Is Organic Food Really Better?

[chownah]

Is it? I've never claimed that it was and am not making that claim now but I ran across this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/h...icle2753446.ece

"Official: organic really is better

THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.

The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

......................."

The article is not long on details...anyone know anything else about this study?...like who conducted it and what exactly did they do to come up with this result?

Chownah

[Tim207]

The article is not long on details...anyone know anything else about this study?...like who conducted it and what exactly did they do to come up with this result?

Chownah

I have not read the material but I think this is what you are looking for.

http://orgprints.org/view/projects/int_con...and_safety.html

or this if they censor my link x=t of course

hxxp://orgprints.org/view/projects/int_conf_2007qlif_2_food_quality_and_safety.html

[brahmburgers]

I've always felt it was better and have had no evidence that it wasn't. The poster didn't seem to define what he meant by 'better' - though maybe it's in the attached link which I didn't read.

Much has to do with 'gut feelings' - which has a double meaning in this context. Perhaps it's largely psychological, but if I have a choice to eat a large fresh organic salad vs the same that's been commercially grown with herbicides and pesticices - there's no doubt which I'd choose.

Yet, I know first hand that organic is better, due to empirical results indicating applied-chemical growing methods give headaches and general crumby feelings, whereas organic don't. I eat about twelve large sweet red or yellow peppers each week - sometimes even taking one with me to a restaurant to complement the overcooked over-spiced Thai food. The peppers are questionable as to whether they're organic. The vendors say 'yes' but that may be because they know that's more conducive to a sale. Even so, I wash the fruits in a weak soap solution - same goes for any fruit/veges with an edible skin ...other than things I grow at my own place - which I just rinse in water.

It's likely that residues from chemical spraying can have mal effects that might show up many years in the future. By mal effects, I mean cancer and other debilitating diseases. Such things are very difficult to prove scientifically, so each person should garner what info they can and decide for themselves.

If you get an allergic reaction to a bee sting, then the cause and effect are obvious. However, if you get colon cancer that was initiated, let's say, by a tiny amount of some exotic chemical that you ingested twenty years earlier (by way of a chemical application on some food you ate), then it's virtually impossible to make a scientific proof. However, such things happen.

[brahmburgers]

At least some of the commercial potato farmers in Idaho won't allow their families to eat the potatoes they grow - all of which are sent to get processed for McD's. Because ....you guessed it, they're grown with chemical applications. Indeed the soil is pinkish and devoid of natural balance of flaura and fauna.

Banana farmers in Central America would laugh if you asked them to eat the bananas they grow (mostly for Chiquita). They know 1st hand all the chemical applications, some of which is done with giant syringes plunged deep in the ground. When not getting sick from the chemicals they work with on the farms, they eat their own organically grown bananas.

[Prakanong]

I do not know about the whole report but "which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease,"

The use of the word "beleive" is always dodgy in science.

We have a lot of evidence our Malaria vaccines works and is safe - the scientists involved more than beleive but it still can not go on the market till more hurdles are passed and rightly so and its "Proved" to a confidence factor acceptable..

Having said all that though I probasbly beleive myself organic is better - if it tastes like my grandad's and uncles stuff they grew as a kid it has to be good - I just do not pay the premium put on it at supermarkets although if i visit a farmers market in the UK i buy stuff.

[sigmondfreed]

According to Consumer Reports magazine, "The National Review reports that Americans believe organic food is healthier by a 2-1 margin, despite the lack of any evidence supporting this. When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture. A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis."

[Gary A]

My wife will NOT buy leafy vegetables unless they have bug holes in the leaves. She says if the bugs won't eat them we shouldn't eat them either.

[johnnyk]

My wife will NOT buy leafy vegetables unless they have bug holes in the leaves. She says if the bugs won't eat them we shouldn't eat them either.

A Thai lady's innate common sense!

[chownah]

According to Consumer Reports magazine, "The National Review reports that Americans believe organic food is healthier by a 2-1 margin, despite the lack of any evidence supporting this. When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture. A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis."

Yeah, I've always heard that there was no basis for consumers' preference for organic food....that's why when I found the link I gave in the original post I got a bit excited and decided to post it. This is the first time I have ever seen anything that claimed scientific evidence to support a claim that organic food was better in any way.

As to what effects the biochemical content of plants I disagree with you. How plants are grown can DEFINITELY effects their appearance, flavor, or texture....and alot more. There is a flower that is either pink or blue depending on the pH of the soil. Many fruits if grown with a surplus of nitrogen will taste watery and lack flavor and also have affected texture. I know that these differences have nothing to do with the organic question.....I'm just trying to give some obvious examples of where how a plant is grown will affect its qualities. The article in the link claims that organically grown produce has more anti-oxidents it seems. This would be another example of culture affecting biochemestry....but....I'm a sceptic and that's why I posted here to see if anyone knew about this study or other similar studies.

Chownah

[IMA_FARANG]

Is it? I've never claimed that it was and am not making that claim now but I ran across this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/h...icle2753446.ece

"Official: organic really is better

THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.

The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

......................."

The article is not long on details...anyone know anything else about this study?...like who conducted it and what exactly did they do to come up with this result?

Chownah

Is "organic" food better for you? It depends upon what is defined as "organic" and especially what are the regulatory standards for what is called "organic" food.

I grew up in a farming area in Massachusetts. For a long time there were no state-wide, not to mention national, standards of what could be called "organic". I know for a fact that many of the local farmers, who grew food for sale to large nationally known food proscessors, merely called whatever was left over from their sales as "organic' and sold that at small farmers markets at an exagerated price. At that time many city dwellers would come out into the country looking for organic or natural foods. Quite often, they got the same produce that was grown with fertilizers and pesticides, but labeled as organic produce. As I said there was simply no regulation of what could be called organic. It has changed somewhat now, but there is still no way to stop a dishonest farmer from selling his non organic produce as organic food. So, buyer beware.

[Tim207]

Yeah, I've always heard that there was no basis for consumers' preference for organic food....that's why when I found the link I gave in the original post I got a bit excited and decided to post it. This is the first time I have ever seen anything that claimed scientific evidence to support a claim that organic food was better in any way.

Chownah

You have to be a little sceptical of the media, especially on subjects that are politically charged. The profesor quoted in the article is also one of the authors of "Effects of organic and ‘low input’ production methods on food quality and safety". Here is a quote frome the summary

"Some recent studies also reported higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g. vitamins, antioxidants, mineral nutrients) in foods from organic and ‘low input’ production systems compared to food from conventional systems. The increasing demand and current price premiums achieved by foods from low input and especially organic production systems were shown to be closely linked to consumer perceptions about nutritional and health benefits of such foods. However, there are other studies reporting no significant differences in composition between low input and conventional foods, or inconsistent results.

There is currently a lack of (a) factorial studies, which allow the effect of individual production system components (e.g. rotation design, fertility management, crop health management, variety choice) on food composition to be assessed and ( dietary intervention or cohort studies which compare the effect of consuming foods from different production systems on animal and/or human health. It is therefore currently not possible to draw overall conclusions about the effect of low input production on food quality and safety."

Sounds to me like they are saying there are conflicting studies and they don't have enough evidence one way or the other. I guess there is still no basis that organic food is better.

It would not surprise me if it turns out that organic is better but it is going to take a lot to convince me. Pushing organic is a political agenda and as such any claims regarding the issue have to be looked at sceptically

.

[chownah]

Yeah, I've always heard that there was no basis for consumers' preference for organic food....that's why when I found the link I gave in the original post I got a bit excited and decided to post it. This is the first time I have ever seen anything that claimed scientific evidence to support a claim that organic food was better in any way.

Chownah

You have to be a little sceptical of the media, especially on subjects that are politically charged. The profesor quoted in the article is also one of the authors of "Effects of organic and ‘low input’ production methods on food quality and safety". Here is a quote frome the summary

"Some recent studies also reported higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g. vitamins, antioxidants, mineral nutrients) in foods from organic and ‘low input’ production systems compared to food from conventional systems. The increasing demand and current price premiums achieved by foods from low input and especially organic production systems were shown to be closely linked to consumer perceptions about nutritional and health benefits of such foods. However, there are other studies reporting no significant differences in composition between low input and conventional foods, or inconsistent results.

There is currently a lack of (a) factorial studies, which allow the effect of individual production system components (e.g. rotation design, fertility management, crop health management, variety choice) on food composition to be assessed and ( dietary intervention or cohort studies which compare the effect of consuming foods from different production systems on animal and/or human health. It is therefore currently not possible to draw overall conclusions about the effect of low input production on food quality and safety."

Sounds to me like they are saying there are conflicting studies and they don't have enough evidence one way or the other. I guess there is still no basis that organic food is better.

It would not surprise me if it turns out that organic is better but it is going to take a lot to convince me. Pushing organic is a political agenda and as such any claims regarding the issue have to be looked at sceptically

.

Thanks for that. I googled for the scientist you mentioned (Carlo Leifert) who is the head of the study and found this site:

http://www.susuorganic.co.uk/organic_food_..._the_best_c.php

which contains (among other things) this:

"The project has been funded by the European Union and will be reviewed and published over the next twelve months, but the Professor leading the project, Professor Carlo Leifert, said that “There is a trend in the data that there are more good things in organic food, we are now looking at the practices that are responsible for this”.

So I guess I will need to wait about a year to get the results.....unless someone has backdoor access to their results.

Chownah

[rice555]

Hello Chownah, ya, the proof's not in, but some of the comments made so far wouldn't stand up in court or an independent lab test as being 100% yes or no.

The impression that chemicals are dumped on plants as the OG crowd like to paint the picture, is not the norm. Chemicals cost money and to apply costs money. I think farmers want to make money, not pour it down the drain. You will always find the rotten egg, be it bozze, drugs or internet use.

I don't use chemicals unless my growing conditions call for it, but I use little as possible.

I think a lot of the OG people are <deleted> <deleted> gardeners, if they had real BA L's they would turn to "Natural Farming" like in Fukuoka's "One Straw Revelation". His books are and a VHS I left in storage are priceless. Now thats farming in it's purist form.

The story below is from the BKK Post last year (06), this is more along my understanding of the modern farming vs OG gardening. The pro OG was on the 20th of the same month. Is cloud seeding organic? or sustainable farming?

Organic food not all it's cut out to be

So much hype is being made supporting Organic Food that the alternative view must be told. Organic Farming is pure decadence. It is immoral and its produce is bought by people whose only satisfaction must be to take the pleasure of having paid more in the belief it will be better for them and the environment.

I do not like to see people being conned, and here is why: The perception is that organic is more healthy, but this is not the case. There is little evidence to suggest that organic fruit and vegetables are any healthier than conventional produce. In fact, some forms of organic farming may introduce natural toxins into consumers' food. Blind tests show that most can't tell the difference between organic and conventionally grown food, though people say that organic tastes better. Yes, that may be true if it is fresh, or from your own garden. Furthermore, 70% of organic food is imported and is not fresh.

Less than 2% of European farming is organic and it is not going to be a panacea for the future of food production. Organic farming is a billion-pound industry, promoted by a company that makes profit out of promoting it.

The United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, set up to safeguard our welfare, refuses to endorse the claims made for it. It says, "On the basis of current evidence, organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".To question claims made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet. Their argument is based on the belief that nature knows best and science is dangerous. Our health is threatened not by chemicals and genetically modified crops, but by the eco-fundamentalists and their crusade against intensive farming.

Of course, by definition, organic farming is meaningless as all food is organic.

Thailand's politicians should take serious note that the organic route spells disaster for their farmers, who need crop diversification, farm co-ops and guaranteed prices. In many places the only way inefficient organic farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical forests. The most telling indictment of organic farming is its inefficiency, its high cost and wasteful use of land. The facts cannot be seriously disputed: yields of most crops from organic farms are about 20-50% lower than from conventional farming. That is why it costs more! It is claimed that organic food is more natural and its reliance on natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals like ricin, aflatoxin or botulinum. There is little danger about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides that cure TB, or the painkiller Paracetamol. We are told that pesticide residues harm us. As the Food Standard Agency has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a year, and food poisoning for between 50-300.

There are no known deaths from pesticide residues or GM foods. Fact: a cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least one year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. Tests showed that synthetic and natural chemical residues, such as organic pesticides, produced roughly equal amounts of carcinogens.

If you are really concerned by the effects of pesticide in farming, on wildlife or human health, then you should be promoting pesticide-resistant GM crops which reduce their use. Incidentally, the shirt on your back is almost certainly produced from GM-produced cotton.

It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become organic farmers for environmental reasons and achieve their aim. However, studies show, and from personal experience as a farmer, that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the farming system. An integrated farm management system achieves the best results and has been sustaining modern agriculture for centuries.

What most benefits birds and wildlife is low-till farming, and permanent grass as opposed to ploughing regularly. Organic farming depends on the plough, which disturbs the soil's ecology, releases more carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds. Indian biologist C J Prakash says organic farming's only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition. Thailand should enter the organic movement with extreme caution and know where it will lead.

GILES WYNNE

Retired Farmer

[chownah]

rice555,

Thanks for showing interest in this thread. The stuff you quote from Giles Wynne is mostly off topic in that it really has nothing to do with any proof that organic is or isn't whatever....it seems mostly like a generic diatribe against what the author sees as being organic farming. The purpose of this thread was not to just display personal opinions but rather to collect references to scientific evidence about whether organic is better or not. Also, what you have reproduced from Giles Wynne is kind of old and this thread was started off with information about a scientific study which was done well after Giles composed his article and it seems to contradict some of what Giles said in that it seems to indicate that it has evidence about something uniquely good about organic that shows it to be better in some way. I am not claiming that organic is better....I am just wanting to collect references about studies on organic growing and then to discuss their strengths and weakness or whatever....but I'm really not looking for just a bunch of opinions as I've heard them all many many times before both pro and con the organic question.

Chownah

[rice555]

ran across this while reading about the new spray ban on strawberry's in Calif.

rice555

Is organic better? It depends.

Although many studies indicate nutritional advantages for organic foods, other factors can negate any benefit. These include the specific variety of produce and its processing (or freshness).

By CAROL NESS, San Francisco Chronicle

Last update: January 9, 2008 - 4:28 PM

Fans of eating organic have always believed that organic fruits and vegetables packed a bigger nutritional punch than conventionally grown produce. ¶ But until pretty recently, hard scientific evidence has been lacking.

Studies that seemed to prove the theory often turned out to be poorly designed -- the organic and conventional crops weren't grown in the same area or weren't the same variety, for example. Or the samples were too small, the studies too short or they were flawed in some other way, according to food chemist Alyson Mitchell, an associate professor in the Department of Food, Science and Technology at the University of California-Davis.

Mitchell says it was just a few years ago that her own studies, which found higher nutrient levels in organic crops, were dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking, no matter how well done the science was.

Now, though, the scientific pendulum is swinging. It seems that there are frequent headlines from university researchers around the world who have shown that organic tomatoes, corn or some other fruits and vegetables contain more nutrients, especially when it comes to vitamin C and other antioxidants.

"There's definitely a trend," Mitchell says.

Just this past year, three European studies have reported the benefits of organic crops, including peaches in France and apples in Poland.

The biggest was a four-year European Union-funded study of organic and conventional crops grown in side-by-side plots on 725 acres near Newcastle University, in the United Kingdom. The study showed levels of antioxidants 20 to 40 percent higher in organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage and lettuce, according to news reports.

Also making headlines was a 10-year study by a UC Davis team led by Mitchell, which looked at dried tomato samples collected over 10 years from side-by-side organic and conventionally farmed plots just west of the university. The results, published in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, were dramatic: The organic tomatoes contained 79 percent more of one antioxidant, and 97 percent more of another.

Another UC Davis study this year showed similar results for polyphenols (the antioxidants in red wine and blueberries), vitamin C (an important antioxidant) and some minerals in organically grown kiwi as compared with conventional fruit. Earlier research showed similar results for marionberries, strawberries and corn.

Mitchell says her team's review of studies since 2000 shows that research techniques have improved, and that the "better studies demonstrate a trend of higher levels of flavonoids [one type of antioxidant] and vitamins in fruits and vegetables."

Results seem to vary widely in the size of any organic benefit -- or whether there is a benefit at all. Mitchell's team spent three years looking at solids (a reflection of sugar) and antioxidants in fresh tomatoes and bell peppers. The organic tomatoes had higher levels of both solids and antioxidants than the conventional, but the bell peppers showed no differences, Mitchell said.

She's looking at spinach now, curious if a leaf will show the same results as a fruit.

So what does this mean?

The trend would seem to be great news for shoppers. It should mean that consumers are getting a nutritional bonus when they ante up the extra for organic, along with avoiding pesticides and contributing to a cleaner environment.

"No," says Mitchell. "It's just not that simple.

"You can't just figure you're getting more nutrients by buying organic tomatoes instead of conventional," she says.

Where the tomatoes were grown, what kind of tomatoes they are, how ripe they were when they were picked, if they were kept cool or not, and how long they've been in the store all affect nutrient levels.

"Variety is critically important," Mitchell says. Different varieties of tomatoes grown in the same area, in the same way, with the same handling and same amount of time on the shelf, will still vary in their nutrient levels simply based on their variety.

"The consumer doesn't have a clue, except for apples, what variety they're buying," Mitchell says. Yellow onions, for example, can be a dozen different varieties throughout the year.

UC Davis scientists have done any number of "market basket" studies -- comparing store-bought fruits and vegetables -- and "they've all failed miserably," says Mitchell. "It's very depressing."

A two-year study of market broccoli will never be published, she says, because good research proved impossible. "How do you make a comparison when the conventional broccoli is on ice and the organic isn't?"

Freshness has impact

Processing adds another wrinkle. Mitchell's team studied 10 tomato-based pasta sauces, half organic, half not, and "we saw really no difference." If the organic tomatoes had more nutrients to start with, the extra had disappeared by the time they hit the jar.

"I think we're losing a lot of nutrition in processed foods," she says.

When it comes to variety, whether it's corn, tomatoes or peaches, modern commercial crops have been bred for high yield, resistance to disease, long shelf life, uniform size and an attractive appearance -- anything but taste, or nutrition.

Mitchell says her recent tomato study showed that organic farming methods themselves -- using manure and compost instead of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers -- not only built healthier soil but pushed plants to produce more of their defense mechanisms, which are often antioxidants.

USDA disagrees

None of the recent research has been enough to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reconsider its stance that organic has nothing to do with nutrition. However, its counterpart in the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency, is taking another look at its official neutrality on the subject, according to the British press.

Nutritionist Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University and author of "What to Eat," says, "I'm still skeptical -- though there are so many reasons to buy organic." Among the reasons: much lower pesticide residues and healthier land.

Organic vs. conventional produce is such a hot research topic, and the financial stakes are so high on both sides, that this debate will only intensify.

Mitchell, for her part, says, "What I'd like to tell everyone is to grow food when you can, support local farm systems when you can, try to buy organic and, whatever you do, buy fresh and cook it yourself."

[Maizefarmer]

My wife will NOT buy leafy vegetables unless they have bug holes in the leaves. She says if the bugs won't eat them we shouldn't eat them either.

It like it - very good Gary.

Truth be told - the jury is still out on the subject of organic versus conventional.

The problem in modern Western societies is that so much processed food is eaten. By contrast "organic" is usualy associated with raw single food types and unprocessed foods - which are a lot better than the processed junk purchased in multi-color fancy graphic printed packaging.

If I took my granny into a modern supermarket she wouldn't recognise 50% - 70% of the stuff/food on sale. She'd walk out and go down the road to so & so's General Store, then across the road to so & so's butcher, then she'd walk the 50 yards to so & so's veggie stall. It would be a brisk walk in the cool morning air. She'd have a wicker basket on wheels in hand (not plastic bags) - then she'd walk the 1/2mile home (not use a car).

Its more about what we eat (processed versus unprocessed) and the lifestyle that goes with it - it just so happens that a lot of the food branded organic is just the sort of stuff our grand parents would buy to make meals with - simple unprocessed stuff.

Take a 1000 kids from Bangkok and line them up with a 1000 kids from some out in the sticks Amphur - ask them to write down what they eat each week. Now weigh them. You will find the rural kids will weigh less and will be eating less processed stuff. As to whether or not the rural kids are eating food that is more organic than the urban kids, I'm not so sure understanding just how much chemicals are used in Thai agriculture, but what they are eating is a lot more natural.

TMF

[pete_r]

Truth be told - the jury is still out on the subject of organic versus conventional.

TMF

Tim, is it you?

Everyone was wondering/worrying about you.

Good to see you back!

Pete

[Maizefarmer]

Truth be told - the jury is still out on the subject of organic versus conventional.

TMF

Tim, is it you?

Everyone was wondering/worrying about you.

Good to see you back!

Pete

Yup - it be me.

I was spending to much time on the forum, but other things came into play: I had the bloody satelite terminal & dish stolen so was off-line in any event - and Hughs Systems didn't want to replace it on insurance untill someone tried to use it - which they did - in China! (i.e. confirmation that it had being stolen), and junior took a bit of time to settle into bording school so I was flying back to the US every few weeks, and there were a few other things that took my time than usual

Sneaking an occassional look since last week, I see we still get many of the same questions repeating themselves when new members sigup. I was wondering if an index of sorts could not be compiled - using for example the following headings:

Land topics

Cattle topics - divded into Beef & Dairy

Fish Farming

Equipment

Pigs

The forum has grown and grown and grown.....there is now a huge amount of very practical information and experiance which new members find difficult to access because it has to be searched page by page. An index page would address a lot of that.

But otherwise I'm fine, the wife is fine, junior's settled in at bording school, son is doing okay (just finishing his first year at Uni), farm is fine. I'm not going to spend as much time on the forum as I did in the past - will limit replies to dairy/beef and forage subjects.

All the best Pete, Gary ...everyone else.

Tim

[torrenova]

When I was a kid in the UK there were seasons for fruit and vegetables and although I recognise the imports of certain things and the advanced growing methods, I cannot believe that my memory is so poor as to ridicule my argument that things tasted better. I know there would be some chemicals used even then but I think nature was left to take its course to a greater degree.

Now you can have strawberries in winter that taste rubbish but you can go to the farmer's market and get vegetables and meats which taste better IMHO.

In Thailand, if I want a chicken, I go to the market and get a kai barn which I think is the correct thai but whihc basically means some chicken which has been running around in someone's back garden for want of a non scientific explanation. You cannot compare the taste to the rubbish you get in the supermarkets.

[rice555]

Hello All. time has passed and the OP is "BANNED" from T-V , but like his opening with a link to a UK paper, I ran across this today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle6788644.ece

Here's the opening if you don't want to read the whole article.

rice555 PS, there's also a OG food thread on the Thai Food Forum.

August 9, 2009

Organic food is just a tax on the gullible

I could have become a fatal casualty of the organic movement

Dominic Lawson

39 COMMENTS

RECOMMEND? (33)

There are two reliable ways of telling if you have won an argument. The first is if your disputants switch from discussion of the facts to accusations about motives; the second, more obviously, is if they descend to mere abuse.

Alan Dangour, a nutritionist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, should therefore feel he has had an encouragingly uncomfortable week. He is the author of a peer-reviewed meta-study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that concluded, from 50 years of scientific evidence, that so-called “organic” food was no healthier than conventionally farmed products. By the end of last week Dangour felt as if he had been covered with the brown stuff the organic lobby holds most sacred. He revealed that he had received “hate mail” and was “taken aback” by the “abusive” language used.

Ben Goldacre, an NHS doctor and author of the acclaimed book Bad Science, has had a similar week. In his newspaper column he had taken apart the Soil Association’s criticisms of Dangour’s paper – which was funded by Britain’s Food Standards Agency – notably its claim that the health benefits of organic food relating to the absence of pesticides “could not be measured by the evidence identified in the FSA paper”.

more at link above rice555

[Maizefarmer]

Personaly, I have never believed that organic food is better food. From a nutrional perspective there is nothing in it that makes much diff to one's health, and from a health and safety persepective, the reg's in place nowadays with respect to just about all food marketed/sold are so stringent that any pesticide residue (the major diff between non-organic and organic) is quickly picked up in random testing.

But, to limit the debate on organic versus non-organic to it's "quality! from a consumption perspective only, is to miss a very important point about organic food production - and that is it's impact on the enviroment, and on that very point if there is a country in SEA (South East Asia) where this could not be more relivant if we wanted it to be, it's Thailand.

The big plus point with organic food is the reduction in pesticides/herbicides and other processed chemical additives that are used in production, in many cases (depending on how "organic" is defined and used) complete emilination.

Here in Thailand we have rampant abuse of herbicides and pesticides. Compounding the problem is the wide avalibility of counterfeited brandname pesticides and herbicides - usualy offered somewhat cheaper than the genuine product but with active ingredient and other additives that far exceed that on the label or that permitted.

The result: Thailand has some of the highest ag chemical run off into streams and underground aquifers that occurs in SEA. The long term legacy, both in terms of human health (and many of these chemicals take a generation or 2 before they manifest themselves in human health as chronic conditions) and impact on the enviroment has yet to properly understood, but make no mistake about it, as the SEA population continues to gow expontentialy with the accompanying demand for food production, so too will the long term impact of chemical residue in the enviroment.

So: is organic food better?

You bet it is - you just know where and how to take the measurment and make the assessement.

[Pattel]

Personaly, I have never believed that organic food is better food. From a nutrional perspective there is nothing in it that makes much diff to one's health, and from a health and safety persepective, the reg's in place nowadays with respect to just about all food marketed/sold are so stringent that any pesticide residue (the major diff between non-organic and organic) is quickly picked up in random testing.

But, to limit the debate on organic versus non-organic to it's "quality! from a consumption perspective only, is to miss a very important point about organic food production - and that is it's impact on the enviroment, and on that very point if there is a country in SEA (South East Asia) where this could not be more relivant if we wanted it to be, it's Thailand.

The big plus point with organic food is the reduction in pesticides/herbicides and other processed chemical additives that are used in production, in many cases (depending on how "organic" is defined and used) complete emilination.

Here in Thailand we have rampant abuse of herbicides and pesticides. Compounding the problem is the wide avalibility of counterfeited brandname pesticides and herbicides - usualy offered somewhat cheaper than the genuine product but with active ingredient and other additives that far exceed that on the label or that permitted.

The result: Thailand has some of the highest ag chemical run off into streams and underground aquifers that occurs in SEA. The long term legacy, both in terms of human health (and many of these chemicals take a generation or 2 before they manifest themselves in human health as chronic conditions) and impact on the enviroment has yet to properly understood, but make no mistake about it, as the SEA population continues to gow expontentialy with the accompanying demand for food production, so too will the long term impact of chemical residue in the enviroment.

So: is organic food better?

You bet it is - you just know where and how to take the measurment and make the assessement.

Right I'm convinced, now where can I buy it. I live in Pattaya if that's any help.

[getgoin]

Probably, but in Thailand it is another bullshit scam, they have no authorizing agency. Thailand, I'm sorry.

[haveaniceday]

"Truth be told - the jury is still out on the subject of organic versus conventional."

I am not arguing either way, but do not compare western 'convential' and Thai conventional in the same level. Many chemicals that would get you jail time in some western countries, are used widely here still.

Only a opinion, but I think the statement I read in this thread below, is good advice.

"My wife will NOT buy leafy vegetables unless they have bug holes in the leaves. She says if the bugs won't eat them we shouldn't eat them either. "

[IsaanAussie]

"Truth be told - the jury is still out on the subject of organic versus conventional."

I am not arguing either way, but do not compare western 'convential' and Thai conventional in the same level. Many chemicals that would get you jail time in some western countries, are used widely here still.

Only a opinion, but I think the statement I read in this thread below, is good advice.

"My wife will NOT buy leafy vegetables unless they have bug holes in the leaves. She says if the bugs won't eat them we shouldn't eat them either. "

I and many of my friends here have less than healthy eating, drinking and general consumption habits. I am a product of my time and make no excuses or apologies for it, life is as you make it, not as you find it. However I have no desire to glow in the dark and see nothing but corporate greed behind the support for chemicals that produce crops well but challenge the environment for years hence. Especially here in Isaan where there are no worms or topsoil. Just minute clay particles and a climate where anything will grow, but may not thrive without NPK such and such.

There is no companion planting or natural pesticides neccessary to generate holes in vegetable leaves either.

But holes or not I still know where my preference lies and guess what I do get a choice!

A bag of Urea 46-0-0, what constitutes the other 54%? At least I know that my compost (less than 5% nitrogen) has as its source the excrement of my pigs, <deleted> I know only too well.

Sorry guys but this is Wua (male) <deleted>, nature,=natural, versus what? Sadam Hussans or the US governments chemical deterrant programs.

Isaan Aussie

[tim armstrong]

I don't know either way. But I definitely lean towards less pesticides, fresh produce and organic foods -whatever that means. But the brother in law is a keen fisherman of the canals around the rice paddies. He does well and brings home plenty of healthy looking, and delicious tasting fish, shrimp, and other stuff. I assume the canals are also full of run-off. But it doesn't seem to affect the fish.

But I'm also old enough to remember when supermarket and greengrocer's fruit and veg. had the right smell, and taste. When was the last time anyone could smell a tomato, banana, orange at a supermarket ? One of the good things about thailand is that with a little effort you can find 'organic' food.

Is it better ? Thais where we live, last well beyond the median age for death, live well into their 80's and their lifestyle, hasn't changed that much.

[JurgenG]

Put it simple, where do you have the highest life expectancy ? In polluted, overcrowded, downtown Hong Kong or Tokyo? Or in the natural, preserved rainforest ?

Answer here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Anyway here is the problem : By the year 2050, nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during the interim. An estimated 10⁹ hectares of new land (about 20% more land than is represented by the country of Brazil) will be needed to grow enough food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA). Historically, some 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management practices. What can be done to avoid this impending disaster?

An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies.

Yes, cutting edge technology. "Natural", "good old time" farming is just an utopia. Furthermore traditional farming is what contributes more to deforestation, one of today's world major problem

Here for more on vertical farming : http://www.verticalfarm.com/more

But this won't stop me for enjoying the fruits that grow in my garden ...

[WatersEdge]

Hi Isaan Aussie,

Urea CO(NH2)2 is more or less two Ammonia with a Carbon Dioxide minus a Water

at least that's how it's manufactured.

CO2 + 2NH3 => CO(NH2) + H2O

To answer your question of what else is in it:

By Weight Percent

Nitrogen 47%

Hydrogen 7

Carbon 20

Oxygen 27

There's your other 54%

It may be comforting that Pig Urine contains exactly Urea as the Nitrogen content.

With a bit of sitting around in the open environment it decomposes to Ammonia,

but Urea from the bag will do the same if you soak it in water.

[rice555]

Hello All, I see no one has commented on the 2 Thai news about OG, what mostly

has been talked about is world scale, but TIT!

One from BP, and one from TN.

rice555

Organic foods need a boost

Meeting global standards a key

Published: 23/07/2011 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: Business "BP"

Thailand should encourage more entrepreneurs and farmers to adopt organic production while supporting them to improve standards to meet requirements in affluent markets abroad, say state economic planners.

The Commerce and Agriculture ministries should educate Thai organic producers about how to meet requirements in major markets, especially Japan, Europe and the US, where demand for organic products is rising, said Ladawan Kumpa, deputy secretary-general of the National Economic and Social Development Board.

She said Thailand had an organisation to certify entrepreneurs and farmers who produce organic products. However, the number of Thai organic producers is still very small, at around 5,000.

Established since 1995, Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand is an independent organisation operating under the Organic Agriculture Certification Foundation. It aims to promote organic agriculture while ensuring consumers of the quality of products.

A report by the Commerce Ministry showed exports from Thailand accounted for only 0.22% of the global trade in organic products, expected to be worth US$60 billion this year.

Germany is the major supplier with a 15.6% market share, followed by France (6.6%), The United Kingdom (6.4%) and Italy (5.1%).

Thailand expects exports of organic products to grow by 10% this year to around $120 million, while domestic growth is projected at 8-9% to about 1.1 billion baht.

Ms Ladawan surveyed the organic product market in the United States last month and said organic goods were gaining favour among affluent consumers worldwide because of their environment-friendly properties, even though prices are 30-40% higher than for goods produced using conventional methods.

In 2009, the value of organic products in the US was $26.6 billion, of which the majority was food and drinks at $24.8 billion.

The US government promotes organic farming communities with a focus on improving quality and on education about sustainable agriculture. Farmers can reduce costs by 20% simply by not using chemical fertilisers, while also enjoying revenue from higher prices through direct sales to customers.

Ms Ladawan said that if Thai government agencies supported more organic growing, improved standards and market access, the country stood to make big gains in a growing market.

She noted as well that organic products had expanded beyond food and drinks to areas such as garments and other consumer goods, as well as related services.

The romanticism of organic farming and self-sustainability

By Peeradej Tanruangporn,

Chularat Sangpassa

The Nation

Published on July 16, 2011

Should farmers who have not converted to organic farming try harder?

The rhetoric that preaches organic farming as a tool of local resilience and self-sustainability is unfortunately a painful joke for many farmers.

At a conference on rural development held on July 8, at Thammasat University, a common theme running through debates was the need to unravel the myths and romantic tales about the "rural". Speakers pointed to the circulation of inaccurate images, stories and models of farmers and rural lives. These misrepresentations substitute the unique struggle and plight of rural lives with cliches.

The cliched stories are also not politically neutral. Chalita Bundhuwong, a PhD student at the University of Hawaii, recounted the rhetoric produced by civil society organisations depicting Malay Muslims in a village close to the Sai Buri Basin in Pattani as living a benign, environmentally sustainable and self-reliant way of life. Chalita raised the example of the sufficiency economy model which sees the development of intense farming and its increasing use of chemicals and fossil fuel as caused by people's lack of wisdom and sufficiency within the market.

The sufficiency economy model prescribes a norm upon which people are measured against. It treats sufficiency economy and environmental sustainability as choices to be made by individuals, while largely ignoring broader conditions that underlie the decision-making, such as farmers' inadequate funding or technical knowledge to go organic. The existence of a yardstick that measures others also masks a patronising attitude to the native knowledge of Malay Muslim people and sustains its negligence.

The troubling account of organic farming by Natedao Taotawin, a PhD student from Chiang Mai University, and Nanta Kantree, a farmer from Suphan Buri, depicted a concrete instance of the violence and limitations that are the result of myths and romantic stories.

The romanticised perception that organic farming is a production system for self-reliance outside the market system is not in line with the reality; organic farming is indeed within the market system and contains relations between capital, labour and consumers that are of a capitalist system, she said. Organic farmers in the capitalist system mostly produce through contract farming, and farming capitals control the supply of organic produce, she pointed out.

She cited research conducted at the Na Sawan Ville on the Thailand-Laos border in Ubon Ratchathani where farmers grow organic rice for export, to depict farmers' relationships with the local and global market system. These relationships include rural development projects aimed at poverty eradication and environmental rehabilitation, and the migration of labour both domestically and from abroad. She said the often ignored fact was that organic farming promotion actually occurred within the economic and social context of an unequal rural society, hence farmers had different capacities/potential to adapt into organic farming, hence the results differed.

"Organic farming began to be heralded as 'the best' through establishing chemical agriculture as a devil of capitalism and linking itself with nationalism and religion," Natedao began. On the one hand this attitude glorifies those capable of turning to organic farming, but on the other it condemns the majority of farmers who do not go organic. There are however good reasons why people have not converted to organic farming.

Despite the environmental benefits and reduced health risks organic farming has to offer, it is simply beyond affordability for many farmers. Nanta recounted the jump in costs for organic farming when compared to chemical farming. These additional costs include certified seeds, certifying the farm, cattle, land for cattle to roam, labour during harvest, labour for weeding, etc. With such steep investment required, Nanta concluded that poor farmers are mostly excluded from the opportunity to go organic. Such an option does not appeal to risk-minimisers or those already struggling to balance household payments.

The decision to reject organic farming can however expose one to moral and intellectual condemnation: "you must either be greedy or complacent about the status quo to not farm organically". Because the image of greedy farmers seems in line with the stereotype of the ignorant and irrational rural villager, one has to question whether it has the same root in urban ignorance or negligence toward others to begin with.

Natedao concluded that a single technique of farming cannot be expected to have blanket applicability to a mass of farmers with different backgrounds. Part of the blame should also be put on the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for not adequately supporting poor farmers in terms of the conditions necessary to farm organically, such as property, labour and capital.

[IsaanAussie]

OK Rice, I'll bite,

The two articles you included are an interesting read. The first shows the normal Government release of an opportunity for Thailand and its people to increase exports. These pop up all the time but seldom mention the method by which that new business can gained.

The second is more interesting and I believe close to reality. However it ends by saying that the Government should subsidise organic farming. Subsidised self sufficiency, thats an interesting thought!

I dont think anyone will dispute the detrimental effect that chemical fertilisers and modern farming techniques have had on the planet. Just take a look at the soil, count the butterflies, better yet the worms. But reality now is most of the food produced is controlled by corporate agribusiness. Get them to go organic and then things will change. Imagine if only organic fertilisers and feeds were produced, there would be no need to certify the farms and products, or even the seeds. Currently using commercial organic fertilisers costs more. I just did a cost comparison for my rice crop and the difference is 50% more. I can hear footsteps..... Why dont the poor farmers produce their own fertilisers? I hear you say, well that is easier said than done by a rapidly shrinking number of aging farmers with a few cows and chickens.

It is a complex issue for sure. IMHO it can be best solved by starting at the top of the tree and not at the roots.

Isaan Aussie