In article > ,
"Peter Aitken" > wrote:

> "johny b" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I've recently been trying to eat mostly organic food for a healthier
> > diet. Here in NJ we have Wholefoods and health shoppe (i'm sure there
> > are many more, i just haven't found them out yet). Upon researching on
> > the internet, there seems to be many debates as to what is considered
> > and sold as organic at stores. Some claims have been made that the
> > USDA allows some pesticides to be used yet still be labled as organic.
> > I would just like to hear some opinions as to how much healthier the
> > food in these stores which claim to be organic really is. Is this a
> > hoax etc.? Any information regardling what to look for and what to
> > lookout for, or any valuable details is most appreciated. Thanks!
> >
>
> To be labeled organic, food must meet certain FDA guidelines. See
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html for some information. I do not know al
> the details, but for example the land that a crop is grown on must not have
> had pesticides or artificial fertilizers applied for a certain number of
> years.

True. Sometimes you will see produce or meat labeled "transitional,"
meaning it is being grown organically during the three years that
the guidelines (actually, the FDA regs are the law for products
bearing its seal) require for moving from conventional production to
organic production.

> Also, organic animal products must come from animals fed organic
> feed. Producers have to be certified as "organic producers" by an
> FDA-accredited agency to use the term organic. This does not mean some do
> not cheat, but as is often the case you have to trust the label because what
> choice do you have?

Before the FDA law, there were (still are) various organizations
which independently labeled goods as organic. The farmer mentioned
in another post can post "ORGANIC" all over everything he sells, but
if he's the only one saying it, it ain't necessarily so. If the
State of Washington or Oregon Tilth labels something "organic," you
can be pretty sure it meets a uniform set of requirements imposed by
someone other than that farmer.

> I would not get too excited about the health benefits of eating organic. The
> worries that exposure to really small amounts of pesticides will cause
> health porblems have been shown to be false. Organic production is
> definitely good for the environment, though, and that alone is a good
> reasoon to eat organic when possible.
>
> Peter Aitken

Organic production _definitely_ is good for the environment.
Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
Local farmers keep local implement dealers and supply houses going,
too. The land typically is farmed by people who are paid a living
wage for their work (and who spend it locally). Animals raised for
food are raised and slaughtered as humanely as possible.

Many organic farmers are aiding their own economic future by growing
crops that don't have to be propped up with massive amounts of
fertilizer or pesticides. In my co-op, you'll find local heirloom
tomatoes in August and September; locally-grown apples grafted into
varieties which resist blight, and in varieties you don't see in
most supermarkets; alternative whole grains; and other items which
are not being produced by the factory farms. It's hard to compete
with that kind of scale, so why try?

And I think the food just plain tastes better. When the farmer who
picked the apples from the tree drives them in for sale the
following day, I can expect a better apple than the one that's spent
a few weeks in the chiller between a thousand-mile truck trip and
the supermarket's distribution center. I think I get it, too.

sd