You seem to be confused about what a USDA standard is.
A USDA standard is a MARKETING standard to facilitate interstate trade and increase crop prices. The USDA-AMS stands for USDA - Agricultural MARKETING Service.
Standards were originally created to standardized grading of foods grain, fruit, etc. to facilitate trade. The Organic Certification program is implemented and enforced by the Agricultural MARKETING Service.
The standards are for MARKETING purposes and have no basis in scientific, environmental, or nutritional basis. All claims of this sort are for MARKETING purposes only.
Organic food is generally more destructive to the environment by increasing soil degradation, nutrient runoff, decrease in yield/acre causing more land to under cultivation. It is also dependent upon factory farming of livestock and GMO crops.
Please site proof from official sources. Organic can protect you from things like and not limited to. Taken from links I already posted.
Materials or methods not allowed in organic farming include:
Artificial (synthetic) fertilizers to add nutrients to the soil
Sewage sludge as fertilizer
Most synthetic pesticides for pest control
Using radiation (irradiation) to preserve food or to get rid of disease or pests
Using genetic technology to change the genetic makeup (genetic engineering) of crops, which can improve disease or pest resistance, or to improve crop harvests
Antibiotics or growth hormones for farm animals (livestock)
Organic farming’s does less damage per acre than conventional farming but it damages more acres.
On a per unit produced, it does more environmental damage. So for every organic vegetable you purchase, it’s more environmentally damaging than conventional.
No, it says “not necessarily per product unit”. Your characterization of the abstract is incomplete as it doesn’t definitely state what you’re claiming it states. It’s also a euro meta analysis, not a US analysis, so extrapolating your oversimplified conclusion is even more of a stretch since we’re talking about the USDA. I’m more concerned about carbon, water use, pollinator collapse, and a host of other metrics than NOx (which is a function of diesel emissions standards and crop yield, and can be fixed independently).
No just don’t trust downloading random pdf files that could cause harm to my system. Also if the overall scientific consensus says Organic is good in the US that is still good enough for me. Makes for happier animals and better quality products. Now if in Europe Organic has different standards that is not a US issue. This post started on USDA Organic standards not Europe.
Interesting! I guess I’m not surprised that organic farming is overall worse for the environment.
I only had time to skim the abstract - does it make any conclusions about the health impact of the reduced pesticides?
Edit: also, the other commenter is admittedly correct in one aspect: this article doesn’t analyze American agriculture. Even non-“organic” food producers in Europe go way easier on the pesticides than American farmers, no?
When it comes to health impacts there is no evidence that eating pesticide treated food has any health effects when used according to the label. Most of the really bad chemistries were cleared out in the '80s and '90s. The bad ones that remain are more environmental issues or dangerous to applicators.
In nutritional content there is evidence that a few crops have higher nutritional value when grown conventionally (greater nutrient availability).Some crops have higher nutritional content when grown organically (lower yield = more nutrients per fruit). Most of the time there is zero difference.
No the European union and the U.S. are pretty close on the chemistries they use. They do have some stricter Maximum Residue Limits (MRL’s). However these are more for trade limitations than anything else. Producers inside the EU do not have the same standards or testing.
You seem to be confused about what a USDA standard is.
A USDA standard is a MARKETING standard to facilitate interstate trade and increase crop prices. The USDA-AMS stands for USDA - Agricultural MARKETING Service.
Standards were originally created to standardized grading of foods grain, fruit, etc. to facilitate trade. The Organic Certification program is implemented and enforced by the Agricultural MARKETING Service.
The standards are for MARKETING purposes and have no basis in scientific, environmental, or nutritional basis. All claims of this sort are for MARKETING purposes only.
Organic food is generally more destructive to the environment by increasing soil degradation, nutrient runoff, decrease in yield/acre causing more land to under cultivation. It is also dependent upon factory farming of livestock and GMO crops.
Please site proof from official sources. Organic can protect you from things like and not limited to. Taken from links I already posted.
Materials or methods not allowed in organic farming include:
Okay, a scientific literature meta-analysis. This is basically summary paper of all the references listed.
https://r.jordan.im/download/organic/tuomisto2012.pdf
I paper basically says
Organic farming’s does less damage per acre than conventional farming but it damages more acres.
On a per unit produced, it does more environmental damage. So for every organic vegetable you purchase, it’s more environmentally damaging than conventional.
No, it says “not necessarily per product unit”. Your characterization of the abstract is incomplete as it doesn’t definitely state what you’re claiming it states. It’s also a euro meta analysis, not a US analysis, so extrapolating your oversimplified conclusion is even more of a stretch since we’re talking about the USDA. I’m more concerned about carbon, water use, pollinator collapse, and a host of other metrics than NOx (which is a function of diesel emissions standards and crop yield, and can be fixed independently).
Please link to official website and not a random document to download. No one should be downloading untrusted files from the internet.
Somebody has no clue about scientific papers and avoiding publishers … FYI the authors generally host it to get more citations.
Here’s the official publisher if you would like to pay for it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479712004264
No just don’t trust downloading random pdf files that could cause harm to my system. Also if the overall scientific consensus says Organic is good in the US that is still good enough for me. Makes for happier animals and better quality products. Now if in Europe Organic has different standards that is not a US issue. This post started on USDA Organic standards not Europe.
Interesting! I guess I’m not surprised that organic farming is overall worse for the environment.
I only had time to skim the abstract - does it make any conclusions about the health impact of the reduced pesticides?
Edit: also, the other commenter is admittedly correct in one aspect: this article doesn’t analyze American agriculture. Even non-“organic” food producers in Europe go way easier on the pesticides than American farmers, no?
When it comes to health impacts there is no evidence that eating pesticide treated food has any health effects when used according to the label. Most of the really bad chemistries were cleared out in the '80s and '90s. The bad ones that remain are more environmental issues or dangerous to applicators.
In nutritional content there is evidence that a few crops have higher nutritional value when grown conventionally (greater nutrient availability).Some crops have higher nutritional content when grown organically (lower yield = more nutrients per fruit). Most of the time there is zero difference.
No the European union and the U.S. are pretty close on the chemistries they use. They do have some stricter Maximum Residue Limits (MRL’s). However these are more for trade limitations than anything else. Producers inside the EU do not have the same standards or testing.