9 ms·

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

12 points by colins_pride 17y ago

321abc 17y ago
There's a metafilter thread about this here: http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin
RobertL 17y ago
All food is organic because it contains molecular carbon. Only exceptions might be salt which is composed of inorganic NaCl. Even sea salt is inorganic it's just got a lot impurities in it like Radioactive Uranium and Radioactive Radium. Radioactive Radium is even more toxic than radioactive Plutonium. Other than that though, it's really good stuff.
kwamenum86 17y ago
I never thought the argument was that organic food is more beneficial nutritionally. I thought it is supposed to be less harmful overall. This is an important distinction.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?
  - andreyf 17y ago
    If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 100% organic? Malaria. And there's little more artificial than the chemical-soaked neon bednets saving millions of lives across Africa.
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      Living in a society with rising cancer rates and given the choice between food bathed in possibily carcinogenic pesticides and food that isn't, curiously enough I'll choose the food without the pesticides.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        If you avoid everything "possibly carcinogenic", or even everything "certainly carcinogenic", you'll have a very long and boring life.
    - tvon 17y ago
      That's a ridiculous argument. You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for those of us with access to alternatives.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        It isn't an argument - note my use of the word "sometimes". It's a counter-example to the dogma of organic == good, artificial == evil. The burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients. So, show us one study which shows people who only consume "organic" food to be healthier than those who eat genetically engineered food. You simply won't find it. For a more concrete argument, let me point you to The China Study [1], which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food". If people really cared about their health, they'd be vegetarian. Organic food has a lot more to do with identity marketing (like BMW and A&F) than it does real nutrition. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
        dejb 17y ago
        You are demonstrating the same 'them and us' attitude that is present in the original article. You show your mistake by lumping together 'organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging' as if they were all a single proposition pushed by some united group of science haters. If you can't evaluate each proposition on it's merits then you are failing prey to dogma yourself. > the burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients. Why should the burden of proof fall one way or the other on this proposition? This is the classic technique of those who see themselves as guardians of scientific orthodoxy. > which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food" That doesn't mean that knowing the value of organic food also wouldn't be useful.
  - tvon 17y ago
    I suspect you were down modded for making a snide comment. I for one down-modded you for obnoxiously whining about being down-modded, something which I'm quite sick of.
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      Well, you'd figure that a belief that people hold so vehemently would have some evidence behind it. I really haven't seen any. But I guess it's accepted to hold a belief without evidence if it conforms to group norms. Snide comment or not, this group of unusually smart people is not so different from other groups that are held in low esteem by it. It's funny how that happens. It's interesting, and telling, that several hundred smart people have viewed this comment, but not one of them has decided to offer a link to any sort of evidence.
  - kwamenum86 17y ago
    I have lived on the east coast my entire life so I would say it is a popular belief elsewhere. My understanding is that when you consume organic food you consume less chemicals, etc.
- KhuramMalik 17y ago
  Yes, absolutely. Conventional produce has residue of pesticide, for example on the skin of an Apple. There was a study done that highlighted that some of the pesticides used in conventional produce can have a carcinogenic effect even in 1 part per trillion.
enthalpyx 17y ago
But it is more tasty.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Indeed. We still don't understand enough about food to say that organic food is not better. If you stopped eating real food and only ate lard, soy protein, cardboard, and a vitamin pill, you would probably not do too well. But that is all we use to understand the nutritional value of food. (Vitamins, minerals, fat, carbohydrates, and protein.) (Admittedly the American food system is getting close to this. Corn is soooo good for you(r wallet), after all.)
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    We still don't understand enough about food to say... Here here! The notion that we pretty much understand what's going on with food, digestion, and metabolism is as widespread as it is harmful. We have only scratched the surface. I remember seeing a diagram of human metabolism during a talk. It was huge and messy! Spaghetti-coded-Rube-Goldberg-intertwined-messy! And it's only a diagram of what we do understand -- there's even more in there! Biology at the cellular and molecular level was not "designed" to be understood by a human intelligence.
- ajscherer 17y ago
  I prefer the taste of conventionally grown produce. It is difficult to measure taste, but I haven't seen any blind taste tests resulting in a clear winner either way. The only convincing argument I have seen in favor of organic food is the environmental argument. I have to balance that against my belief that for every acre of organic crop grown, somebody somewhere is going to sleep hungry. I realize, however, that any scientific or quantitative argument for or against organic food is irrelevant. Organic food tells a story that many people want to be a part of, and it will continue to grow in popularity.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    any scientific or quantitative argument [...] is irrelevant A sign of the dark ages, and the death of the enlightenment. No, I don't imagine we'll burn witches at the stake, but my wife and daughter can't eat half their favorite foods when we visit some relatives' homes (for fear of really upsetting people), precisely because of nutritional dogma.
diN0bot 17y ago
> "The Soil Association’s response, published in papers across the land, entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non-organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states that they aren’t looking at the impact on the environment of organic agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has extensively examined in other research." > "The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific." true, but the SA's response is an excellent marketing response. ple think what they're told, and if no one outright makes the claim about the environmental impact, then people will conclude, oh, it's already to eat non-organic.
dejb 17y ago
We don't even fully understand the elements and combinations of substances that make up 'nutritious'. So the claims of the author that 'Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious' are demonstrably an overstatement. It's funny how the author can exaggerate the studies findings like this while showing such disdain for others who respond to his exaggerated conclusion rather than address the studies findings directly. The study has some good information but I'd prefer to hear it from an author that wasn't so partisan to a particular view.

12 points by colins_pride 17y ago

There's a metafilter thread about this here: http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin

RobertL 17y ago

All food is organic because it contains molecular carbon. Only exceptions might be salt which is composed of inorganic NaCl. Even sea salt is inorganic it's just got a lot impurities in it like Radioactive Uranium and Radioactive Radium. Radioactive Radium is even more toxic than radioactive Plutonium. Other than that though, it's really good stuff.

kwamenum86 17y ago

I never thought the argument was that organic food is more beneficial nutritionally. I thought it is supposed to be less harmful overall. This is an important distinction.

jacoblyles 17y ago
I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?
- andreyf 17y ago
  If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 100% organic? Malaria. And there's little more artificial than the chemical-soaked neon bednets saving millions of lives across Africa.
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    Living in a society with rising cancer rates and given the choice between food bathed in possibily carcinogenic pesticides and food that isn't, curiously enough I'll choose the food without the pesticides.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      If you avoid everything "possibly carcinogenic", or even everything "certainly carcinogenic", you'll have a very long and boring life.
  - tvon 17y ago
    That's a ridiculous argument. You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for those of us with access to alternatives.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      It isn't an argument - note my use of the word "sometimes". It's a counter-example to the dogma of organic == good, artificial == evil. The burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients. So, show us one study which shows people who only consume "organic" food to be healthier than those who eat genetically engineered food. You simply won't find it. For a more concrete argument, let me point you to The China Study [1], which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food". If people really cared about their health, they'd be vegetarian. Organic food has a lot more to do with identity marketing (like BMW and A&F) than it does real nutrition. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
      - dejb 17y ago
        You are demonstrating the same 'them and us' attitude that is present in the original article. You show your mistake by lumping together 'organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging' as if they were all a single proposition pushed by some united group of science haters. If you can't evaluate each proposition on it's merits then you are failing prey to dogma yourself. > the burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients. Why should the burden of proof fall one way or the other on this proposition? This is the classic technique of those who see themselves as guardians of scientific orthodoxy. > which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food" That doesn't mean that knowing the value of organic food also wouldn't be useful.
- tvon 17y ago
  I suspect you were down modded for making a snide comment. I for one down-modded you for obnoxiously whining about being down-modded, something which I'm quite sick of.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    Well, you'd figure that a belief that people hold so vehemently would have some evidence behind it. I really haven't seen any. But I guess it's accepted to hold a belief without evidence if it conforms to group norms. Snide comment or not, this group of unusually smart people is not so different from other groups that are held in low esteem by it. It's funny how that happens. It's interesting, and telling, that several hundred smart people have viewed this comment, but not one of them has decided to offer a link to any sort of evidence.
- kwamenum86 17y ago
  I have lived on the east coast my entire life so I would say it is a popular belief elsewhere. My understanding is that when you consume organic food you consume less chemicals, etc.
KhuramMalik 17y ago
Yes, absolutely. Conventional produce has residue of pesticide, for example on the skin of an Apple. There was a study done that highlighted that some of the pesticides used in conventional produce can have a carcinogenic effect even in 1 part per trillion.

enthalpyx 17y ago

But it is more tasty.

jrockway 17y ago
Indeed. We still don't understand enough about food to say that organic food is not better. If you stopped eating real food and only ate lard, soy protein, cardboard, and a vitamin pill, you would probably not do too well. But that is all we use to understand the nutritional value of food. (Vitamins, minerals, fat, carbohydrates, and protein.) (Admittedly the American food system is getting close to this. Corn is soooo good for you(r wallet), after all.)
- stcredzero 17y ago
  We still don't understand enough about food to say... Here here! The notion that we pretty much understand what's going on with food, digestion, and metabolism is as widespread as it is harmful. We have only scratched the surface. I remember seeing a diagram of human metabolism during a talk. It was huge and messy! Spaghetti-coded-Rube-Goldberg-intertwined-messy! And it's only a diagram of what we do understand -- there's even more in there! Biology at the cellular and molecular level was not "designed" to be understood by a human intelligence.
ajscherer 17y ago
I prefer the taste of conventionally grown produce. It is difficult to measure taste, but I haven't seen any blind taste tests resulting in a clear winner either way. The only convincing argument I have seen in favor of organic food is the environmental argument. I have to balance that against my belief that for every acre of organic crop grown, somebody somewhere is going to sleep hungry. I realize, however, that any scientific or quantitative argument for or against organic food is irrelevant. Organic food tells a story that many people want to be a part of, and it will continue to grow in popularity.
- andreyf 17y ago
  any scientific or quantitative argument [...] is irrelevant A sign of the dark ages, and the death of the enlightenment. No, I don't imagine we'll burn witches at the stake, but my wife and daughter can't eat half their favorite foods when we visit some relatives' homes (for fear of really upsetting people), precisely because of nutritional dogma.

diN0bot 17y ago

> "The Soil Association’s response, published in papers across the land, entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non-organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states that they aren’t looking at the impact on the environment of organic agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has extensively examined in other research." > "The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific." true, but the SA's response is an excellent marketing response. ple think what they're told, and if no one outright makes the claim about the environmental impact, then people will conclude, oh, it's already to eat non-organic.

dejb 17y ago

We don't even fully understand the elements and combinations of substances that make up 'nutritious'. So the claims of the author that 'Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious' are demonstrably an overstatement. It's funny how the author can exaggerate the studies findings like this while showing such disdain for others who respond to his exaggerated conclusion rather than address the studies findings directly. The study has some good information but I'd prefer to hear it from an author that wasn't so partisan to a particular view.