# Organics. The Great Myth



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

If I didn't work in Hollywood I probably wouldn't use an organic product again. Sound Strange? One year ago I would have thought the same thing. I even wrote in my cookbook "The Private Chef" how in favor of organics I was. The whole time I had this little twinge inside me whispering, "Don't drink the Kool-Aid." When I finally started to listen it didn't take me long to discover that I had been sucked in like millions of others.

There are three major components to why people choose organic over conventionally grown products.

1. They believe they're helping the little guy and extending their middle finger to big business.

2. It's better for the environment. Getting rid of those nasty pesticides could only be a good thing.

3. They're better for you and taste better.

Let's start with 1. Contrary to popular belief, most organically grown foods are produced by a handful of the biggest companies of conventionally grown and produced foods. So unless you are handing your ten dollars for a head of Romaine lettuce directly to a local farmer, the chances are you are not delivering a blow to big business. When the fad of eating organic foods started, big business said what the hell. We can grow less food and charge more for it!

2. Better for the environment? Hardly. Harmful pesticides have not been used by conventional growers for nearly thirty years. It is one of the most scrutinized areas of government. We tend to get caught up in the "All Natural" lingo that drives most consumers these days but let me remind you that _lead_ is also all natural. Most organic farmers have to use seven times the amount of so called "natural pesticides. One of the main ones used is called Rotenone. This is an extract from the roots of plants and can be toxic. It is known to cause symptoms of Parkinson's when injected into rats. It also takes farmers twice the acreage to grow the same amount of crops. So if your against deforestation you better thing twice about buying organic fruits and vegetables.

3. Better for you? After finding out how organic food is grown, I think not. By the way, each time I go into a whole foods market, which is often when you work in Hollywood, I ask the produce manager approximately what percentage of fruits and vegetables are organically grown. The answer most given? Anywhere from 30-50%! So at any given time the percentage isn't much more than most grocery store chains. The only difference is you have to sell some of your belongings before you shop at a whole foods market.

Better tasting? Take the challenge. What have you got to loose except the high prices charged at organic markets. Do a blind taste test! I have! I will take technology over some dread-locked kid at Whole Foods trying to push unpasteurized cheese on me any day. Has anyone ever heard of Louis Pasteur?

As long as I keep working for the rich and famous and I buy food on their dime, I will do whatever is asked of me. But at home…it's conventional. Now you may choose to continue to use organics and that is your prerogative. But don't kid yourself into thinking it is causing a blow to big business or helping the environment.

The Private Chef

www.theprivatechef.com

www.beaprivatechef.com


----------



## gunnar (Apr 3, 2008)

I agree and I disagree. 
Most of the farmers I know are aware of the double standard of needing more "natural" pesticide and acreage for the same amount grown "commercially". More and more they are growing companion gardens, mostly in harvest-able rows side by side, such as the traditional "sister plants" or the old growing mint around your tomatoes and beets keeps pests at bay (google "companion planting"). This is to help reduce the need of more pesticide and also create natural barriers that result in less loss by deer or other critters,  sadly, it's not really new at all, we are relearning lost lessons . Also farming "Tech" is moving very fast these days to try and find ways to defeat the huge wastes of water, land and resources that "modern" farming creates. 

That being said, the scam of big business in Organics has been exactly as you say.

Flavor.  Flavor is better in in-season products, this I believe. Can I prove it scientifically? nope. i just try to buy from as many local people as I can.  

welcome to the forums, hope to see ya around a bit.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

If you're going to get on a soapbox it would behoove you to actually get the facts.

Organics is a complex issue, with growers ranging from the small, diverse grower who upholds the conventional idea of what an organic grower is, to the huge organics divisions of factory farms, whose methods are barely different from how they grow and market their conventional crops. So, as soon as you use the word "most" you'd be hard pressed, at best, to provide documentation. In addition to other problems inherent in keeping score, there are vast numbers of organic growers who are exempt from certification, and whose crops are not even considered in the productivity figures.

Excluding the fact that "organic" is defined and enforced by federal law, exactly what you get when buying organic produce depends mostly on who it is purchased from. Get it from a small, diverse grower (who is likely choosing heirlooms varieties as well) and it's worth the price difference. Get it in a supermarket, where it comes from a factory farm, and you're getting ripped off.

But there's no sense in arguing with a true believer. Especially when the facts presented are patently wrong. For instance, "One of the main ones used is called Rotenone....."

In point of fact, because it is so powerful, and because it is an indiscriminate killer that attacks the micro-herd as well as actual pests, rotenone is the last choice for most organic growers. In fact, it was originally on the excluded list, and is frowned upon by serious organizations.

Writing is Environmental Health Perspectives, for example, Katherine DiMatteo notes:

[h1][/h1]>To set the record straight, rotenone is not commonly used in organic agriculture. Rotenone that has been naturally derived is listed as a "restricted substance" by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI 2004) and may be used only in special circumstances with designated limitations. Meanwhile, rotenone's synergist, piperonyl butoxide, is prohibited from use in organic agriculture.<
BTW, the links between rotenone and Parkenson's have been seriously called into question, and much of the "research" along those lines has been discredited.

Besides which, anybody who wants to take the time can find one study after another detailing the health risks of synthetic pesticides and other agricultural products. Doesn't make those studies necessarily any more correct than the rotenone/Parkinson one.

As to taste differences, that's about the only place in your tirade that you make a semi-valid point. If you grow the same variety, controlling all the variables, but grow one patch organically and the other using synthetics, they will (or should) taste exactly the same. Vegetables require 16 different nutrients, and the plant doesn't care how they are supplied. If they are available in soluble form then the plant will utilize them.

There are two major influences on the "organics taste better" argument. One comes from the true believers on the other side of the spectrum from you, and can be ignored as wishful thinking. As with all true believers, they will happily promulgate anything that sounds positive, and ignore any negatives.

The other resulted from the days before organics were mainstream. Because they were only available from small growers, who sold them at Farmer's Markets, CSAs, and the like, their offerings tended to be ripe. For most people, that's the only time they got to taste, say, a ripe tomato. Not knowing the difference, they attributed the superior taste to the growing method, rather than to the food distribution system.


----------



## bughut (Aug 18, 2007)

Well here's a can of worms.

I absolutely believe in organic produce. My spices dont endanger the people who pick them.My carrots dont poison the folk who live near the fields where the phosphates are sprayed. There are + & - for all arguments, but surely natures way is the way.


----------



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

I had to read your reply a number of times before I realized you were corroborating my position.
Let's take this paragraph by paragraph.
In the first paragraph you say, "vast numbers of organic growers who are exempt from certification." This would mean we have no idea of what they use to grow their crops.

In the second paragraph you state, " Get it from a small, diverse grower (who is likely choosing heirlooms varieties as well) and it's worth the price difference"... Is this one of those growers that is exempt from certification?

In the third paragraph you accuse me of being a true believer. I'm assuming that means "not open to reason." As stated in my post, I supported organics to the point I wrote about it in my book. So I have been on both sides.

In reference to Rotenone, you state that Rotenone, "is the last choice for most organic growers." I would sure as hell hope so! But which ones? Even the OMRI states that it can be used in special circumstances  Rotenone was one of the first organic pesticides that came to mind and I didn't want to bog down most readers with many of the others. But since you're not like most readers and I'm being accused of not doing my research here are some others: pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food period.

In your last  paragraph you state," Not knowing the difference, they attributed the superior taste to the growing method, rather than to the food distribution system."...That's my point! It is the growing method not what pesticide was used. You even said earlier that grown side by side you would get the same results.

Lastly, I am very new to blogging. Working as a private chef for twenty years I have very little connection with other food people and when I discovered Cheftalk I was very excited. If I came across as on a soap box, I apologize. I love this type of interaction and I hope you don't take offense. I see that you grow Heirlooms and I would be happy to help you any way I can.
Warm regards,
The Private Chef


----------



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

Hi Bughut,
Thanks for your reply. I suggest going to skeptoid.com and read about organics. You may be very surprised.
Thanks,
The Private Chef


----------



## gunnar (Apr 3, 2008)

Rotenone and sabadilla have been banned Nationwide for a number of years, as I stated above the industry is moving faster then the arguments. Has most of America been bamboozled? heh, yeah.Are we learning? yes. Places like this keep minds expanding./img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

ps. what am I? Processed meat by-product?


----------



## warba (Feb 28, 2010)

I am currently in the fresh produce industry (importing into USA and Canada from 20 countries around the world) on a very large scale.
As a "big business insider", the whole Organics issue is as muddled as the forum posts on this thread.
 

The one major issue that seems to get confused both by consumers and even industry "professionals" (who should know better) is the distinction between "organics" and "food safety". 
You purchase a product that is 100% organic and certified by a USDA accredited company, and yet suffer the most common problems such as e-coli or salmonella contamination. In countries where most product grown (USA included) farm workers are usually low paid and can work in fields with no access to toilets or clean water for washing; think about that next time you taste a few unwashed grapes in the supermarket.

It is difficult to generalize across all fruits and vegetables (and proteins also) what the issues with "Organic" really are. Some fruit trees that are grown "organic" require large amounts of copper to be added to the soil to stop pests from destroying the crop; each produce item has its own issues.

Overall, the import requirements into the USA are so stringent from the USDA that even non-organic product is required to have such low residuals from "approved" pesticides, that a light wash under clean water removes anything of concern.

There was also a tone (?) in the first post that sort of put "big business" in a less-than-favorable light. My professional experience is that the large produce growing businesses are the ones who adhere to the government requirements, are tested more often, keep their certifications current, and provide facilities and clean water for their workers, moreso than some smaller farms which may not be able to afford this added cost and are not so much on the radar due to their lower volumes. This doesn't mean the smaller farms are bad, but size is not a valid determiner of ethics, knowledge, or capabilities.

The other "big business(?)" implication was that they are making huge dollars on organics. Depends on the product, but generally the cost of organics to the supermarkets is substantially higher than conventional product. Organics are incredibly expensive to grow, and often have a much lower yield-per-acre than conventional product. Depending on the type of product and certification requirements, growers may have to grow for 2-4 years with no pesticides, but cannot call their product "organic" until the fields have been pesticide free for this time (it is refered to as "transitional").. so during that time they have much lower yields without the higher price of organic to cover the costs. Most commercial growers live year-to-year (barely) so this is literally "betting the farm" so to speak.

I'm sure there are some "bad apples" out there in the commercial produce business like any industry; but, honestly, the 10's of millions of boxes of produce we sell in the USA each year (organic or not) are safe to eat and have little-to-no harmful residues, and what might be on the product is easily rinsed off. I would be much more suspect of a "local farmers market" to find uncertified and uncontrolled application of questionable pestices than I would the "big boys".


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Isn't it ironic how your opinion on the issue and your vested interest just happen to coincide?

I'm especially amused by this line: "the large produce growing businesses are the ones who adhere to the government requirements....." Considering that Monsanto et als all but wrote the regulations, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

_The other "big business(?)" implication was that they are making huge dollars on organics.
_
Yeah, right. I certainly believe that the factory farmers jumped on the organics bandwagon for any other reason than to make a boatload of money.

I'm not going to try and refute all your erroneous and misleading statements. Suffice it to say, your entire post is typical of the way big agriculture argues every issue; by making claims that are unsubstantiated, intentionally providing confusing data, and taking one set of facts and applying it to a different set of conditions.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

I wonder about whether or not the pesticides get into the ground water and travel up into the plant.  I totally see that happening.  It's not that we can't get rid of it by washing.  We can't do anything about the pesticide that's inside the fruit or vegetable.


----------



## gypsy2727 (Mar 9, 2010)

kuan said:


> I wonder about whether or not the pesticides get into the ground water and travel up into the plant. I totally see that happening. It's not that we can't get rid of it by washing. We can't do anything about the pesticide that's inside the fruit or vegetable.


Yes, pesticides do get into the water table. Just like people who use harsh chemicals to keep there lawns unnaturally green. Thanks to all who are following the new law and not using them in Ontario. In my neck of the woods it is law that we cannot use water from the house for our gardens or lawns or actually for anything ..like if you wanted to make a skating rink in the backyard for your kids (which one of my neighbors did ,,,,hmmm how did he do that?) So we have rain barrels and the sump pump water for that.....It reminds me so much of Germany when I was there .Water is a hot commodity more expensive than beer and wine. They are so ahead of the game as far as being "Green"
I'm not all sure about these claims to fame of "the best organic" But ( there's always a but...lol) There are quite a few here
in Ontario that you can visit and really do the math yourself.
and don't even get me started on Canola Oil...Canola is an ancient grain that is extinct and whatever there selling out there now is a genetically altered form of Canola.


----------



## gunnar (Apr 3, 2008)

it's geneticaly altered Rapeseed. Canola is not and was not ever a plant. Although they are now marketing it as such.


----------



## gypsy2727 (Mar 9, 2010)

Gunnar said:


> it's geneticaly altered Rapeseed. Canola is not and was not ever a plant. Although they are now marketing it as such.


Sorry ( I really did know that .. my meaning was Canola is from an ancient grain I guess it was not clearly put.Oh I better be a little more care full with my threads) on not being" full on " on the info you are politically correct Gunner ... I wouldn't want to be against you in Jeopardy!

Thanks for the FYI

Gypsy


----------



## warba (Feb 28, 2010)

KYHeirloomer (and others),

I should clarify that my statements above refer to the fresh fruit and vegetable industry; I am also suspect of the true "multi-national" globals such as Monsanto. Corn and grain crops are a whole 'nuther can of worms of which I have no knowledge, other than what I watch (somewhat in horror of) on 60 Minutes.

All I can say is the view I provided was not meant as "misinformation", but my own personal factual perspective from within the business - however you are correct in that the whole topic is not only complex, but very emotionally charged.

I'd really like to see everyone interested in Organics to take the time and expense to put in a small garden; even a small planter on a balcony if living in an apartment. It it a real eye-opener to experience first-hand the amount of work that goes into producing fresh produce; tending it; dealing with the slugs that eat holes in your chard; etc..etc.. . I think one of the biggest hindrances to organics is that fresh produce is way to inexpensive in North America. Just for fun, take you back-yard garden and price it out at the supermarket, now consider if that was the scale at which your efforts were remunerated. It's a shame and the reason why so many farmers are getting out of the business.


----------



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

Wow!,
I really created a fire storm. Didn't mean too, but it sure is fun. Really gets the brain moving. I could read these rebutals all day but I feel I should interject something since I started this.

First, in regards to KY Heirloom's post: I want you to refute what you consider the erroneous and misleading statements. That's how you will gain more credibility with your position. That's what Gunnar referred to earlier in his post when he said, "industry is moving faster than the arguments". We need to stay as well informed as possible.

Second, in regards to Warba's post, you too can be more specific when you state, " the whole Organics issue is as muddled as the forum posts on this thread." Well unmuddle them for us.!You're in the business.

I first decided to write this post as someone not in the commercial business and not in the organic business. I have no vested interest in either one. I'm in the cooking business. I read information on both sides and make my decision. I work mostly for the people in Hollywood who's positions on many topics can be quite dubious. When I am ambivalent on a topic, I can usually look at Hollywood's position and then comfortably run in the other direction. From my personal experience most of Hollywood has become organic fanatics. That's when my antenea goes up.

The constant barrage of attacks on large growers I believe to be short sited. They provide jobs for thousands of people. They continually discover ways to grow more product on the same amount of land. And because of the technological advances, we're able to send more food to developing nations than any other country on the planet. The belief that harmful pesticides are used is just so out of date. According to the Center for Global Food Issues, organic foods make up about 1% of all the food sold in the United States, but it accounts for 8% of E. coli cases. Like I said earlier, I really am not bothered where you by your produce. It's no skin off my potato. But I'm in the kitchen not in the fields. Just an "industry professional who wants no better".
I love you guys,
The Private Chef


----------



## gypsy2727 (Mar 9, 2010)

I feel the love Private Chef


Gypsy


----------



## mrchris (Mar 18, 2010)

I buy my meat from local farmers all year round.  Same goes for about 60% of my produce.  I'm friends with these people.  Sucks to be you guys


----------



## leeniek (Aug 21, 2009)

Interesting thread...

I have stayed away from organic produce not because I don't trust it, but because it is just so blooming expensive!  I was a stay home mom for years so we had to watch our budget.  I couldn't justify paying the ransom the supermarkets were asking for organics so I stayed away from them.  I have to say though that the prices have come down since they were first introduced, but I rarely shop for produce and meat at the supermarket anymore.  I buy all of my meat from a butcher at the farmers market who sells only Ontario meat, and my produce I buy from a few different farmers at the market.   I've learned to watch the quality of what is being offered for sale and I will pay extra for good quality food.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_take you back-yard garden and price it out at the supermarket, now consider if that was the scale at which your efforts were remunerated._

Warba, if you think this thread is something, make that suggestion at a gardening site. Then watch the feathers fly!

One aspect of the entire "better food" controversy is that we, as Americans, are very used to having a plentitude of cheap food. I know it sometimes doesn't seem that way after a trip to the supermarket, but it's true. In terms of cost and availability we are the best fed people in history.

Again, so there's no confusion, we're talking about the cost and quantity, not the quality.

One aspect of that is that you cannot grow your own food as cheaply as you can buy it. Not if all the cost factors are included. There are many good reasons to have your own garden, ranging from the quality of the food, to the self-satisfaction that comes from any hobby activity. But cost savings is not one of them.

When people say they save money by growing their own they're thinking out-of-pocket money only. Somebody pays, say, $1.98 for a packet of seed and eats tomatoes all summer long. Wow! Look what they saved over buying tomatoes. Those who grow heirlooms and other open pollinated varieties and save their own seed actually claim that it costs them nothing, cuz the seed was free. But that's not how cost accounting works.

I grow (or trade for) much of the produce we eat. I grow heirlooms exclusively (will not put a hybrid in the ground), using organic methods. I guarantee you, there is no way I could afford to buy the vegetables I grow.

_I want you to refute what you consider the erroneous and misleading statements. That's how you will gain more credibility with your position
_
I don't see much point to doing so, PC. I'll provide just one example from the post, not to argue the point but to show the way big agriculture presents issues:

_The other "big business(?)" implication was that they are making huge dollars on organics. Depends on the product, but generally the cost of organics to the supermarkets is substantially higher than conventional product. Organics are incredibly expensive to grow,...

_Break that down, and what you find is this: We (i.e. big agriculture) aren't making a lot of money growing organics (is this because we're supplying them as a public service?) Proof: Supermarkets pay more for them, so have to charge more.

Guess what, people. Supermarkets are not growing the stuff, nor are they part of big agriculture. In this context they are consumers who also are overpaying, and passing the overage through to their customers.

How come we don't hear how much the factory farm organics division earns from its crops? Could it be that Monsanto, and AGI, and Con-Agra don't want us to know how profitable that business is?

Then we go on to talk about how much more expensive it is to grow organics by obfuscating the issue with a discussion about what it costs to earn certification---which is irrelevent---and with half-truths about the costs of growing.

Etc.

Keep in mind we're talking about the same industry that, for 50 years, did everything possible to convince us that hybrids would solve all the problems of agriculture. Then came GMOs, which would solve all the problems associated with hybrids. Huh? Wanna play that one again?

Anyway, I won't waste time with a line by line refutation. But you can gain some insights into these issues by going to the Food Inc. thread that's currently running on the Late Night Cafe forum.


----------



## chefbillyb (Feb 8, 2009)

Soon we will all be eating organic vegetables, not just the food stamp recipients.........Chef Bill


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Maybe it's just early, Chef Bill. Or maybe I'm slow. But I haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say. 

Could you expand on that thought?


----------



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

You folks really are great! I am so glad I discovered Chef Talk.
The Private Chef


----------



## shroomgirl (Aug 11, 2000)

Organics had the largest double digit growth for years, big boys jumped on the $$$$ bandwagon.

For Monsanto it's all about the money...for years they've ignored superweed implications and sued small organic farmers that had winddrifted GMO's show up in their fields....they've bought seed companies and usurped marketing terms "sustainable" is one of the latest. Word buzzing around now is that their developing a seed that doesn't need water to germinate!!!/img/vbsmilies/smilies/eek.gif SCARY..really SCARY shtuff.

Know your farmer, visit their farm....hang out at growers' markets, feeds your body & soul.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

In my humble opinion Whole Foods is the biggest rip off ever. Last year in some areas of country their beef was recalled because of E-coli.

Organics remind me of the Hula - Hoop craze or the Emperors new clothes. I know a girl who gives her infant raw milk, this to me is waiting for an accident to happen. I have lived to this age without organics and will continue down the same  road. thank you


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

What I'm afraid of is the cancer causing chemicals.  I just don't know how much of this stuff I've eaten over the past 40+ years.  Your liver wasn't designed to filter out all of this junk.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

While I understand your point, Ed, I think you seriously overstate things. If Whole Foods is a rip off for the reason you provide, then we'd have to say the same applies to Kroger and Publix and so on, all of which have sold meat products that were subsequently recalled . And I don't know what organic beef is, anyway.

Certainly there is an element of faddishness surrounding organics, just as there is with the whole "green" thing. I would suggest, however, because the impetus driving the fad comes from several directions, that when the fad passes there will be a considerably larger percentage of people continuing with it than is usual with fads.

And, consider this: Agriculture, as we know it, has been around about 10,000 years. Pasturization has been around roughly 125 years. How, I ask you, did we ever survive all those centuries drinking raw milk? And eating cheese made from it? And, on the other side of the coin, what relationship, if any, exists between processed milk and the growing incidence of lactose intolerence? I mean, the very idea of mammals not being able to assimilate milk is kind of contrasurvival.

Synthetic agricultural chemicals are barely a century old, dating from pre-WW I German experiments (which led, not only to agricultural products but to gas warfare---but that's another story). So, again, for 9,900 years we used organic methods to fertilize and protect our crops, and survived very nicely. And, again, what is the cumulative effect of all those synthetic chemicals, considering we are the least healthy people to ever populate the earth? Before you answer, remember that DDT was considered perfectly safe for 60 years.

America's reputation as being the breadbasket of the world was established in the 19th century, when there were neither hybrids nor synthetic chemicals to "help" us out. Yet we fed the world using what are now called organic methods.

But let's put all that aside. The basic question isn't really "organics" vs "conventional," the way you use it. Your examples, such as Whole Foods in this discussion, and others in previous ones, indicate that your experience doesn't relate so much to the growing method as to the food distribution system, and to food-safety issues related to it.

As you well know, Florida is a major tomato producer. Yet, when you buy tomatoes in the supermarkets down there they come not from Florida, but from Mexico, and California, and sometimes even further away. Once you answer the question, "why and how is that so?" a lot of the rest falls into place.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

KYHeirloomer said:


> And, consider this: Agriculture, as we know it, has been around about 10,000 years. Pasturization has been around roughly 125 years. How, I ask you, did we ever survive all those centuries drinking raw milk? And eating cheese made from it? And, on the other side of the coin, what relationship, if any, exists between processed milk and the growing incidence of lactose intolerence? I mean, the very idea of mammals not being able to assimilate milk is kind of contrasurvival.


But that's the thing. Those who drank bad milk got very sick or didn't survive. Also, our bodies produce less and less lactase as we get older. Many Asians don't produce the enzyme. They go from mother's milk to soy milk.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_Those who drank bad milk got very sick or didn't survive. _

Two things about this, Kuan. First, we need to define "bad milk." Pasturization doesn't prevent milk from turning, it just delays the process. There is nothing inherently dangerous about drinking milk straight from the cow---otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago.

Second, while conventional wisdom says this is so, where's the documentation? There is only one disease I'm aware of that is directly linked to milk. Could be others, but I don't know about them. And, despite what the USDA says, there is nothing inherently dangerous about eating cheese made from raw milk. Cheese is, of course, a way to preserve milk for a longer time. Hmmmmmm? Just what pasturization and irradiation are supposed to do.

As an aside, I would like to know what there is about the fermentation process that makes something safe after 90 days but dangerous after only 30? Can anyone explain that?

I have, as a living historian, looked more deeply into many of the folk-wisdom aspects of 18th and 19th century health matters. Many of the things we grew up believing, and which seem to make sense, turn out to be incorrect. F'rinstance, infant mortality was not as widespread as we were taught.

The real problem with pointing to causes of ill-health is that there were so many things: diet, environment, poor sanitation and hygiene, etc. contributing to poor health that isolating one cause is difficult at best. Somebody once tried making a case that 90% of human suffering, previous to the 20th century, could be traced to bad teeth. That's obviously a gross overstatement. But it highlights the problem. If you're immune system has been compromised by a mouth full of rotty teeth, and you drink some bad milk and die, was it the milk, per se? Or just you're inability to resist the pathogens in the milk?

The same syndrome exists in our own time, with things like AIDS infections. It's not the AIDS virus that gets you so much as your body's inability to resist other invasions.

_Also, our bodies produce less and less lactase as we get older. _

Are you suggesting that this has changed? If not, then it's hardly germane. If so, what are the causes of the change?

Either way, we're not talking so much about adult-onset lactose intolerance, but the growing numbers of children who suffer from it. Even worse, the apparently increased number of infants who are intolerant of their own mothers' milk.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_What I'm afraid of is the cancer causing chemicals. I just don't know how much of this stuff I've eaten over the past 40+ years. Your liver wasn't designed to filter out all of this junk._

For many people, that is *the* issue. Not necessarily cancer, as such. But the cumulative effect of all those synthetic chemicals we've been injesting for a hundred years. Whether or not they are a significant factor in our overall ill health is an unknown issue. And not one that's being seriously studied.

Those who study such matters depend on funding. And the big research bucks come from the people who make those chemicals. The odds of them funding a study that might reveal serious product liabilities range from slim to none. The gubmint, of course, doesn't get much involved until there is a catastrophic cause.

Which means that the only recourse concerned people have is to stop eating foods grown with those chemicals. And that, of course, brings us full circle to the organics question.


----------



## callstar (May 23, 2010)

What an excellent post!

I completely agree with theprivatechef.

This crazy 'natural' thing is the same for a lot of things: Pharmaceuticals, Cosmetics and more. Synthetic has been proven time and time again to be better.

I know there are people who won't agree but it's a scientific claim so check out the facts and you'll see.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Callstar, I challenge you to document that claim. Synthetics are better? Better than what?

Certainly being healthy is better than contracting yellow fever. But does that really make DDT better?

One thing to keep in mind is that virtually all research, nowadays, is funded by people and organizations with a vested interest. That's one reason, for instance, that you don't find any American studies about the efficacy of herbal remedies. The drug companies aren't going to fund a study that would indicate we don't need their expensive (and, often, both dangerous and inefficient) products.

Periodically, the evidence against specific synthetics is so overwhelming that, despite being touted as generally accepted as safe for X years, the real problems are so pervasive that the item has to be banned. We've seen this with such things as DDT, and PCBs, and a dozen or more pesticides, and all kinds of other products, each of which was a "better" way.

The fact is, we do not know the cumulative effects of injesting all those sythetics because no valid studies have been done. But, along with that, is an observable correlation between how long we've been using them, their increased usage, and the fact that we are the most unhealthy people in history.

Notice I said "observable correlation." That is not the same as saying "casual." And that's precisely what needs to be established, by objective research groups. Unfortunately, those are an all but extinct animal.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

Quote:


callstar said:


> Synthetic has been proven time and time again to be better.


Are you sure? I prefer butter to margarine, cream to cream soup base, beef to textured vegetable protein.


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

callstar said:


> What an excellent post!
> 
> I completely agree with theprivatechef.
> 
> ...


Regardless of whether or not there are facts to support this claim, this forum is for foodservice professionals *only *and you list yourelf as an at home cook.


----------



## kwilkinson (May 29, 2010)

theprivatechef said:


> I will take technology over some dread-locked kid at Whole Foods trying to push unpasteurized cheese on me any day. Has anyone ever heard of Louis Pasteur?


----------



## mrchris (Mar 18, 2010)

KY, I dredged up some info from Harold McGees's "On food and cooking" on the topic of milk tolerance. Hope it's informative.

"Milk in infancy and childhood

In the middle of the 20th century... more than half of all six month olds in the united states drank [cow's milk]. Now that figure is down to less than 10%. Physicians now recommend that plain cow's milk not be fed to children younger than one year. One reason is that it provides too much protein, and not enough iron and highly unsaturated fats, for the human infant's needs... Another disadvantage to the early use of cow's milk is that it can trigger an allergy. The infant's digestive system is not fully formed, and can allow some food protein and protein fragments to pass directly into the blood. These foreign molecules then provoke a defensive response from the immune system, and that response is strengthened each time the infant eats. Somewhere between 1% and 10% of American infants suffer from allergy to the abundant protein in cow's milk, whose symptoms may range from mild discomfort to intestinal damage to shock. Most children eventually grow out of milk allergy.

Milk after infancy:

In the animal world, humans are exceptional for consuming milk of any kind after they have started eating solid food. And people who drink milk after infancy are the exception within the human species. The obstacle is the milk sugar lactose, which can't be absorbed and used by the body as is: it must first be broken down into its component sugars by digestive enzymes in the small intestine. The lactose-digesting enzyme, lactase, reaches its maximum levels in the human intestinal lining shortly after birth, and then slowly declines, with a steady minimum level commencing at between two and five years of age and continuing through adulthood.

The logic of this trend is obvious: it's a waste of its resources for the body to produce an enzyme when it's no longer needed; and once most mammals are weaned, they never encounter lactose in their food again. But if an adult without much lastase activity does ingest a substantial amount of milk, then the lactose passes through the small intestine and reaches the large intestine, where bacteria metabolize it, and in the process produce carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane: all discomforting gases. Sugar also drawls water from the intestinal walls, and this causes a bloated feeling or diarrhea.

Low lactase activity and its symptoms are called lactose intolerance. It turns out that adult lactose intolerance is the rule rather than the exception: lactose-tolerant adults are a distinct minority on the planet. Several thousand years ago, peoples in northern Europe and a few other regions underwent a genetic change that allowed them to produce lastase throughout life, probably because milk was an exceptionally important resource in colder climates. About 90% of Scandinavians are lactose-tolerant, 90% of French and Germans, but only 40% of southern Europeans and North Africans, and 30% of African Americans."

Excerpt from "On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee

Hopefully I'm not breaking any copyright laws posting that...

I hope that resolves a few of your arguments. It was quite a surprise to me to find out that the rest of the world doesn't drink milk the way we do in North America.

"As an aside, I would like to know what there is about the fermentation process that makes something safe after 90 days but dangerous after only 30? Can anyone explain that?"

I'm assuming you are talking about raw milk, not pasteurized milk. The only way for cheese made from pasteurized milk to become dangerous is if it is poorly handled during the cheese making process and becomes infected with bacteria. I'm not sure where you heard that safe after 90 and dangerous after 30 days thing but it's not quite accurate. Raw milk cheeses must be aged a minimum of 60 days at the correct temperature before consuming. Anything that is ripened for less than that should be made with pasteurized milk for safety and shelf life. Of course if you know the farmer is careful and his cows are healthy and you are very sanitary in your cheese making you can certainly make some fresh cheeses with no worry, just use common sense and eat it up quickly.


----------



## chef tomain (Nov 17, 2008)

Pesticides are cancer causing agents no doubt about it. The question is how much pesticides causes cancer. But the fact that Monsanto is genetically manipulating its corn, soy bean and other seed strains to accept an over whelming amount of pesticides in it Round UP product is alarming. Because it makes its way through out the whole food system from the ground to the meat and vegetable on your diner table as it is the primary food source on the food chain for most of our food sources.Its no surprise that cancer rates are soaring as I personal lost 6 friends who died of cancer all in their 40s and 50s and most didn't smoke . Below is a list of the some of the affects pesticides

cause low birth weight and birth defects;
interfere with child development and cognitive ability;
cause neurological problems;
disrupt hormone function;
cause a variety of cancers, including leukemia, kidney cancer, brain cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
So its no secret that Monsanto is at war with anyone who doesn't use its product as its goal is to genetically reproduce every seed on planet earth and replace all nature seeds so that they will be the only source of seeds on the planet. To quote J.D Rockefeller " Competition is bad for business".See "Movie Food Inc".Once the supreme court ruled that Monsanto could legally pattern GM seeds with the help of Clarence Thomas whose law firm represented Monsanto's interest in Wash DC. Surprise Surprise.

Once big Agra entered the arena of organic market they pretty much have card blanc to do what ever they want through their lobbyist and bought and paid for represenitives on capital hill . They can have the term organic redefine to suit big business As they only have to redefine the term in a bill so that it benefits big arga. For example the requirements for proceeded food to be labeled organic only need to be 75% organic and 25% what ever. And then there is the dishonest farmer who grows his crops with pesticides and sells it as organic.

Since the matrix of organic is so corrupted as to what and what isn't organic its a hard call but don't be mislead pesticides are harmful to the body electric as it builds up in the fatty tissue and organs.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_I hope that resolves a few of your arguments._

Thanks for your post, MrChris. Informative, yes. Everything McGee wrote was informative. But the quoted sections don't even address my arguments, let alone resolve them.

Lactose intolerance was a miner side discussion. But, one of the many food-related problems we face is the growing number of infants who are intolerant of their own mother's milk. That should be a sign of something. Unfortunately, we don't know what that something is.

The more basic point is that, thanks to what and the way we eat, our body flora has changed; likely not to the good. If we've done something one way for ten thousand years, and, suddenly, can't do that anymore, then something is radically wrong. Especially if not being able to do that something is contrasurvival.

Intolerance of its mother's milk on the part of a mammal is definately contrasurvival.

_I'm not sure where you heard that safe after 90 and dangerous after 30 days thing but it's not quite accurate. Raw milk cheeses must be aged a minimum of 60 days at the correct temperature before consuming. _

First off, that was a typo, and should have been 60 days, not 90. Sorry about that.

It's not that I heard it. It's a paraphrase of the USDA rules. I was posing the question, and implying an answer, to wit: there is nothing inherently safer about raw milk cheese after 60 days aging than there is after 30 days---or 15 days, or...... It's an abritrary cut off, used by an arrogant agency that, among other things, consistently uses "unsafe" and "untested" as synonyms, and which feels it has to blanket us with excessive rules for our own protection. The rules don't have to make sense, you understand, or be based on any real data. They just have to be there.

_Anything that is ripened for less than that should be made with pasteurized milk for safety and shelf life. _

Who says so? Show me the testing that's been done, and the data leading to that conclusion.

Certainly the millions of French, Spanish, Italian, German, Scandinavian, and underground Americans who eat unpasturized cheese every day would disagree with you.

And, btw, whether you start from raw milk or pasteurized has little bearing on the shelf life of cheese.


----------



## mrchris (Mar 18, 2010)

I don't have any of this data for you and I live in Canada so things may be different here but I can assure you that there is nothing arbitrary about those particular laws.  They're meant to protect the general masses and do a fine job in my opinion.  Certainly millions of Europeans and Americans enjoy unpasteurized cheese, I'm one of them, but that doesn't mean it's not safer to eat cheese that's made with pasteurized milk.  It's all about where you get your milk and how it's handled.

Back on the topic: I agree with PrivateChef and Gunnar, I think that the Organic thing is getting to be a bit of a sham.  Buy local, buy in season, buy from people you know.  If you don't know some farmers then just drive up to one and ask to tour they're farm, they'll probably be more than happy to make time.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_I don't have any of this data for you and I live in Canada so things may be different here but I can assure you that there is nothing arbitrary about those particular laws._

I'm sorry, MrChris, but if you haven't any data than there's no way you can assure me of anything. How do you know, if you lack the facts? You're merely taking somebody else's word for it.

Keep in mind that agencies of any government have one top priority: to assure the continuence (and, if possible, growth) of that agency. And if you think that doesn't include arbitrary and non-scienific decisions that require enforcement and compliance staffs, you're living in a different world than the rest of us.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> ...Keep in mind that agencies of any government have one top priority: to assure the continuence (and, if possible, growth) of that agency....


And a second, or maybe a corollary, "Do no wrong", which leads to "Do nothing, that way no mistakes will be made". /img/vbsmilies/smilies/crazy.gif


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Don't know if I buy into that, Pete. Unfortunately, they do do lots of things, many of them flat wrong. After all, somebody is issuing all those standards, protocols, and advisories.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> Don't know if I buy into that, Pete. Unfortunately, they do do lots of things, many of them flat wrong. After all, somebody is issuing all those standards, protocols, and advisories.


Ah, but try as you might, you will NEVER find anyone in government that will admit creating those standards, protocols, and advisories. It is always "somebody else"! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/crazy.gif


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Ahhh, Pete. We're not in disagreement. Just talking about slightly different things, bureacrats vs  bureacracies.  

First rule of a bureacracy: Perpetuate itself.

First rule of a bureacrat: Don't get caught.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

KYHeirloomer said:


> Ahhh, Pete. We're not in disagreement. Just talking about slightly different things, bureacrats vs bureacracies.
> 
> First rule of a bureacracy: Perpetuate itself.
> 
> First rule of a bureacrat: Don't get caught.


Yup, that is PRECISELY what I was attempting to say...


----------



## gypsy2727 (Mar 9, 2010)

Well

         I agree and did not like the comment about dred-locks

Not that I have them ....but who cares?

I hear ya KWilkinson


----------



## enrico (Jun 2, 2010)

KY- You said:

There is nothing inherently dangerous about drinking milk straight from the cow---otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago".

First, one of the reasons for the invention of pastuerization is indeed to slow the growth of microbes within the product. So indeed it does keep milk from turning, but only on a limited time frame. Pastuerization was invented for this purpose. because of the lack of refrigerations at the time. Still, it serves a purpose in keeping an ever growing and quite large populations safe.

This touches on a point you made about people surviving for 9000+ years without all of this. Yet alot of these techniques were developed specifically for this reason alone: To keep the generaly public safer than before. Now in 1900, after the invention of pasteurization, the death rate in America was around 46! Obviously pasteurization didn't put the current life expectancy to 76 on it's own but you would be insane to say it hasn't prevented the death of quite a few kids out there who could have easily died from food poisoning and the same with the elderly. Milk doesn't have to be completely rotten to make someone sick. Nor does any other food.

Drinking raw milk versus pasteurized is the same principle of eating a rare hamburger to well done. You can go ahead and have that rare burger but you are taking risks, risks that in restaurants you must remind to your customers. You can eat it but it isn't as safe as eating the well done. I certainly wouldn't let my 8 year old nephew have a rare burger at a restaurant, would you? I say this because he is not old enough to weigh the risk with his desire and the fact that food poisoning is more deadly among the young and elderly
 

Of course advances in science and medicine are great but so is healthy living and our increasing awareness, I concur. But you can't say that modern food safey hasn't helped to prolong the lives of millions if not billions of people in the last one hundred years, from 1.6 billion to 6.8 billion. People say that all the things we do to the food are killing us, yet here we are quadrupling the population in 100 years and living almost as twice as long. Has anyone stopped to think the rise in cancer goes with the fact that we are just plain and straight out living longer?

My point: you ask someone from 125 years ago if they would like to live to 76 or 45 and I'll bet you anything they'll take the former. Don't tell me people did just fine back then. Conditions were horrible, even in cilized and advanced cultures.

And where do you get the "infant mortality was not as widespread" thing? I'm curious since data is spotty at best for that.

The bad teeth thing is actually from the fact that poor flossing allows bacteria to grow in the gums and get into the blood stream which actually can "plaque" and block the arteries...causing heart attacks. Talked to a doctor about it once, bad teeth are a good sign of heart disease.

But again in the end it is choice. Have your organic and have your raw milk but don't force it. Let there always be a choice. I think we can all agree on that.

Thank you for your time,

Enrico


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Enrico, thank you for your post. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what the point is, as much of it seems to be both contradictory and accusatory.

Let's get the accusations out of the way. At no place did I say I was against pasteurization or any other food safety technique. Any of my "anti" statements are directed against overzealous government agencies who promulgate rules and regulations based on the desire to protect me whether or not I need such protection, and doing it with claims that may or may not be bogus.

Pasteurization is a technique that destroys micro-organisms and retards their growth. As such, it is, essentially, a preservation technique---something designed to make milk last longer. You know, like cheese. With one possible exception, milk straight from the cow (i.e. raw milk) is just as healthy as pasteurized.

The open question is this: What effect does refrigeration have on raw milk? Refrigeration is also a short-term preservation method. The only difference between it and pasteurization is that it lacks the initial kill microbial kill off. So, if raw milk is refrigerated, how long does it remain safe? Just guessing, I would say not as long as pasteurized, but certainly longer than USDA suggests.

_Now in 1900, after the invention of pasteurization, the death rate in America was around 46! _

I'm sorry, is part of this contention missing? Then, as now, the death rate in America, as in everywhere else in the world, is 100%. Any lower figure has to include a casual statement, such as "the death rate from eating worms is 12."

"Death rate," as a statistic, means that as a result of certain causative activities, X number out of 1,000 will die.

_But you can't say that modern food safey hasn't helped to prolong the lives of millions if not billions of people in the last one hundred years_

I'd really like to know whose posts you're reading under my name. I never even implied such a thing, let alone said it.

_People say that all the things we do to the food are killing us, yet here we are quadrupling the population in 100 years and living almost as twice as long. _

You seem to be ignoring one salient point: Yes we are living longer. But that's because medical treatment has progressed. It's not that we are healthier. It's that many of the things we suffer from weren't treatable formerly. So we now recover from illnessess that used to kill us.

Don't confuse good medical care with being healthy. They are not the same things.

_Has anyone stopped to think the rise in cancer goes with the fact that we are just plain and straight out living longer?_

That's certainly partially true. But there are other factors involved as well, such as awareness. It's like all the social problems we face every day. Are there really more child molesters out there today? Or are we just more aware of them?.

One of the factors is diagnosis. Think of all the people in the 19th century who died of "consumption." What, exactly, was their problem? TB? Lung cancer? Chronic bronchitis? Other persistent respiratory diseases?

Add to that population growth. It's quite concievable, for instance, that the cancer rate has remained steady. But, because there are so many more of us, the raw number of sufferers is so great that it's hard to ignore.

_But again in the end it is choice. Have your organic and have your raw milk but don't force it. Let there always be a choice._

With that I agree. But the point is, USDA, FDA and other government agencies do not want us to have that choice. And they accomplish their goal through capricious regulations.


----------



## mrchris (Mar 18, 2010)

I was wrong.  I truly thought that there was evidence backing up the 60 day rule but after making a few calls I eventually ended up talking to a dairy microbiologist and he told me that the date is arbitrary.  He went on to talk about the risks involved with using raw milk for cheese making.  I guess it all depends on how it's made.  Also, the province of Quebec passed a bill earlier this year that will allow artisanal cheese makers to produce and sell cheese ripened less than 60 days and made from raw milk.  The requirements on these farms are very strict, as they should be.  It's a big first for North America.  Only thing is that the sale of raw milk is still completely banned in Canada whereas in the USA there are many states that allow it.  Most people around where I live buy into cooperatives so that they are owners of the cows and therefore can "buy" the raw milk but it's a controversial practice and is under scrutiny from the feds.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Thank you MrChris. It's incredibly refreshing for somebody to admit having been in error. Most people won't.

_He went on to talk about the risks involved with using raw milk for cheese making. _

Risks? Of course there are risks. There are risks getting out of bed in the morning.

The question, always, is how significant the risk is, and the sort of reaction to that risk.

You know that most household accidents happen in the bath? I forget the exact figure, but its relatively high; 25-30 percent, something like that.

If we apply federal regulatory thinking to that problem, the solution is simple. We should all stop taking showers. That would eliminate a quarter of the accidents that happen at home. And if we refuse to comply with that recommendation, well, we'll just have Congress make it a law.

Sounds ludicrous, when put that way. But no more ridiculous than an arbritrary cut-off for how long it takes for raw-milk cheese to become "safe." Meanwhile, if we are to believe the regulators and some food scientists, they must be dropping like flies all over Europe after eating all that raw-milk cheese.

To really see how it works, just look at canning & preserving recommendations and regulations. Many of them are nonsense, and are based not on testing and evaluating, but on the idea that something _might _be dangerous, despite zero or low levels of evidence that it is.

USDA, for just one example, recommends against the "unsafe" practice of sealing sugar preserves with wax. We are the only country in the world that takes that approach.

When you examine it, turns out that there's nothing dangerous at all about using wax seals correctly. But our paternalistic gubmint just assumes you and I are too stupid to take reasonable precautions, and are going to do it wrong, and kill or sicken ourselves in the process.

What's really ironic is that the spoilage mechanism with sugar preserves is mold. So, even if you do do it wrong, the problem is self-evident. In short, it is, in practical terms, risk free.

An even better example: Take a look at the reasons why USDA recommends the addition of lemon juice or ascorbic acid to canned tomato products. I mean look at the entire rationale, and what was or was not tested. Then ask yourself if you can have any confidence in any conclusions reached by that agency.

Think about all the food recalls of the past few years. And then tell yourself that USDA, FDA, and its Canadian analogs are the ones who are protecting us from the dangers of unsafe food.

Yeah, right!

Something else to consider is that many regulations and protocols are established not based on actual threats, but on the fact that our ability to measure nothing gets better every day.

I used to edit Package Engineering magazine. As you can imagine, food packaging, and its relationship to food, was a big part of what we covered.

When I started witht the magazine, parts per million were the accepted small measurement. When I left, parts per billion were coming on strong. Now we blithly toss out measurements in parts per trillion.

Often, far too often, protocols are established not on the experimentally proved level of risk, but on the fact that because we can measure that small we will. And if we contend that higher levels are unsafe, people have to recourse but to obey us. Cuz, after all, we're from the gubmint, and we know what's good for people.


----------



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

Dear KWilkinson,

If you read through the other posts refuting my claims (which is what is so enjoyable and educational about this site) most of them are done in a respectable fashion. Take Heirloom for example. He disagrees often and backs up his argument with what he believes to be his facts. The "ignorant" statement is uncalled for. I was referring to mass-produced cheeses. The ones that are most often consumed by the masses often young children. The cheeses you mentioned are Artisan type cheeses that are most often eaten by people with refined palates and understand the process. One of the other posts mentioned, in regards to unpasteurized food, that there is a risk and adults need to weigh these risks. The kid I saw in a whole foods store was trying to convince a woman to give her baby a sample.

I joined this site a few months ago. Because I am a private chef I work alone. No colleagues to bounce ideas off of. Just the internet and as many magazines I can read. This is a topic I am very interested and wanted to hear as many sides as possible. I new if I put it out there it would be extremely controversial and would extract many views for me to ponder over. To this date there are 776 visits. If that's ignorant than I am guilty.

Regards,

The Private Chef


----------



## raspberryroll (Jun 6, 2010)

Organic is better for the environment, what are you talking about?

Those pesticides that are used are linked to Parkinson's, Cancer, Asthma, ADD/ADHD, dimentia, and a whole list of others,

and they are turning male frogs into females,

They alter the plant's genetic make-up, causing it to lose its immunity to diseases, bugs, pollens, etc., which makes it less healthy for us

Plants are also bread for size and color, rather than taste and nutrition, some organic farmers practice this, but most don't, so organic does taste better, and is healthier. Some organics are sold from big buisness, true, but many aren't also.

Now, don't even get me started on inorganic animal products. those are about 50 times worse, both for the environment and our health.


----------



## joshua47 (Apr 24, 2010)

Hey, I like my genetically modified corn for my genetically modified cornmeal. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/licklips.gif



RaspberryRoll said:


> Organic is better for the environment, what are you talking about?
> 
> Those pesticides that are used are linked to Parkinson's, Cancer, Asthma, ADD/ADHD, dimentia, and a whole list of others,
> 
> ...


----------



## theprivatechef (Mar 19, 2010)

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. In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce. According to the Center for Global Food Issues, organic foods make up about 1% of all the food sold in the United States, but it accounts for 8% of E. coli cases.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

I think Raspberry's comment was also about the pesticides.

We may or may not taste the difference between organic and non, GMO and non GMO,  but I sure would love to not have to eat pesticides.


----------



## gunnar (Apr 3, 2008)

Dear oak  , ash and thorn,..., what the "insert every swear word you ever heard from every bad relative, here".  Do not tell me that corporate ways are better ..I won' t believe it.  It took special dispensation to even form the first corporation in America and at that, it used to be charged to donate a certain amount to the public good and honestly be beneficial to society.. If you knew  1/10 of Monsanto's actions you would be out with a blowtorch burning every last crop they were developing. Those dirty , rotten so and so's are hiding behind every legal loophole they can find and suing honest farmers left, right , front and center. It's really (IMO)  the devil incarnate.  seeds that produce plants that don't propagate themselves and getting sued for airplanes that seed your property without your say so? and then make your crop a hybrid that doesn't seed? y'know some people may be ********, some be blue's fans, some are "city" folk...some might be geeks.....but when we run out of food cause "plants just don't seed properly"  we will all be farmer's again....angry.... hungry.. farmers.

edit : ok.... I have had a couple of drinks..or more....doesn't mean I'm wrong (doesn't mean i am right) but if you can google at all, look at Monsanto and their abominable practices. How people work there and take a paycheck I wouldn't know.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_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._

Private Chef, I don't think this is quite what you're trying to say. In point of fact, environmental conditions can and do effect how a plant grows, and its chemical make-up. Plus, the use of synthetics contributes to a greater mutation rate, which means one could make a case that one method does affect the genetic makeup.

BTW, just to be technically correct, you don't mean "strain." Stains are, by definition, different. What you mean, with vegetables, is "variety," or, with ornamentals, "cultivar." A deeper explanation is out of place, here. But if you want, PM me and I'll explain the difference between varieties, strains, and lines.

What you're trying to say, I think, is that if you grow the same variety in two patches, one organically and one using synthetics, the two will be essentially the same, all other things being equal. And in that you'd be correct---so far as the biomass, including the fruit, is concerned.

Something many on this thread seem to be overlooking is that, excluding the factory farms, we do not grow organically for the sake of the plants, but for the sake of the ground. A basic axiom among true organic growers is: if you want to grow good plants, just grow good soil. The plants will take care of themselves.

If you examine the soil of the monocultural factory farms it is all but sterile. There is little if any life to it, and it is saturated with nonbeneficial and potentially harmful salts. They have to keep dumping "chemicals" on it, cuz that's the only way they can get crops to grow.

Examine the soil of an organic farm, and you find something teaming with life. The soil is full of worms, and beneficial molds, and what we call the micro-herd. Above ground are beneficial insects, such as predatory wasps.

_In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce. _

Significantly, these were the result of practices used by the organics divisions of factory farms, not from the small, diverse, organic growers.

_A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis. _

Although this overstates the case somewhat, it is, essentially, correct. But, again, it assumes factors outside the food distribution system. And we ignore those at our peril.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

_We may or may not taste the difference between organic and non, GMO and non GMO, but I sure would love to not have to eat pesticides._

Kuan, nothing against the point you're trying to make; God knows I agree with it. But there's a danger with comments like this in that they confuse issues.

Organic vs synthetic chemicals is one issue.

Open pollinated vs hybrid is another issue.

GMOs (i.e., frankenfoods) is another issue still.

Certainly there is some overlap and inter-relatedness among them. But the problems, concerns, and controversies about them really should be kept discrete.

For instance, there is no reason why you cannot grow GMOs organically. Sure, in many cases Monsanto might refuse to sell you more seed if you did. But that first year the plants wouldn't care. And, in the cases where further chemical additions aren't necessary (such as any of the Bt-(plant) products), Monsanto wouldn't care at all.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

kuan said:


> I think Raspberry's comment was also about the pesticides.
> 
> We may or may not taste the difference between organic and non, GMO and non GMO, but I sure would love to not have to eat pesticides.


Then simply WASH your produce!

As an Agricultural Engineer, I am confident that a great majority of agricultural producers or packers DO wash their products and, IMHO, a great majority of "pesticides" do not act "systemically", i.e. enter the plant product we eat.

Remember, nicotine is a standard "organic pesticide", among others and you need to wash it away.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

PeteMcCracken said:


> Then simply WASH your produce!
> 
> As an Agricultural Engineer, I am confident that a great majority of agricultural producers or packers DO wash their products and, IMHO, a great majority of "pesticides" do not act "systemically", i.e. enter the plant product we eat.
> 
> Remember, nicotine is a standard "organic pesticide", among others and you need to wash it away.


The pesticides in the ground water don't go up through the roots and stem into the fruit?


----------

