Organic Food Is Healthier, Tastier, Better For Environment: WSU Study

Grist:

Does growing food organically really matter? Supporters of conventional agriculture say that organic farming is little more than a fad -- and that organic produce lightens consumers' wallets for no tangible benefits. And unfortunately, since agro-ecosystems are so complex, scientists have had a hard time cutting through the haze of claims and counter-claims.

Until now: "Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems," a study led by Washington State University Regents professor of soil science John Reganold, is one of the most comprehensive, persuasive studies yet to show the nutritional and environmental benefits of organic farming.

Read the whole story: Grist

Comments

[benwha]

12:10 AM on 09/10/2010

Sorry mothergrace deserves a shout too, she is another reasonable voice

[benwha]

12:09 AM on 09/10/2010

Funny how slowly but surely the ignorant and unreasonable posters on here disappeared. All that is left is the real farmers like goldfinger, hazel and grumpy, educated posters like neutralino and whatevah and those willing to try to understand both sides of the issue like henrydavid and techcafe. This was a good thread all, huffpost wouldn't even dream of starting a twosided debate on this topic so we had to pick up the slack. cheers.

[zymos]

10:17 AM on 09/11/2010

Even someone like me who enjoys arguing on the internet is going to eventually move on to another thread.

Doesn't mean you won....! :-)

[benwha]

01:15 PM on 09/11/2010

Of course you are one of the good ones and deserve a shout out too!

When's the next monsanto hit piece gonna get here?! I am getting bored!

[farmilyman]

04:25 AM on 09/09/2010

Refined Foods are Bad, But These May Be Far Worse

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/01/refined-foods-are-bad-but-these-may-be-far-worse.aspx

[sgt]

08:24 PM on 09/08/2010

Maybe so, but there's a problem...it's too expensive...for me, for sure...and for most of the people I know. Guess the rest of us will just have to be 'unhealthy'!

[HenryDavid]

08:40 PM on 09/08/2010

You made a very good point, and I know many people feel the same way. I really can't afford much organic produce other than what I grow.

It seems to me that the prices are coming down (relatively) as more people purchase organic. And, the organic produce in the commercial stores seems fresher now. In the past, it wasn't commonly purchased and therefore stayed on the shelf longer.

Flash frozen vegetables can be richer in nutrients than organic produce which has been on the shelf too long.

[Soule23]

11:59 AM on 09/08/2010

If organic food is so much better than conventional food, why does it rely on bashing conventionally produced food for market share? The lack of knowledge about agriculture in the general public never ceases to amaze me--the organic/conventional thing is far more complex than huffpost and grist would have you believe. We have a medium-sized conventional tree fruit farm and an organic CSA. When we run into problems with bugs, we spray both with noxious chemicals that come in plastic jugs--the only differences in the contents of the jugs are price and origin (natural/synthetic). Moreover, it is entirely possible for a conventional farmer to be environmentally conscious and an organic farmer to be less so.

[HazelPethigFan]

12:47 PM on 09/08/2010

Good post.

[goldfarmer]

09:11 PM on 09/08/2010

Agreed.
Food consumers need to understand that.
That's why we're here right?

faved.

[techcafe]

11:22 AM on 09/08/2010

when my grandparents were farmers, they weren't concerned about 'commodity' futures, stock exchanges, petrochemical fertilizers or RoundUp Ready Seeds™

my grandma & grandpa farmed - holistically - to FEED people natural & nutritious food.

if some parasitic company like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, et al came calling... my grandmother likely would have run them right off the farm, and probably with a shotgun.

btw, any thoughts on this "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic?

"Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging deeper behind the rocks. When we do, we find some fascinating things."

"The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of 'genetic purity' through agriculture change."

cont...
---
read more:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article162545.html

[grumpyfarmer]

01:05 PM on 09/08/2010

When were your grandparents farmers?

Monsanto never came calling, I eagerly awaited the first Roundup Ready soybeans, and was very happy to be able to buy 22 bags(they were in short supply, 22 sacks was all I could get). I planted them in the weediest hell hole of a field I could find. Beans came up, weeds came up, sprayed once with roundup, no more weeds. I'll tell you, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. No more Butyrac, no more Blazer/Basgran and the resulting "fried bean" syndrome. No more worrying like crazy when you got into a wet spell and couldn't get on your fields because Roundup was going to kill that weed whether it was 2 inches or 2 feet tall. A month of wet weather? No problem, you could kill the weeds once it got dry.

If you think GMO is dangerous, your beef is with the FDA. Monsanto produced a product farmers wanted, they didn't push it on us.

Want to talk Bt? Bt came along, no more Furadan for root worms. You think Roundup is nasty? Try a little Furadan.

It is a fact that no one that hates Monsanto wants to talk about, GM crops LESSEN the amount of chemicals used, they do not increase them.

[HenryDavid]

03:09 PM on 09/08/2010

In the second quarter of 2010, the Gates Foundation purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto. So, they're all hanging out together.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21496.cfm

[HenryDavid]

10:41 AM on 09/08/2010

"grumpy"

As a farmer, you have a unique opportunity to share with the rest of us what the day-to-day struggles are which all farmers face. Some helpful info for us would be:

1. How many acres do you have planted?

2. Which crops do you raise and how many acres do you have in each crop?

3. Do you use a lot of Round-up?

4. Do you use all Monsanto seeds for your crops?

5. What are the stipulations of your contract with Monsanto?

6. What penalties do you face if some of your seeds end up growing in a neighbor's farm?

7. What penalties does your neighboring farmer face?

8. Will Monsanto take him (or her) to court?

9. If you were advising a young farmer, would you advise him to choose "the Monsanto way."

10. Do you consider Monsanto to be a fair and noble partner in agriculture?

The answer to these questions would help the rest of us understand your position. It would help us understand the depth of your commitment to them.

[HazelPethigFan]

12:34 PM on 09/08/2010

Monsanto Way? Does that cross Santa Monica Blvd?

[grumpyfarmer]

01:14 PM on 09/08/2010

1) Most of my land is grass, 800 is in crops.
2)Typical year, 100 wheat, 80 alfalfa, 400 soybeans, 220 corn. Often doublecrop soybeans after the wheat, adding another 100 acres of soybeans. I also plant rye/turnips after corn to graze cattle on in the winter, maybe 150 acres.
3)Define "a lot" of Roundup. I use a quart and a half an acre.
4) Soybeans and corn are not necessarily from Monsanto, but they carry the RR trait.
5) The only stipulation is I do not save seed from RR varieties for replant
6)?? I am not sure how my seeds would end up growing on a neighbors farm. Since all of my neighbors also plant RR seed, I don't even know how we would tell.
7) See above
8)They never have......not sure what you mean.
9) Unless someone stands to inherit a large farm free and clear, I would never advise a young person to farm. The risks associated with high priced land and machinery coupled with a government that is against us and a population that is at best indifferent make me believe farming is a very poor choice for a young person today, unless they are set financially.
10) I consider my wife to be a fair and noble partner. All other vendors are just that, vendors out to make money from me.

[goldfarmer]

08:25 PM on 09/08/2010

Like I could fan you again?

[benwha]

08:41 PM on 09/08/2010

This is a great post grumpy, you represent farmers well. I wish I could express myself this good.

[grumpyfarmer]

12:56 AM on 09/08/2010

You know, just because someone farms conventionally that doesn't make them against organic farming, any more than the fact I farm with a tractor makes me anti-horse. If you use Monsanto products, that doesn't make you a "Monsanto troll" either, and if you are trying to make a living farming, you shouldn't have to feel bad for being a "profiteer".

I am perhaps misusing this term, but I feel Huff Post's approach to food and farming is schizophrenic. If you dig through this thread you will find a couple posters telling us if we would just quit eating meat we could all farm organic and raise enough food for everyone, but another poster tells us a combination of chicken and goat manure is the perfect organic fertilizer. It probably is, but already I see two problems, one, if nobody eats meat there isn't going to be much chicken and goat poop to use for fertilizer on organic farms and two, there aren't enough goats in the USA to produce poop to fertilize half of Iowa, let alone all the farmland in the nation, and I am pretty sure there aren't enough chickens either.

There also seems to be the feeling farmers wake up in the morning with the idea, "lets see how much chemical we can dump on the ground today". That isn't true at all. Dumping chemical= dumping money, and few of us can afford to waste money.

[HenryDavid]

01:33 AM on 09/08/2010

"You know, just because someone farms conventionally that doesn't make them against organic farming..."

I understand that. I imagine farmers who depend on it for their livelihood are always looking for alternatives. I believe American farmers were railroaded into chemicals...starting about 65 years ago.

As for the chicken and goat issue, I might add that being organic does not make someone a vegetarian. I belong to the Indiana Organic Growers Association, and there's quite an assortment of different people in it....with different tastes. The one thing all members agree on is using the organic method. For people just starting in that direction, we try to help them wean off the chemicals.

We have one couple in the group who raise organic beef, and they have a smokehouse and all that. This fellow is a pathologist for his livelihood, and the organic beef is a sideline for him. He and his wife have lived the organic lifestyle for 35 or 40 years.

Time for me to sleep.

[goldfarmer]

02:55 AM on 09/08/2010

I admit that I think Organic is a better way, but I will still slowly help convert the rest of my family's land to Organic practices only when it's kinks are worked out in my own field, and, if there's enough market to sell the product. Many organic farmers with acreage amounts considered "farm" scale, also have conventional crops on other parcels. They'd probably love to convert those parcels eventually, but can't do it if the market can't sell the extra organic produced. In our non-Certified parcels, we keep our round-up sprays to the bare minimum, spotting only on Johnson & bermuda grass, and bindweed/morning glory. There is an organic herbicide made from lemon grass oil, that works... on everything other than the most aggressive & nasty perennials with clumpy roots. And it costs 4 to 5 times more to apply than round-up.

I see a lot of conventional guys around me spreading compost/manure, using Organic IPM techniques, dusting with naturally based sulfur. Just like the Organic guys. And we've been incredibly lucky with pest outbreaks. The last time we really had to use any pesticide was for army worms in a silage corn field 4 years ago.

Organic and Conventional have a majority of things in common. It really bugs me how the media likes to frame the two methods up as adversaries.

If anything is dumped, growers usually bitch and complain about it. Real farmers know the value of a buck.

[benwha]

06:32 AM on 09/08/2010

Which comes back to grumpy and I's point we made earlier, rarely do you see an organic farmer on here go after a conventional farmer. We understand what it means to farm one way or the other. Good luck with your harvest this year. Stay safe.

[grumpyfarmer]

08:07 AM on 09/08/2010

Yet another thing we have in common, Johnsongrass.

[farmilyman]

12:19 AM on 09/08/2010

GM Food... Feeding the Hungry or Population Control?

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april262010/gm-food-as.php

[HenryDavid]

11:14 PM on 09/07/2010

Our strawberries have been great this year, and thank God for the bees which have pollinated them.

A side note on terminology--I notice that "organic" is changing more to "sustainable" these days, but I believe they stand on the same principle.

I'm an organic (sustainable) grower. I have a large garden. Among other vegetables, I had about 80 tomato plants this year (a dozen varieties). My family eats well with fresh produce during the season, and I cook and freeze a lot for the winter.

I also sell a portion of my vegetables to one of the local health food stores (in order to pay material expenses for the garden). The store is very happy to get them as the vegetables are tasty, nutritious, and fresh. I use no herbicides, no pesticides, no fungicides, and no synthetic fertilizers. In terms of soil nutrients, I use natural products and make sure to apply some kelp for the necessary trace minerals.

One of the principles in organic/sustainable growing is to feed the soil, not the plants. I still feed the plants with side dressings during the season, but principally I feed the soil...and watch a lot of happy earthworms do their thing.

I haven't seen one good report about GMOs. They are produced by chemical companies, and that should be enough to tell you something. GMOs--from the folks who gave us Agent Orange.

[benwha]

11:26 PM on 09/07/2010

We have a large strawberry patch on our farm and it is doing well too. The weather has been great for them. So tasty.

[grumpyfarmer]

12:39 AM on 09/08/2010

So, you make your living from this?

[HenryDavid]

01:06 AM on 09/08/2010

No, you can't make a living from a garden.

Growing healthy vegetables is an extra job for me. I've committed three hours a day to it for the five months of our growing season. It's worth it for my family's health and mine and sharing with other people. When I sell part of my crop, it's a win-win-win-win situation. It benefits me, the store that buys my vegetables, their customers, and society at large by having healthier people.

I know a number of organic farmers though. One friend who comes to mind is a farmer in northern Indiana. He retired a few years ago...a pioneer in organics here...all soybeans. He has 165 acres and dove into organic farming completely in 1962 after having farmed like his neighbors (chemically) for a few years. Each year Orville sold his entire crop to the Japanese as soon as it was harvested. They know the value of good food. And the neighboring farms learned year after year that Orville had taken the most productive road. I don't think I ever met a stronger man. He never regretted his choice to go organic.

[HazelPethigFan]

10:52 PM on 09/07/2010

Since many aren't going to listen to farmers, how about the view of a political science professor:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/food_fight_round_1/

""Paarlberg writes that the organic community’s wishes for farmers to abandon the use of synthetic chemicals, would force farmers to use not only more labor but also much more land. Such a change would, in effect, push “them back into 19th century practices.” He dismisses such “all-natural” approaches as the products of romanticized views of old agrarian lifestyles. He points out that Europe and America have largely rejected “organic dogmas,” which is precisely why they have enough food. Africa, on the other hand, has a de-facto organic system—local, low-input, and slow. You can judge for yourself how that is working out."

[HenryDavid]

12:11 AM on 09/08/2010

"....view of a political science professor."

Oh, really. That's like having ronald reagan explain agriculture to us. Monsanto has bought a lot of people.

Africa is about to be scr*wed big time. Monsanto concerned about Africa's hunger? Sure, you'll get a lot of people to believe that, uh huh.

Not one positive thing has been proven about GMOs except that the plants can tolerate a lot more herbicides without dying. And that is not a positive thing for humans forced to eat the results.

[grumpyfarmer]

01:19 AM on 09/08/2010

Surely you jest. Are you trying to tell me that returning to the way our great grandfathers farmed has a downside? Are you trying to convince me we would also return to their yields? Are you claiming that hand weeding is going to require more menial labor(and menial laborers)? I don't believe a word of it.

[HazelPethigFan]

11:46 AM on 09/08/2010

Hahaha!

Actually, I saw on the NYTimes acouple weeks ago a picture of some guy harvesting speciality wheat for some type of super expensive whole grain bread for the yuppies. He was using a hand scythe. My sarcastic thought was "darn that Cyrus Hall McCormick guy for giving us the McCormick reaper to eliminate menial labor" That was what year?...1830? .

The NYT made no mention of this type of labor was extremely old fashioned to the level of being absurd and obvious schtick. Even shocks, threshers and steam engines are too modern for these people?

Let's send all the farm romantics out in a 80 acre wheat field with a hand scythe on a hot August day . That should take care of their romanticism in about 2 hours (maybe even less).

[HenryDavid]

10:49 PM on 09/07/2010

Last month I went to the Indiana State Fair. I spoke with agricultural workers, livestock producers, and some beekeepers.

Regarding the strawberry issue, one beekeeper told me how bees used in pollination have greatly increased the size of the strawberries without losing the quality of the berries. Bees do great things for us.

I asked about the problem of so many bees dying during the past two decades. It's been a puzzle. One school of thought (source unknown) was that it involved a mite caught in the bee's throat.

I asked a beekeeper if GMOs were a problem for the bees. He said, "One bad example we've seen so far has been tested and proven by the ag. dept of Purdue University. The GMO corn was produced to repel the corn borer worm. It did this efficiently. But after season, the corn was tilled into the ground, and the gene was in turn incorporated into the dormant wild flower seeds. A lot of dead bees were found around this area when they took pollen from the wildflowers the next season. Purdue collected a lot of the dead bees and put them through gas chromatography. That's how they traced the bee's death to the GMOs." It's a tragedy--we're killing nature and ending up with high fructose corn syrup which in turn contributes to so much of America's obesity and diabetes.

Quick profits for the corps. and long-term disease problems for humans.

[HazelPethigFan]

11:30 PM on 09/07/2010

"But after season, the corn was tilled into the ground, and the gene was in turn incorporated into the dormant wild flower seeds"

How are you claiming genes from corn get into wild flower seeds? Are you claiming corn breeds with wild flowers? hmmmmmmmmmmm...... well that's certainly interesting if that's your claim.

this means we have.....Frankencorndaisies (insert dramatic music here)

[HenryDavid]

12:35 AM on 09/08/2010

"Frankencorndaisies"

No, just Franken-soil...courtesy of GMO bt corn plants. All seeds are affected by what's in the soil.

The beekeeper followed this pretty closely as his livelihood depends on it. Also, Purdue University has some pretty good agricultural scientists. However, if you and the other Monsanto staff promise that Monsanto is only looking out for our interests, then I guess we should trust you...uh huh.

[grumpyfarmer]

01:23 AM on 09/08/2010

It isn't totally relevant, but I have learned in the last few weeks PETA is against beekeeping. Just another sign how far out of the loop they are.

No doubt the bees just aren't there like they use to be, and the beekeeper I know is having big problems keeping his colonies. There is a mite problem. I can however see how there is a chance Bt corn could be involved, although I have rarely seen honeybees on corn that is pollinating.

[tresluv]

04:46 AM on 09/08/2010

MODS: Since this "not totally relevant" comment wasn't deleted, please do not delete my *reply* again.

Below is a link to PETA's "about us" page. I entered "beekeeping" into the Search box, and it came up with NO MATCHES. So please provide documentation for your claim, because apparently it is inaccurate, an issue not even on PETA's radar.

Total relevancy aside, the issue here is making unsubstantiated claims meant to discredit commentator's who have an interest in animal welfare.

http://www.peta.org/about/

[techcafe]

09:26 PM on 09/07/2010

let's see if this gets flagged/removed...

GrumpyFarmer, it's not my intention to demonize_you. fact is, i have enormous respect for hard_working farmers who bring us our food, which is primarily why this issue is so important to me. i want you to be able to earn a good living, while providing our local communities with nutritious food (that is non-GMO, patent-free, non-terminating and not contaminated with broad spectrum chemical_poisons) - rather than making biotech profiteers, shareholders and futures marketeers filthy_rich at the expense of human health and environmental degradation.

please believe me, grumpy, i am on your side (assuming you are an actual farmer).

me, i'm not a farmer (obviously), but my grandparents were, and what i see today... with biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, et al, imposing and cross-contaminating their Terminator™_technologies + poisonous chemicals on farmers who'd otherwise be shut-down if they refuse to do business with these multinational profiteers, makes me mad as_hell.

this is OUR FOOD we're talking about - we cannot allow what are essentially 'chemical companies' to patent staple crops and other LIFE forms - strictly for private profit - that is not ethical, it's_immoral. Monsanto is in this business solely to make money, and lots of it (billions in fact); they are not modifying plant genetics out of the goodness of their hearts, nor to 'feed hungry people' - their business is solely devoted to concocting patents-for-profit. and i think you know this.

[techcafe]

09:29 PM on 09/07/2010

MODERATOR - please don't delete this AGAIN!

[nsewing]

09:51 PM on 09/07/2010

Techcafe, I don't understand why your post was previously deleted. It is every person's right to have access to clean food. GMO is an abomination. F&F.

[grumpyfarmer]

10:20 PM on 09/07/2010

I actually read this post earlier, I have no idea why the mods didn't allow it, but, the mods kill my posts regularly too, so don't feel bad.

[mothergrace]

05:54 PM on 09/07/2010

You can naysay it if you will but the fact is that whatever any other crops use, methyl bromide depletes stratospheric ozone. Unfortunately, in California, methyl iodide is on the brink of approval despite its side effects, but because it does not have an impact on the ozone, these other problems are going to be ignored for now. Maybe later, when the health effects become too obvious to ignore, (it is a neurotoxin among other things), methyl iodide will be addressed but for now, I am going organic with strawberries.

As far as pesticides and herbicides are concerned in general, each should be evaluated for all of its uses and effects at every step of the way. And waste must be eliminated because there is no point to wasting anything and using the least practical amount helps everything.

Certain "soft" synthetics, for instance, breakdown more quickly or require fewer applications than some organic pesticides. On a case by case basis, these certainly could be the better choice.

[Lucas Ventura]

05:19 PM on 09/07/2010

An important point of whether organic or conventionally grown fruits and vegetables are healthier is the actual content of soil. Let's use the trace mineral selenium as an example. Selenium is found typically from plant sources, yet it is only present in plants when it is present in soil.
Most conventional agricultural plots become depleted in trace minerals as the topsoil is eroded, but not replaced. Trace minerals like selenium cease to be present, and are not reestablished in the soil by inorganic fertilizers that are composed primarily of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Though, this can even be true in organic agricultural practices. Unfortunately the argument of organic vs. conventional is not so simply black & white. But to put it simply- just as we are what we eat, our food is what it eats.
One of the most important resources to agrarian society is our topsoil. While I realize the point I am now making has no bearing on the taste of food, and less about nutrients in food, I make it because it's a point that seems to go missing in the debates on organic and conventional foods. Topsoil is as valuable to us as clean water and energy. Without it, food production diminishes and becomes extremely difficult. Combined with global warming, our children may find themselves living in a new Sahara.
Soil quality is not just important for the quality of the food we eat, it is also a matter of sustainability.

[cable1977]

06:51 PM on 09/07/2010

But it is also important to remember that sustainable is not synonymous with organic. Organic practices are quite varied in their requirements and may or may not be as sustainable as conventional practices. I think it is important to remember that one could have more conventionally farmed products, but farmed in a more sustainable fashion. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that one much choose one versus the other, when a combination of the positive traits of both could be even more beneficial.

[HenryDavid]

10:28 PM on 09/07/2010

"Trace minerals like selenium cease to be present, and are not reestablished in the soil by inorganic fertilizers that are composed primarily of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. "

Absolutely right. The major nutrients N-P-K (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) in the bulk of today's farming are pumped into the soil, but the trace minerals are not replaced. Hence, the soil becomes "artificial"--nutrient deficient..

A big part of the problem is that after World War II (ending in 1945), the munitions factories were looking for new business. A major component of gunpowder is nitrogen. So, the nitrogen-producing facilities were transformed to making fertilizer--anhydrous ammonia. And they sold the farmers on the idea to increase their crop output. (As a side issue, a number of the farmers got cancer as a result of not handling those new chemicals with caution.)

Overall, our soil is dying through some of the modern farming techniques.

[benwha]

10:31 PM on 09/07/2010

And your experience in farming is...?