Note that "organic food" is often worse for the environment, and the whole moral panic around food that is not "organic" was started by upper-middle class food snobs.
This is in no way an endorsement of the other "regular" kind of industrial agriculture, because that too has many, MANY, problems, but yes! Not only is "organic" food a complete misnomer (since all food is organic) and mostly nonsense, it's marketing (after all it is a hundreds-billion-dollar industry) is full of pseudoscience and outright lies that in some cases put people in real danger, and at best are just overcharging those snobs you mentioned (and those who feel that they need to keep up with them, or those who are sadly convinced it will improve their health).
Not in all countries though: In EU and in Japan it has strictly regulated and it works as a qualification.
Furthermore, in both places it is often related to origin, which tends to be local.
I'm not sure what are your expectations that I'll explain something like Eu's legislation in a comment.
That said, a quick example of why your statement is not correct:
" * prohibition of the use of GMOs;
forbidding the use of ionising radiation;
limiting the use of artificial fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides;
prohibiting the use of hormones and restricting the use of antibiotics to only when necessary for animal health.
This means that organic producers need to adopt different approaches to maintaining soil fertility and animal and plant health including:
crop rotation;
cultivation of nitrogen fixing plants and other green manure crops to restore the fertility of the soil;
prohibition of use of mineral nitrogen fertilisers;
to reduce the impact of weeds and pests, organic farmers choose resistant varieties and breeds and techniques encouraging natural pest control;
encourage the natural immunological defence of animals;
in order to maintain animal welfare and health, organic producers need to prevent overstocking."
While we can argue over how well these rules are enforced on a country and regional basis, all have a net positive impact for land usage and its environment.
As a consumer, I would argue that how the product is manufactured, based on these rules, won't influence its quality or safety, however we do render the benefits from not fucking up what's left of nature or drinkable water.
is purely anti-scientific and based on the same fear tactics used to sell organic food
limiting the use of artificial fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides;
that with the correct use are perfectly safe, but not of many others, which can cause significantly more damage and are often un or underegulated
to reduce the impact of weeds and pests, organic farmers choose resistant varieties and breeds and techniques encouraging natural pest control;
but not those mentioned above, that are scientifically proven to cause less long term damage in the form of things like needing less land and pesticides on it
And you even admit yourself that the enforcement of these regulations is questionable.
As a consumer, I would argue that how the product is manufactured, based on these rules, won't influence its quality or safety, however we do render the benefits from not fucking up what's left of nature or drinkable water.
Except we don't. My point in asking you to look up the regulations was more to point out that they aren't there to stop the consumer getting scammed (because all "organic" food is a scam, it is a marketing term, always has been, and any regulation of it as a "field" would have to be based on pseudo and anti scientific ideas because that's what the "field" is based on itself) or keeping us (or even the planet) safe, at the end of the day the regulations are there to protect the capitalists' investment, not you or me or even the environment (though that might sometimes be a side effect, it isn't the goal).
“Oh you should get an e-car. They are better for the environment. It only costs 10x your paycheck” and actually isn’t that much better for the environment after all and it was all just another capitalist pyramid scheme in the end.
Add comment