Yup. I helped my dad pick potatoes yesterday so I have a big bag of them. Those muddy fuckers are the potatoeiest potatoes that ever potatoed.
10 Likes
A lot of things would work if there were significant changes to the value chain.
The recent uprising of right-wing fueled farmer protests around here makes me doubt that a lot of farmers actually give a shit about nature - or are too ignorant to see the consequences of what they are doing - and won’t support that kind of change, though.
I don’t see that as a major issue, because it incentivizes people in doing the right thing. especially because is no reason to believe that organic food is nutritionally worse.
Part of that assumption is aggressive marketing of nutritional supplements. There is an attempt to claim modern agricultural produce has less nutrients than in the good old days. Which leads to the counter-claim that organic food, which is produced more like in the good old days, and often uses different seeds etc. must not be prone to that lack of nutrients.
Studies exist on both sides of that argument, and they are mostly biased, obviously.
But I think less toxic is argument enough, if the nutritional value is equal. Especially for kids, and also for small pets, like rabbitses, or hamsters, if one keeps such critters and feeds them produce.
Personally I think the verdict on the nutritional value is still out, and also it would depend on the specific type of organic regulation.
All of that is about vegetables, though, and not about meat, dairy and eggs. Or would you also think that in that regard organic is not better, too?
4 Likes
Agreed, and also, the “which is more nutritional” debate seems like a moot, nitpicking topic to most people. I think that for most consumers, if cconventional produce contains more poisonous pesticides, it’s less “nutritious” than organic, whatever that word technically or literally means.
6 Likes
I’m afraid these days I have an immediately suspicious attitude to those kind of claims.
So many of these “the old ways were better” claims turn out to be made by/end up leading to people who use “the old ways” to mean “getting rid of all those people” and kinder, kirche, küche.
There’s just so much right-wing fuckery in the woo and woo-adjacent spaces.
It doesn’t help of course that many of the criticisms of the “mainstream” or “modern” ways are valid.
3 Likes
Sure. And yet other claims can be proven to be true.
Reminds me of a quote in Shockwave Rider: There are two kinds of fools. One says, “This is old, and therefore good.” And one says, " This is new, and therefore better.”
I think it’s is not totally counter-intuitive to assume that large-scale industrial farming might be detrimental to the quality of the produce, and that would include nutrition, because nutritional value is simply not an aspect industrial production optimizes or even cares for. It would be really surprising to me - but entirely possible, of course - if the nutritional value accidentally went up, or even stayed the same.
Therefore it is essential that we have rigorous scientific investigation of those aspects by people who are not inherently biassed, to know what is actually going on.
Just to make this clear: nutritional supplements are one big fucking bag of woo. It appears to me you seem to limit that to claims about organic food, I don’t see that bias as warranted.
And that being said, many things that go on around us is actually evidence-based. We’re simply not aware of that, and label the things we are aware of as woo. But that is but the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah, it doesn’t. And I can tolerate woo that protects the planet and people’s health while being kinder to animals over woo that exists for profit for a selected few only, and fucks over everyone and everything else.
4 Likes
Oh no, not at all. That’s just the specific issue in this thread.
No, I mean it appears to me you do not extend that to the food supplement industry, which was my argument, that the claim about organic food is often a response to that.
Then I have not expressed myself well. My understanding is that the vast majority of nutritional supplements are complete bollocks and often actually harmful.
My point is that all of these claims (we need supplements vs. no,we need organic) are entryways to fascism.
1 Like
Somewhat off topic, but worth noting that even supplements that may be useful, and yes, they exist, may not actually contain any of what the label says they do, because it is an utterly unregulated multibillion dollar industry. Back on topic, “organic” is not terribly well defined either, and caveat emptor applies greatly to both.
(ETA, by way of explanation a/o example: Where I live, we have a huge problem with fire blight on pome fruit. There is a very effective treatment that is used, streptomycin at blossom, to prevent it. This was listed as organic, then not, and when it became apparent that there was no “organic” option, it was suddenly “organic” again. There is no standard, it’s an industry panel voting on what to list as acceptable. Not terribly objective, and far too vulnerable to manipulation. Probably other examples out there, but as someone who grows as organically as possible, I have chosen to use my own judgement and not worry too much about what the councils may say.)
11 Likes
The quote narrows down the notion of “healthy” to such a tiny box, almost as small as micronutrients, some might say.
As others have already mentioned, people generally mean something much broader when they say they do something because it’s “healthier.” I know I’m not the only one who thinks in tiers: healthier for me, healthier for the workers who grew and harvested it for me, healthier for the soil, etc.
Kind of a side note, but amidst all the national talk about food prices rising, I’ve noticed that the prices for my local, mostly organic groceries have stayed pretty much level. So that’s something…healthier for the economy?
6 Likes
That is scary, and although it’s off topic, I’ll express my own personal and thus insignificant fear-- that the calcium and vitamin D supplements advised by my doctor aren’t helping to stave off my ever-shrinking bone mass. I keep taking them, twice daily, but I do wonder if I’m wasting my money, and failing to ward off a snapped bone somewhere sometime. 
4 Likes
5 Likes
In the US of A, that is. Elsewhere it is quite often regulated.
Again, that is true for the US, and may or may not be true elsewhere. It is not true in the EU, for example. Still a problem for studies that it means different things in different places.
You mean only if they refer to a past where the produce allegedly contained more nutrients, or even in general?
A pretty strong claim either way, I would not agree with either.
Is any argument in the form “Y used to be better in the past than it is now, and if we do Y we get (some of) these benefits back” an entryway to fascism? Or is there another condition I’m not aware of?
2 Likes
It’s complicated. Back in the “good old days” produce was grown and consumed locally and was highly seasonal. On a per-unit basis it was probably more nutritious, but nutrition is also highly dependent on preparation, so while it may have been more nutritious, much of the nutritional value may have been cooked out of it. There are of course different varietals, and these can have different nutritional values as well (it’s why orange-flesh sweet potatoes are vastly superior to white-flesh sweet potatoes). Surplus was often canned, which has its own nutritional advantages.
“Organic” doesn’t necessarily mean “heirloom,” either. As mentioned before, commercial agriculture prefers produce bred for transportation and storage, not for taste or nutrition. Many heirlooms are more delicate and therefore less desirable as they can result in more loss due to damage and spoilage. For example, at my local store the organic produce looks exactly like the conventional produce, because they are the same varietals.
However, year-round access to “fresh” produce has distinct advantages, especially in a highly plant based diet with low consumption of highly processed foods.
All things considered, eating more fresh, canned, and frozen produce is going to be better for you, regardless how it is grown.
The issue is that organic sells at a premium, often twice as much as conventional. If the narrative around organic is that it is better nutritionally and safety-wide than conventional, people may decide to eschew fresh produce because they can’t afford organic and think conventional is no good. What we want to promote is that eating any fruits and veggies is better than not eating them.
What @docosc said.
Again, we have to be careful because organic doesn’t mean chemical free. Organic means fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides must also be organically derived. Unless you know and are confident in the source of your produce, you should assume it was treated with chemicals and wash it carefully. Your little friend will thank you.
I finally was able to read the study posted earlier. Importantly, they acknowledged that people who buy organic also tend to be more health conscious and make other healthy lifestyle choices which could influence the results. Their conclusions were inconclusive, and they recommend more studies to account for these factors.
Again, it’s complicated, and depends on what “better” means? Is it more delicious? That depends on whether the livestock is free range or feed-fed. Is it more nutritious? Hard to tell, as a lot depends on what the animal eats, but also fortification (of milk). Is it safer? Again, depends on whether pesticides, herbicides, etc. are in the food the animals eat then accumulate in their bodies. Is it more ethical? I honestly don’t know, the treatment of animals under organic certification is not my expertise. Maybe? Organic doesn’t mean free range or cage-free, though, but it does mean there are no antibiotics, which is a positive.
As I stated before, there is nothing inherently wrong with organic. If someone wants to buy organic, more power to them, and organic does have advantages, such as inputs derived from other organic sources, as opposed to mined or manufactured from petrochemicals. But the argument that they are more nutritious or have fewer or no harmful chemicals is not true in the aggregate. My work supports food security and nutrition, and these arguments are counter productive. We don’t want to promote the notion that organic is the only way — we want to promote fresh, unprocessed foods whether organic or conventional.
7 Likes
Certainly the claims that x was better in the past are often used to promote fascist ideology. But the promotion of “health” and “fitness” itself is also often a way of pushing right-wing ideology.
And it’s well established that the whole “alternative” health scene and fascism were intimately connected from the start.
That’s not to say that everyone making such claims is a fascist. All I was trying to say is that in my experience there are so many people making such claims who have turned out to be right-wing nutjobs that I am now suspicious of all such claims - whether rightly or wrongly. I find that a shame but there it is.
That is just my personal point of view.
That’s fine, I’m not asking you to.
1 Like
In the US? If that’s your claim, citation needed.
Okay. If you’re not in the US.
2 Likes
I’d say that since the roots of the wellness scene and fascism are intertwined, the same goes for the US.
I don’t really know enough about the history of both in the US to put forward citations but I’d suggest Kellogg is a good example and the Conspirituality podcast while mostly focussed on current wellness right-wingers sets out some historical background.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
