Hacker News Reader

Comment by designium | Hacker News Reader

At least, when I am purchasing "Organic" products, I would expect to use the least or zero amount of pesticide/herbicide/etc. in the growth of the "organic" plants and animals.

If the article is showing the truth, it feels like those companies are cheating the consumers who are paying for that premium product. It's also unfortunate that there are certifications companies that are either created or "cooped" by companies that are really interested in bending the rules for their own sake.

Not sure if there is a way to block or hamper those interest group effectively.

*Edited: I understand that the companies are using the herbicide before the planting in order to "kill" whatever is there; however, the concept of organic - the way I believe - should avoid the usage of chemicals that are being used in the massive agriculture for cash crops; and even if that is not being actively use in the "organic" plant.

View on HN

Kurzgesagt has a pretty great video[0] about organic food, and goes a little bit into what the definition of "organic" means. Digging through his citations[1] (which is awesome, btw), as far as American legal definitions and pesticides and the whatnot are concerned, the relevant law[2] says that pest and disease problems can be controlled using "non-synthetic controls, such as...repellents", meaning that pesticides can be used, as long as they're also "organic" (which, he notes later in the video, there are slightly less, but still non-zero traces of, and not necessarily safer[3])

That being said, there really shouldn't be a worry about traces of "chemicals" on organic OR non-organic produce, as the FDA has very strict guide lines and testing procedures that produce sellers go through[4] before sending out produce that almost everyone is well under.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es [1]: https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesorganic/ [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/205.206 [3]: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.aces.illinoi... [4]: https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata

MaiLabs also made a video[1] specifically about glyphosate and why some bodies rule it as carcinogen and others don't, she's sponsored by Funk similar to Kurzgesagt and it's quite informative. She searched trhough quite a few sources [2] to evaluate the situation and it's really all about the IARC including a non-independent study vs all the other bodies not doing that (the IARC is literally the only body that said glyphosate is cancer).

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K0TAphTfaI, 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_CgI5-bYC6dNnUvAMQUHlHjp...

You're right that the organic designation is about completely avoiding the usage of certain substances. The article refers to this idea towards the end:

>As the soil becomes compacted and soaked with agrichemicals, the delicate microbiome of the soil is destroyed. The whole point of growing organically is to ensure this planet stays healthy and chemical-free.

> The whole point of growing organically is to ensure this planet stays healthy and chemical-free.

The planet is entirely made of chemicals, it can't be made chemical-free and, even if it could, that wouldn't be healthy.

Then lets use some better terms.

Petrochemicals and derivatives aren't good for the land. It depletes various types of long-accrued chemicals and biological structures that make it healthy.

Neonicotinoids and similar neurotoxins are bad for myriad life in the vicinity where these chemicals are deposited or sprayed.

If it ain't EM, strong, weak, or gravity, it's chemicals. But there's a whole slew of really nasty shit we humans have created that is devastating on the ecology. Some are damn near permanent, others mess with endocrine systems, others cause cancer of everything.. Probably a good idea to keep the bulk of these away unless we reallllly know what we're doing. And considering the usual reason is "to make a buck", we're selling our future selves really short, and we ain't asking them.

I guess they the proponents kinda mean that (agricultural) chemicals be near their natural concentrations in arable lands. So there are going to be chemicals naturally, and harmful ones, but in normal non/not very harmful to humans concentrations. And of course earth is made of chemicals and “organic” chemicals (gotta use quotes so as to not confuse with organic chemistry) are also harmful (if they were not, they’d be of little use against pests).

Organic is a marketing term created by organic companies. Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

No, that's not true, it's the strongest USDA mandated and certified food standard available in the USA. The USA standard is far weaker than EU's organic standard, which is weaker than the UK's, but it is still the strongest defined standard in the US market.

Not only do those standards limit pesticides, they restrict frequency and amount of what is permissible. The European standards have additional rules around animal welfare (I'm less sure about the US here) - which make organic the most animal friendly way of buying food, regardless of whether or not you care about organic's aims or use of pesticides.

I agree that the USDA created an official designation. As you said, "organics" still use pesticides, but the recommendations for limitations and selection are not all based on science.

If they were, then I would expect that GMO/GEO foods wouldn't be barred as they have the potential to not only help address malnutrition, but also reduce water usage and tillage.

http://www.goldenrice.org/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03231-x

Sorry, I was speaking only of US standards as those are the only ones with which I'm even remotely familiar.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

Overall point: there is a strong naturalistic bias with the term organic. Natural = good, GMO = bad. This is unproven and in some cases counter to reality. This is why I refer to it as a marketing term.

The problem is that the term "organic" in the US includes pesticides that are... less healthy than normal ones.

They are organic pesticides, those are after all okay, but they are more generica than targeted pesticides and tend to be worse for the environment and the human body (Kurzgesagt has a very good video on that).

Some pesticides that are banned by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for humans and the environment.

And some pesticides allowed by the organics label are actually pretty terrible for the huamns and the environment.

> Growing things without herbicides and pesticides is very difficult.

And not what organic aspires to, anyway, it just involves a fairly arbitrary set of exclusions as to which pesticides are used, which exclusions have no particular correspondence to either human health or environmental sustainability.

“Organic” is largely marketing, but what the marketing appeals to is woo to start with.

It’s more than marketing in the sense that certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity.

That said, the list of allowable, synthetic organic pesticides is pretty damn long.[1]

[1] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f10...

>certain pesticides are excluded for their toxicity.

They're not excluded for their toxicity. The exclusions come as a result of a limited list of chemicals used in organic agriculture.

I think we’re saying the same thing.

A limited list of chemicals is used in organic farming. How did they limit the list? By removing the more toxic pesticides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com