Too lazy, Alfie. That's the one. Not too stupid - it doesn't require genius to grow food, just patience and some work.

What's the dealio? Could this inability to produce food or take care of basic house-holding have befallen our grandparents or the generations earlier? Certainly not, in general. It is laziness, an epidemic of it actually, plain and simple. We shake it off or fail as a culture.

Pat, what makes you think that people are lazier than they used to be, and why do you think they have become that way? (Keeping in mind that people have bemoaning how lazy and shiftless people are, compared to how they used to be, for at least, oh, I don't know, the last 4,000 years.)

Typed, double-spaced, less than five pages, please. :-)

"The dumbest farmer grows the biggest potatoes" was one of my late mother's expressions. I've never really understood what it meant but after I became a small-scale farmer I started taking mild offence to it.

imo people distrust organic, home-made, home-grown, because we've been brainwashed to equate mass production with sanitariness (if that's a word), safety and regulation, not to mention time-saving and cachet. A woman at the fish plant where my wife worked for a while once told her at lunch time, taking out another frozen processed meal to heat in the microwave, "I never bring anything home cooked. How do I know it's safe?" Even though there was a fridge for the workers.

Those people eating in restaurants are trading their own precious time for convenience.

Just 2c from a sometimes poster: Perhaps they have not had anyone who taught them how to garden, or who exhibited a love of the land. Society in general does not look upon it as anything more than a hobby, and you don't see many portrayals of simple-living, vegetable-growing, intelligent people on the tube. Many of the peope I come in contact with now have gardens, as a result of their "country" upbringing. (Unfortunately, many of them still use pesticides as if they were the be-all and end-all.) Years ago, when I lived in the city, my gardening was looked upon as an oddity by coworkers. It is still seen in some circles as "beneath" them. But chasing "stuff" seemed to be given highest priority.
My father and grandfather liked playing around with gardening, growing tomatoes, lilies and the like. My father used to subscribe to Organic Gardening and Farming back when it was on newsprint, without all the glossy ads. This was a man living in the suburbs, college-educated, white-collar, who had inherited the interest from his father. My great-aunts both had marvelous gardens, and we ate from the abundance every summer. Obviously, this made an impression and the torch was passed on to me. Both my brother and sister have gardens every year as well.
So I think attitudes toward gardening, specifically organic gardening, are nurtured. Bashing people for their choices will not change them. Education is key, IMHO. Just as with teaching your children, your example has the greatest impact; an organic lifestyle practiced with patience and kindness will truly educate.

(Alfie, less than five pages will be no problem - I'm not sure I could produce five pages about any subject). People are lazier than they used to be because they can be. The steady increase in technology and general wealth of society allows it. Indolent people who have everything they need and can afford to buy all organic and stay fit with a personal trainer are called independently wealthy, while indolent people who don't have everything they need, don't care about organic and eat fast-food are called lazy. In both cases the solution for the indolence is a nice big garden.

'equate manufacturing with sanitariness' I meant, and my wife says her fish plant friend said she wouldn't take a home made lunch because she wouldn't trust something without preservatives.

Anybody reading Barbara Kingsolver's book Animal Vegetable Miracle? For all its faults (mainly a precious sort of self-satisfaction) it covers the territory of this debate thoroughly and engagingly.

I'd like some arguement why we should care what other people do or say? I think we spend entirely too much time doing that. Who cares if anyone else is organic? And it always amazes me how other people care that I am! I think we have so little to do that we spend so much time worrying about other people and whether they are organic. We should let them think for themselves. If they don't want to, all the more power to them. This is not a proselytized religion... we don't need to spread the word, if they want to find The Organic Word, then they will... if, they listen to articles like this, they won't... no skin off my nose! It's part of that whole "I am more organic than thou" kind of thing... we always want to worry about what our neighbor does, because I guess that's more interesting than what goes on in our own houses.

:Operator!
:Yes, hello, is this the Organic Thought Police?
:Yes. Operator!
:Well, I'd like to report that my neighbor doesn't eat organic!
:GASP! What do you recommend sir? We burn them at the stake?
:No, I think just maybe a little "Organic Thinking Re-adjustment"... maybe a little torture too... it's for his own benefit, after all!
:Okay! Right away sir! What's their address?

Heathen, whether or not other people buy or garden organic doesn't matter to me from a personal health perspective. I'm not even entirely convinced that it matters to me from a public health perspective. But it sure does matter to me from the perspective of the health of the environment we all live in.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I guess I fall in the category of too stupid and too lazy to raise my own organic cows in my backyard on top of growing all the food necessary to feed an entire family. Of course, it might have something to do with the fact that my neighbours would be pretty upset about the smell.

On a more serious note, I think some people have lost touch with the fact that most of the "lazy, stupid, and fat" poor people don't have their own land to farm or their own backyard to make a garden out of. Anyone who has rented realizes that apartment balconies generally aren't big enough to grow all your family's food and landlords of houses usually aren't very happy when you tear up their lawn to make a garden.

Oh, and by the way, several years ago as a single mother working my butt off to barely make the rent and pay the electric bills, I soon found that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese and Mr. Noodles went a lot farther to fill a belly and cost the same as ONE tomato in a supermarket.

I agree with the earlier poster that "organic" is really projecting an image of "we're smarter and better than the unwashed masses" and this thread is a prime example. It reminds me of that South Park episode where everyone started driving hybrids.

Er, having snarfed a fair amount of Kraft Mac&Cheese, one of these days, check out the ingredient list.

It ain't the same. Better shelf life through chemistry, substitute this with that, and the result is unrecognizable.

Me? I'd advise starving single moms and students to go for the Ramen Noodles. 1 meal = $0.20. The ingredient list is indecipherable, so it must be ok.

Nevertheless, HG, there are a whole lot of folks out there who have very unhealthy dietary habits and who have some time on their hands and could get hold of a garden plot if they really wanted to. Apartment buildings and rental houses in small towns often stand next to empty lots or fields. Other than certain urban districts, it's the impoverished rural areas where fresh food is the hardest to find, but land is the most available. The thing missing is will.

"I soon found that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese and Mr. Noodles went a lot farther to fill a belly and cost the same as ONE tomato in a supermarket."

That is partly because we (the US) subsidize conventional commodity crops (corn, wheat, soy, sugar) and dairy and don't subsidize any fruits and vegetables (except possibly sugar beets).

I also agree that supporters of organic shouldn't be too superior acting. I grew up pretty poor myself and have spent time around both the rural poor and the urban poor. Their culture and eating habits and consumer habits won't change overnight. Some will get out of the cycle and all it includes---most won't.
We as individuals can encourage people to grow a small garden or buy produce at a local farmers market. My grandfather had a garden when I was growing up; which is probably the reason I have one. He wasn't really organic, but since the organic movement is present and because it works, I am organic. Perhaps, more cases like mine will begin in the years to come. We just need to share our food and enthusiasm and teach those we can.
IN rural areas, people usually have the option to grow their own food. In urban areas it's tougher, yet I live in Dallas metroplex. I have about a half acre and live in a poorer section of town and grow about 100 sq ft of garden. If you have a house and backyard chances are you can grow a garden. Though it's not a whole lot, the vegetables I grow provides my family with some good nutrition. I also benefit from the physical activity and peace of mind being outdoors. No doubt, home gardens are of great benefit to those who grow them. Sorry, I kind of got off topic

Pete

Interesting thread going on over in the "Go Green" forum discussing a very similar subject. They have more thoughts on the cost of organics.

Here is a link that might be useful: Other thoughts on organic price tags.

Interesting comment about subsidized crops. Surprise, the government and insurance companies are complaining that Americans are too fat. The government subsidizes the most calorie efficient crops! Maybe they should subsidize fresh fruits and veggies for a change, instead of sugars and oils.

Or subsidize nothing and at least stop giving our money to big ag. I think small organic farmers could compete and win on a level field.

Be prepared. We have worked our way into a situation in which the population is dependent upon shipped-in food. When the supply suffers a disruption what will happen? There are no more farms like there were just a few decades past. Be prepared. Think about it.

Kabuti, where are you that there are no farms? Most areas have at least some hayfields and nursuries, which could be adapted to food production fairly quickly.

What does "be[ing] prepared" entail, please, Kabuti?

No, there are no more 'farms' as there were even just a few years ago, where people did & could live off the farm. We used to be a country of farmers, that has all been reversed & I believe this is a very tenuous situation. We have just been fortunate for this long, with the weather, volcanic or possible nukes, etc. I think you can see that virtually no families are farming anymore we have gone to living in cities vulnerable to outside events, not to mention, importing food from dubious sources. We should all store some food & those of us with the ability to garden, keep crops in the ground, esp. some which can be stored. I think we are headed down a dead-end road. Just a matter of time.

This is happening so fast it's catching many of us off guard. A couple of examples from the past year:
-my sister-in-law bought garlic at the local small grocery store and discovered it was Product of China
-we bought bulk frozen haddock filets thinking they'd be locally caught - fishing and tourism are the two mainstays of the local economy - and discovered they were Product of China
- at the local Co-op (ie the only real) grocery store I examined a bag of 'Europe's Best' frozen raspberries to see where they came from, and compare the price to our home grown organic raspberries for sale, and found no country of origin; after reading the article linked to below I suspect it is China

The article says that as long as 51% of a product such as apple juice is produced in Canada it can be labeled Product of Canada - even though 49% is apple juice from concentrate from China

Some of the produce from China is labeled Organic.

Similar situation in USA?
-

Here is a link that might be useful: food from China

Those little white boxes of frozen spinach and frozen peas - Product of China. As well as canned mushrooms.

"In fact, manufacturers can proudly display a Product of Canada label as long as they incur 51 per cent of manufacturing costs inside the country, no matter where the ingredients come from."

This is all very interesting!

Personally, I'm not worrying too much over what other people think and do. Not so much because it might not be that important but more that I can do very little about it so I'm not worrying.

I buy organic milk because it tastes better to me. I'm not sure that it is because it is organic or if it has more to do with the ultra-pasturization. Perhaps this isn't all that green of me but regular milk seems to be sour way too fast for me. We don't happen to have a small dairy farm next door where I would be able to get fresh milk.

Anyway, I kinda got the bug for gardening a few years ago and finally got more of a yard to garden in this past Feb. Even when I was living in an apartment I was a bit scornful of people who complained that people were locking up the food (as in the food was locked in grocery stores rather than free off the shelves for everybody.) I think that if you don't like that other people charge money for the food they sell, then you should make some effort at growing your own. The answer back was "I'm too poor to buy fertilizer" Sadly the discussion degraded from there since I believe that we all excrete perfectly good fertilizer and should use it in stead to polluting our drinking water with it.

All of us who can should practice gardening as much as we can in any way we can. Leanings to organic, sustainable, and less toxic practices but I admit I have used wasp and hornet spray around the house. I'm trying to grow as much of our own food as I can but I'm still learning. With the changing climate and uncertainty of the food sources in our changing world It is important to start building local know-how to sustain ourselves in the event of any sort of collapse.

A very good book on this subject is "The Omnivores Dilemma" by Micheal Pollan. He examines the way we eat, conventional subsidized corn farming and what the corn is used in, Confined feeding opperations (CAFO's), industrial organic food production and local pasture raised meat production. I highly recomend this book to anyone interested in what they eat.
Tim

Most of the original anti-organic comments are all about manufactures that claim to have organic foods.

Fact #1 Organic Grown Herbs and Vegetables are Healthier than there Regular Farmed counterparts.

Taken out of context and applied to Milk and Beef which are regulated by the FDA Yes I can see her point.

I can only tell you from experience that my own home grown organic foods are more healthy, richer in color, bigger in size and way more succulent.

Sincerely,
Glen Barnhardt
Worlds #1 Organic Gardening Consultant

Here is a link that might be useful: Best Organic Gardening Secrets

tclynx, you are amongst the very few on these forums - besides myself - to boldly state the obvious fact that we have got to use our butts to save our rumps in the ensuing food crisis.

By the way, how do you 'handle' your fertilizer production? I use cardboard boxes, so common and easily obtained and destined for the incinerator or landfill in any case. I use sawdust to layer with, but one could use leaf-mold or just dirt. When the box is full, fold down the flaps snugly and bury in the pile or in a trench in the garden. Ideally cover with a thin layer of mud from your greywater pond, which encourages the worms and hides the slight odor at first that might attract the local dogs.

"Organic" Foods:
Certification Does Not Protect Consumers
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
If you, as a consumer, want to purchase a fake or a fraud of one kind or another, should your government guarantee your right to do so? More than that, is your government obligated to prosecute one who, knowing of your propensity for fraud, tricks you into buying the genuine in place of buying the fake? Remembering that "your government" is all the rest of us, is it right for you to take our time and money to underwrite such ridiculous exercises as making sure you are cheated when you want to be cheated? And must we penalize the man who breaks his promise to cheat you?

These astute questions were raised in 1972 by Dick Beeler, editor of Animal Health and Nutrition, who was concerned about laws being adopted in California and Oregon to certify "organic" foods. Those laws signaled the beginning of efforts that culminated in 1990 with passage of the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to set certification standards. Although USDA had opposed passage of the act, the Alar scare plus a campaign by environmental, consumer, and farm groups persuaded Congress to include it in the 1990 Farm Bill [1].

As directed by the law, the Secretary of Agriculture established a National Organic Standards Board to help develop a list of substances permissible in organic production and handling and to advise the Secretary on other aspects of implementing a National Organic Program. In 1992, the Secretary appointed 15 people, 8 of whom were industry members. The board held 12 full-board meetings and 5 joint committee meetings and received additional input through public hearings and written submissions from interested persons. It presented its recommendations to the Secretary in 1994 and issued 30 subsequent addenda. Regulations were proposed in 1997, modified in 1998, and are now in effect. As of October 21, 2002, producers who meet USDA standards are permitted to display the seal pictured here on their packaging.

Total retail sales of the organic industry reportedly rose from $1 billion in 1990 to $7.8 billion in 2000 [3]. "Certified" organic cropland production expanded from about 400,000 acres in 1992 to 1,350,000 in 1999 [2]. Despite this growth, the organic industry represents a very small percentage of total agricultural production and salesonly about 0.3% of U.S. cropland and 0.2% of U.S. pasture was certified organic in 2001 [3,4].

Nebulous Definitions
The term "organic foods" refers to the methods used to produce the foods rather than to characteristics of the food themselves. The most common concept of "organically grown" food was articulated in 1972 by Robert Rodale, editor of Organic Gardening and Farming magazine, at a public hearing:

Food grown without pesticides; grown without artificial fertilizers; grown in soil whose humus content is increased by the additions of organic matter, grown in soil whose mineral content is increased by the application of natural mineral fertilizers; has not been treated with preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, etc. [5]

In 1980, a team of scientists appointed by the USDA concluded that there was no universally accepted definition of "organic farming." Their report stated:

The organic movement represents a spectrum of practices, attitudes, and philosophies. On the one hand are those organic practitioners who would not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides under any circumstances. These producers hold rigidly to their purist philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, organic farmers espouse a more flexible approach. While striving to avoid the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, these practitioners do not rule them out entirely. Instead, when absolutely necessary, some fertilizers and also herbicides are very selectively and sparingly used as a second line of defense. Nevertheless, these farmers, too, consider themselves to be organic farmers [6].

Passage of the Organic Foods Production Act forced the USDA to develop an official definition. On December 16, 1997, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service proposed rules for a National Organic Program [7]. The proposal applied to all types of agricultural products and all aspects of their production and handling, ranging from soil fertility management to the packaging and labeling of the final product. The proposal included: (a) national standards for production and handling, (b) a National List of approved synthetic substances, (c) a certification program, (d) a program for accrediting certifiers, (e) labeling requirements, (f) enforcement provisions, and (g) rules for importing equivalent products. The proposed rule defined organic farming and handling as:

A system that is designed and managed to produce agricultural products by the use of methods and substances that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products until they reach the consumer. This is accomplished by using, where possible, cultural, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using substances, to fulfill any specific function within the system so as to: maintain long-term soil fertility; increase soil biological activity; ensure effective pest management; recycle wastes to return nutrients to the land; provide attentive care for farm animals; and handle the agricultural products without the use of extraneous synthetic additives or processing in accordance with the Act and the regulations in this part.

The weed and pest-control methods to which this refers include crop rotation, hand cultivation, mulching, soil enrichment, and encouraging beneficial predators and microorganisms. If these methods are not sufficient, various listed chemicals can be used. (The list does not include cytotoxic chemicals that are carbon-based.) The proposal did not call for monitoring specific indicators of soil and water quality, but left the selection of monitoring activities to the producer in consultation with the certifying agent.

For raising animals, antibiotics would not be permitted as growth stimulants but would be permitted to counter infections. The rules permit up to 20% of animal feed to be obtained from non-organic sources. This was done because some nutrients (such as trace minerals) are not always available organically. Irradiation, which can reduce or eliminate certain pests, kill disease-causing bacteria, and prolong food shelf-life, would be permitted during processing. Genetic engineering would also be permissible.

Health-food-industry trade and consumer publications expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the 1997 proposal. The Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, for example, called it "Fatally flawed." [8] The Organic Farmers Marketing Association stated:

The definition of organic as written in the proposed national organic standards lacks the holistic approach central to organic practices. The proposed rules take a reductionist approach to organic food production that eliminates key concepts such as the health of the agro-ecosystem and biodiversity on the farm.

The USDA received more than 270,000 comments on the proposed rules [9]. One distributors' association official wrote that if the rules are implemented, its members would seek to buy its agricultural products from foreign sources. Others complained that the proposed fees were too high. Other objections included permitted use of amino acids as growth promoters, antibiotics (when necessary to save the animal's life), synthetic animal drugs, food additives, and animal feed from non-organic sources. Certification agencies with "higher standards" objected that they would be prohibited from stating this on their labels. Some poultry farmers objected to provisions enabling intermingling of range-free poultry and other poultry. However, the vast majority of the objections pertain to the provisions that permitted irradiation, genetic engineering, and the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer [10]. The final regulations,published in December 2002, eliminated these three provisions. Canada, which in 1999 became the first country to establish a national organic standard, also excludes these methods [11].

Premium PriceFor What?
The organic rules are intended to address production methods rather than the physical qualities of the products themselves. In a news release that accompaied the 1997 rules, Glickman stated:

What is organic? Generally, it is agriculture produced through a natural as opposed to synthetic process. The natural portion of the definition is fairly obvious, but process is an equally critical distinction. When we certify organic, we are certifying not just a product but the farming and handling practices that yield it. When you buy a certified organic tomato, for instance, you are buying the product of an organic farm. And, consumers are willing to fork over a little more for that tomato. They've shown that they will pay a premium for organic food. National standards are our way of ensuring that consumers get what they pay for.

I disagree. Many consumers who "fork over a little more" believe that the foods themselves are more nutritious, safer, and tastier. But the USDA proposal itself noted that, "No distinctions should be made between organically and non-organically produced products in terms of quality, appearance, or safety." In other words, no claim should be made that the foods themselves are betteror even different! Some consumers believe that buying "organic" foster agricultural practices that are better for the environment.

In 2003, Rodale Press began publishing the New Farm Organic Price Index, which compares the prices of about 40 organic and conventionally grown foods. The organic foods tend to cost signiifcantly more, as they have in previouly published studies.

More Nutritious?
Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious [12]. The nutrient content of plants is determined primarily by heredity. Mineral content may be affected by the mineral content of the soil, but this has no significance in the overall diet. If essential nutrients are missing from the soil, the plant will not grow. If plants grow, that means the essential nutrients are present. Experiments conducted for many years have found no difference in the nutrient content of organically grown crops and those grown under standard agricultural conditions.

Safer?
Many "organic" proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [12].

To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in foods and conducts frequent "market basket" studies wherein foods from regions throughout the United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997 tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables had no detectable pesticides and only about 1.2% of domestic and 1.6% of imported foods had violative levels [13]. Its annual Total Diet Study has always found that America's dietary intakes are well within international and Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Most studies conducted since the early 1970s have found that the pesticide levels in foods designated organic were similar to those that were not. In 1997, Consumer Reports purchased about a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides. Traces were detected in 77% of conventional foods and 25% of organically labeled foods, but only one sample of each exceeded the federal limit [14].

Pesticides can locate on the surface of foods as well as beneath the surface. The amounts that washing can remove depends on their location, the amount and temperature of the rinse water, and whether detergent is used. Most people rinse their fruits and vegetables with plain water before eating them. In fact, Consumer Reports on Health has recommended this [15].Consumer Reports stated that it did not do so because the FDA tests unwashed products. The amount of pesticide removed by simple rinsing has not been scientifically studied but is probably small. Consumer Reports missed a golden opportunity to assess this.

Do pesticides found in conventional foods pose a health threat? Does the difference in pesticide content warrant buying "organic" foods? Consumer Reports equivocates: "For consumers in general, the unsettling truth is that no one really knows what a lifetime of consuming the tiny quantities of foods might do to a person. The effect, if any, is likely to be small for most individualsbut may be significant for the population at large." But the editors also advise, "No one should avoid fruits and vegetables for fear of pesticides; the health benefits of these foods overwhelm any possible risk."

Manfred Kroger, Ph.D., Quackwatch consultant and Professor of Food Science at The Pennsylvania State University, has put the matter more bluntly:

Scientific agriculture has provided Americans with the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. Agricultural chemicals are needed to maintain this supply. The risk from pesticide residue, if any, is minuscule, is not worth worrying about, and does not warrant paying higher prices.

Tastier?
"Organically grown" foods are not inherently tastier than conventionally grown foods. Taste is influenced by freshness, which may depend on how far the products must be shipped from farmer to consumer. What kinds of locally grown fruits and vegetables are available varies from community to community. Whether they are organically or conventionally produced is unlikely to make any difference.

In the early 1990s, Israeli researchers made 460 assessments of 9 different fruits and vegetables and no significant difference in quality between "organic" and conventionally grown samples [16]. The Consumer Reports' study found no consistent differences in appearance, flavor, or texture.

Organically produced ("range-free) poultry are said to be raised in an environment where they are free to roam. To use this term, handlers must sign an affidavit saying that the chickens are provided with access to the outdoors. A recent taste test conducted by Consumer Reports rated two brands of free-range chicken as average among nine brands tested. Its March 1998 issue stated few chickens choose to roam and that one manager said that free-ranging probably detracts from taste because it decreases the quality of the bird's food intake [17].

Better for the Environment?
Many buyers of "organic" foods believe that the extra money they pay will ultimately benefit the environment by encouraging more farmers to use "organic" methods. But doing this cannot have much effect because "organic" agriculture is too inefficient to meet the world's food needs. Moreover, the dividing line between organic and conventional agriculture is not sharp because various practices are not restricted to one or the other. For example, "organic" farmers tend not to use pesticides, but faced with threatened loss of crops, they may change their mind. If certain patterns of pesticide use cause more harm than good and there is a way to remedy the situation, the people concerned about it can seek regulatory solutions. I don't believe that paying extra for food will benefit anybody but those who sell it.

Special Healing Powers?

Many offbeat practitioners recommend organically grown foods as part of their alleged treatment regimens. The most extreme claim I have seen comes from A Perfect Healing, a small Florida-based nonprofit in "committed to the use, education, research, and agriculture of organically grown foods and nutritional supplements in the recovery from disease."[18] Its Guidestar summary claims:

Organic foods embody thousands of antibiotic and anti-viral elements that are present only in highly composted organic soil. When we eat these foods, they deposit these elements absorbed from the soil into our bodies, where they can then go on to patrol and clean out all forms of disease and prevent further attack. Even cancers and other forms of seemingly non-infectious disease have been cured this way. These disease fighting elements and the high level of nutrients that organic foods receive from such a nutritious soil are very powerful. They have been proven to return many a diseased individual back to health [19].

The Bottom Line
The revised rules went into effect on October 21, 2002. The latest USDA definition states:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; petroleum-based fertilizers or sewage sludge-based fertilizers; bio-engineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too [20].

A comprehensive review published the same year concluded:

Studies comparing foods derived from organic and conventional growing systems were assessed for three key areas: nutritional value, sensory quality, and food safety. It is evident from this assessment that there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison. With the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various nutrients.
While there are reports indicating that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent.
While it is likely that organically grown foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation of residue levels [21].
Nevertheless, if you want to pay extra for your food, the U.S. Government will help you do so. Violators of the rules can be fined up to $10,000 per violation. But organic "certification," no matter what the rules, will not protect consumers. Foods certified as "organic" will neither be safer nor more nutritious than "regular" foods. Nor is there any logical reason to conclude that they have any special disease-curing properties. They will just cost more and may lessen public confidence in the safety of "ordinary" foods. Instead of legitimizing health nonsense, our government should do more to attack its spread.

References
Larkin M. Organic foods get government "blessing" despite claims that aren't kosher. Nutrition Forum 8:25-29, 1991.
Greene CR. U.S. organic farming emerges in the 1990s: Adoption of certified systems. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Resource Economics Division, Information bulletin No. 770, June 2001.
Dimitri C, Green CR. Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic food market. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Resource Economics Division, Information bulletin No. 777, Sept 2002.
Data: Organic production. USDA Economic Research Service, Oct 18, 2002.
Rodale R. Testimony. New York State public hearing in the matter of organic foods. New York City, Dec 1, 1972.
USDA Study Team on Organic Farming. Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. USDA, July 1980.
National Organic Program; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 62:65850-65967, 1997.
Youngberg IG and others. Beyond the "Big Three": A comprehensive analysis of the proposed National Organic Program. Greenbelt, MD: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, April 30, 1998.
Public outcry to organic regs. Natural Foods Merchandiser 19(12):36, 1998.
National Organic Program: Final rule. Federal Register 65:80547-80684, 2000. (Dec 21, 2000)
The National Standard of Canada for Organic Agriculture. Ottawa: Canadian Organic Advisory Board (COAB), June 1999.
Newsome R. Organically grown foods: A scientific status summary by the Institute of Food Technologists' expert panel on food safety and nutrition. Food Technology 44(12):123-130, 1990.
FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999, August 2000.
Organic produce. Consumer Reports 63(1):12-18, 1998.
Healthy ideas: Wash your produce. Consumer Reports on Health, 10(3):5, 1998.
Basker D. Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7:129-136, 1992.
Chicken: What you don't know can hurt you. Consumer Reports 63(3):12-18, 1998.
Who we are. Animal Concerns Community Web site, accessed July 16, 2006.
A Perfect Healing. Guidestar Web site, January 31, 2005. [Requires membership to view]
Organic food standards and labels: The facts. USDA Web site, accessed Oct 21, 2002.
Boume D, Prescott J. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Food Science and Nutrition 42:1-34, 2002.

It is true that agricultural chemicals are required to maintain the current food supply in the way that it is currently grown, particularly petro-chemical fertilizer. This is very worrisome in a post-peak of petro-production world with a growing population and rapidly "westernizing" cultures.

I cannot understand why the main focus of agriculture today is not to solve the fertilizer problem. We have over six billion people making organic fertilizer every day. The vast majority of that is being used to nitrogenate water sources in ways that does not benefit us nor the environment as a whole. Is that logical or sustainable?

pnbrown,
We are headed for some sort of major change soon. I can't say exactly what form it will take but I don't really expect the majority of the population to make any real attempts at changing their ways untill after a calamity. If the calamity is the utter exaustion of petro-fuel then perhaps people will look to those other sources of fertilizer before it is really too late. I fear though that the problem will come the other way around, clean water will become and issue to fight wars over long before people realize that using good clean drinking water to flush it human excreta away is rater silly. Or some major climate changes will destabalize things enough that people need to look to more local means of growing their food which we can hope leads to more sustainable methods.

For the time being, I'm just trying to learn enough about gardening with easily available materials that I can continue even if the world (as we are used to it now) comes apart around us.

"We are headed for some sort of major change soon. I can't say exactly what form it will take but I don't really expect the majority of the population to make any real attempts at changing their ways untill after a calamity."
Heck no! You mean people won't get to drive their gigantic trucks and SUV's??? Whiiiiiiiiiine You mean, we can't buy houses that we really can't afford? (I live in an area with a very high foreclosure rate) You expect these people to be smart enough to prepare for the future? I think that because I live with a Japanese guy who has no outstanding credit due on his cards, his house is nearly paid for and his car is, I have a different perspective on people and their crazy ways. These people will never garden for themselves until they're near starving. Good for them, maybe I will have a job teaching my neighbors how to grow their own food. :D Instead of being that crazy organic lady on the block, I may become a resource!
As the bumper sticker says "God Bless the Freaks!" :D

Because you live with a japanese guy? Have you noticed their crazy excesses in japan?

It won't require utter exhaustion to collapse or contract the food supply. As fuel prices go up rapidly, food will go up in price more rapidly. Soon there will be a crisis.

About the cardboard box and sawdust - no worries about the box leaking? Does it need to be fine sawdust to be that absorbent?

A mixture of fine sawdust and some of the bigger flakes, like from a sharp chain saw, should work well.

Yes, the box does leak a tad sometimes. I have mine in the basement shop floor with dust under it so it's not a problem. If I couldn't do that I'd have the box outside in a shed or what-have-you.

I find the finer dust the better - holds more moisture and breaks down faster. The bandsaw makes the finest dust, but I don't use that tool enough to go far, so it's mostly table-saw and chop-saw. Planer chips are very coarse so if I have to use those I start out with them at the bottom of the box - several inches deep. Chain-saw shavings would be in between those in size.

The best product by far is dust from a bandsaw mill, because it's fine and it's from green trees so it breaks down better and makes a better end product, IMO. Though by the same token it isn't as absorbent so one has to use a bit more.

Brilliant - because cheap/free - way of doing it. Maybe a few layers of newspaper on the bottom of the box. Our options are chainsaw shavings or chips, and superfine sawdust from a guy with a portable sawmill. Mostly softwood in both cases. I read somewhere, probably the Humanure handbook, that hardwood is preferable, breaking down faster because fewer resins.

I imagine the Three Amigos discussed this very subject at Montebello. Or like to imagine it.

pnbrown... that's on the outside, these people save half their incomes. They really do. Blows my mind.
I don't have to use as much compost anymore, after years of applying it. I have to mulch, because it's so dry here, which really helps.
I will be set for fruit, I have a few fruit trees, tangerines, fig, and peach and plan to put in a grapefruit.
I LIKE producing my own food, it's not hard, other's can do it to on small plots of land, but here where I live, all these large houses are being built on postage stamp lots. I never understood that, I'd like a smaller house, larger lot.
Right now, I am free to grow more flowers on my small lot, because I have a great CSA farm, but if food gets too expensive, I can rip out my flowers and plant more food crops, it's just a possible extended drought that worries me. California has had some bad droughts in the past.

I'd be very surprised if the average savings rate of tokyo citizens were fifty percent. How much is the income tax rate in japan? At only 25% (probably it's a lot more) that means they would be getting by on one quarter of their income. As an average? I don't buy it.

Okay... Well, the Japanese I know, in the U.S., other countries and in Japan, and I know a boat load of them, feel that if anything bad happens, and they aren't prepared, it's their fault. Their culture isn't like ours where we expect the government to bail us out. I am not saying theirs won't, just, that's not their culture. Now does EVERYONE fit into this? Probably not, and their culture is changing, still, if they bring shame, they commit suicide... if you don't provide for your family, that's shame. I understand the habit of looking at other cultures with an American eye... but I've been out there, not everyone thinks like we do, and some cultures are extremely different. I used to, during the early 80's, live in a moslem country... they based their opinion of Americans on what they saw on Dallas, I tried to explain to these people that not all people were like what they saw on TV, they didn't believe it any more than you do. What you see on tv is everyone. So, if you see single 20 somethings going crazy buying stuff, then they ALL must be like that at all times....just like some of my international friends are laughing their asses off at the housing problem here.... just wouldn't happen where there is no safety net for them if they go bankrupt, they are on the streets and starving in most places. Just another thing to make us look stupid.
It's like once I heard on the radio, I guess the Japanese, always so helpful, offered to raise the prices on their cars to give the U.S. market an ability to compete... they didn't even realize the Japanese were giving us a total insult.
But don't get me wrong, I am not a Japanophile, a europhile or whatever, I am just commenting on the ability for Americans to look forward a couple of years. We are a 'vision of nowness'.

I think the truth probably is - in both cultures, probably all cultures - that there is a body of sane moderate citizenry that works diligently and ignores most of the nonsense that goes on at the fringes. Jefferson called them yoeman farmers. Nowadays most of the yoemen aren't farmers, but the mindset is the same. So I don't doubt that the core of japanese society is diligent and thrifty. I do doubt the figure that you tossed out.

I don't think "we" look stupid so much as greedy. Obviously even so, it's a relatively small percentage of the population that got caught by these shady lenders, similar to the percentage that gets taken in by sweepstake prizes and all the other scams. It just gets a disproportionate amount of press.

I don't comprehend what you were saying about cars. No matter.

A brief search yielded these links which contrast the alternate reality of the article written by the Agri-business shill Stephen Barrett, M.D. posted above. -rangier

The Value of Organically Grown Foods
http://www.heall.com/body/askthedoctor/nutrition/organicfoods.html

Organically grown foods higher in cancer-fighting chemicals
http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/headline_medical_news-Nutrition-20030326-7.asp

30% more Vitamin C in organic oranges tested
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm

Organic Kiwis tested higher in nutrition
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070326095806.htm

Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070716134018.htm

Nutritional Quality of Organically Grown Food
(This article concludes that depleted soil grows food with lower nutrition)
http://www.soilandhealth.org/06clipfile/Nutritional%20Quality%20of%20Organically-Grown%20Food.html

Maybe this is a bit nieve, but why do people claim organic produce is better for you and the environment than produce grown with synthetic fertilizers and chemicals? I am not trying to sound condescending or anything I just want to know.

koicool1,
If for no other reason, it reduces your intake of toxic chemicals that come from chemical fertilizers, persticides and herbicides. This also means there are less chemicals going into the soil, and running off into the streams, rivers and our drinking water. Even if there were no additional nutrient benefits, this alone should be good reason to grow organically.
Unless someone has lived in a cave for the last 50 years, they would have to know all the health issues directly and indirectly caused by chemical use today, especially in our food chain!

Ron
The Garden Guy
http://www.TheGardenGuy.org
"New March Article & Frequent Diary Notes"

I think the issue of organic vs conventional is an issue of control vs uncertainty. Conventional farmers and planters believe they can replicate mother nature through science, organic followers believe that mother nature is more perfect than man and therefore can never be replicated. One has more faith in man, one has more faith in nature. This type of polarity presents itself in all sorts of debates, whether it be economics, medicine, technology, etc.

Personally, I feel there is a certain extent that humans can manipulate their environment to their favor, but when one tries to play god, deadly consequences can occur.

Thank you for your insight all of you. What chemicals could you get in your body from eating non-organic food anyway?

My father was a farmer and would never put more chemicals/etc. than the plants could absorb because he would have to waste it and, in turn, waste money. These farmers know what they are doing and know that the plant can only use so much. They know that more is not better. This type of responsible growing personally presents no threat in my mind that it can damage the environment. Of course there is potential to be damaging (if you just pour it on without measurements), but there is also potential of being shocked when dealing with electricity too.Moderation in all things. More food can be produced the conventional way than organicly, and in these economic times we need to tighten our belts and increase our national food storage cheaply, safely,and effectively. Conventional agriculture offers this.

I think the key to organics is sustainability, not necessarily some anecdotal health or quality benefit or a dogmatic adherence to "purity", both physically and philosophically. If chemical fertilizers damage the environment by killing the soil life, choking the watersheds, and resulting in more pollution, etc, then not only is it morally abhorrent, it just isn't good business sense or resource management. You kill your supply and potentially kill your demand (through systematic poisoning), you lose customers. But then again, I could go on about subsidies and lack of property rights that reduces these incentives, but I'll withhold.

As for buying food, I think more emphasis should be put on buying local rather than the "organic" label, which probably was grown 3000 miles away in China by some dirt cheap labor and flown over with hundreds of gallons of gas, not to mention it probably isn't fresh.

However, if people have chosen a lifestyle, for whatever reason, people should respect their choices and inquiries. I don't see many people mocking vegans for their lifestyle, claiming its a scam and marketing ploy which ultimately is futile.

Thank you takadi. Buying close to home is the best and I am glad to see that you know that. Organic produce that is sold as organic is flown in from around the world. Stimulate your local economy and buy locally produced food! Or better yet, grow a garden! then you know exactly what is being put on your vegetables.

Organic gardening, for me, is like a lot of other hobbies I have. I enjoy doing it to better understand how things work and knowing that I can do something myself. Self-reliance and being able to look back on your creation has a certain satisfaction. Outcomes are important, but the journey is fun. It's just like all my computer and electronics projects. Knowing how things work and being able to completely implement something on your own has a certain satisfaction as well as the learning experience.

The added bonus with organic gardening is working to obtain all my inputs without having to rely on an external source. Currently I'm obtaining all materials produced within state. Some are recycled or waste products that are then reused in my garden. It is very satisfying to know how much of my money goes to local business, locally produced goods, and reusing/recycling or consuming former waste products. It is a very enjoyable part, which some may not be able to appreciate. My parents, for example, think I'm pretty eccentric. I'm not hurting anyone and at worst I'm just delusional.

"People are lazier than they used to be because they can be. The steady increase in technology and general wealth of society allows it. Indolent people who have everything they need and can afford to buy all organic and stay fit with a personal trainer are called independently wealthy, while indolent people who don't have everything they need, don't care about organic and eat fast-food are called lazy"

I think that eating fast food and processed food makes people lazy. Or at least there's not enough nutrition in those foods to feel active and think freely.