CONNECT
Why Does Organic Matter?
Natural Society / News Analysis
Published: Sunday 28 October 2012
“The USDA certifies foods that are organic when the growers, handlers, and producers use practices that adhere to their standards.”
As if most consumers weren’t confused enough already about making the “right” food choices, the pseudo-scientific Stanford study released early last month had many of those on the fence thinking it was okay to once-again blindly trust what they found on their supermarket shelves. But, let’s lay this argument to rest (again) and talk about why organics really do matter.
What does organic really mean? Well, the USDA certifies foods that are organic when the growers, handlers, and producers use practices that adhere to their standards. These standards vary by food product and the USDA certifier must inspect the farm before a food can be labeled as organic. Generally, however, organic produce in particular is that which is produced “without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.” This immediately excludes genetically modified foods (GMOs).
So, what’s wrong with a few pesticides, a few lab-created organisms in our foods? Plenty.
A recent analysis (and not the only one) demonstrated that U.S. children have lost a combined total of 16 million I.Q. points due to pesticides in their food. While “pesticides make you stupid,” sounds like a silly argument for organics—it’s a legitimate one. Pesticides truly do lower the intelligence of children. These pesticides are absorbed when the child is in utero, through the mother. So, whether you are pregnant or hope one day to have children, cutting out pesticides now could save your child’s mind down the road.
One of the most prominently used herbicides, Monsanto’s Roundup, has been tied to numerous health problems including infertility, genetic damage, cancer, and plenty of other diseases and illnesses.
Finally, as if that isn’t enough, without organic certification, we can’t be sure the foods on U.S. supermarket shelves are free of GMOs. This is because the feds don’t think it’s in our best interest to know what we are eating. However, the issues related to GMO-consumption are coming to light—whether they like it or not.
Most recently, a French study has found rats who consume a lifelong diet of Roundup-ready GMO corn develop grotesque tumors which ultimately killed them. The rats consumed corn and Roundup-laced water at levels approved by the U.S. government. Around 50% of the males and 70% of the females died prematurely.
So, why does organic matter? It matters because unlike the federal government, we care about our health. We want to be informed and conscientious consumers. We want to support the farmers who are using good practices, and we’d like to give our children a healthy future. So, despite what the bought-and-paid-for Stanford scientists might say, we know differently. We know that organic products are better and we see through their shoddy attempt at convincing us otherwise.
9 comments on "Why Does Organic Matter?"
October 30, 2012 11:15am
We should write harsh letters of condemnation to the heads of FDA, USDA and EPA telling them of their awful decisions that are impacting our health - causing us cancers, diabetes, coronary/heart ailments, etc, etc. - as a result of their permitting GMO seeds, BPA lined cans, F & D blue and red color additives, high fructose corn syrup, magnesium stearate from bovine, and countless other chemicals that permit manufacturers to employ reckless methods to taint our food supply with proven, carcinogenic additives. In my opinion, these agency heads, aided & abetted by our national leaders, are nitwits, absolute morons, degenerates & neanderthals. Instead of collecting large salaries, they should be languishing in prison. The American public must be so dense as to act so complacent, to not react en masse.
October 30, 2012 5:26am
What are you so afraid of? If it is so safe .. label your GMO's...let everyone make their own choice. It is not so costly to do so as these schills want us to believe. Nothing sounds more yummy then produce that hs been genetically altered to resist massive amounts of pestisides. We can tell who works for these "profit above people" corporations.
Gainesville, FL
October 28, 2012 2:18pm
Happy Sunday folks! Just here to keep it real. You do realize that the Seralini, rat, roundup study was shown to be completely inadequate and potentially fraud? Are you sure you want to hook your wagon to such low-quality science?
Seralini's work was not just attacked by "corporate chemical and agricultural insterests" it was attacked by independent academic scientists as well. In fact, I'm going to use it in my graduate courses to teach students about bad stats, papers with an obvious agenda and publication ethics. If you think this is stellar science, I can skype you into the class and you can present your interpretations and show me how I'm wrong. Happy to do that.
Tedi, how do you "prove" something is safe? Scientists don't know how to do that. In fact, I'd argue that you can't prove anything is safe-- you can't test all conditions, all responses, all time points.
You can't. You can only show that there is no evidence of harm. When we know the mechanisms of action for added genes or products, this is even easier because we know how they work.
And one more thing. Regulation is not a rubber stamp as you submit. It is an expensive 5-10 year process, on top of a company's R&D. While you think ag companies are out there to kill us all, remember that their bottom line only works if they sell a safe, reliable and profitable product. One lawsuit or hard science paper showing real safety issues would overturn farming in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, and other countries.
November 04, 2012 7:27pm
Gee whiz, Kevin, I thought we covered this last time you spouted off. You must have an investment in Monsanto we don't know about.
Again, IF that rat study was "inadequate," in using tumor-prone mice, then that "inadequacy" was REQUIRED by the monitoring scientific associations, as any follow-up studies MUST use the SAME variety of lab subjects the original study did.
Even so, the study, though small, was MORE realistic than the much shorter three-month "studies" that Monsanto used, to "prove" there was no increased tumor growth from their products, because the French study tracked their subjects through their whole lives.
And the results? EVERY RAT in the study got tumors. The controls only got ONE tumor each, but the real subjects got multiple tumors in many parts of their bodies.
And the results also showed WHICH particular biological mechanism created the tumors. It did this by showing that the tumor frequency did NOT increase as the dosage increased. This means that the action was NOT that of a toxin, but of a Hormone Mimic -- a MUCH more dangerous animal than a toxin is.
If this hormone mimic proves as stable in the environment as other ones are, we can expect a looong history of coping with Monsanto's attempts to blackmail the public for their own profits.
November 04, 2012 12:50pm
It would be nice if the FDA did allow or even encourage long-term.studies showing evidence of harm to human health. I agree, science can prove very little in 3-month studies. And please don't twist the truth about regulation...I suggest everyone look at the FDA testing requirements for transgenetically modified organisms intended for human consumption. I also recommend an excellent book "Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds" by Clare Hope Cummings (c. 2008). The larger discussion of agriculture and the future of our survival are worth understanding...even if they don't contribute to the corporate bottom line.
October 29, 2012 9:51am
Nice to see how humble you are, Kevin, that you would deign, with your busy schedule, to come to this site and teach us idiots how to deal with reality.
Frankly, I have no idea whether GMO produce is safe for human consumption or not. My point is that I feel I have the right to know what is in the food I eat. After all, I can learn which sugars are in a canned or packaged food, and how much sodium, etc., so I really think I should be told if the produce used was genetically modified or not. Let me, as an informed consumer, make the final choice over what I buy to consume.
All of this suspicion has resulted from years of evidence that the makers of pesticides and fungicides have little care about the ultimate safety of their product. Now we have biologically engineered corn, and we don't know what long-term effects they might have on humans that ingest it. I don't believe the makers of an herbicide should be involved in the genetic modification of corn just to maximize their profit.
You, obviously, feel differently. But really, you come here, when you do, with a swelled head and a sense of your importance, no doubt, because you are conducting graduate courses, I guess, at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
The bottom line works if no one comes forth to prove that the product is harmful. Since academics who do research nowadays are largely supported by industrial grants, I have to wonder where the pure and disinterested science would come from to prove that a product is unsafe over the long run.
We should know whether a product is genetically modified or not, and that's my only point, not that I somehow know that they're unsafe, because I admit that I don't.
October 28, 2012 11:37am
I bought 10 acres of farmland thinking it was roundup free because it had weeds in with the soybeans Three weeks after I signed the deal it was weed free. There were no earthworms on the land at all, still working on tha. With this article, I worry about drinking the water or even using it to water crops because of the surrounding farmers using roundup. Montsanto should be sued for murder with the FDA as co conspirators.
October 28, 2012 11:20am
It's a surprising thing but apparently many people thought that people who buy organic were just doing so because organic produce was supposed to be more nutritious. I've been buying organic, when and where available, for years, and I never bought it thinking it was more nutritious. I felt, maybe it is, or maybe it isn't, but organic meant to me that it was grown without chemical additives, and THAT'S why I bought organic.
So a study comes out that supposedly shows that organic produce is no more nutritious than chemically-grown food, and some people think,"See! Those fools who buy organic are just wasting their money."
I can't always buy organic, because it's not always available in the town I live in today,in contrast to Santa Fe, where I lived for 30+ years and always had organic alternatives. And certain fruits were definitely sought in organic form, for example, strawberries and apples and peaches. Even today, I grow organic peaches and apples in my own back yard. And if I ever bought non-organic apples, I peeled them before I ate them, and I washed the non-organic strawberries very carefully, for they're often covered with a lot of chemical residue.
I don't think the FDA or the Dept. of Agriculture is going to protect us from the harms of artificial chemicals that are used only to maximize profit. If you don't die within hours or days of eating food with a certain chemical on it, the government says it's okay, totally ignoring the long-term effects of such chemicals.
It's still "buyer beware," despite the federal agencies that are supposed to protect our health. And I really resent the government not requiring GMO foods to be identified. Maybe the GMO foods are safe, but some evidence suggests that they're not, but the bottom line is that we should be able to know what kind of food we're eating.
October 28, 2012 11:05am
No matter which side of the debate you are on, bottom line is that our FDA, USDA and EPA do not demand adequate long-term testing on products offered as human food. The recent Seralini study attacks by corporate chemical and agricultural interests are only a smoke screen to divert us from the real issue--have GE foods been proven safe? Three-month testing, not even required, is a total farce if we are to ensure GMOs should be sold for human consumption. Required review delegated to producers' whim is such an obviously invitation to deceit it would be laughable if not so deadly threatening to our health. It's hard work trying to understand complex debates such as this, but it is vital...educate yourself! A good start is with FDA regulations.