to be or not to be Organic?

I'd like to point out that between "free-range" and "organic", only "organic" is an actual certification with enforced criteria. There is no uniform "free-range" criteria for growers to follow, and no agency regulating it - therefore, "free-range" is even more of a marketing tool than "organic" may be.

That's not to say that there aren't "free-range" animals who are truly given plenty of space to roam - but at the same time, you could slap a 2 by 6 feet enclosed yard next to a huge chicken barn full of thousands of chickens, and say that's "free-range" just by the fact that you gave the chickens a tiny yard that they can theoretically walk around in. There's nobody making any rules for that.

Regardless, I do eat organic foods, simply because it's a good way to avoid many kinds of additives. As others have said, though, organic doesn't necessarily mean "wholesome" or "healthy" - it just means it was (hopefully) produced under strict guidelines to limit the amount of certain pesticides, hormones and antibiotics used in its production.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Radez29

I'm not sure I follow this. Please explain to me how organic and free-range chickens lay eggs that are less prone to carry bacteria that could make you sick.

Also Sass, local farmers do it better? Efficient farming requires equipment that's big and costs a huge amount of money. If every farm started doing the "local farm" bit, we wouldn't be able to support as large a population.

Since organic practices limit the use of antibiotics as preventative measures, arguably, chickens that are grown organically are arguably more prone to bacterial disease. What organic practices limit, AFAIK, is the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria - that is, if you don't constantly use antibiotics, you aren't killing off the normal bacteria and allowing the resistant bacteria to flourish,

On the other hand, truly free-range chicken may be less likely to carry disease simply because they aren't crammed into battery cages or closed warehouses with hundreds or thousands of other chickens. It's the same reason why disease is more likely to spread in a crowded human slum than in the suburbs - if one chicken is sick, the close proximity to other chickens and sometimes, the amount of filth left in the environment, facilitate rapid spread of disease than if they were raised with plenty of free space.

Where it comes to food distribution, I think that the huge concentrations of people in urban centers makes it quite difficult for local farming to support everyone. It may be possible that in the future, some farmers or economists may find a clever way around this, but for now, our current system seems to be the way to go. That's not to say that it's not full of glaring flaws ( huge food-borne disease outbreaks, food security threats, control of food distribution by a few corporations), but until a better way is found, it'll have to do.

There's nowhere I can't reach.