If you were asked to directly drink chemicals sprayed onto our fruits and vegetables would you do it? No. So why still do so many people not eat organic food?

On average, organic food is 25% more nutritious in terms of vitamins and minerals than products from industrial agriculture.

Whilst organic food can be more expensive (like recently seeing a $9.00 celery, when you balance it out, say with a vegetarian dish it can be cheaper, than chemical food as part of lunch or dinner. Then there is the huge hidden costs of chemicals to (personal health, climate change and environment of industrial food production.

Organic food should be compulsory - for farmers and the public. It's tasty and you'll love it - certainly later in life, when you live longer.

Nathan keep your "Organic" rubbish to yourself. Some latte sipping inner city type who bang's on about good food. You do not have a clue! I think the Greens supporters should be taken off of the grid and made to grow their own food. They would start starving and give us a rest from green fascism.Of course they would have to move from the inner city too as that is not at all natural. Now off to my bacon and eggs.

Oh dear.

>>Organic food should be compulsory<<

Yet another someone who thinks it is perfectly ok to insist how other people should live their lives.

As if there weren't already enough of them. Seriously, is it some kind of illness, this need to perch on a pedestal and preach at us?

Having an opinion is one thing. Telling everyone else that agreeing with your opinion should be compulsory, is entirely another.

I would like to know how you verify your organic food is for real.

Dear Nathan,

<<So why still do so many people not eat organic food?>>

You are right, Nathan, it's the money. I would love to treat myself with organic food all the time, but I've got to also look at my pocket.

Having to earn more so as to have enough to sustain an organic life-style through old age, requires being more immersed in the rat-race of employment today - which is even more toxic than those chemicals.

Or do you expect the government to give you enough to have organic food once you're old? then perhaps you'll be able to afford one celery for your birthday. I don't expect to ever receive anything from the government, nor is it moral to do so, so I must ration my savings.

<< It's tasty and you'll love it>>

It's tasty indeed when I can afford it and I love it already - but I wouldn't love it any more if it becomes compulsory.

NathanJ asks: "If you were asked to directly drink chemicals sprayed onto our fruits and vegetables would you do it? No. So why still do so many people not eat organic food?"

The answer is very simple: the toxicity of any given substance is determined by the dosage.

This page at Skepdic dispels the myths about the benefits of organic food: http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html

The quote at the beginning is particularly pertinent:
"People got in their head, well, if it's man-made somehow it's potentially dangerous, but if it's natural, it isn't. That doesn't really fit with anything we know about toxicology. When we understand how animals are resistant to chemicals, the mechanisms are all independent of whether it's natural or synthetic. And in fact, when you look at natural chemicals, half of those tested came out positive [for toxicity in humans]." --Bruce Ames

579,

In fact, it's most likely one of the greatest scams there is, this 'organic food rubbish'

I used to sell organic meats from time to time, as well as chicken.

I forget how many times I got abuses for over charging but I do remember one case. A guy asked about my organic chickens, they were selling at $10.50 per kilo, they were certified organic and I paid $8.50 per kilo.

He abussed me and said he can buy them for $6.50 a kilo from another butcher and that I was a rip of C%#! I even know butchers that soaked a chicken in creamed corn and sold it as corn fed because it was yellow. Others blend hearts I. With their beef to make lean mince. How else can one sell lean beef mince for $4 per kilo.

Yet, people continually get sucked in to this simply because of price.

now the only way I can tell they are organic chickens is if I eat them as they remind me of our home grown ones as a kid, and in fact I didn't like the taste.

The problem is, they look the same, so substitution is rife.
Continued

Continued
Another one is fruit. Nathan, can you tell the difference between an organic peach, or a normal one with a blemish? No, not unless you taste it and you can't take a bite then refuse to buy it. Even then, the organic often comes in second in taste.

Unfortunately there is only one way to guarantee organic food, and that's to grow it yourself. Good luck with that because even if you do pay that extra 30+%, as 579 quite rightly says, how do you know it's ligit.

I woukd like to see a survey run whereby blindfolded participants are given samples of organic and non organic foods, just to see if they really can tell the difference 100% of the time, as you are paying the difference 100% of the time. And of cause it goes without saying, that if you're not paying above the odds, you're not getting organic. Unless of cause your grower is on the dole and you're paying cash at the market.

O, and by the way, if not for those nasty chemicals you refer to, Australia's aguculture and meat industries would not have hit the global market, which means life as we know it would not exist.

Be careful what you wish for Nathan, as the result may not go as planned

Yuyutsu - some organic food can be very cheap - for example I buy spinach or silverbeet each week and it is $3.00. I don't consider this expensive. It is certified organic, and this is a very strict process to go through.

A. J Phillips - The answer is very simple: The toxicity of any given substance is determined by the dosage, so each week the dosage adds up. So the more you consume that is sprayed, the more you are taking in and causing damage to yourself and the environment.

People also forget they can grow fruits, vegetables and herbs at home. I do for example and I also make my own
shampoo recipe, which is simple and environmentally friendly, compared to phoney products people buy at supermarkets.

I don't buy everything organic each week - but I do my best to see this happen, however if it is compulsory in Australia (for farmers and people) - its something that would be up for serious debate - and make people realise the western world is killing this planet - along with human beings - through food production.

So Nathan, not meaning to spoil your Silverbeet, but how do you know it is actually organic and, do you buy from a green grocer, or a weekend market.

As a Green neither myself or my party want to see "organic" food consumption made compulsory, we don't advocate that at all. Nor am I going to attack NathanJ because he is in favor. The legislation covering organics has been strengthened in recent years, but I still don't doubt there is substitution. Price for many would a a major consideration, Butch would be in his rights to tell the customer "you don't have to buy it." The broader issue of the use of chemicals to increase output is a concern, as is things such as battery egg production, sow stalls for pork production, how cattle are treated, and so on, these are more than just economic issues, they are also a moral issue as well. The use of hormones, supplements and chemicals do present a danger and need proper scientific evaluation before their release into the broader community. We got it wrong with DDT, so it shows mistakes can be made.
As humanity grows ever larger the conflict between our needs, and the rights of animals, and the use of chemicals is going to be tested more and more. I'm sure there are those who will say "animals have no rights! If chemical use increase production, then let it rip!" well I think animals have rights and we need to be circumspect about the wholesale use of chemicals in food production. For me its all about sustainability and balance, nothing else.

The *ONLY* problem with Natham's post is that he wrote organic foods should be "compulsory". He would be saying that only to get a reaction from the half dozen or so socially, intellectually and financially backwards far right wing radicals who post here (the forum's "old man" brigade).

The medical facts are unarguable; a diet of 100% genuinely organic food is undoubtedly healthier, over the long term, than the terrible "avergae" diet of most Aussies. These silly old forum right wingers, would be whinging about Nathan's post whilst whilst patting their fat, bloated bellies, drinking yet another stubbie, and then checking their insulin levels due to their diabetes ... after taking their heart medication of course. That's what happens from a lifetime of eating crappy, non organic food.

579 there is a very strict process to go through to be certified organic. Growers really do have to jump through hoops to get there.

A mate of mine so certified had a hell of a job to stop the electricity people spraying under the power lines through his property, which would have lost him his certification. Another lost his when the council sprayed lantana along his boundary, due to spray drift. I think that is still in arbitration re his damages claim.

Prices are crazy. The mate finally gave up on organic, when he was getting less than the cost of cartons & freight for his produce sent to Brisbane markets. If anyone was making any money out of it, it most certainly wasn't the grower.

Careful what you put in your mouth Yuyutsu, that special taste is actually the flavor of the grubs in the stuff. I have let my fruit trees die this dry summer. I got sick of feeding fruit fly & lorikeets. Without a regular weekly spraying fruit fly struck all but the first weeks peaches & apples, & without netting, [& probably a shot gun unfortunately], the birds ate every apple while only half grown, leaving the cores hanging on the trees, to show where they've been. It is not a pretty sight.

If you really like organic, the apricot tree survived. I have hundreds of fruit fly stung apricots every year. The lorikeets must not like apricots. Come & get them, you're welcome. Just don't tell the horses. They might get upset at you pinching their treat.

Nhoj, if you portray yourself as a self confessed ambasitor of eating healthy, then I would consider myself as being very proud to be a beer drinking, pig fat consumer, if for no other reason othe than it would place a huge dividing wall between us.

Now of cause your argument does not shed light on the fact that how do you know the food you are paying a premium for, is actually organic.

Also, how do you think the likes of Coles decides who to buy their Organics from and, if a cheaper supplier comes along, do you think they will stay loyal. After all, they have all but KNOWINGLY ruined the dairy industry, so what's to stop them with Organics and, more importantly, what measures, other than substitution or short cuts can the farmer take to retain his contract.

It's like saying that just because a driver has a license, they won't break the law.

As they say, money talks and bull sh1t walks.

Gee Rehctub, you must be a good walker then.

Rehctub wrote, "how do you know the food is organic?". Google is your friend Rehctub. Google the standards that organic growers are obliged to follow in order to gain certification, and the standards that shopkeepers are obliged to follow.

There ya go Rehctub, you can now consider yourself educated on this important matter. Remember now, just make the effort to look it up.

Whether or not food labelled as organic is actually organic is a side issue. There is no evidence that it is any better and there is some evidence that it can be more harmful.

NathanJ,

<<…each week the dosage adds up. So the more you consume that is sprayed, the more you are taking in and causing damage to yourself and the environment.>>

The dosage doesn’t add up because our bodies are capable of metabolising pesticides: http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=2323&Type=2

In fact, the reason organic food can be more harmful (as I mentioned above) is because organic farmers are often forced to use pesticides - only they use natural pesticides, which are more harmful. Natural pesticides were better than synthetic pesticides back in the days of DDT, but since then, synthetic pesticides have improved so much that they are now far safer than natural pesticides (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html). Natural pesticides can be quite toxic in comparison.

Your risk of developing cancer is 1000 times greater with the average cup of coffee than it is with a year’s worth of synthetic pesticide.

You should read that link to Skepdic.com that I provided. It’s fully referenced with peer-reviewed material if you want to check their sources. You’d be hard-pressed finding a nature-woo website with credible citations.

A.J Phillips - I was just reading your link and there were problems with it. For example, I recently bought organic spinach and I found a caterpillar on it. A lot of life, with no dead elements there - only life.

So imagine what the chemicals are doing to you, if they were killing insects like I've just mentioned?

Why anyone would want food covered in toxic chemicals is beyond me and quite frankly - and too many people don't eat enough vegetables already, let alone organic ones.

If organic fruits, foods and vegetables are not safe in Australia - we know they can't be sold - with our tight food safety standards.

....If organic fruits, foods and vegetables are not safe in Australia - we know they can't be sold - with our tight food safety standards.

Nathan, once again you are assuming the growers/traders are being 100% honest with you.

One example is how much meat do you see now that is sold as 'Black Angus', too much I can tell you.

Offaly is simply another gimmick that is all too often substituted by sub standard traders and purchased by unsuspecting shoppers. Not all Organics, but most certainly some.

Nhoj, tell me, how do you know fruit, veg, meat or chicken is organic?

Or, are you simply taking the label for what it says.

Now I know it's very difficult to become a certified organic producer, but I also know there are shanks out there.

The trick is knowing, because I can't accurately tell if meat or chicken is, and I've been in the industry for the best part of forty years.

It's no different to the use of the words 'free range' and we all know that's been a well abused marketing ploy over the years.

Oh dear, I just clicked on AJ Philip's first link, and guess what? Ha ha ha ha ha ... it comes from ... you guessed it ... a *CHEMICAL COMPANY* pushing *CHEMICALS*.

Yep, it's the Dow Chemical Company. Google the name folks, and the first thing you find right at the top of the page in a description of the company is, "Dow Chemical Company is a leader in specialty chemicals".

Ha ha ha ... just like the cigarette companies told the world for decades that tobacco was harmless.

Rehctub, this topic is not about the labeling accuracy of either organic or non organic food.

It's about the long term *HEALTH BENEFITS* of organic food

What don't you comprehend about that?

You may prefer a junk food diet and filling your rather large stomach with copious amounts of red meat. That's fine, you're entitled to eat yourself to death.

NathanJ,

Which part of which link did this contradict?

<<I was just reading your link and there were problems with it. For example, I recently bought organic spinach and I found a caterpillar on it. A lot of life, with no dead elements there - only life.>>

Note that I did acknowledge that not all organic foods have pesticide.

<<So imagine what the chemicals are doing to you, if they were killing insects like I've just mentioned?>>

All studies suggest that answer to this is “nothing” (nothing that one sip of coffee per year wouldn’t do anyway). If you have something that contradicts this, then please link me to it.

<<Why anyone would want food covered in toxic chemicals is beyond me...>>

That’s the thing, they’re not toxic (to us) in the doses that we ingest them. Toxicity is determined by dosage. Whether or not something is synthetic has been shown to be irrelevant. Even water is toxic if we have too much of it.

<<If organic fruits, foods and vegetables are not safe in Australia - we know they can't be sold - with our tight food safety standards.>>

I didn’t say they were unsafe; only that they can be more harmful than non-organic foods.

Nohj,

I didn't know who it was coming from.

<<Oh dear, I just clicked on AJ Philip's first link, and guess what? Ha ha ha ha ha ... it comes from ... you guessed it ... a *CHEMICAL COMPANY* pushing *CHEMICALS*.>>

And nor did I care because it was a peer-reviewed paper. No company can buy peer-reviewed research. Obviously it's in their interests to flaunt it. But that says nothing about its reliability.

AJ Phillips,

"Usually when pesticides are used, there is some toxicity and exposure, which results in a potential risk."

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm

Chemicals are dangerous and we should stay away from them - and why would we want so many children exposed to chemicals on food - particularly packaged foods - I think that is terrible, let alone any fruits and vegetables they "might" be eating in todays age.

The other thing that people are not aware of is the use of food additives, in processed foods.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/the-top-12-harmful-food-additives-you-need-to-eliminate-from-your-diet/

There is no cultivated farmed soil in Australia that has not been exposed to chemicals and sprays. I try to grow without the use of sprays and fertilizers but the insects destroy most of the crop. The use of organic materials have secondary chemicals from housed animal, garden and human waste.

What certifies a farm organic?
Organic food cannot feed the World, unless it is GM to stop loss to insect infestation.

Imagine the changes in our society if we stop consuming hormone fed animals & other chemical enhanced food.

I suppose the 'Ussual Suspects' on OLO would stop being born with 2 heads and half a brain!

"Chemicals are dangerous and we should stay away from them" Absolutely, like dihydrogen monoxide http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

This chemical kills more people in Australia every year than all pesticides combined.

Any you eat it with every mouthful of food.

Paul1405, "I suppose the 'Ussual Suspects' on OLO would stop being born with 2 heads and half a brain!"

Not a nice thing to say about the Tasmanian Greens. Still, the free speech as yet still available in Australia allows you that right to trash talk.

It is hypocrisy for Greens to have children though, what with their opposition to young Aussie couples having children (the Greens disrespect them as 'breeders', favouring 'evolved' gay 'marriages' instead) and the Greens harping on 'Open Door' borders to relieve the Third World's over-population.

How is that vegan lifestyle going, Paul1405 and do you happen to produce anything 'organic' yourself? You would be reliant on the Woolies supermarket or similar wouldn't you?

I suppose the 'Ussual Suspects' on OLO would stop being born with 2 heads and half a brain!
Paul1405,
Somehow I couldn't imagine you heterosexual.

But as Individual loves Tax'Em Tony so much -- somehow I could imagine him being homosexual.

Be proud of your desires Individual.

Individual "Imagine the changes in our society if we stop consuming hormone fed animals & other chemical enhanced food."

Really?
What changes, exactly?

We live in one of the healthiest and safest countries in the world, with very strict food related laws and restrictions.
I just can't see all this supposed chemical/hormone rubbish in our food causing mass problems around me....can anyone else?

Cancers and other terrible diseases have been around long before chemicals and pesticides etc were even dreamed about, so what caused those ?

Those pushing the organic food barrow can happily go ahead eating expensive foods we don't need, but leave the rest of us out of it.

AJ,

I'd be a bit careful about declaring all agricultural chemicals as non-toxic (even when respecting recommended application rates and withholding periods).
Try looking up 'Dicofol' and DDT, just as one example, and then look up the rates of chemical residuals in general populations, including in breast milk. You may be surprised, if not horrified.

The US is just about devoid of bees for agricultural pollination, similarly are parts of China, and in Oz the range for vibrant bee populations is rapidly diminishing.
Note frog disappearance and deformities, similarly with some fish populations - due to chemical residues in the 'environment'.

Organics may not be the only 'solution', but far greater care with and far less reliance on chemicals (in agriculture and elsewhere) appears to be an even greater pressing priority than concerns about global warming or climate change (or even of nuclear war).

The sacred balance is 'in the balance'.

I just can't see all this supposed chemical/hormone rubbish in our food causing mass problems around me.
Suseonline,
Well ? There you are !

< filling your rather large stomach with copious amounts of red meat. That's fine, you're entitled to eat yourself to death. >

Yes you should encourage more people not to eat meat. A good steak is hard to get these days. The less demanding it the easier it will be for us carnivores to source it.

It's funny, my whole family are big meat eaters, all live healthy and are as strong as the bulls they eat. My great and grand parents all lived into their nineties, my father is pushing 87 as is my mother. I wonder if eating a lot of wild game foods have anything to do with it? As we're all big hunters, duck, quail, rabbit, goats, deer, pigs, pigeons, pheasants. and of course wild fruits and other stuffs. I just finished jarring and preserving 4 large jars of wild pine mushrooms we just collected from the forests in Victoria.

We're wogs and love our food, we never eat take away or any of that processed garbage from the fresh out of the freezer, stores. And we all smoke like chimneys, go figure!

I have been asked - I shop at the Adelaide Central Market. I like to shop at: http://www.adelaidecentralmarket.com.au/traders/central-organic/ and http://www.adelaidecentralmarket.com.au/traders/house-of-organics-sustainabily-grown-produce/

The website: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/food-and-our-planet/food-and-climate-change/ says:

"Other agricultural practices can impact the climate. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are widely used in agriculture, and are often made from fossil fuels.

Manufacturing and transporting these chemicals uses significant quantities of energy and produces greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that chemical farming uses considerably more energy per unit of production than organic farms, which do not use these chemical inputs."

David Suzuki is a very credible person and when he came to a session he spoke at in Australia - I was very impressed.

I'm with Raw Mustard, and we eat as much organic meat as I can get, mostly with rifle or shotgun.
I grow a lot of vegetables but don't use pesticides apart from soapy water. Fruits I harvest from trees growing wild, usually where there has been an early settler's homestead or where trees, particularly apple, have sprung up beside the roads.

For some strange reason the Greens are against hunting organic meat animals.

Is Mise,
What type of soap do you use?
Does it stop caterpillars on citrus?
Fruit fly on tomatoes

I have lived & worked with & know many more who live on isolated islands. Most live on local food grown or caught, 50 miles or more from the nearest other land.

Atoll people have fish, taro, coconuts, a little livestock, & some have imported rice. High island people have a wider range of foods, but both eat food grown isolated from any contamination. The perfect greenie set up, with fresh clean air, sea & food.

Unfortunately few of these people make it past 60. I guess that proves the fallacy of so called healthy living.

Josephus,

The cheapest soap from Coles or Woolworths but I also practice companion planting, which seems to work.

.....Rehctub, this topic is not about the labeling accuracy of either organic or non organic food.

Njoh, I beg to differ, because if you can't be 100% sure you're buying organic foods, then what's the point in insisting we must eat them.

Indi.....Imagine the changes in our society if we stop consuming hormone fed animals & other chemical enhanced food.

So right, it nice to dream but, unless it can become a reality, it's only ever goi g to be a dream.

I think this is another example of, if you wish to go organic yourself, and the have a trusted supply, go for it but it's like religion, it's there if anyone needs or wants it, but should not be forced upon is just because of ones one believes.

How do you know its all organic? Many people just can't afford it.

It is true we are more concerned about what goes in our cars than our bodies. It is a very important issue.

With, so many opposed to the science of climate change, for what ever reason, when the evidence is overwhelming, but that is another 'john dory' and lets not go into that again.
As a firm believer in sustainability I think it is a unrealistic expectation that the world can support its present population of 7.3 billion, little own any future increase, with a projection of 9.3 billion by 2050. I mentioned climate change, which in itself presents the danger of diminishing food production throughout the world. Like the dog chasing its tail, the ever increasing reliance on such things as GM foods, chemicals, etc etc is doomed to failure as the world population explodes. Australia is one of the few countries that is genuinely a surplus producer of food. Us with our relatively small population, 23 million, and large agricultural area can do more to alleviate world hunger. Firstly Australia can assist with the present inequality of distribution and secondly increase our intake of migrants and work with other nations in world population control.

Paul,

Water?

Paul,
I will believe human induced climate change when it is proven! However The increase in world population alone will mean that many will stave in countries that are subject to famine.

The reality is that we cannot save the world by immigration or by even giving our food production away free. If our farmers cannot get a fair price for food they will stop producing it anyway. who do you suggest pay for the food?

We need to drastically reduce birth rates in many countries and Iran and Thailand have demonstrated that this can be done, by government sponsored family planning.

It is ridiculous to advocate increased migration to Aus. That only increases our costs and reduces the amount of surplus food available.

Banjo wrote, "we need to drastically reduce birth rates and Iran and Thailand have demonstrated that this can be done, by government sponsored family planning".

Conclusion = so when it "suits" him, the rabid right winger Banjo turns into a rabid socialist in favour of government control of the people. Methinks Banjo should move to North Korea or China; he'd be happy there. There's been lots of "non" voluntary family planning in China.

Another example -- Iran in the late 1990s, introduced fully government controlled "MANDATORY* family planning. There were severe and vicious penalties for those who disobeyed government directions in this matter.

Dear Paul,

You have very good and established arguments regarding the fate of the human race and what can be done about it, etc. Thank you for those.
However, the moment you mention that "climate change" nonsense, your other arguments lose their credibility - what a pity!

Dear Paul,

You have very good and established arguments regarding the fate of the human race and what can be done about it, etc. Thank you for those.

However, the moment you mention that "climate change" fact, your other arguments gain credibility - what a good thing.

Australia's population is projected to be 35.5 million by 2056, which will place increasing pressure on the natural environment and its resources - these are ABS figures.

State and Federal Governments want more food exported overseas - to various "food bowls", when we have inefficient production, too much water taken from the River Murray, and urban sprawl. All when Australia has only about 6% arable land, irregular water supply and around 94% desert?

Then there is free trade, where we get "cheap food" - like tins of tomatoes sent to Australia. These products don't drop out of the sky. Flights, other transport and trucks - get them to your local shops.

Adding "chemicals" to the unsustainable mix (from both non organic food and toxic transport) - Australia and other countries need more sustainable food policies.

NathanJ, did your school teacher brain wash you with all this rubbish?

I hope your father will take out an injunction requiring this teacher to stop filling the heads of innocent kids with this ridiculous crap.

Sorry Nathan, I meant to ask in my last post if Nhoj is in your class. I hope not for your sake, it would be annoying having to associate with such a dill

......Manufacturing and transporting these chemicals uses significant quantities of energy and produces greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that chemical farming uses considerably more energy per unit of production than organic farms, which do not use these chemical inputs."

Nathan, farming is all about yields and, as organic yields are lower than non organic, one could also ague that if it takes more farmers and more machine hours to produce the same quantities of food, then more energy would be used and more /greenhouse gasses would be the result per ton of harvested/planted food stuffs.

The other issue with organic foods is that there is a larger percentage of rejected product in the paddock due to infestation, and of cause, as this increased amount of rejected food rotts in the paddock, it produces greenhouse gasses.

So I suggest your science theory has some holes. Of cause, if you can counter argue this, please do.

The other problem with reduced yields, is that we are facing a global food shortage, so reducing yields will only make this problem worse.

Is Mise, you have just solved the problem. Hunt/grow your own.

.......Unfortunately few of these people make it past 60. I guess that proves the fallacy of so called healthy living.

Hasbeen, be careful you don't distort this thread with facts!

Njoh, labeling laws are like locks, as they only apply to honest people. If you can't be guaranteed you are buying organic, substitution is very relevant to this topic.

Nathan, the only way to solve your problem is to grow your own, because as I have explained, if yields are lower, that means more energy to deliver the same quantities.

Nathan,

A recent independent study in the UK showed that there was virtually no nutritional difference between organically grown food and normally grown food.

The analogy of drinking the chemicals used to grow food is as stupid as drinking the liquid cow crap that organics use. Fertilizers contain the same nitrates, phosphates etc that natural fertilizers do without the potential pathogens that excrement carries. The pesticides and weed killers used are non persistent that degrade and wash off within days.

Organic farming produces low yields of expensive food, with little to no nutritional benefits. Organics are more a fashion statement than a life improvement.

Paul, with regards to climate change, you can't have a foot in both paddocks.

If climate change is real, it means conditions that are most favorable for growing food naturally, ORGANICALLY, are reduced, meaning artificial growing conditions are needed to grow the food, in other words, chemicals and modification ie, GM foods.

As I have pointed out to Nathan, if yields of crops are lower (as they are with Organics) then it stands to reason that it takes more energy to produce and deliver the same volumes of foods. In other words, adding to your climate change problem.

So considering these facts, organic foods either contribute to climate change, or, climate change is not effected by humane practices, such as growing foods.

Which one do you support?

Adam and Eve seemed to do okay in the Garden of Eden, with purely organic food. There is nothing in the bible which say's ..and on the third day God created DDT!" Unfortunately for us, in those times it was a very small population, two, and a dame big garden. Today it ass about, dame big population and a very small garden.
Even the most skeptical on here must admit there is a problem in the World regarding the population and nutrition. I am a Green, not a lemming, so I'm not going to charge headlong over a cliff on some philosophical whim in totally supporting organic food production. I simply believe such a move at the present time would result in an increase in hunger throughout the world, not a decrease. Those who want organic food, my son is one of them, so be it. An apple with a worm in it, and an apple sprayed with XXX to kill worm (sorry worm, but for the greater good you had to make the ultimate sacrifice) are both preferable to no apple at all. When I discuss organics with my son he always uses the key words "I can afford to eat organic food." exactly can afford, unfortunate millions of others in the world can't.

"The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15 percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people undernourished in developed countries."

Worth a read;

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.ht

We can argue about the causes and affects until the cows come home, (Unfortunately for many, the cows simply never come home.)

The following page will give you some interesting details when it comes to a food based fashion contest:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/why-do-israelis-throw-away-half-the-food-they-buy.premium-1.502075

A report (from the site) says that the waste is global, but in countries that are in developmental stages, such as in Africa, most of the waste is due to inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities.

However, in developed countries (like Australia - wow) the bulk of the waste is due to the fact that many retail chains refuse to accept food that does not meet uniform standards of size, color and texture. Fashion?

Then there is more wastage of food by the western world (like Australia) that is simply thrown away because people have "had enough" at dinner - let alone the issues Africa faces.

So those on this topic - I buy from organic stalls that sell some 100% "non attractive" looking food, or would others simply "look away" at a supermarket - and buy similar cheap tinned food from overseas?

That's an interesting angle that hadn't occurred to me before, Paul1405.

>>When I discuss organics with my son he always uses the key words "I can afford to eat organic food."<<

We are devoting resources to the production of food that is destined to be more expensive. Which subtracts from our ability to produce food that poorer people can afford.

In short, we are being immensely self-indulgent, are we not.

Pericles,

As I said per above - countries like Africa have: "Inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities." This must be addressed, let alone the basic food problems they currently have.

This is very serious - let alone the very inefficient harvesting of food in Australia - or I would call it over-harvesting of food in Australia, that is nearly all chemical based.

OXFAM however is a good example of a 'fair trade' company, with some of their products organic. It is helping people overseas develop their own sustainable long lasting farms and have a better life.

http://www.oxfamfairtrade.be/pageview.aspx?pv_mid=8936&id=1

Crystal Smith-Spangler and her colleagues reviewed many of the studies comparing organic and conventionally grown food, and found little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious.

“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure. While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called “tons of analyses.”

"Inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities." This must be addressed, let alone the basic food problems they (mostly third world countries) currently have.
Good point NathanJ, the efficient producers are in the developed world like Australia, where food is relatively cheap through efficient production, we simply throw away excess and think nothing of it. To give you an example of the difference in value, in Fiji milk 1Lt long life $3.50 a good wage $90 week, in Australia milk 1lt $1 good wage $800 week, that makes the milk in Fiji 30 times more expensive than in Australia, How much milk would we throw out if we were paying $30/lt, and that applies to all packaged food

No...get it right:)..."We must eat organic dog food"...and while Iam at it..The last thing on earth that was "organic"..was when a dinosaur farted....We don't need war any-more...we're poisoning our selves, so eat less if you want to live longer.

Kat

But apart from that...

>>Pericles, As I said per above - countries like Africa have: "Inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities." This must be addressed, let alone the basic food problems they currently have.<<

... you are comfortable with the idea that the expensive production and consumption of organic food in Australia is extraordinarily self-indulgent?

And presumably also with the fact that crop yields - anywhere in the world - are lower with organic farming?

Isn't that a little contradictory, when viewed from the perspective of a starving child in Ethiopia?

Here's an interesting article about real, starving people, whose ability to fend for themselves has been eroded by charity.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1830392,00.html

Similarly, "Fair Trade" farmers cannot be price competitive in the open market, as a result of which their survival is forever dependent upon charity. By this means, they are catering to the conscience of well-off members of developed countries' middle classes.

But at base, these farmers too are a subtraction from the ability of the world to produce enough food for all.

... you are comfortable with the idea that the expensive production nd consumption of organic food in Australia is extraordinarily self-indulgent?

Pericles, you could say that about strawberry production if you want to, anything that isn't a basic staple could be labeled as self-indulgent to a certain degree, could it not? I could argue bread production is more efficient than cake production, (Marie Antoinette eat your heart out) therefore only bread should be produced.

In response to Pericles, re "Fair Trade" farmers not being price competitive in the "open market" for being forever dependent upon charity and catering to the conscience of well-off members of developed countries. Is this bad?

If people are buying these farmers products and if you've read the link you would see that OXFAM is working towards independent, sustainable farmers in less well off countries. Is this bad?

Australia produces too much food at present and many poorer countries have been pushed out of the 'farm gate' and left to rot, due to Labor and Liberal party unfair 'free trade' or 'open market' policies at any cost - in some cases negatively affecting Australian farmers. Not good for anyone.

Absolutely, Paul1405.

>>Pericles, you could say that about strawberry production if you want to, anything that isn't a basic staple could be labeled as self-indulgent to a certain degree, could it not?<<

My only point was that those who champion the production of organic produce are putting their requirements before the needs of the starving in West Africa.

Not that they are alone, we strawberry-eaters are just as guilty. Nevertheless, it is important to debunk the notion that eating organic food somehow benefits the starving masses, as you point out:

>>I simply believe such a move at the present time would result in an increase in hunger throughout the world, not a decrease.<<

I have no problem either with people who enjoy their expensive organic-produce habit. They earned it, they're entitled to it. But I do take issue with anyone who believes this is somehow a good thing for the hungry in other parts of the world.

NathanJ has stars in his eyes.

>>OXFAM is working towards independent, sustainable farmers in less well off countries. Is this bad?<<

No on the surface, it isn't. Just as the development of a food-based cargo cult in Ethiopia is not "bad", just misguided as a long term policy. By engendering the same dependencies in Fair Trade food production, Oxfam is simply recreating the problem as a farming-based cargo cult.

Is it a matter of 'organic', or really of long term sustainability?

If farmers in developing countries could attract premium export prices for 'organically produced', that would be a good thing.
And it might save many of them from killing or disabling themselves with insecticides.
(How many third-world farmers do you see using the PPE, respirators and such, or practice the protections and measures we, in Oz, are trained to employ as part of our accreditation to even be able to purchase these dangerous chemicals?)

Sure, 'we' have introduced 'modern' farming measures to the developing world - to those who used to be able to feed themselves sustainably, before 'we' made them want more, and made/induced them to produce what 'we' want, like the prawn or shrimp farmers of Bangladesh, whose farms are now saline deserts unable to produce anything else.

'Shadow' points us to studies which show pesticide exposure is only 30% less likely in the organics vs non-organics studied, and that levels detected were within allowable safety 'limits'.
Wow, allowable limits tested over what period of time, over how many generations, and on how many 'guinea pigs'?

The use of DDT was a wake-up call, yet DDT and its derivatives (like Dicofol, which breaks down to a DDT form in the environment) are being produced in China in huge quantities, for use in agriculture in ever-increasing quantities.
How enlightened is that?
DDT appears to be the longest-lived man-made toxin in the environment, appears indestructible, and appears to be present (at currently below toxic levels) in very many 'developed' as well as developing populations.
That's just b-marvellous; well done Modern Science!

The West has been interfering in everyone's business for a long time, with very many detrimental results, and now China appears to be trying to trump those efforts.

God save the world, for Mankind is doing its very best to destroy it.

Saltpeter....If farmers in developing countries could attract premium export prices for 'organically produced', that would be a good thing.

Have you ever given consideration to the fact that organic food usually spoil at a faster rate to non organic, one reason being the lack of pesticides and/or gas

Not exactly an export friendly practice.

As we move towards a world that will struggle with energy prices, what we need to do is come up with ways to increase productivity in food production, not inhibit it and, as organic food production is more energy dependent, those who think we can change and maintain supply are in lar lar land.

The best option, as manynhave already suggested is to grow your own and, if you have spare perhaps you can supply others, but make sure your insurance is in place.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue enjoying affordable foods while they are available. Who knows how long that might be.

Saltpetre of course the Chinese are using DDT, they are not as stupid as us. They know the whole denigration of DDT was one of the first misinformation campaigns of our ratbag greens.

It worked a treat, & even though we now know, most of the "evidence" was a compilation of lies, our politicians don't have the guts to bring it back.

Millions have died of malaria because of this green campaign, but that doesn't worry them. People would be well advised to think of this anytime they see a global warming fraud, or any other "green" campaign. They will always be antihuman.

Hopefully with China's growing contact with Africa, DDT may find it's way back into the fight against malaria.

Hassie,

I would be careful what you postulate; many great minds have serious concerns about the use of DDT, and its potential repercussions.

Per: http://www.intechopen.com/books/insecticides-development-of-safer-and-more-effective-technologies/ddt-as-anti-malaria-tool-the-bull-in-the-china-shop-or-the-elephant-in-the-room-

> While exposure in the industrialised world has fallen dramatically, exposure remains high in some developing countries where DDT continues to be used in vector control.<

>DDT is very fat-soluble and could therefore be found in fatty foods such as meat and diary products. Even in countries across North America and Northern Europe, where its use has been banned for over a decade DDT residues are still often found in food. This is because of environmental persistence, illegal use, or importation of contaminated food from regions where DDT is still used.<

>DDT is highly toxic to fish.<

>DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by causing eggshell thinning which leads to egg breakage, causing embryo deaths. Sensitivity to DDT varies considerably according to species. Predatory birds and fish-eating birds at the top of the food chain are the most sensitive. The thickness of eggshells in peregrine falcons was found to have decreased dramatically following the pesticide’s introduction (Ratcliffe, 1970), likely due to hormonal effects and changes in calcium metabolism (Peakall, 1969). Colonies of brown pelicans in southern California plummeted from 3000 breeding pairs in 1960 to only 300 pairs and 5 viable chicks in 1969. In the US, the bald eagle nearly became extinct because of environmental exposure to DDT. According to research by the World Wildlife Fund and the US EPA, birds in remote locations can be affected by DDT contamination. Albatross in the Midway islands of the mid-Pacific Ocean show classic signs of exposure to OCs chemicals, including deformed embryos, eggshell thinning and a 3% reduction in nest productivity. Researchers found levels of DDT in adults, chicks and eggs nearly as high as levels found in bald eagles from the North American Great Lakes (PAN, 1996).<

Continued:

>The evidence relating to DDT and carcinogenicity provides uncertain conclusions. It has increased tumour production, mainly in the liver and lungs, in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters in some studies, but not in others. In rats, liver tumours were induced in three studies at doses of 12.5 mg/kg/day over periods of 78 weeks to life, and thyroid tumours were induced at doses of 85 mg/kg/day over 78 weeks. Tests have shown laboratory mice were more sensitive to DDT. Life time doses of 0.4 mg/kg/day resulted in lung tumours in the second generation and leukaemia in the third generation, and liver tumours were induced at oral doses of 0.26 mg/kg/day in two separate studies over several generations <

>DDT causes adverse reproductive and teratogenic effects in test animals. In one rat study, oral doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day for 36 weeks resulted in sterility. In rabbits, ... decreased foetal weights. In mice, ... decreased embryo implantation and irregularities in the oestrus cycle over 28 weeks <

>The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that “DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen”.<

>In vitro studies have shown DDT and its metabolites to have human estrogenic activity (Chen et al., 1997) and DDE to act as an androgen antagonist<

>Both animal models and early human studies have suggested a link with exposure to DDT and the most common adverse pregnancy outcome (spontaneous abortion)<

>Animal studies have suggested DDT may cause central nervous system (CNS) toxicity (Eriksson & Talts, 2000). Exposure .. may be associated with a permanent decline in neurobehavioral functioning and an increase in psychiatric symptoms,<

>At least one cross-sectional study has associated DDT and other pesticide exposures with suppression or induction of several immune parameters <

>Since DDT and its metabolites are so persistent in the environment and human tissues, humans are not excluded from this ecological trends raising questions about the possible impact of widespread pesticide exposure on human communities.<

So, if you're so confident, Hassie, why don't you write a PHD thesis documenting your findings.

Now come on Salty, that was a cut & paste, & about half of it is proven garbage. Just how old was that paper?

Those great minds are like the ones in the US EPA for the end is all, & justifies any lie.

Just like the IPCC & our global warming garbage.

Have you ever seen a toddler with malaria?

Hassie, I'm just airing a note of caution.
In my view there is far too much reliance on, and use of, insecticides (mostly in agriculture), and not all of it is very well controlled.

The residuals are a problem, particularly with the long-lived compounds, like DDT and its derivatives.

Malaria is a very significant problem (still) and the Gates Foundation and others are trying to address this - including with treated mosquito nets, and further research.
Some of this research is addressing the development of resistance in target species - which is a big and growing problem.
Just chucking more DDT at it is not the answer.

The malaria parasite has an extremely complex life-cycle, and I have to hope modern science can and will find a better way to eradicate it than with the use of ever-increasing quantities of DDT (which itself is becoming decreasingly effective due partly to resistance).
Where there is a will, there is a way.

How do we account for bee hive abandonment, childhood asthma, diabetes and cancer - all on the rise - as well as disappearance and genetic deformity of frogs (the 'monitors' of the environment), as well as mass fish deaths and deformity, beaching of whales, crown of thorns starfish infestations, and even perhaps the development of antibiotic resistance (nature, and bacteria and viruses are exceedingly 'adaptable')?

Many of the problems 'we' and nature are encountering can be laid at the door of pollution - from agriculture, chemical production and industry. Herbicides and insecticides are only a part of the problem, but nonetheless a big and growing part.

Just as it was with tobacco, the attribution of blame or causation waits for 'absolute' and un-contestable correlation (as with AGW), by which time very many horses have bolted and very much damage done.
The trick is to avoid irreparable damage - particularly when addressing human persistence and the preservation of nature.

Being so selfish and irresponsible, perhaps humanity deserves the sorry outcome it is working so hard to foist on so many other species.
There is a better way.

Saltpetre, there is a batter way, and that in my view is to use chemicals here in Australia, under our strict control, to produce sufficient foods forourr people so as to avoid the neccecity of importing so much from the likes of China, where health and safety are not such a priority.

You can whistle dicksie as much as you like about the so called benefits of organic, but the reallity is that it can not sustain our population so, so long as we are to rely on foods grown with chemical use, don't you agree we are better off to do such in a controlled environment such as ours.

And, as has been repeated many times, if you don't want chemically assisted foods, then simply grow your own, as you can even grow food in pots if you wish.

Organic farming is an inefficient practice, using more energy per ton than conventional farming so, if you are a climate change believer, and you want to see organic foods only, then you are contributing, or at least supporting a practice that adds to the very concerns you have in the first place. You simply can't have it both ways.

Butch,

We are using chemicals in our food production, and usually responsibly.
Whether we can produce more food is an open question.
Sure, I don't like us importing anything we can reasonably produce ourselves.

Organic, manual and biological pest control methods are being employed successfully in some sectors - bird mesh, promotion of 'predator insects', planting of 'companion' species - as well as development of 'resistant' crop strains, use of 'no till', water-table management, etc. There are options.

There is heavy reliance on insecticides in many developing countries, and we all end up sharing this finite 'polluted' environment - through run-off into the oceans, into the atmosphere and in some imported foods.

Maybe organic can never match the productivity of non-organic, but I'm not sure the energy demand (apart from manual labour) would be much different.
My main concern is the excessive (and potentially abusive) use of toxic chemicals in the developing and developed world, and the lack of concern to develop better, and less toxic alternatives.

World food and energy supply is an advancing problem, but it will serve us no good if we poison the planet and ourselves in the voracious quest for growth, capital, and unsustainable development.

Saltpetre, unless your idea of organic farming is this group of Armish like folk, all carrying their cane baskets full of hand picked food back to their horse and cart, you are kidding yourself if you think organic farming does not use more energy per ton of saleable food.

You have to remember, Nathans suggestion is that we grow and use Organics exclusively.

Finally, as for research, it's just that, research and, if and when an alternative to chemicals is found as a reliable replacement, by all means we can go there, but in the mean time we have little alternative but to continue along the same path.

Just on that matter, there have been non chemical developments within food production, or more so, insect control, but these quickly get bought up by chemical companies, only to be shelved. This is where the law makers need to become involved.

My original post for a strong stance on organic food - is that unless there is action taken by people now - it will later see governments step in, and then people will complain about being over-governed.

We must eat a healthier diet. It can't be legally enforced, but if you look at people in hospital suffering an illness because of a junk filled diet - we must change. I had one person question silver-beet.

Also worldwide too much food is being produced or wasted. With our Prime Minister Tony Abbott's recent deal with China, I remember Foxy saying this was a good move, but still had poor results in the polls. What does this deal achieve? What about assisting poorer counties with their food production? Cutting foreign aid?

We also need a more clean, environmentally friendly farming system, which we must have in some form, which includes organic food.

Do we want future generations left to clean up the mess worldwide?

P.S Don't forget your increased taxes are paying for people in hospital - junk food related. So mandatory organic is something I'm expecting - unless we change our lives now.

Dear Nathan,

<<We must eat a healthier diet.>>

Why? Isn't death an option?

Most of us WANT to eat a healthier diet.
Most of us would do so if it's cheaper.
But "must"? - That's one of the least healthy words!

<<P.S Don't forget your increased taxes are paying for people in hospital - junk food related.>>

Than stop that! Allow people to pay their own medical bills!

The problem is that most people end up in hospitals and aged-care facilities regardless whether they eat well or otherwise: the only difference is whether they do so earlier or later.

Nathan, you speak as of junk food is the only option, which it's not.

I eat quite a bit of canned tuna, John West of cause, but, rather than with biscuits, i use carrot sticks.

I have long said that self induced harm should not receive free medical treatment, so that's where we should start. The other option is to increase the GST on junk foods to 50%.

Butch,

I'm surprised you don't make mention of good ol' stunningly-healthy red meat and two veg in your normal healthy diet.

Then again, I'm aware that some dairy farmers won't drink milk and/or eat cream, although they are not lactose-intolerant; a relationship aversion I guess.

However, I'd be very surprised if that tuna didn't contain some chemical residues - it being a predator fish and fairly high up the food chain.
One thing I can be sure of is that the grass-fed beef I produce contains no residuals whatsoever - although I have not gone to the trouble of being certified an 'organic' producer.

Eat hail and hearty, Butch, and I hope you live long and prosper.

(PS. I also occasionally eat tuna, and salmon - for the Omega3. Dolphin-friendly of course.)

In response to Yuyutsu - some people "try" to eat a healthier diet, but a lot do not, or don't even bother. Its easier to buy average processed food from the supermarket or drive through a fast food restaurant.

It is not more expensive however to eat a healthier diet. It is just not the flavour of the month - when it should be! What people need to realise is that when they have a healthier food mentality - and find delicious recipes like I have - you feel fantastic for reaching a goal.

Sometimes my parents will question my standard of living when I've been asked how much I spend on food each week - and its like I'm starving, when in fact its buying exactly what I need, fresh, organic (if possible) and exactly spot on what I have planned cooking wise. This leads to no food wastage as well - except the parts of fresh food I can't eat - that goes in my compost bin!

Lucky you, Nathan,

When you are young you just find the time for everything.