And surely if your main concern was the poor welfare standards of animals bred for their meat, your best choice would be to buy NO meat at all and become a vegetarian.

Just to avoid *unecessary* pedantry:

1) He does mean "organic", not "biological", it's just that the word for organic food in a lot of languages is a cognate for "biological"
2) The asker of the question provided the choices: Buy organic, or buy standard and donate. Pick one, don't propose a third option! As such it is a challenging (and pointless) question.

Buying standard meat and donating the money to an animal welfare organization is better for the animals, in the sense that it is at least good for some of the animals. Buying organic meat doesn't let any animals (literally) off the hook; the only effect of the organic meat option is to (maybe) give incremental lifestyle improvements to fundamentally meat animals.

It also depends what you mean by "an organisation supporting animals". Supporting them how? The Animal Liberation Front is a very different organisation to, say the Cats Protection League.

"what's better for the animals?"

To be eaten. Animals like chickens and cows would probably be extinct if we didn't have such a high demand for their meat

Yeah, it's not like we use cows for anything besides meat. Anyways, I'm off to get some chocolate milk.

Farming animals isn't a terrible crime against the world if we actually farm them. If they are born to be food, they can die food. If not, with our population, we will run the planet even drier than we're already running it.

The animals, though, have to be treated humanely. They shouldn't be given steroids and other crap to make them juicier. Their lives are real even if their destiny is already determined. And if there's no way to farm an animal humanely (let's say dolphins and whales, for one of many cute examples), then don't eat them.

+1 everything that man just said ^

You know, they say ostrich has less fat, but you eat more of it.

Right. I'll elaborate. I don't think eating meat is very bad. It's natural, too. If I were to stop eating meat, that doesn't make their lives better I think. However if I choose to only eat meat of animals that had a fine life, because of the way economy works, there's more incentive to give animals a better life. That, or a donation to greenpeace, WNF or whatever. So what's the biggest support to animal welfare as a whole? How efficient are both options?

Basically my philosophy equals bo_sox's I think.

But what about hunting, Bo? Deer, duck, pheasant, wild turkey... Is it OK to hint and eat wild animals? The coyote hunts and kills rabbits for food so why can't we?

I think you can hunt within reason when you eat the animal. Outside of certain areas, with fragile ecosystems for example. I couldn't name one from the top of my head though. And obviously you can't just hunt on someone else's property without permission.

Organic or free range is more than just about the animals. We, the people who eat the meat, are healthier when we eat organic. The crap they feed poorly raised farms animals (the non organic or free range raised) isn't good for us either. That's why for meats, vegetables, and dairy products I eat as much organic, free range, or wild (especially with fish, wild caught is better than farmed) food as I can.

Sometime look at the vegetables in the organic section and compare them to their equivalents in the regular produce area. The organic ones, even if smaller and slightly imperfect on occasion, still look more appetizing.

So I would eat the organic or free range meat and *still* give to the respectable animal rights movements. Also remember, buy local. Local small farmers who do organic produce and free range organic livestock deserve to be rewarded for their efforts and hour patronage is the best reward for them.

Except there's no evidence that eating organic is healthier. I'm not disagreeing with you that it looks or tastes better, but nutrition-wise, studies have shown that there is no difference.

As a bit of a cook myself, I believe that organic does taste better and I do feel better about what I eat when I know its been raised and fed properly.

I find organic foods have a lower GI/GL when it comes to cereals but that is mostly cause organic cereal tends towards whole grains and reduced processed sugars. As a diabetic, low GI/GL rules and helps in keeping my blood sugar even and in control.

@Draug ... hunting for sport is pretty cruel if you ask me, but that's not of issue here I don't think. Hunting for food is fine so long as it's on a subsistence basis, not to sell. The coyote feeds for himself and maybe his cubs - that's it. Food for selling should be acquired through agriculture, either crops or animals under the conditions I already laid out.

Fragile ecosystems are only fragile if they are mistreated. If an area is overfished, for example, we label it as a "fragile ecosystem" as if there is something inherently wrong with that area that makes it hard for things to survive. As a matter of fact it is usually us. The only exception to that that I can think of off the top of my head would be certain areas susceptible to a recent natural disaster that need all the natural support they can get to continue to live.

Free range raised animals are typically organic as far as I know, and even those that aren't are healthier to eat. I love eating organic, but the food I buy at stores has to be labeled free range.

@2WL ... maybe overall they aren't healthier, but the omega-3 acids and antioxidants in most organic foods are seldom found otherwise and can be very beneficial in a healthy person and can turn an unhealthy person back on track.

I wasn't trying to argue it isn't our fault fragile ecosystems are our fault. Doesn't make them less fragile though.

That first sentence is messed up but you'll figure it out :P

"Organic" is a marketing term. On its own it doesn't really mean anything.

Draunar said it right!
Small farms and local, this way you will be eating organic, healthier, low cost transported and help farmer's community.
Less pollution of our world and our minds.

That all sounds very good. But how do you get an organic, local banana in Minnesota? Or even a lemon, for that matter? What about places where there really just aren't farmers due to soil and climate conditions, like much of the Southwest? Local, organic food can compliment the existing system, but it's an incredibly unrealistic replacement. There's a reason we've switched from small farming communities to urban/suburban/exurban areas with complicated supply chains: on the whole, it works better.

I like my heirloom tomatoes and grass fed beef as much as the next yuppy, but it's not like going to Whole Foods and the farmer's market is a viable solution for everyone's food needs. A poor community is much better served by a Walmart with lots of cheap but non-local produce than a small farmer's market that has a limited and more expensive selection.

^true

That is why these issues need to be dealt with locally. Every place is different. While some communities may need it, our nationwide obsession with Wal-Mart is devastating for many communities as well.

No, you're just fetishizing the "local" idea. What does it even mean?

Walmart isn't the best place to work at and it can harm local businesses since it can charge so much less than any competitor, but if you're a consumer and don't have a lot of money there's no place better. Fruits and vegetables are almost luxury goods due to the prices they sell at at most supermarkets. At Walmart they're as cheap as you can get them. You can also get clothes, especially children's clothes, very cheap.

I may not be a foodie but I'm also not Hank Hill. There's nothing wrong, obviously, with buying local and organic food if you want to and can afford to. But, as I said, it can only compliment the existing system. It's more important that people have access to nutritional food than for it to come from "local" sources.

'"Organic" is a marketing term. On its own it doesn't really mean anything.' - except in chemistry, where it means 'based on carbon' - i believe you'll find all food is organic under this definition...

@Draug: 'I find organic foods have a lower GI/GL when it comes to cereals but that is mostly cause organic cereal tends towards whole grains and reduced processed sugars. As a diabetic, low GI/GL rules and helps in keeping my blood sugar even and in control.'

Do you think that this indicates a problem in the market/competition, if the norm has become very sweet food, with additional sugars (corn syrup in the US?) then feeding us 'what we want' (and there are evolutionary reasons you would see preference for sugary/fatty foods when they are scarce) is damaging - I admit i'm assuming that it causes diabetes aswell as being harmful for those who have developed it, which may be entirely unfair if there is a sizable percentage of humans who will never develop diabetes no matter what they eat (due to specific mutations)

Organic as a marketing term is an interesting reflection on human psychology and buying behaviour, we want 'purity', i think some see greasy food and 'unclean' now... I guess the real question is who decides what the population should want, and how do they change these attitudes.

Frankenstein foods and factory farming are the only way that everyone gets to eat. Organic foods are appealing in the same way that sport-utility vehicles are appealing - both choices support a process that is less efficient, to provide a more satisfying product to the consumer. But ultimately doesn't scale up to everyone in the world.

Exactly. An artisan sausage from locally raised, free range pigs with local baby swiss inside obviously tastes much better than an Oscar Meyer wiener. Probably even "better" for you, as much as a sausage can be. But if are on any kind of budget it makes much more sense to get the 12 pack from Oscar Meyer for as much or less than the four pack of higher quality ones.

Moreover if everyone tried to eat organic foods, there'd be no way to make enough, and it would cost a fortune. It's for privileged consumers. I'm scared of all the chemicals and hormones they treat animals with these days. But buying organic foods is only a solution if you've got the cash.

Diabetes is a genetic condition referred by diet and lack of exercise. But there are plenty of people who eat crap, don't exercise, and weigh more than me without the genetics to give them diabetes. So sugary foods don't cause diabetes, they just trigger it I you are genetically susceptible.

Tendmote, this thread was about what to do if you have the cash. So what's your point?

@Draugnar one of the choices was organic food, and the topic evolved in that direction. Trust me, near the top of this thread I tried to keep the focus narrow. Didn't work. At this point we're all responding to the thread as a whole rather than the original topic. Sometimes conversations work that way.

And my point is that organic food is often portrayed as a virtuous choice, when that may not be the case.

I get that not everyone cam buy everything locally. I can't get local grapefruit, for instance. And not everyone can afford organic (local farmers are cheaper than supermarkets, even Walmart, as you aren't paying a middle man.

As far as organic versus superfarm food... It may be only personal experience, but my blood sugar has improved greatly since converting to organic and whole grains.

I'll agree that's good.

Interestingly I've been buying almost all my food from local farms, curiously if I stick to buying things as they come into season I've been able to find many fruits and veggies for half the price of the supermarket. (Recently they had apples for 50cents a pound. Walmart charges 1.50$ (where I live anyway)) Cost really depends on the local availability of produce, I'm lucky enough right now to live in a place with a number of local farms and a reasonable mild climate.

Things like mangos, or oranges have been relegated to treats lately, because they aren't local, and thus are often more expensive.

I find the same situation doesn't exist as much when it comes to meat products especially chicken, though I have never found cheaper or tastier bacon than the stuff I buy locally. The fellow selling it gives you amazing discounts if you by lots of stuff from him, and I always stock up on fresh sausages, back bacon, smoked turkey and ground meat.

Anyways long story short eating locally is possible on the cheap in some parts of the world. Hell, I don't think I could eat as well as I do without the farmer's market, food would cost me too much! (Though there are some things I pay a slight premium there for, like eggs which are 25 cents more. Though since they are free range and the other ones aren't its not really comparable. )

Some of the local farms I buy from aren't organic admittedly. But that is a whole nother point.

@tendmote ... "Moreover if everyone tried to eat organic foods, there'd be no way to make enough, and it would cost a fortune."

All of a sudden you seem to think there's already enough food for everyone. I hope you misspoke.

@Invictus ... there are plenty of communities surviving happily without a Wal-Mart or McDonald's or whatever to be found. People thrive on their local produce and the prices are driven by local competition. If the big guys never find their way in, you have a competitive local market. Yeah, it's rare, but possible. It all revolves around the people in said community. The largest city in Vermont (Burlington, absolutely beautiful city) doesn't have a single McDonald's, nor does Montpelier. There are only 4 Wal-Mart's in the entire state and not a single Target. And if you think it doesn't revolve around the people, note that Vermont happened to elect one of just two independent Senators.

It sounds crazy but it's still possible.

@bo_sox48 C'mon man, I did not say "there's already enough for everyone" and I did not misspeak. Organic agriculture produces less food than conventional agriculture, therefore I said "there'd be no way to make enough" organic food. If there's already not enough, and then you make less, there is not enough.