The author of the piece seems to have some conflict of interest WRT organic farming. Here's a two year old LinkedIn post[1] where she claims to have been a keynote speaker at the Croplife America Annual Meeting.

Headline on the Croplife America website[2] is: "We Represent America's Pesticide Industry".

I rest my case. :)

[1]: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrea-love-phd_scientistlife...

[2]: https://croplifeamerica.org/

Does no one think this is a little strange and suspicious? This blog post from 2024 is citing another blog post that cites a survey with a sample of 813 people in the UK, but without an actual link to the survey. And while dancing around with other things is of course a pro glyphosate argument.

I think there is a difference between avoiding all pesticides, and say avoiding glyphosate, which is why I prefer the buy the organically grown version or some vegetables. If anyone wants to chow down on glyphosate, knock yourself out, but so what if other people are paying a little more to not. That's their prerogative. Everyone can have what they want. What is this blog even arguing?

The USDA only permits very specific and highly restricted pest control substances to be used under the "organic" label [1]. So yes, they may still use pesticides, but they are miles away from the usual pesticides used in conventional farming. That stuff will literally kill you if you aren't careful [2]. Beware that there is a lot of misinformation out there targeting anything that dares to go against the conventional farming industry. Of course not all eco hippie alternatives are great, but the usual stuff out there is without question outright terrible in many cases.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat

The worst part of organic produce is that it is worse on two things that matter a lot: climate change and biodiversity.

Most of the negative impact of agriculture on the climate and on biodiversity happens when we convert an acre of land from its natural state to agricultural use. This is much worse for the environment than the presence of pesticides.

Organic produce consistently takes about 20% more land to produce the same amount of food. As a result, choosing organic over traditional means choosing worse outcomes for the climate and worse for biodiversity.

Every few years, I hear something like this. And every time, I wonder who is going to believe them, because almost without exception when I purchase organic produce it tastes noticeably better.

Perhaps one could argue "well, that's not because it's certified organic, it's because it's a smaller farm that uses these other crop-growing techniques blah blah blah". OK. Irrelevant. The point is, when I buy conventional produce, and then I buy organic produce, the organic stuff is clearly higher quality. Even better? Go to a farmers market and buy directly from the source.

What about food produced in Europe? We have an Italian restaurant in my Tennessee town that imports all of its ingredients from Italy.

I know several people who are otherwise gluten-intolerant but can eat anything there with no trouble.

All of the food issues we're suffering from in the US -- celiac's disease, food allergies, gluten intolerance, dairy intolerance -- are relatively rare in Europe.

I think food quality is real and the same foods from certain stores taste better and make me feel better than from other stores. So I usually pick my food based on brand/store rather than organic labeling.

A lot of what I buy happens to be organic, but I eat it because it tastes good, not because of the label.

I do think organic bananas taste better than non-organic. Same with meat and eggs, but any high-quality meat is great, organic or not.

For flour, pasta, and cereal, I feel like it comes down to the brand, not whether it's organic.

Maybe food quality is more complex than what an organic label actually measures.

Farmers market foods overall taste better. When I talk to the farmers frequently they will tell me they don't pay to be certified organic, but they use no sprays and fertilizer is organic (things like worm compost). They also do tend to use a lot of plastic, which I worry about but less than pesticides.

Organic foods could be a bit tastier (as opposed tasteless and bland) but that's not always the case. But when that's the case it's a no brainer to me what to buy.

Making me not wanna eat anything lol…

In seriousness does this mean I’m ok to buy the regular broccoli at the store next time?

Organic is also more contaminated with fungicide toxins resulting in certain cancer rates beeing higher in the "organic" crowd and many orgsnic farmer fields hugging connventional farfields to get at least some fungicides

I don't think using the median lethal dose of toxicity is a good metric to compare pesticides.

If we accepted what this article states as true (big if, seems mostly hyperbolic) ... it also supposes that the only important thing about organic foods is what your body gets out of it. No consideration given to the land, the inputs, the workers, the surrounding environment. Not much logic to ImunoLogic.

I do find it fascinating how blatantly people lie about things, the article mentions "Organic farming uses 84% more land for the same yield, but yields are 55% lower by area than conventional." yes, and that is the exact signature indicating that organic produce receives less harsh chemicals and is less exploitive of the ecosystem than "regular" produce. Not worth the read, it's simply anti-organic propaganda. Note: I'm not personally religious about organic/not-organic but neither do I enjoy overt misinformation campaigns.

undefined

There is a long-lasting study (more than 10 years) on a huge French cohort (more than 100k) that proves exactly the opposite : people who eat mostly organic food have less cancer and several other diseases. This is straight disinformation.

That's completely false. It's been proven that, even though they aren't always entirely pesticide free because of pesticide remaining in soil / water / nearby fields that have been spread, their levels are much lower

Not saying this lad is lying, vut it would helpnif they added at least the sources to their claims

> All y aren't x, therefore z better than y

Some kind of fallacious argument in this form

> and was borne out of consumer demand and misinformation.

So there was absolutely no reliable data they used? It was _entirely_ misinformation? That seems dubious.

> Most people have been misled to believe that organic is superior and that’s not your fault

I'd like fewer cancer causing chemicals sprayed onto or around my food. I'm not sure that's "superior" but it seems "more reasonable than not."

> in order to drive people to purchase organic produce

Not exactly a "hard sell" is it?

> All pesticides are toxic

And "toxic" defines a _wide_ range of features and outcomes, does it not? Now who's fear mongering?

> Another study making claims about glyphosate in urine, that the median glyphosate levels in organic food consumers and individuals with known exposure are essentially identical (390 vs 400 parts per trillion, respectively).

So corporate farming is so onerous that there's no way to avoid glyphosate cross contamination? I found this whole thing to be a very goofy analysis that seems preoccupied with punching down on some imagined conspiratorial enemy.

2024. I don’t think “our food is safer than ever before” is true anymore in the United States.

I've read the same kind of argumentative Mille-feuille garbage in French already.

You have to think about who is motivated to write this kind of stuff. Invariably, it's people selling conventional pesticides or people paid by such people. The lobbying is strong, contrary to the arguments. This is actually a very good sign, these despicable people feel threatened.

I don't know the rules of the organic label in the US, here in Europe it's not perfect, and yeah, thhere are still pesticides including some bad stuff like copper sulfates that are allowed, and the level of care absolutely vary from ome producer to another but it's still better than conventional products for pretty much everything except for the price if you don't factor in the cost of the damage done to the environment and yourself.

This kind of misinformation needs to be firmly fought back. They want to sell glyphosate, which they try to trick us into thinking it's not bad, that's the full extent of it. It's bad, we are better off without it, that's it, end of the story.

Even assuming it’s right, I don’t like this article. Not because of the claims it makes, but rather because of the implications it makes—or doesn’t care to avoid.

Organic farming is essentially the idea of farming more ‘in line with nature’, and is concretely defined and regulated by different laws in different places. If these regulations aren’t yielding the expected results, it may be a good idea to drop or improve them. What I find dangerous, though, is the easily acquirable belief that the idea of organic farming is deceptive and worthless.

Certain practices present in conventional farming are known to be problematic and it’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned and seek to avoid them. Organic farming can miss the goal, but my understanding is that it’s aiming in the right direction. Therefore, I think a more responsible conclusion to draw would be ‘today’s organic farming isn’t what it should be’, not just the plain ‘organic foods are not superior’. In this form, I fear the message does far more harm than good.