.
Feedback

Organic Turkeys: Are They Really Worth The Cost?

Fresh, organic, pasture-fed turkeys are more than double the cost of the regular factory-farmed variety. But once you hear what's in those grocery-store staple birds, you may find the price jump worth it.

By now many of you have already shelled out the green for your Thanksgiving turkey. If you want a fresh, pasture-fed, organic bird like I do, you shelled out a whole lot of it.

This year, a regular ol’ factory farmed, fresh (never frozen), bird will run you about $2.79 per pound in San Diego. A free-range turkey goes for $3.99 per pound, and an organic, pasture-fed turkey is $5.49 per pound.

Not sure you can justify the extra cash? Let’s not forget that food is medicine, and it’s what your entire system runs on. But how does the whole cost benefit analysis actually break down for poultry?

First of all, consider fresh versus previously frozen or frozen turkey. Natural grocery giant Whole Foods’ website informs shoppers that, “USDA guidelines allow use of the word 'fresh' only when turkey has never been stored at a temperature below 26 degrees Farenheit (minus 3 degrees Celsius) … Additives like sodium erythorbate, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and salt are not allowed on fresh turkey, and that's a major health advantage for you.”

Whole Foods also goes on to encourage buying a certified organic turkey, one that’s given feed without “unwanted contaminants.” I bet they do, says the cynic with the price tag in their hand. But what kind of contaminants?

Well, poultry that’s fed a diet high in grain and corn, like factory-farmed (the usual grocery store variety) turkey is, ingests incredibly high amounts of pesticides and genetically modified food. These grains contain very little of what turkeys are naturally meant to eat and can also contain garbage and unhealthy meat by-products. Although these cheap feed grains mean that meat and dairy prices are lower for consumers, they also result in lower nutritional content. In general, grain-fed meat, eggs and dairy are lower in omega-3 fatty acids (the “good” fat), and conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA (CLA’s help to fight against cancer and cardiovascular disease), with higher levels of fat than products from animals raised on grass.

Also, pesticides are known to “bioaccumulate” (or build up) in the fatty tissues of animals, and when these animals are eaten, the pesticide buildup may be transmitted to the consumer. This exposure to pesticides increases people’s risk of developing cancer, and is also known to have long-term effects on our reproductive, nervous and immune systems. The nonprofit organization Breastcancer.org recommends staying away from these chemicals that cause female farm workers to have a higher risk of breast cancer, and opt for organic food—especially meats, dairy, and certain fruits and veggies.

In addition, to combat the unhealthy living conditions of the ridiculously close quarters on factory farms, a range of antibiotics are also added to the birds’ feed and water. Turns out it's pretty unhealthy for a bird to spend its whole life in a giant warehouse, so close to the thousands of other birds there it can barely move and eating food products it was never meant to eat. But rather than provide these animals with more sanitary living conditions or a proper diet, these operations simply feed their cows a steady stream of antibiotics, causing our population to become more and more resistant to antibiotics as well as being linked to a host of other problems regulating yeasts in the body.

Finally, additives to boost production and the company’s bottom line are also added to the birds’ feed and water. Among those commonly used is arsenic (which can cause a variety of health problems in humans, including warts, sore throat, cancer and poisoning). Arsenic is used to promote growth and prevent disease, but after this poisonous substance has been consumed by poultry, it ends up in their meat, their feces and eventually in water supplies near the poultry farm.

This is why Whole Foods encourages buying poultry with access to pasture, saying, “The words 'free ranging' or 'free roaming' as allowed on labeling by the USDA do not provide enough assurance about turkey quality since poultry are only required to have access to the outside in order for these terms to be used on packaging labels. Access to the outside might not involve any natural pasture access whatsoever or any reasonable or healthy outdoor lifestyle for the turkey. So look for organic turkey that is described as 'pasture fed,' or contact the producer to find out exactly how their birds are treated.”

Going back to cost, if you don’t have the money for something, no one knows better than I, you just don’t have it (hear that credit card companies?)! But I would suggest, as comedian Bill Maher does, that eating bad food is costlier in the long run than any hundred-dollar turkey. When you compare the price difference for organic poultry vs the health care costs of getting cancer in America, organics win every time. An organic pasture-fed Thanksgiving: It’s good for the bird, good for the country.

Chelsea Sauer November 22, 2011 at 09:11 pm
Great article, the only thing you left out is the fact that the big reason the grain-fed turkeys are cheaper is because the government subsidizes the feed and oil used in big agribusiness--which is to say the government takes our tax dollars and pays for part of the manufacturing costs in the grain-fed system (same with chicken, beef, pork, etc.) The oil and big business agriculture companies have a vested interest in this system, it makes them enormous profits, though if the subsidies were eliminated the birds that are cheaper in the stores now would actually cost more than the organic free-range. The system of growing huge monocrops of grains that are genetically modified and sprayed with oil based pesticides, then taken in trucks (GAS MONEY) to feed lots to feed the meat products we humans consume is far LESS COST EFFICIENT than traditional farming methods. Traditional farming methods are cleaner and self containing, requiring less energy to maintain. The huge agribusiness and oil lobbyists pay the government agencies to continue to use tax dollars to subsidize the grain-fed system which is destroying the health of our people and our economy. It goes beyond the question of are you willing to pay for the turkey to make yourself healthier, in fact the grain-feed system should be outlawed because it is such an overall threat to health.
Scott Caneday November 23, 2011 at 12:37 am
A generation or two ago it wasn't uncommon to raise your own turkey for Thanksgiving. We tried it this year. It probably cost about the same to purchase an organic, pasture raised turkey, but I know exactly what ours ate and how it was raised. My kids also know where their Thanksgiving dinner came from and helped raise it. Obviously, this is not an alternative for everyone, but for us, the experience alone was worth the price.
Earlene November 23, 2011 at 02:38 am
While shopping for my 14 lb. Fresh Turkey today at a local Santee market, I happened to check out a larger bird, which was organic. I almost fainted when I turned the tag on it's leg over and discovered it was $59.85!!!!!!!!!!! A turkey is a turkey and, in my opinion, they all taste the same......it's what's done to it after it's killed that makes such a difference and to pay that for a turkey, whose price is normally cheaper than bologna, is downright ridiculous as I don't care what it ate before being processed. Food 4-Less reported that they didn't have a single turkey in their store which had not been injected with this non-essential "solution." I bought one of these injected birds 3 yrs. ago and almost lost my life as I am highly allergic to preservatives, especially MSG, a description of which was in very small letters at the bottom of the plastic wrapping. At that time I had no idea growers and processors were injecting such crap into something as simple as a turkey. I have since become a reader of all labels on food and meat I purchase.
Christine Huard (Editor) November 23, 2011 at 02:42 am
Scott—I'm impressed! Did you, um, dispatch the bird yourself, as well?
againstthegrain November 23, 2011 at 05:03 am
GREAT article! So glad to see local coverage of these important food issues. In a sense, everything that was said about pastured turkeys for the holiday is also true for the rest of year.
I buy whole pastured chickens, wringing every bit of value I can from them by making soup and chicken salad with the leftovers, broth with the bones, joints, wings, gizzards, necks, and skin. I've heard people complain about the per pound price of a whole pastured poultry item, but then pay a similar or higher price for boneless (& tasteless) chicken breasts that are gone in one meal. Grassfed/grass-finished beef is also a better choice than conventionally raised feedlot beef for many of the same reasons. We are what we eat eats. And while no one enjoys paying more for food, the cash register price isn't the only cost, as Chelsea mentioned. One way I can afford the higher cost of better poultry and meat and other real food ingredients is I don't fill my grocery cart with snacks and convenience foods like chips, dips, bottled juices, flavored individual yogurts, soda, packaged cookies & cakes, processed cold breakfast cereals, box mixes, heat & serve items, BBQ sauces, bottled salad dressings, and so on. I mostly buy ingredient items, from which I prepare my family's meals. Granted, for some things, making foods from scratch takes some effort and time. But really, things like salad dressings, dips, and fruited yogurt are so easy a kindergartener can do it in minutes.
Abi Cotler O'Roarty November 23, 2011 at 02:44 pm
Yes, this was part of my research that didn't make it into the piece due to length concerns so I really appreciate your comment! I hate to say it, but once again it comes down to big business putting their bottom line ahead of the health and safety of the public....sad.
Abi Cotler O'Roarty November 23, 2011 at 02:46 pm
I, too, am very impressed by this! Perhaps if more families tried this method there would be more appreciation for and awareness of where food comes from and how that life before your table can effect your own life for a good long time.
Abi Cotler O'Roarty November 23, 2011 at 02:54 pm
I'm so sorry this happened to you and am glad you lived to make some changes. Perhaps stories like these will help others read more labels and be more aware of what goes into what they put into their body. Here's to labels!
Abi Cotler O'Roarty November 23, 2011 at 02:55 pm
Well said Againsthegrain, thanks for reading and adding to this conversation with so much knowledge once again!
Lisa Stroyan December 9, 2011 at 05:39 pm
Earlene, my son has a extreme sensitivity to glutamate (not just MSG but all free glutamate) including most things on this list: http://truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html), so I understand how frustrating this is, and I'm so sorry to hear of your experience.
But I would take issue with one thing that you said, that it doesn't matter what poultry eats. Poultry fed with traditionally sprayed grain accumulates significant amounts of arsenic, and arsenic impacts the NMDA (glutamate) receptors (http://www.springerlink.com/content/yxw6243h27221335/). Also arsenic is a toxin which, though I don't have data, must put a strain on the detoxification systems of the body, which I believe increases glutamate toxicity. (Here's one link of how everything is related...heartfixer.com/AMRI-Outcomes-Non-CV-Autism-Methyl Cycle.htm) . This isn't just theoretical to me; my son had concerning levels of arsenic in his hair until we removed most conventional poultry. It does get expensive. My solution has been to make sure we use everything of the bird we can. I serve the bird, then pick off all the meat that is left and use that in other dishes, then I make broth with the rest. Just be careful because cooking broth too long does break down proteins and will produce some naturally occuring glutamate, though we have not ever seen a reaction to such low levels. -- Lisa
Earlene December 10, 2011 at 12:05 am
Lisa, the average shopper would not know this and you've experienced what you've laid out and I thank you.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
Mary E June 19, 2013 at 04:01 pm
do you get a donation receipt for tax purposes?
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.