Organic is just green washing, it doesn’t mean no chemicals. Plenty of organic products contain toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Organic oats have been found to contain glyphosate. Organic spices have been found to contain heavy metals.

▲

Saline9515 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Organic means that no non-organic pesticides have been used in production. There are still organic ones available, which are less dangerous. Especially to the farmers who are the first ones to get exposed to the poisons we spread on the fields.

▲

luqtas 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

care to cite any decent research proving you point?

there's an extensive body of research on synthetics having no effect on human health, from goverment funded, private and independent research... if you access your country's official institution you'll see there's plenty of synthetics allowed in organic agriculture just because they mimic perfectly "organic" substances

interesting point too, is the lack of any extensive meta-analysis/studies on organic pesticide impact on health and plus the fact organic farm is rather poor (produce less than 2% of the global food) and usually if not always lack good machinery to spread pesticides on the recommended quantities science points out (which organic agriculture also has less literature on that too)

	▲	Saline9515 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not all synthetics are dangerous, many are. Many are banned, with the list growing each year: https://www.npic.orst.edu/reg/restricted.html Why were they allowed in the first place, if "research" was enough? Science is not definitive, and what we believe to be an approximation of the truth today way be discovered to be totally wrong tomorrow. You are confusing science and religion. Would you defend, for instance, that DDT and other organochlorine poisons are safe? They were the darling of scientists and agrobiz companies for a long time, until we discovered well that they were dangerous. Of course, if we find a strict equivalent to a biopesticide that happens to be synthetical, it would be a good substitute. But most synthetic pesticides are not like this, unfortunately. And what you say about the lack of studies regarding organic farming is a plain lie, it takes 30 seconds on google scholar to find it: - Farmers in organic farms are less exposed to health effects of synthetic pesticides: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784... - Organic farming improve soils and yields: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658077X2... - Review on organic food quality and health effects: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12940-017-031...

▲

parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There are still organic ones available, which are less dangerous.

"Organic" as in certified 'Organic' or as in the class of molecules?

If the former then I'd love to see the classification requirements that make a qualifying chemical safer all the ones that aren't.

If the later, that's blatantly untrue

	▲	Saline9515 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Organic" as in "allowed in what is commonly called 'organic farming'". You can find the rather short list here: https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-ap... Note that other countries may have different legislations. You are also free to eat DDT to prove that organic farming is not really safer.

▲

bluebarbet 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Organic is a label which means something specific. Compliance with the definition is controlled by law, however imperfectly. It is not just greenwashing.

▲

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You are both correct. Organic means something specific. However what it means is not what most people think it means. People want healthy and good for the earth - that is not what organic gives you. Sometimes it does, but sometimes conventional ag (with all those scary chemicals) is better.

▲

bluebarbet 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I get this argument. But everybody intuitively understands the basic proposition of organic. Namely: "We have not added anything to your food for which you don't have many thousands of years of evolutionary preparation." That is not pseudoscience, it's rational circumspection. Or, as the European Commission calls it, the "precautionary principle". Speaking for myself, I find it convincing.

▲

bluGill 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

Problem is we have modern science which in same cases has proven that the modern chemicals are less harmful. Remember lead was considered normal for many thousands of years

	▲	kube-system 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, but we understand modern science as it pertains to both... which is why lead is controlled for both organic and non-organic farming. Honestly curious, which of these is more harmful than the non-organic alternatives? https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...
	▲	bluebarbet 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Modern science can only "prove" that something is not harmful on a timescale of a year or perhaps a decade, not a generation or more. If the precautionary principle had been applied in Roman times, lead would not have been considered safe. Nor asbestos, nor thalidomide, nor microplastics, nor a bunch of synthetic molecules - "proven safe" - that are routinely added to non-organic food in order to improve its yield or its cosmetic aspect or whatever. That was my point.

▲

woadwarrior01 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Within the EU, it does. There's a whole regulation for it: EU 2018/848.

▲

i5heu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At least in Germany we have “Bio” which is a organic label that is controlled at least somewhat.