’s slightly better for the environment in some areas with some brands when used properly, but even then regulations are too lax and inconsistent worldwide for it to be a trustworthy label.
This is false. The reality is that USDA organic does have meaning. It’s certainly less meaning than implied, but the binary thinking leads to an incorrect view like yours. I actively avoid organic if it’s more expensive, but when it’s about the same, it’s clearly somewhat better to some degree
I did do my research. There’s no evidence of any health benefit from eating organic foods and the environmental benefit is relatively minor depending on the country and ultimately no more effective (often less effective) than other dietary lifestyle changes like vegetarianism or veganism or even just reducing the amount of meat you eat. Depending on how the word organic is used on the packaging it could mean the food contains anywhere from 50-90% “organic” products. The USDA rating only accounts for the standards of one country, not the whole world, not to mention even the USDA rating doesn’t exclude all fertilizers or all GMO products, but organic stuff is commonly described and marketed as being “pesticide and GMO free food”. “Organic” food is constantly marketed and viewed as being healthier despite there being no actual evidence supporting that. None of that contradicts what I said in my first comment. It is an arbitrary and abused term that doesn’t actually tell you anything about the food reliably. I’m not saying it’s completely meaningless entirely I’m just saying it has little meaning, certainly much less than most people believe, due to a lack of consistency, constant lies in marketing, and the low level of impact it has on the environment compared to other comparable dietary options. You also don’t even need to buy stuff labeled as organic in order to eat organic, since lots of organic foods aren’t labelled.
By all means I would love more strict wide-spread regulation and enforcement of the term “organic” based around maximizing its environmental impact, but at the moment it’s little more than a marketing tool for most companies.
Organic foods can and usually do have pesticides, and those pesticides are just as harmful to you as the artificial ones. For instance, Rotenone was an organic pesticide used for decades that is strongly linked to parkinsons and has since been banned in North America.
Also quantity, most “organic” pesticides are significantly less effective and so it requires more applications of more product in order to get the same effect. Eating “organic” likely exposed you to more pesticides than the alternative.
Depends on where you live. As far as I know the term is not well protected in many countries, so it means next to nothing there.
However, I live in the EU / Germany, where we have several organic farming standards that are all fairly strict. Generally, organic actually means organically produced food here, grown without artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and so on.
Just out of curiosity since I assume you know more about this, is “plant based” the same as vegan? Because that’s the hip new term but I’ve always wondered if they’re equivalent or if they do have some animal products which is why they’re dancing around the word vegan. I’ve never gotten a straight answer from the people at the store/restaurant.
Unfortunately, the answer is “It depends”. Although plant-based foods are usually suitable for vegans, it isn’t a regulated term, so you can’t be sure. Also, I think the term “vegan” has negative connotations that “plant-based” doesn’t, so marketers prefer to use that term instead.
Genetically modified generally refers to direct modifications to genes done in a lab. As opposed to selective breeding.
Organic often refers to the use of fertiliser and pesticides. So produce that is grown with compost rather than synthetic fertiliser and synthetic pesticides.
It’s completely feasible to produce organic watermelons and solely consume organic watermelons. It only refers to how the fruit was grown. Not the variety.
There are GMOs that are created in a lab. Commercial varieties breed mainly for shelf life and volume. Then there is heirloom variety’s, older varieties generally breed prior to over commercialisation of farming that has made food more bland and bigger. All of these can be grown organically.
In fact it’s very easy for the only watermelon you eat to be organic. Especially if you grow them yourself, as many gardeners use organic methods exclusively.
It’s probably because they use the same cultivar that doesn’t mature seeds and goes for maximum growth and Resistance to fungi and disease instead of flavour.
“Organic” and “nonGMO” are two things that will actively make me avoid your product.
One of my personal pet peeves, along with people who act like “clean energy” simply means no smog or visible particulate emissions.
That did and in some places does still matter. Homes moving away from heating with coal to natural gas reduces smog. Thus it is seen as clean energy. Because everything is cleaner in the true sense of the word clean. Green is often a better predictor.
Yes, I get that literally clean energy is important and in many places it would be a significant improvement. It can also be easier to explain that we need to move away from fossil fuels based on tangible pollution, not the nebulous “greenhouse gasses” and “global warming”, especially when talking to conservative folks.
Still, I feel like public awareness of the issue is… questionable. Whenever I read about some government program to fund more renewable energy, or hear politiciants discuss it, it’s almost always the literal clean, not green clean. Invisible emissions will still mess up our climate, and more people should know that.
Personally I like charging up batteries in the Nether and bringing them back so the emissions don’t matter.
Stupid question, what’s wrong with organic?
Nothing inherently, you can go ahead and eat apples from your apple tree.
The main issue with “organic” foods is that the term is usually very badly regulated. Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”… besides price. Sometimes “organic” foods use very ecologically unfriendly techniques, or are grown/processed in countries where supply chains are not inspected anyway.
Then there’s the fact that if something is different, it may not always be an environmental or health win. Growing your food in 30cm of water may be one organic and traditional way to avoid using pesticides (see: rice), but doing that with corn in the middle of Arizona would obviously be a terrible idea!
Anyway, overall I don’t think organic foods are worse if you’re well off enough that the price is not an issue. But you shouldn’t feel personal guilt for buying whatever’s cheaper, because quite often the alternative does not justify the price anyway. Eating truly “organic” food unfortunately requires a lot more involvement than picking the green package at a national supermarket chain.
Probably the most amusing example is strawberries: it’s essentially impossible to grow them without using non-organic pesticides (and there are such things as organic pesticides despite the near-universal but incorrect belief that “organic” means “no pesticides”) so the USDA allows them to be labelled “organic” if they’re grown with non-organic methods but then replanted and treated organically for a few days before being harvested and shipped to market.
I imagine the USDA as a tired underpaid fast-food employee that has to deal with moronic entitled customers.
- “I want an organic strawberry!”
- “I already explained to you that strawberries cannot be grown without non-organic pesticide.”
- “Are you telling me no?!”
- “I’m telling you that what you want is agriculturally impossible.”
- “Do you have any idea who I am!?”
- “Ugh… you know what? Okay.”
* Takes a perfectly regular “non-organically” grown strawberry.
* Slaps an “organic” label on it.
- “Here you go. One organic strawberry. Thank you for shopping with USDA!”
- “Was that so hard?”
I thought people in the US calling food “organic” was akin to our “Agriculture biologique” in France, which is heavily regulated at an european level. Is it nit the case?
The AB label is regulated yes, which is almost equivalent to the EU green leaf. Then there are various private labels. In the US it’s all up to private labels I believe.
Anyone can put “bio” and a vaguely green packaging on anything though AFAIK. And I don’t think the average consumer is very knowledgeable about which label means what; I certainly am not.
Then there’s the problem of fraud, and various issues with the way the EU defines “biological agriculture”, but I don’t really know much about either.
It’s a bullshit marketing term to appeal to pseudoscience and anti-intellectuals.
It’s a heavily abused and arbitrary marketing term that doesn’t actually indicate anything about what the food is made of or how it’s made or grown. It also doesn’t indicate anything about how healthy the food is or how good it tastes. At most it’s slightly better for the environment in some areas with some brands when used properly, but even then regulations are too lax and inconsistent worldwide for it to be a trustworthy label.
This is false. The reality is that USDA organic does have meaning. It’s certainly less meaning than implied, but the binary thinking leads to an incorrect view like yours. I actively avoid organic if it’s more expensive, but when it’s about the same, it’s clearly somewhat better to some degree
Not everything that is labeled organic is USDA Organic.
Right. I’m just saying that it’s untrue that organic has no meaning. As usual, you gotta do your research
I did do my research. There’s no evidence of any health benefit from eating organic foods and the environmental benefit is relatively minor depending on the country and ultimately no more effective (often less effective) than other dietary lifestyle changes like vegetarianism or veganism or even just reducing the amount of meat you eat. Depending on how the word organic is used on the packaging it could mean the food contains anywhere from 50-90% “organic” products. The USDA rating only accounts for the standards of one country, not the whole world, not to mention even the USDA rating doesn’t exclude all fertilizers or all GMO products, but organic stuff is commonly described and marketed as being “pesticide and GMO free food”. “Organic” food is constantly marketed and viewed as being healthier despite there being no actual evidence supporting that. None of that contradicts what I said in my first comment. It is an arbitrary and abused term that doesn’t actually tell you anything about the food reliably. I’m not saying it’s completely meaningless entirely I’m just saying it has little meaning, certainly much less than most people believe, due to a lack of consistency, constant lies in marketing, and the low level of impact it has on the environment compared to other comparable dietary options. You also don’t even need to buy stuff labeled as organic in order to eat organic, since lots of organic foods aren’t labelled.
By all means I would love more strict wide-spread regulation and enforcement of the term “organic” based around maximizing its environmental impact, but at the moment it’s little more than a marketing tool for most companies.
Well I never said you didn’t do your research, but if you’re lumping all those products together like this, I think that speaks for itself.
Those products all lump themselves together under the term “organic”, that’s the problem.
Wasn’t aware there’s anything wrong. Albeit more expensive, I prefer to not eat pesticides. 🤷♂️
https://wqscert.com/usda-organic
Granted, I’m not sure there are long-term medical studies proving any harmful effect of doing so.
Organic foods can and usually do have pesticides, and those pesticides are just as harmful to you as the artificial ones. For instance, Rotenone was an organic pesticide used for decades that is strongly linked to parkinsons and has since been banned in North America.
Also quantity, most “organic” pesticides are significantly less effective and so it requires more applications of more product in order to get the same effect. Eating “organic” likely exposed you to more pesticides than the alternative.
Depends on where you live. As far as I know the term is not well protected in many countries, so it means next to nothing there.
However, I live in the EU / Germany, where we have several organic farming standards that are all fairly strict. Generally, organic actually means organically produced food here, grown without artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and so on.
It’s code for “same shit but more expensive” As with all the labels, the intent is to shark people’s ignorance with meaningless buzzwords.
It’s more expensive, and it’s typically not that much better than inorganic.
Same, but I’m also a vegan, and the organic and/or non-GMO product is often the only one without animal ingredients.
Just out of curiosity since I assume you know more about this, is “plant based” the same as vegan? Because that’s the hip new term but I’ve always wondered if they’re equivalent or if they do have some animal products which is why they’re dancing around the word vegan. I’ve never gotten a straight answer from the people at the store/restaurant.
Unfortunately, the answer is “It depends”. Although plant-based foods are usually suitable for vegans, it isn’t a regulated term, so you can’t be sure. Also, I think the term “vegan” has negative connotations that “plant-based” doesn’t, so marketers prefer to use that term instead.
Thank you!
Congratulations?
Huh. Why??
Because I doubt there is anything we eat that’s non gmo, we have been influencing the genetics of plants around us for centuries.
For example saying you only eat organic watermelon is fucking stupid, look at how it looked 2000 years ago and how it looks now.
Genetically modified generally refers to direct modifications to genes done in a lab. As opposed to selective breeding.
Organic often refers to the use of fertiliser and pesticides. So produce that is grown with compost rather than synthetic fertiliser and synthetic pesticides.
It’s completely feasible to produce organic watermelons and solely consume organic watermelons. It only refers to how the fruit was grown. Not the variety.
There are GMOs that are created in a lab. Commercial varieties breed mainly for shelf life and volume. Then there is heirloom variety’s, older varieties generally breed prior to over commercialisation of farming that has made food more bland and bigger. All of these can be grown organically.
In fact it’s very easy for the only watermelon you eat to be organic. Especially if you grow them yourself, as many gardeners use organic methods exclusively.
I hate North America’s obsession with seedless watermelons and grapes.
I didn’t know seedless watermelons existed. In the UK most grapes are seedless, didn’t release grapes had flavour until I had seeded ones.
It’s probably because they use the same cultivar that doesn’t mature seeds and goes for maximum growth and Resistance to fungi and disease instead of flavour.