41–50 of 133 posts
"There’s no proof that the meat [from animals fed from fraudulently marked "organic" produce] is any better for you, but some people believe it is and others have philosophical or environmental reasons for preferring it." Makes me wonder - who is the victim of this fraud?
From the article: “They can test for GMO (genetically modified organisms) … but corn that’s not GMO, you can’t tell whether it’s been sprayed or not sprayed.” "Technically, you can, but you’re not likely to get a positive result unless the inspector hits it just right and collects a plant sample before the residues wash away." Yes. See this Forbes article. By the time it reaches retail, you can't tell.[1] Non-organic…
The appeal of organic is (at least in part) that it is better for the environment and the farm workers... that isn't something that shows up directly in the end product, because they are externalities. That doesn't mean it isn't important.
From the article: “They can test for GMO (genetically modified organisms) … but corn that’s not GMO, you can’t tell whether it’s been sprayed or not sprayed.” "Technically, you can, but you’re not likely to get a positive result unless the inspector hits it just right and collects a plant sample before the residues wash away." Yes. See this Forbes article. By the time it reaches retail, you can't tell.[1] Non-organic…
Wait, do you really think that "insect residue" is a bigger health risk than carcinogenic pesticides? Seems pretty far-fetched.
"There’s no proof that the meat [from animals fed from fraudulently marked "organic" produce] is any better for you, but some people believe it is and others have philosophical or environmental reasons for preferring it." Makes me wonder - who is the victim of this fraud?
The customers who paid a higher price for something because it was falsely advertised. Just because there's no proof that organic is healthier doesn't mean it isn't healthier. And people buy organic for reasons other than health, such as the idea that it's better for the environment (e.g. no pesticides seeping into the ground).
USDA certified cringey statement.
From the article: “They can test for GMO (genetically modified organisms) … but corn that’s not GMO, you can’t tell whether it’s been sprayed or not sprayed.” "Technically, you can, but you’re not likely to get a positive result unless the inspector hits it just right and collects a plant sample before the residues wash away." Yes. See this Forbes article. By the time it reaches retail, you can't tell.[1] Non-organic…
> Non-organic food is probably healthier. Less insect residue. Not a foregone conclusion. Reading the Forbes article, I wonder if the studies took organic food fraud into account, possibly even from Randy Constant. Also, there are a lot of interests - very well funded interests - downplaying glyphosate and other herbicides/insecticides. The net effect would be to make non-organic food seem costly with fewer benefits.
Let's not pretend that "organic" is simply synonymous with altruism. It's a huge, huge industry.
> Constant scammed grain buyers, meat producers and millions of American consumers for a decade or more. The organic beef and poultry countless Americans were eating during those years wasn’t organic after all. Uh, no - the only people scammed by him were consumers. All the middlemen and downstream producers unwittingly resold the product as organic. They didn't really lose anything.
Since the label has been there, I’d argue that customer didn’t really lose anything either. Their emotional need is fulfilled by that label.
===
Edit: point taken. The above serve as previous opinion.
Consumers have been misled - cattle's natural diet is grass, not grains.
Chickens will opportunistically eat grains and seeds, but if given the opportunity will eagerly eat a blend of greens and insects & worms.
In either case, forcing an exclusively grain-based diet on either of these animals is anything but natural and consequently, unsurprisingly, extremely bad for their health.
It's only that they're typically slaughtered before the effects of these decisions properly manifest that growers get away with this.
> Constant scammed grain buyers, meat producers and millions of American consumers for a decade or more. The organic beef and poultry countless Americans were eating during those years wasn’t organic after all. Uh, no - the only people scammed by him were consumers. All the middlemen and downstream producers unwittingly resold the product as organic. They didn't really lose anything.
imo the only significant difference between organic an not organic in food itself is basically the label. Since the label has been there, I’d argue that customer didn’t really lose anything either. Their emotional need is fulfilled by that label. === Edit: point taken. The above serve as previous opinion.
I suggest you should have qualified with 'in my opinion', rather than 'tbf'.
There's significant behavioural and environmental differences upstream with many practices that come under the organic umbrella, even if you don't agree (for example) that pesticides are profoundly bad for bees, or residual pesticides in food are bad for us, etc.
It is obvious to everyone that due to the economic advantages of cheating, there needs to be some kind of inspection and certification program. Not that everyone is a cheater, but there will be cheaters, and it will put pressure on the non-cheaters to cheat too. The same people who bitch about big government will strangle inspection programs via budget cuts, and then when something like this story comes out, use it a…
> Constant scammed grain buyers, meat producers and millions of American consumers for a decade or more. The organic beef and poultry countless Americans were eating during those years wasn’t organic after all. Uh, no - the only people scammed by him were consumers. All the middlemen and downstream producers unwittingly resold the product as organic. They didn't really lose anything.
They lost trust.
Not the same as money, but it will cause them lower profits in the future.