I feel similar about Organic (or "Biologisch", as it's called here). If I eat meat, I prefer it to be from an animal in a local field than meat that has all the right certifications but was shipped from the other side of the world (which happens).

Palm oil is a similar issue. It was supposed to be very environmentally friendly, but it's not if they're cutting down rain forests to grow it. Direct knowledge of where it comes from still beats having the right names and certifications; if that's all that matters, companies will cut corners to tap into that market.

> Organic (or "Biologisch", as it's called here)

Indeed a similar topic. Many people don't realise that "organic" is a marketing term. You cannot equate it with "ethical" or anything of the like from a terminology point of view. It (organic farming) has formal definitions in the countries where the products are sold and these are not always sensible or honest.

This is wrong, in the US and abroad in many cases.

"All Natural" is a marketing term... "Organic" labeled foods are certified and (in the US) must meet specific requirements set by the USDA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

I would agree that the GMO component seems overblown, but this also includes controls that protect the environment (reduced pesticides, reduced antibiotic use, more specific dumping regulations) and keeping better audit trails.

It's a certification, yes, but in practice it is arguably more effective from a marketing perspective than it is from a farming practices/audit perspective.

You may be surprised by how many people think Organic == pesticide free, for example.

So how do we know if vegetables were grown in toxic soils containing pesticides?

Good question.

I think there are a few ways to do this e.g.:

1) multiple certifications as mentioned above;

2) brand recognition / brand responsibility (the analogy is myself with the South African butter); and an option that I have suggested which amounts to

3) an/multiple environmental quotient(s) that would score higher if you have a nature reserve on the farm, use less pesticides, use compost, etc.

But, unfortunately, unless you are remarkably well informed on all the suppliers, you simply can't always know. There is an app in France that tries to do this, but I am sure that also opens the door to corruption. In the next 10 years I expect to see more such apps.

I plan on growing most of my vegetables when I'm settled down and/or joining an organic farm vegetable co-op where I can meet with the farmers and be reassured it's all grown in using safe methods and materials.

I had the pleasure of being in an organic vegetable co-op in Oregon, it's such a great idea wish it was easier to access in California.

Well, one dead swallow does not break a summer. Vegan > not vegan is still a good first-order approximation; if you want to be more precise, vegan+avoiding palm oil > vegan > not vegan.

Exactly. You add on top of that that many of the Vegan spreads are moving to "Sustainable Palm Oil"[1] and you are really just left with the unsustainable and unimaginably cruel Dairy Industry.

[1] - https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2015/earth-balance-switch...

I understand this sentiment, and the drive behind it to do good.

Unfortunately one can also perhaps justifiably say:

eat insects > eating vegan > ...

And that makes it all the less romantic. Ideology to me has some merits, but I personally prefer to attempt to optimise at each point (including the meat production pointset).

EDIT: The Netherlands is setting some precedent towards this, especially for animals and improving their surrounds.

Vegan is by definition more ethical than non vegan. And yes, palm oil is a controversial good. There are vegan butter alternatives that do not use palm oil (they are usually a couple dollars more expensive). But honestly, how badly do you need a butter substance in your diet?