Organic has no health benefits

Re:Organic has no health benefits by meta on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @12:46PM (#730359)

I was under the impression that "Organic" in Canada is mostly a meaningless title. It isn't enforced and can be applied to a wide swath of products that most people would not consider Organic.

I checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_Ame...) and it says that the Government has published a set of Guidelines but applying organic labels is up to "Private Sector"...

However, doing some more google-fu I found (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtm...) which seems to imply that on June 30, 2009 the Canadian Government finally got it's Organic ducks-in-a-row.

So, that seems to imply that only within the last month did Canada actually gain an Organic label that is regulated and trustworthy: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtm...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Organic has no health benefits by igrekel on Friday July 31, 2009 @08:41AM (#734265)

You are right. Actually, I shouldn't have said Canada, I should have said Quebec.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Organic has no health benefits by 321abc on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:09PM (#730911)

The meaning of "organic" is getting watered down:

http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=6010024200...

For example, "products labeled 'Made With Organic Ingredients', which contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, but can contain up to 30 percent non-organic ingredients"

[ Parent | on HN ]