Is Organic vegan?

[JordanDProductionz]

So i was listening to the logan Blake vs BWP debate and the argument was that organic isn't vegan because you're giving money to Animal Agriculture which lowers their production costs which lowers store prices resulting in more animals slaughtered. I'm not the most knowledgable and would like to know if buying non organic is more ethical, do these manure profits actually lead to animals being harmed? i thought it was just left over by product. If it's just about giving them money then sure that isn't great but is it any less ethical than giving the gmo companies money? and wouldn't more gmo profits lead to cheaper gmo animal feed which benefits animal agriculture? I'm a bit confused

[Lay Vegan]

Vegans should reasonably avoid purchasing organic foods, since organic agriculture makes heavy use of animal byproducts as fertilizers (fish, bone meal, blood meal etc. that profits the animal agriculture industry, makes meat cheaper, and saves factory farms money in waste disposal. While non-organic agriculture isn't necessarily vegan either (and often makes use of animal fat-derived surfactants in some herbicides and pesticides) genetically engineered plants that require fewer pesticides would be the more ethical and sustainable option. Fewer insects would be killed, less runoff will poison fish, and much less land would be devoted to agriculture, which would help the natural ecosystems. Organic farming has notoriously low yield, which forces farmers to utilize more land to grow the same amount of food.

If it's just about giving them money then sure that isn't great but is it any less ethical than giving the gmo companies money?

I don't think you understand the scope of vegan opposition to organic agriculture. Unnatural Vegan sums it up well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu6qcNZvrUE

This issue is not just about “giving them money” but choosing the most effective and sustainable methods to grow our food. Organic agriculture (as is) is simply not a sustainable way to grow our food. There’s a sizable yield gap for key staple crops such as wheat, soybean and corn. These gaps have been estimated as low as 10% and as high 50% or more. Genetically engineered crops can be given yield-preserving traits like Bt to increase productivity. There may also be a public health issue. Organic agriculture practices can be far more dangerous, due to a lack of consistent regulation by the USDA and ambiguity of the label. Many farmers spray non-synthetic pesticides on their crops, and often in greater doses because of their reduced effectiveness. Some of these pesticides are toxic, and much worse for human health the synthetic ones. This is not just sustainability issue but a safety issue.

and wouldn't more gmo profits lead to cheaper gmo animal feed which benefits animal agriculture? I'm a bit confused

I can’t see it having much of an impact there. The use of GMOs in farming has increased annually since its introduction in 1996, and the majority of GMO crops today are already fed to animals. I'd encourage you to quit being myopic, and instead objectively evaluate all of the harms and benefits of organic agriculture.

The harm that the organic industry brings is morally indefensible. Studies have shown that organic fruits and veggies have slightly higher phosphorous levels, and that organic milk and chicken have higher omega 3 fatty acid content. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/org ... 1209055264 But overwhelmingly the evidence does not show that they are healthier than conventionally grown foods. The pesticide-free gimmick is largely a myth, they are less sustainable to grow, and they save factory farms money in waste disposal. All of this is why vegans generally oppose organic.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not the most knowledgable and would like to know if buying non organic is more ethical, do these manure profits actually lead to animals being harmed? i thought it was just left over by product.

It's absolutely more ethical to buy non-organic. The manure, blood meal, etc. is part of it. Even sometimes whole fish ground up.

The bigger thing is probably the yield, though: organic yields a lot less per area of land, so it means more forest has to be cut down and more animals killed to grow and maintain the land.

If it's just about giving them money then sure that isn't great but is it any less ethical than giving the gmo companies money?

Most conventional food is not GMO, there's plenty of non-organic and non-GMO food.
I would also note that conventional breeding is just as much of a racket. Pretty much ALL the plants you can buy, including organic, are patented. This isn't an issue exclusive to transgenic GMO. Normal breeding is a patent-able form of modification too.

However, there's nothing wrong with giving money to GMO companies. GMO companies are just supplying a product. The fact that the product is often used to feed livestock doesn't mean buying it for human consumption is paying animal ag.

At that point, you'd have to boycott water too, since water is also used for animal ag.

There's a different relationship there to the direct support.

and wouldn't more gmo profits lead to cheaper gmo animal feed which benefits animal agriculture? I'm a bit confused

Not really, their R&D budget is pretty much fixed, and animal agriculture is enough to support that on its own.
That link is really indirect and frankly you could say that about pretty much anything in the economy or infrastructure (note the comment about water). It's not direct and obvious like the manure link.

However, you could make that argument about buying soybean OIL.
Humans eat the oil, and that arguably subsidizes soybean meal to be used as animal feed.

In contrast, if you buy TVP you're actually competing with animal agriculture for the protein and thus raising prices for animal feed, harming animal agriculture.

Buying whole soybeans has pretty much no subsidy or competition effect... or mixed effects (competing in the market raises the price for soy for animal ag, but also more purchase means economy of scale, etc. impossible to say the net effect).


All that said, I would only prefer conventional over organic when there's an option, and not really worry about buying organic food if you don't have a good alternative.

[fredericlavender]

I didn't think organic meant vegan as my local store has organic items (can't remember now but I know I have seen this) that are not vegan. Mostly are vegetarian I think

[JordanDProductionz]

Thanks for the replies guys. Just watching UVs vid and I am starting to lean towards non organic however i will still have to buy some organic because i'm trying to eat less processed food and i was looking for cornflakes and pretty much the only one i can find without added oils and sugar is organic.

[brimstoneSalad]

however i will still have to buy some organic because i'm trying to eat less processed food and i was looking for cornflakes and pretty much the only one i can find without added oils and sugar is organic.

Yes, that's understandable. It's unfortunate that the only sugar free option is often organic.
I think it can be worth it in those cases, because those products can be healthier (although due to being sugar free, not to being organic). When there's a real material benefit it can be possible to justify the slightly increased harm footprint.

However, I'll say oatmeal is way healthier than corn in either case (it's one of the healthiest things you can eat). Worth a try finding a recipe you like. It's usually cheaper too.

[JordanDProductionz]

Sugar can be bad for the environment too.

Yeah i love oats but having them everyday can get a bit boring and they take longer to prepare so somedays i might be in a rush or cba.

[brimstoneSalad]

Sugar can be bad for the environment too.

How so? Sugar is one of the most efficient crops in the world when it comes to calories per land area.

If we could live off sugar and it wasn't bad for us, I think there would be some good argument to consume more of it.

[JordanDProductionz]

Sugar can be bad for the environment too.

How so? Sugar is one of the most efficient crops in the world when it comes to calories per land area.

If we could live off sugar and it wasn't bad for us, I think there would be some good argument to consume more of it.

According to this sugar is arguably responsible for a greater loss of biodiversity than any other crop.

http://foodresearch.org.uk/wp-content/u ... 3-june.pdf

[brimstoneSalad]

According to this sugar is arguably responsible for a greater loss of biodiversity than any other crop.

http://foodresearch.org.uk/wp-content/u ... 3-june.pdf

They cite a non-peer-reviewed claim.
You also have to keep it in perspective: crops that produce a LOT of food do damage, but they likely do less damage per calorie than those that produce less.
We'd need a more credible comparison with actual numbers to look at.

The article itself explains the benefits of sugar too, in environmental terms of yield.

I wouldn't take it as very credible overall, though, since they assert things like this without any evidence:

Genetically modified cane sugar poses additional concerns for safety and loss of
biodiversity.

Seems like they don't hold their factual claims to very high standards.