organic food and irradiation

[smallcompany]

Is any organic food being irradiated?

[piatkow]

There is probably some variation between countries. Also the rules set by accreditation bodies, such as the Soil Association in the UK, may be stricter than legal definitions.

IIRC the Soil Association permits the use of UV radiation to sterilise packaged foods but not the use of ionising radiation.

[weeks]

In the US, what is called irradiated food is not labeled organic.

Organic has evolved where it's not so much about safety or even perceived safety of the food. It's now a label that suggests either unique or higher quality in taste and texture, or that the food was produced in a way that does not degrade the soil and water.

The USDA stresses that organic foods are not safer or more nutritious than those produced in a conventional manner. Fact is, many pesticides labeled as organic are as toxic, or more toxic, than conventional pesticides.

In the real world, food that is labeled organic has to get an extra level of attention. It costs more money, so those labeling try to provide a better consumer experience. I've personally found that many products I purchase that I enjoy are labeled organic. And they are often no more expensive than non-organic products. Organic is not always a good value, but it can be.

One of the more interesting problems of the organic label is how to handle sludge fertilizer. By all measures sludge would be the gold standard for organic. (Recycling at its best, says the industry.) But, recycled human waste trucked in from urban areas and used to grow food is a very hard sell. Sludge, which can be free fertilizer for farmers, is not labeled for use on organic crops.

For the record, irradiated foods have proven to be not just safe, but more safe. But, like sludge, it's a tough sell.

[piatkow]

Most certificaton bodies ban sludge because of heavy metal contamination.

[Rugles]

Fact is, many pesticides labeled as organic are as toxic, or more toxic, than conventional pesticides.

This is true. The actual difference in pesticides is ... its either "synthetic" or "non-synthetic". Just because it was not invented in a labratory does not mean its good for us or the enviroment. Also, these non-synthetic pesticides are applied at a very high rate because they are not nearly as effective so they usually drench the plant with the stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-pesticide because I am a realist and acknowledge that 6 billion people are not going to get 3 meals a day without the use of chemicals ... synthetic or otherwise. But hopefully in the future we will find safer and safer alternatives.

[smallcompany]

Thanks for comments and opinions.

I found the one that answered my question:

[usda-fda.com...]

[martinibuster]

Fact is, many pesticides labeled as organic are as toxic, or more toxic, than conventional pesticides.

What are the names of these organic pesticides that are more toxic than conventional pesticides?

But hopefully in the future we will find safer and safer alternatives.

I'm a realist too, and I personally don't feel we will find safer alternatives. If we want to be realist about it, the reality is that the switch to an agrarian lifestyle has proven disastrous for the quality of life of humans and the rest of the world. Many diseases, weren't a problem until humans were able to live packed together like chickens in an industrial farm. And like those chickens we pick up and transmit diseases more easily than our ancestors who lived the hunter gatherer lifestyle for hundreds of thousands of years. In a short period of 13,000 years we've managed to create a lot of misery. Personally, being a realist, I think we're screwed. :)

It's too late to turn back, we're stuck in this mode of living and being a realist, I think people are going to starve unless output of food production is increased AND humans move away from a meat based diet. Not necessarily go vegetarian, but at the very least drastically reduce the amount of red meat and other meat. But I don't think that's going to happen.

This whole "go green" thing is over optimistic, imo. I'm not saying humanity can't change it's practices to minimize our impact on the environment. It can be done. It is possible. But the realist in me understands that it's not going to happen because I don't think we will find the will to follow through on what we should do until it's too late.

I eat organic food though because the non-organic stuff is scary as hell.

[Rugles]

organic pesticides that are more toxic than conventional pesticides?

Almost all of them. Think about it, if they can kill insects its not going to be good for humans in a large enough dose.

Such as copper sulfate, Pyrethrum, Nicotine sulfate .. and even salt (which is the oldest herbicide known to man) is lethal in a large enough dose.

[martinibuster]

Salt (or anything salt based) is not really an organic pesticide (more likely used as an herbicide though). It's probably the last thing you want to put on your plants because it kills soil biology.

...not going to be good for humans in a large enough dose.

The same can be said for water, coffee, and beer. ;) But I agree with you 100% that I wouldn't want to inhale or swallow any of these compounds, organic or not. You're correct about that.

Many chemicals like Malathion are toxic to humans and cannot be compared to pesticides made from organic compounds sourced from everyday flowers. The action of some organic pesticides, like citrus oil or neem oil, is strictly limited to certain kinds of insects and are non-toxic to humans when used as intended (i.e. you don't put it in your orange juice and drink it every day). I use citrus oil based sprays on ants and neem oil of course is used to eradicate aphids.

However, an important point that is left out is that some so-called organic pesticides will harm beneficial insects. Which bottom line is in contradiction to the ideal of organic farming, which is to work with nature. For instance, if you have a problem with slugs and snails you bring in ducks, etc. I have a friend who has an organic farm and those are the kinds of things he does.

[smallcompany]

I have a friend who has an organic farm

Lucky you!

chickens in an industrial farm

I remember when Avian flu was around and they were slaughtering tens of thousands of chicken. (Here in the area) the free run and organic farms had no infection at all, yet they had to kill their chicken because they were within the contaminated area (it was 5km I believe).

Talk about industrial. The new GMO Enviropig™ from University of Guelph in Ontario (hey man, a pig with TM in its name) that excretes from 30 to 70.7% less phosphorus in manure depending upon the age and diet. The whole thing was financed by the Pig Farmer Association of Ontario (or however is called) in order so they can have 60k pigs on one farm instead of 30k (I made up numbers, not sure how many can be at one farm today).
All that just so they can make more pigs and again have the same problem with the phosphorus and environment that is already screwed.

Personally, being a realist, I think we're screwed.

Agree.

Like now we have a scientist (an idiot) that can fix it by playing with DNA.
I understand they think about their profit (only), but what I don't get is that they don't think about their kids.

[weeks]

Personally, being a realist, I think we're screwed.

Progress does not come in a steady curve, but up and down. Looking at the longer view, much of the world is living longer and better than, say, 100 years ago. And food is much cheaper, allowing us to buy things like, say, computers.

Much of the credit for recent progress in terms of agriculture and food comes from advances in communications. This internet thing, for example, could be big. We have more options now, such as your friend's organic farm. People can use what works for them.

There is good reasons to be careful and thoughtful. But, from what I have seen, progress is being made and we should have hope for our children.

[angila85]

I actually don't know whether the organic products [wisecicada.co.nz] are irradiated or not but personally i enjoy eating organic food. I have been suffering from celiac disease from 5 years and then i started eating organic, my health is really better now. :)

[incrediBILL]

I'm not terribly concerned, I get cheap eats at the local Chinese market because who can afford the rip-off prices of "organic" food, it's a complete joke, and people are being reamed at the cash register at stores like Whole Paycheck Foods.

I grew up in farmland and have grown many crops in my day. If you want organic, put a garden in your backyard or front-yard, grow it yourself, because you CAN'T EAT GRASS, you don't need a lawn, and it's a waste of water.

BTW, if you have a lawn and kill the dandelions then you're destroying good edible organic greens, more edible dandelions, less pretty lawn.

All the "organic" fuss does is encourage more farmers to grow lower yield but higher paying organic crops which drives up the prices for the poor that can't afford to buy vegetables as the prices skyrocket.

Seriously, the organic craze is making the diet of the poor even worse.

It's no different than the bio-fuel craze making corn and rice too expensive for the poor as the farmers sell it off to the highest bidder to make fuel.

Amazing how the middle/upper class are so concerned about "their" health and "their" environmental impact they don't notice the repercussions of their actions impact the poor nor do their care as long as the BMW can belch out corn-infused gasoline on it's path for organic veggies.

Stop driving prices up with boutique crops and start legislating organic back into the mainstream so everyone can afford to eat healthier.

Until then, let 'em irradiate it, nuke it till it glows and drown 'em in pesticides to make sure there's plenty of food for everyone.

[smallcompany]

plenty of food for everyone

I'm not sure that we get more food by having more GMO and chemical stuff around. I see it as that a big farm "kills" several smaller farms that were more sustainable and environment friendly. At the end we still have 40,000 pigs, but now all at one farm, instead of five.

And I'm 100% sure that none of those business runners is worried if there's enough food for people, but only about their profit. Wherever the hunger was 50 years ago - it's still there.

And that's why I'm worried - profit turns people to make wars - I don't believe them even for one second.

Example is rBGH [bing.com]. Banned everywhere except. . .

Just look into the games about labeling. As soon as some figures to label a product free of this or that, the other side starts suing.

It's a such mess - for a single reason - profit.

[g1smd]

6 billion people

...and that's the real problem that is never going to be tackled, until a natural disaster sorts it out in a matter of days or weeks.

World population grows by two million per week, unabated.

[incrediBILL]

I'm not sure that we get more food by having more GMO and chemical stuff around.

You ever live on a farm?

I did, and most of my relatives were big farmers, massive farms.

Ever see crops infected with fungus, pests, etc?

You can try organic methods, which most prefer, but by the time you find out there's a problem typically the whole crop (your entire farm) is at risk and as sad as it may be, the chemicals can treat a problem in a day with a crop duster that "natural solutions" and manual labor may take too long and sacrifice a significant portion of the yield, if not the entire yield.

Sometimes you simply have no choice, you either kill the pests or sacrifice the harvest.

Unless you enjoy grilled locusts instead of grilled corn, not a lot of choices when push comes to shove.

If we weren't so squeamish we could chow down on the crunchy critters causing all the problems and make them part of the food chain, thus reducing their impact, which also adds more protein to the diet. :)

[graeme_p]

I would be less concerned about eating organic food if the controls on what chemicals were stricter.

Also, if I were going to lower the quality or tastiness of my diet in order to help the poor, there are a lot of things more worth doing:
1) Only eat meat fed using the produce or margin land unsuitable for food crops. Definitely no grain fed beef!
2) Eat less fish: there is enormous global pressure on fish stocks, and the poor are badly affected (especially when rich countries start over fishing in waters they used to have to themselves)
3) Do not throw away stuff that is only slightly off: stewing, currying, preserving can all make it edible.

In addition you could, without making your diet worse:
4) Eat a wider range of food: insects, garden plants, etc.
5) Grow food in your garden.

I do 1) because that is where meat comes from here, I would claim to be one of the victims of 2), I do not quite do 3), but I do check stuff is genuinely gone, not just past the use by date, I do not have many opportunities to do 4, and I do 5 to an extent simply because I have several trees that have edible fruit or leaves (although monkeys get most of it).

[graeme_p]

Unless you enjoy grilled locusts instead of grilled corn, not a lot of choices when push comes to shove.

Never tried them, but from what I have heard about the taste I probably would prefer them.

[weeks]

I'm not sure that we get more food by having more GMO and chemical stuff around.

We do get more food from these technologies. There is no question about it. India's poor once starved, now India exports food thanks to the green revolution.

The concern has been the quality of the food. (Typical example is the poor taste of fresh tomatoes is some mainline supermarkets.) It's mostly marketing, since taste is difficult to measure.

It's good that people have a choice. Many small farmers are making more by marketing their grain or meat or vegetables as organic.

The primary concern about large industrial agriculture is that at one point the risk gets too high due to the lack of diversification.

It's not good that the web depends so much on Google. But, Google has a major problem, we'll survive and the economy will bounce back rapidly. If we get a Google in grain and there is a problem--people have to eat.

You see people get hot and bothered politically about Google doing this or that. What happens with just a little problem with the food supply? It is not pretty.

Yet, like Google, there are major benefits to large scale operations in food production. (BTW: nothing scales like the internet. There is a large host of new problems that come up when you go from 200 cows to 2,000 cows or 500 acres to 5,000 acres.)

As it turned out, organic has been mostly good for farmers. And there has been some benefits to the consumer as well. But, those benefits have come at a price. Too high a price? You get to decide. ("Whole Paycheck Foods"--I like that.)

[weeks]

A good example of how it is so hard to get people to agree on this issue:

Just in from the NYT:

On Tuesday the European Commission will formally propose giving back to national and local governments the freedom to decide whether to grow crops that many Europeans still call Frankenfoods.

The new policy is aimed at overcoming a stalemate that has severely curtailed the market for biotech seeds in Europe for years.
[nytimes.com...]

This will likely be a short-term victory for the EU environmentalists who want to ban the technology and a long-term win for those seeking its approval. Everyone, especially the environmentalists, will get bored with the debate and move on. Then, slowly, the technology will be adopted, district by district.

[smallcompany]

Sometimes you simply have no choice, you either kill the pests or sacrifice the harvest.

And I agree. But my concern as as per:

I would be less concerned about eating organic food if the controls on what chemicals were stricter.

and per:

The concern has been the quality of the food.

As it turned out, organic has been mostly good for farmers. And there has been some benefits to the consumer as well. But, those benefits have come at a price. Too high a price? You get to decide. ("Whole Paycheck Foods"--I like that.)

And I feel like I have no choice.

And thanking to the Internet and so much information (true and false), I see that it's about who controls the market. Just like most of web oriented people would prefer we have something like three different Googles and eleven Bings and Yahoos.
Once into a bit of research, I couldn't believe that so many (controversial) politicians were CEOs or close to it in companies that got pampered by the government through various decisions.

I really don't like to have such guys deciding on what's on my table. If it's up to them - everything is safe - but really everything.

[aleksl]

now India exports food thanks to the green revolution.

no, thanks to GMO food. Although officially they are "against", nobody cares.

bad place to quote from, but nevertheless:

Greenpeace today confirmed the presence of illegal Genetically Modified [GM] food in India at a press conference. Tests conducted at an independent laboratory on products picked up randomly from a supermarket in New Delhi has revealed that Pepsico’s Doritos Corn Chips contain genetically modified corn ingredients.

"India seems to have become a dumping ground for genetically modified products that have been rejected due to their risk to health elsewhere," said Rajesh Krishnan, Campaigner, Sustainable Agriculture, Greenpeace India.

[greenpeace.org...]

--

As far as organics...In US "ogranic" is a big industry. Whole Foods is a disaster, ridiculously overpriced stuff, most of it is the same and half the price in other stores.

Adding to irradiated food, here's my favorite ingredients from "organic" (and I mean quotes literally) stores:
high fructose corn syrup
aspartame ("no sugar" products)
"cane juice extract" (on "no sugar" products, right, this IS SUGAR)
natural coloring
MSG (hidden in various forms)

My rule of thumb is if I don't know the ingredient, of it there's more than 4-5 lines of them, I don't buy the product unless I really have to.

hey, even bugs don't eat your fruits and vegetables, how can it be healthy for humans?

The concern has been the quality of the food

We go to ethnic stores (not chinese). Large american food chain stores are terrible, a freakin disaster. we try to buy meat and milk from local farmers (when they deliver to our favorite local ethnic store). We also buy lots of international food in a large ethnic supermarket.

--
leaving...before I break yet one more rule and mods delete my post yet again.

[martinibuster]

...thanks to the green revolution.

Just a note for those who might not be aware of what the Green Revolution refers to. The Green Revolution is a misleading name for an agricultural practice that was applied in India and elsewhere beginning in the sixties and seventies. The Green Revolution refers to a system of industrial agriculture that relied on aggressive application of synthetic fertilizers, heavy use of pesticides, and the application of high yield varieties of seeds. There were of course massive downsides to the green revolution, chief among them were depleted soil.

National Geographic published an article [ngm.nationalgeographic.com] a few months ago about the green revolution. Here's an excerpt:

The green revolution's legacy of tainted soil and depleted aquifers is one reason to look for new strategies. So is what author and University of California, Berkeley, professor Michael Pollan calls the Achilles heel of current green revolution methods: a dependence on fossil fuels. Natural gas, for example, is a raw material for nitrogen fertilizers. "The only way you can have one farmer feed 140 Americans is with monocultures. And monocultures need lots of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and lots of fossil-fuel-based pesticides," Pollan says. "That only works in an era of cheap fossil fuels, and that era is coming to an end. Moving anyone to a dependence on fossil fuels seems the height of irresponsibility."

And here's some more:

Vandana Shiva is a nuclear physicist turned agroecologist who is India's harshest critic of the green revolution... Shiva argues that small-scale, biologically diverse farms can produce more food with fewer petroleum-based inputs. Her research has shown that using compost instead of natural-gas-derived fertilizer increases organic matter in the soil, sequestering carbon and holding moisture—two key advantages for farmers facing climate change...

In northern Malawi one project is getting many of the same results as the Millennium Villages project, at a fraction of the cost. There are no hybrid corn seeds, free fertilizers, or new roads here in the village of Ekwendeni. Instead the Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC) project distributes legume seeds, recipes, and technical advice for growing nutritious crops like peanuts, pigeon peas, and soybeans, which enrich the soil by fixing nitrogen while also enriching children's diets. The program began in 2000 at Ekwendeni Hospital, where the staff was seeing high rates of malnutrition. Research suggested the culprit was the corn monoculture that had left small farmers with poor yields due to depleted soils and the high price of fertilizer.

Lest anyone think I'm being hopeful for humanity, let me be clear that I still think we're screwed. ;)

[weeks]

martinibuster, people were starving. Dying.

Gregg Easterbrook, no fan of industrial agriculture, has said the increases in yields from the Green Revolution saved over a billion people worldwide from starvation.

Here's a clue: When you have nuclear physicists talking about what is wrong with modern farming, pointing to "projects" and ignoring the real world, you're on thin ice.

[martinibuster]

People around the world (including the USA) were starving because their lifestyle was to have as many kids as possible. The root of their problem was not inefficient agriculture but a lifestyle that could no longer be supported.

How many children have to perish before humans get a clue that they need to have the means to sustain life before bringing another soul into the world? I don't feel it is right to destroy the world so that people can pump out yet another dozen brats into the world that they do not have the means to support. This is a worldwide problem.

Their lifestyle choices affect my quality of life. I have been hopping mad lately because the fish in virtually all the lakes, rivers and streams in New England and in Northern California contain dangerous levels of Mercury and PCBs and cannot be eaten. The theory is that mercury floated over from China and was deposited in lakes in Northern California. Eating wild fish is a thing of the past. :(

[incrediBILL]

People eating organic is one thing but who the hell needs to feed their cat free range chicken?

Whiskas now makes "Whiskas Temptations All Natural Free Range Chicken Flavor Cat Treats"

Free range mouse I might understand, but chicken?

[weeks]

Free range mouse I might understand, but chicken?

LOL!

Ok, in the soap thread I just asked, "What else am I missing.." and read this. I was happier not knowing about this.

[smallcompany]

India

Talk about business: [biotech-info.net...]

and business again (still India): [sourcewatch.org...]

And a handful of corporations are always in the such news. It's amazing how one corp can screw the world with its products and support within gvmts. MHO

P.S.
The basmati thing turned positively for Indian farmers at the end...

[graeme_p]

GMO and "by the rules" organic are not the only choices.

We get organic chicken from a small farmer we know well, and pork and vegetables from a farm that we have visited, and which is owned by a charity. Organic does taste different, so it must be nutritionally different (taste evolved to allow us to eat the right things).

When you have nuclear physicists talking about what is wrong with modern farming, pointing to "projects" and ignoring the real world, you're on thin ice.

1) An ad hominem attack, because she once did a different job. I bet she had a better grasp of assessing research than a webmaster.

2) projects that involved actually growing real crops on real farms are real world.

[graeme_p]

Also, I consume lower volumes of high quality (which usually means organic) food.

I used to buy meat from a butcher in Covent Garden, and the M & S round the corner from it. The butcher's grass fed transitional organic meat shrank less in cooking, and it stronger flavour meant I tended to use less of it in any given dish.