Nothing inherently, you can go ahead and eat apples from your apple tree.
The main issue with “organic” foods is that the term is usually very badly regulated. Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”… besides price. Sometimes “organic” foods use very ecologically unfriendly techniques, or are grown/processed in countries where supply chains are not inspected anyway.
Then there’s the fact that if something is different, it may not always be an environmental or health win. Growing your food in 30cm of water may be one organic and traditional way to avoid using pesticides (see: rice), but doing that with corn in the middle of Arizona would obviously be a terrible idea!
Anyway, overall I don’t think organic foods are worse if you’re well off enough that the price is not an issue. But you shouldn’t feel personal guilt for buying whatever’s cheaper, because quite often the alternative does not justify the price anyway. Eating truly “organic” food unfortunately requires a lot more involvement than picking the green package at a national supermarket chain.
I thought people in the US calling food “organic” was akin to our “Agriculture biologique” in France, which is heavily regulated at an european level. Is it nit the case?
The AB label is regulated yes, which is almost equivalent to the EU green leaf. Then there are various private labels. In the US it’s all up to private labels I believe.
Anyone can put “bio” and a vaguely green packaging on anything though AFAIK. And I don’t think the average consumer is very knowledgeable about which label means what; I certainly am not.
Then there’s the problem of fraud, and various issues with the way the EU defines “biological agriculture”, but I don’t really know much about either.
Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”
Probably the most amusing example is strawberries: it’s essentially impossible to grow them without using non-organic pesticides (and there are such things as organic pesticides despite the near-universal but incorrect belief that “organic” means “no pesticides”) so the USDA allows them to be labelled “organic” if they’re grown with non-organic methods but then replanted and treated organically for a few days before being harvested and shipped to market.
It’s a heavily abused and arbitrary marketing term that doesn’t actually indicate anything about what the food is made of or how it’s made or grown. It also doesn’t indicate anything about how healthy the food is or how good it tastes. At most it’s slightly better for the environment in some areas with some brands when used properly, but even then regulations are too lax and inconsistent worldwide for it to be a trustworthy label.
Organic foods can and usually do have pesticides, and those pesticides are just as harmful to you as the artificial ones. For instance, Rotenone was an organic pesticide used for decades that is strongly linked to parkinsons and has since been banned in North America.
Also quantity, most “organic” pesticides are significantly less effective and so it requires more applications of more product in order to get the same effect. Eating “organic” likely exposed you to more pesticides than the alternative.
Depends on where you live. As far as I know the term is not well protected in many countries, so it means next to nothing there.
However, I live in the EU / Germany, where we have several organic farming standards that are all fairly strict. Generally, organic actually means organically produced food here, grown without artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and so on.
Stupid question, what’s wrong with organic?
Nothing inherently, you can go ahead and eat apples from your apple tree.
The main issue with “organic” foods is that the term is usually very badly regulated. Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”… besides price. Sometimes “organic” foods use very ecologically unfriendly techniques, or are grown/processed in countries where supply chains are not inspected anyway.
Then there’s the fact that if something is different, it may not always be an environmental or health win. Growing your food in 30cm of water may be one organic and traditional way to avoid using pesticides (see: rice), but doing that with corn in the middle of Arizona would obviously be a terrible idea!
Anyway, overall I don’t think organic foods are worse if you’re well off enough that the price is not an issue. But you shouldn’t feel personal guilt for buying whatever’s cheaper, because quite often the alternative does not justify the price anyway. Eating truly “organic” food unfortunately requires a lot more involvement than picking the green package at a national supermarket chain.
I thought people in the US calling food “organic” was akin to our “Agriculture biologique” in France, which is heavily regulated at an european level. Is it nit the case?
The AB label is regulated yes, which is almost equivalent to the EU green leaf. Then there are various private labels. In the US it’s all up to private labels I believe.
Anyone can put “bio” and a vaguely green packaging on anything though AFAIK. And I don’t think the average consumer is very knowledgeable about which label means what; I certainly am not.
Then there’s the problem of fraud, and various issues with the way the EU defines “biological agriculture”, but I don’t really know much about either.
Probably the most amusing example is strawberries: it’s essentially impossible to grow them without using non-organic pesticides (and there are such things as organic pesticides despite the near-universal but incorrect belief that “organic” means “no pesticides”) so the USDA allows them to be labelled “organic” if they’re grown with non-organic methods but then replanted and treated organically for a few days before being harvested and shipped to market.
It’s a bullshit marketing term to appeal to pseudoscience and anti-intellectuals.
It’s a heavily abused and arbitrary marketing term that doesn’t actually indicate anything about what the food is made of or how it’s made or grown. It also doesn’t indicate anything about how healthy the food is or how good it tastes. At most it’s slightly better for the environment in some areas with some brands when used properly, but even then regulations are too lax and inconsistent worldwide for it to be a trustworthy label.
It’s code for “same shit but more expensive” As with all the labels, the intent is to shark people’s ignorance with meaningless buzzwords.
Wasn’t aware there’s anything wrong. Albeit more expensive, I prefer to not eat pesticides. 🤷♂️
https://wqscert.com/usda-organic
Granted, I’m not sure there are long-term medical studies proving any harmful effect of doing so.
Organic foods can and usually do have pesticides, and those pesticides are just as harmful to you as the artificial ones. For instance, Rotenone was an organic pesticide used for decades that is strongly linked to parkinsons and has since been banned in North America.
Also quantity, most “organic” pesticides are significantly less effective and so it requires more applications of more product in order to get the same effect. Eating “organic” likely exposed you to more pesticides than the alternative.
Depends on where you live. As far as I know the term is not well protected in many countries, so it means next to nothing there.
However, I live in the EU / Germany, where we have several organic farming standards that are all fairly strict. Generally, organic actually means organically produced food here, grown without artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and so on.
It’s more expensive, and it’s typically not that much better than inorganic.