Page 2 of 2

Re: What is "Natural" - Is "Organic" the same thing?

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:42 pm UTC
by Sandry
mosc wrote:Organic exists because you have a considerable consumer base with income more than sufficient for their lifestyle who can spend disposable income on food. It's a somewhat arbitrary definition of a standard that doesn't affect much but does differentiate your product from less expensive products. If you want to make tastier than normal apples, it's hard to put up a sign that says "just like that guys but they taste better". Getting an organic stamp is a way to get customers to try your product under the premise that it is different (superior) to your competition. Not that all organic food tastes better. This market niche has extended to the point where people look for it where it makes little sense (organic potatoes for example) and will buy inferior products even if they are more expensive if they contain the label.

Food is organic or not organic. It is tasty or not tasty. It is fresh or not fresh. It is costly or cheap. None of these things are directly related.

It's funny; I basically agree with your final sentence, but I disagree with a lot of the way you got there.

Certainly organic *is* a product differentiator, but it is one that comes with a cost to the producer, and is not simply marketing material (though certainly some people incur the cost to get up to certification standards based solely on the goal that they'll get a good return on that investment). Third party organizations must specifically certify that your product is different than conventional, so it's not like this is Joe company owner asserting "hey, my apples are rocksauce." They actually have to follow specific guidelines and be validated as following laws.

The point of organic has never been any attempt at making food taste better. It's pretty strictly an environmental thing. If you are concerned about specific chemicals frequently used as fertilizers, or antibiotics in food, or other similarly niche issues about what farmers are putting into soil and what you're putting into your body, then you may find that spending the premium that organic imposes is worthwhile. If you're aiming for superior taste, that's completely subjective and in no way guaranteed, and yes, not related to organic in any sense.

Re: What is "Natural" - Is "Organic" the same thing?

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:38 pm UTC
by mosc
Organic has never, ever, cared about chemicals or pesticides being ingested by human beings. If it did, it would test the FOOD, not set up arbitrary standards like "hasn't been sprayed for 2 years". Similar to BGH or antibiotics or other things, if you cannot clinically demonstrate a damn bit of difference between the organic and non-organic product sitting on the shelf then the organic standard cannot be stated as reducing the intake of anything. I'm sorry, that's just how it works.

Re: What is "Natural" - Is "Organic" the same thing?

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:50 pm UTC
by Azrael
At which point the guy who thinks the organic tag is naught but a way to separate rubes from their cash pretends to understand the entirety of the motivations behind producers and consumers.

Well done.

Oh, by the way, even a rudimentary google search readily pops up plenty of examples that do demonstrate the testable reduction in chemical consumption.

Re: What is "Natural" - Is "Organic" the same thing?

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:17 pm UTC
by mosc
Detectable quantities and significant quantities are very different things. Significant quantities of pesticide on food is dangerous and quite heavily regulated. Or are we making a homeopathic argument that eliminating the smallest detectable trace of something has medical significance?

Re: What is "Natural" - Is "Organic" the same thing?

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:20 pm UTC
by Bakemaster
Just... no. Stop.