Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Go down the list, as each on is stricken off the supporters will say "it was never about X, it was always about Y".
I'm constantly hearing about how organic food is: Healthier, tastier, or better for the environment. The scientific literature just doesn't hold up with any of those claims. [1]
On top of that, if there was some aspect of organic food that actually did make it better for the environment, then let's just use that with normal farming. Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy? [2]
[1] http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-food-pe...
I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name. Just like how people like to add the word "artisanal" to foods. It's a newish word (marketing wise) to describe doing things the old way.
It's an quality standards certification [1]. Part of it is "doing things the old fashioned way" but that's mainly a reaction to the negatives of big-agribusiness over-use of irradiation and pesticides... as new way of meeting organic requirements are found, as long as the quality standard is met, it's still organic.
That's not to say the term "organic" hasn't been co-opted, much like "green", or "hybrid" [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Just curious, what are the downsides of over-use of irradiation? Be as specific as you can, please.
But beyond my belief that produce and livestock that have been bred for flavor instead of yield/shelf-life taste better, and that the same people doing the former tend to farm organic in my biased experience, we're otherwise in agreement.
It's like reading an article in Wired called "The Rise of the Geeks" or "Silicon Valley Rebels" depending on the time and context it could mean 1,000 different things.
When someone says "organic" they could mean "organic" in the sense the USDA means it, or the could mean: biodynamic, local, home grown, etc.
Wow. What on earth do you think corn even is? Monsanto didn't invent the stuff, you know.
If we're being pedantic, though, corn is a grain, not a vegetable (probably).[1] But that's clearly not what you meant, so it's not really worth digging into.
[1]http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/corn-vegetabl...
These are bad to the extent they're calorie-dense and nutrient-poor, which most First-Worlders don't need. They're like honey in that respect. Corn isn't the problem.
The organic label is also an indicator that the production process is not as low-cost as possible, and usually high quality and low price are opposing goals. This is not necessarily always the case, but as I said it's an indicator.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-...
[2] http://www.naturalnews.com/036312_apple_peel_obesity_ursolic...
Never mind that each of those things have greatly different effects on the safety of the food and other things:
> no synthetic fertilizers
A valid environmental concern, depending on how the fertilizers are used and where the runoff goes.
> irradiation
Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals.
> sewage sludge
A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic.
> genetic engineering
More fear-mongering nonsense when applied to food safety, but a valid concern as regards patent law and similar legal battles.
Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who claim Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world using vaccines, which they also believe are evil.
Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT).
> A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic.
Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question.
> genetic engineering
We don't yet know all the side effects of genetic engineering. We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations that want to hide the 2% mutant plant that ate the research team. I'm being funny and exaggerative, but we really don't know.
Might not want to open your mail then. Some of it is irradiated to kill bacteria and viruses, based on origin and destination. Probably don't want to use bandaids, either, since they are irradiated to steralize them.
> Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question.
Whose sewage? Human is dangerous, due to the fact that human pathogens can carry over from one incarnation to the next. Livestock, not so much; and is commonly used in "organic" fertilizers.
Ooooh scary letters.
To be clear: DDT is not very toxic to humans. The reason we stopped using it was because it was becoming not very toxic to mosquitoes, as well, as they evolved resistance, in addition to what it was doing to birds. We still use DDT in regions where malaria is most dangerous.
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm
> In one study involving humans, 17 people ate 35 mg/man daily (about 0.5 mg/kg daily) for 18 months suffering no ill-effect(25). In another study volunteers ate 0.31 to 0.61 mg/kg daily without any noticeable effects(26).
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theo...
> DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years.
Also:
> We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations
Without any evidence, this is fear-mongering. This is what fear-mongering is. Using rumors and innuendo to make people afraid without saying anything of substance.
Is the issue potentially slight? Yes. Is it still an issue? Yes.
Should we also avoid ice cream because for all we know, it may have unintended side effects?
Or are you referring to questionable stuff in ice cream like carrageenan?
> using radiation or anorganic chemicals.
This is fear-mongering unless you can actually point to reasonable problems such things might cause.
> questionable stuff in ice cream like carrageenan
Carrageenan is fine when used in the way the regulations dictate. Or do you have actual evidence otherwise?
So, in short, if I can choose between a product that is "natural" or a product that has mystery substance X in it, I'd choose the natural one, even if it means I have to pay a little more. I'd also prefer it that product B is labelled in a way that I can tell it contains mystery substance X, so that I can make that decision. Is that fear-mongering? I don't think so.
Oh, and regarding carrageenan: It's not evidence, but I have personal experience that it makes my skin flare up, both when I ingest it and when I use it topically (shampoo for example). I later found out that the same stuff is used to provoke inflammation in animal experiments [1]. Do I still eat it from time to time? Yes, Ben & Jerry's is too delicious. But I feel better when I eat Haagen Dasz "5", which has none of the funky stuff.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Food_and_other_dome...
All of this does sound rational, but without any specific reasons to be concerned it's pointless to spin stories like this. Why? Because we can say the same stuff about anything else on Earth. Singling out some foods and food components for this treatment is illogical.
> if I can choose between a product that is "natural" or a product that has mystery substance X in it, I'd choose the natural one
Carrageenan is not a mystery. It is to you, sure, because you don't educate yourself very well, but it isn't a mystery to the rest of us.
> I'd also prefer it that product B is labelled in a way that I can tell it contains mystery substance X
I'd like it if 'dietary supplements' were held to the same standards as the actual medicines they're advertised as being able to replace, but that hasn't happened.
And you're wrong: Foods have ingredients lists. Carrageenan is one of the things they have to mention. Ah, but that only applies to processed foods, and not 'natural' foods, where you don't know what they contain.
> I have personal experience that it makes my skin flare up, both when I ingest it and when I use it topically (shampoo for example).
Really. Assuming you're not lying or mistaken, you're one of a very, very small number of people who has a bad reaction to carrageenan in those products.
> I feel better when I eat Haagen Dasz "5", which has none of the funky stuff.
Probably because you know it doesn't contain (what you consider to be) funky stuff.
How about this: There are people who think casein, a protein naturally found in milk, is toxic to humans. How would you convince one of those people that consuming casein is not a problem, if one of them tried to talk you out of eating ice cream?
We know for a fact that ice cream is bad for "optimal health." It can cause tooth cavities, sore throat, stomach aches, obesity and diabetes. Yet we still eat it because it tastes good.
That's a fallacy. A very classic ad hominem - pointing out something entirely unrelated that they believe, to discredit their statements on other matters.
It is completely related. In fact, it goes to the very heart of the matter: They publish nonsense about health issues, and we're discussing a health issue!
The solution to "this food doesn't taste as good" is to make it taste better; the solution to "this food wasn't raised ethically" is to find a way to raise it more ethically. Throwing in the towel and lovingly nurturing your tomatoes one-by-one is emotionally satisfying but meaningless and unhelpful without proof, an abject waste of time and resources in the face of proof to the contrary.
The problem with organic farming is that it's associated with so much crap science, like radiation-phobia and chemophobia and various other quackery that masquerades as science while really being unsupported by either evidence or logic.
I'd love to be able to buy a greater variety of food without having to support people who think GMO are The Devil based on irrational fears.
The food surplus in this country has as much to do with dysfunctional legislation as it does maximizing profits.
Not true at all. The list of chemicals and additives that the USDA has approved for use in organic food is enormous.
And there's no reason to believe that the ones that are approved are safer, either. Because the primary criterion for determining whether an agrichemical is suitable for use in organic agriculture is how "natural" it is considered to be. And "natural" is not a good proxy for "safe", on account of the two being orthogonal characteristics.
It's not a good proxy for "green", either. Your local watershed doesn't really care that the excess phosphorus that's being dumped into it comes from certified organic bone meal.
There are the more immediate health benefits of buying organic: you'll avoid the chemicals, preservatives, and hormones that conventional farms often use to treat their foods. In the Stanford study, just 7 percent of organic foods were found to have traces of pesticides, compared to 38 percent of conventionally-farmed produce. Again, that doesn't mean organic foods will supercharge your health -- you'll just be at less risk of exposure to potentially harmful substances, for whatever that's worth to you. Quantifying that benefit is a contentious area and certainly worthy of more research.
Listen to what Bruce Ames (professor emeritus of biochemistry at UC Berkeley and senior scientist at Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute) had to say on this mornings Forum: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209051000
Basically, don't worry about those traces of pesticides. He explains it better than me. Listen.
Major agrobusiness concerns have latched onto "organic" as a way to charge premium prices, and hence, do the absolute bare minimum whlie fighting to water down the standard.
It's honestly so bad, I'm surprised "organic" food demonstrated any advantages at all in the study.
Polyn covers a lot of this in Omnivore's Dilemma, in the industrial organic section.
Similarly, I spent some time in Vietnam recently eating the local poultry and the stark difference in taste and texture between it and American agro-chicken is astounding.
And finally, what good reason exists to O.D. poultry and livestock on the same antibiotics we depend on to avert bacterial pandemics just to increase yield?
The tomatoes I grew on my porch this summer were the best tomatoes I ever had. They would qualify as organic; should I then attempt to apply that anecdote to this discussion, holding it forth as proof that organics are better?
Does that clear it up?
My only strong belief against conventional farming is the bat guano insane (IMO) use of antibiotics to increase yield.
The fact that you like local produce says nothing about organic food.
Feel free to dry-farm some tomatoes and spray them with round-up just to prove your point though. As others have stated, the definition of organic at this point is too vague for it not to stray into areas like this.
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/industry-structu...
I have harvested a few birds so far and they taste so amazingly deep and rich that it was almost too much on the first bird. It's all about what the animal eats, IMO. I've had farm raised chickens from all over before we settled here and I've never had them taste this good.
The fat layer is a deep golden/mustard/yellow color and there is LOTS of it. None of my Cornish Crosses exhibited any leg issues or anything and one Rooster has lived to be about 4 months old. He's in the fridge on a salt cure waiting to be roasted this weekend!
FWIW. :-)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936597
"... In addition, organic broccoli maintained higher concentrations of bioactive compounds (ascorbic acid and phenolics) and antioxidant potential during storage than conventional broccoli, with higher potential health beneficial effects."
The nutrutious bit is link-bait. Organic is not changing the chemistry of the nutrient composition in food (like for like basis). That said, Organics are not equivalent per-se either. Organic methods are typically (historically) focuses on heterodox varietals and small batch production. Milk is not equivalent (due to fat solubility) lack of hormones, etc. Organic meat is more rare and again husbandry issues are not similar or comparable. There is less pesticide residue obviously (and it matters - nb-pesticides are waterproof). And the food is typically fresher, more local, etc. This is all non-controversial.
The bit that has changed is that Organic has been commoditized and mass-produced (horizon, etc). And also bought out by BigCos. That makes organic less distinct. Frankly, less interesting/differentiated in many places. And the prices of commodities are inflating, putting pressure on sales. And thats on the conventionals, in particular. The reasons for that are beyond scope (tl;dr=politics).
In any event, that is just some context.
(Personal background for my question: I have lived in two different countries, eating two radically different cuisines. I have many close relatives who are farmers in various places. I eat every day, as most of us do. I'm curious about what information on this issue is verifiable by more than personal anecdote. I have previously posted to HN that conducting human nutrition studies is HARD.)
We had to switch to buying organic foods because anything artificial sets her body off. Anything with pesticides does it too. This rules out pretty much all conventional produce entirely.
We also had to stop shopping from the center of the food store too. We cut out all the processed stuff and started cooking whole meals. We are extremely picky about what type of meat and dairy products we purchase because of GMO-containing animal feeds (not to mention anti-biotics, other things which are like anti-biotics but not called that; really insidious stuff, growth hormones, bad water, pathogens from neighboring operations, etc).
We started buying only pasture-raised animals and this year I'm learning to hunt since we moved to a place conducive to that activity. We're also getting dairy goats to help offset our $3500+ per year un-pasteurized dairy/cheese/butter costs. I mentioned in another comment that I'm raising 50 chickens for meat and eggs and have already learned to butcher them. They taste AMAZING!
We follow the GAPS Diet and Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions cookbook, and also the Weston A Price foundation. We take lots of High-Vitamin Butter Oil and Fermented Cod Liver Oil. We infuse a variety of herbs. We take pharmaceutical grade Pro-biotics when necessary.
There is a shit-ton more to food than just saying "Eat Organic" or not. We have to understand nutrition from an old-world view as well as a new-world understanding and blend the two together. The very soil that the food is grown in and the animals are raised on contains so much life that has a lot to do with how nutritious the food ends up being.
I could go on and on but I'll stop. I will say it's been a huge odyssey for us, on the quest to stop chronic illness. It is definitely working and worth it, however.
Oh, I treat my ADHD this way too.
Every time I get the characteristic syndrome: a splitting migraine with auras and a general sense of fatigue it has been after eating heavily MSG-laden food. What makes this frustrating is that it doesn't always happen. But again, so what? The easiest way to avoid this unpleasant state of being is to avoid heavily MSG-laden food and by that I mean MSG's use as a food additive and not the amounts naturally present in just about everything (so calm down MSG pedants). It is one of the 20 basic amino acids after all.
I have my own theory here but no inclination to investigate because the above rule has almost no perceptible effect on my life, and life is too short to go on some sort of crusade to prove the existence of something I already know exists because I have experienced it repeatedly.
I suspect there is some additive (i.e. an anti-caking agent or preservative) put into some commercial MSGs that is the real culprit and not the MSG itself. I further suspect the sensitivity itself is variable depending on metabolic state.
And this relates to the person you're replying to: WTH would they want to do your blind test on GMO versus non GMO if eating non GMO is working for them and they can afford it? I'd hope that given recent events involving contamination of pet and human food from China that you'd be open to the presence of inappropriate substances in the food chain: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/world/asia/08food.html?pag...
Is it really such a stretch to be open to the notion that there's something real but difficult to quantify going on here?
SO if you want more nutrients find a local farmer to support - typically the smaller scale farm uses compost in their soil mix and crop rotates. Many smaller local farmers aren't certified organic but are "organic", often times go beyond what it means to be organic. Ask the farmer and if doesn't seem better than big ag, keep looking.