Is Organic Better? Ask a Fruit Fly | Hacker News Reader

Is Organic Better? Ask a Fruit Fly

well.blogs.nytimes.com

51 pointsmjfern68 comments

Some organic food myths:

  http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

Myth #1: Buying organic food benefits small farmers, and represents a blow to the big food corporations.

Myth #2: Organic foods are healthier to eat.

Myth #3: Organic growing methods are better for the environment.

Re 1) "...organic food is big, big business. The days when the organic produce section of the supermarket represented the product of a small local farmer are long gone. California alone produces over $600 million in organic produce, most of it coming from just five farms, who are also the same producers of most non-organic food in the state...."

Re 2) "When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture."

Re 3) "Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land."

> Re 2) "When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same.

whoosh

Wow, they skeptoid completely missed the point there.

Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same.

> Re 3) "Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land."

Erm, yeah. Pesticides are way better than non-pesticide alternatives. Riiiight...

> Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same.

Yeah, according to a Bullshi*t! (e.g. the Penn & Teller show) science experiment, the conventionally-grown fruit was often declared better-tasting by tasters who didn't know which was which.

Obviously this is wildly unscientific, but the point is still valid.

As much as I love both Penn & Teller and Bullshit I don't think any of the so called 'experiments' they do deserve the prefix 'science' or have any validity. Their goal is to provide entertaining polemics, not to do any sort of hypothesis testing or to put forward anything that might challenge their preconceived notion.

Particularly bad was their episode where they claimed that it's impossible to lose weight.

What episode was that? I watched every single episode they aired, and I don't remember any of them claiming that it was impossible to lose weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCYvc9F838E

I think you're grossly misrepresenting what they said. They didn't say you can't lose weight. They said that genetics dictates your general body shape, and that you're never going to end up looking like Adonis no matter how much you work out. You can certainly lose weight, get yourself healthier, and look better. But, as they said at the end of the video, you're probably not going to end up looking quite as good as you'd hoped, and it won't happen as fast as you hoped.

Of course. I called it a "Bullsh*t! science experiment" because that's what they called it. The word "bullshit" was part of the name, which hopefully gives a clue that it's not actually scientific.

Here's the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs

They upped the ante a bit later on. The talk above proves the most valid points, though. There is way more to farming good produce than plastering simple labels on something.

They are only missing how the genes turn into a plant: by absorbing nutrients from the soil (minerals - and also other substances)

So, wrong ph - fruits may taste different/have a different composition

Not enough minerals, excess - same things

Interfering substances (contaminants) - same thing

This is gardening 101, you are going to have different results because of the soil

Bullshit isn't always accurate and they also have their own biases they push in the show.

Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same.

That has more to do with the exact sub-strain used, when they where picked and how they where grown rather than simply organic vs non-organic. If organic tastes better it because the organic farmers is catering to a market that is willing to pay a higher price for a better product and thus willing to use more costly methods for growing his apples. It certainly possible to grow shit organic apples and amazing non-organic apples, the fact the few people do have more to do with surrounding market forces.

Also how they're ripened (I believe you can change the colour of the tomato skin without allowing it to ripen), and that our sense of taste is strongly linked to our sense of smell - once you've coated a lemon in wax, it stops smelling like a lemon.

Have you ever tasted two identical apples? Both organic? They often don't taste anything like the same.

> fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown.

So if I grow one apple tree in rich soil in the sun, and another in poor soil in the shade, then the "biochemical content" of the apples is not effected? It's purely a function of the genes?

I can understand #1 and #3. (Even is somehow that is strange that organics are not sustainable, but given the population we have to feed this is understandable)

But #2 does not make sense. Sure the chemical composition of the final plant or meat is the same. But the reason why people are consuming organic food is that they only want the final product, and not the additional ration of pesticide residues and antibiotics as well.

I believe the "why people are consuming organic foood" is farious and a little bit of these 3 arguments (plus social status and good qualities)

1) depends where you buy your organic food. I usually try to buy directly from the producers, or when not possible, a small market here that works with a wider range of organic producers (the farmers themselves deliver the loads, had a few nice chats with a few of them)

2) nutrient wise I can't say, but you do get a lot more pesticides and other crap in your food. Heck, try an organically grown apple and a 'normal' apple. Most of the normal apples will taste like wax. It is due to the chemical they use to protect the apple from worms that creates a film like cover that takes like crap. (and no idea how healthy it is)

3) No idea here, and I'm sure you are right about the acreage, but with crop rotation which most organic farmers use, the nutritional profile of that land doesn't get destroyed (opposed to traditional farming that depletes the farm of any nutrient)

Downvoted for off topic agenda-driven/like comments. No one asked, "What are the organic food myths?" yet you felt compelled to post them anyway. Why? That's the agenda part of it - you have some internal reason for posting an off-topic comment that you didn't share.

Not to poop on her accomplishments, but isn't conventionally grown fruit sprayed with pesticides specifically to kill and deter pests like fruit flies?

She was working carefully with a fruit-fly lab, and it's been published by a real journal. I imagine that there would be a preparation step (the same for the organic fruit of course) to wash the fruit and so on to remove this kind of systematic error.

Would washing them get rid of all the pesticides ? I doubt it. Wouldn't there be some absorption of pesticides into the fruit ?

Assuming there is absorption, would you really want to eat the non-organic fruit?

No I wouldn't, but that's not the question being discussed in this thread.

I would. I only eat "non-organic" food, crop yields are much higher with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. I think it is extremely irresponsible not to do this given how much land is used for agriculture and how many people in the world do not have enough good food to eat.

My thoughts exactly. But if there is no systematic or other error in her research and there are health-impacts for humans, too then we better get up to snuff and look for a solution to make our food healthier. Also even conventional farming is still somewhat inefficient. Vertical, largely automated farming could do much to lessen the footprint agriculture currently has on our landscapes and ecology.

Its a much more complicated issue than you allude to.

More food is produced each year than the global population requires. The reason people still starve and are malnourished are complex, including issues such as transport & infrastructure problems, corruption, lack of storage, lack of hygiene education and so on.

In the developing world, organic farming on many crops increases yields. In hot climates, plants pull their roots up to get the fertilisers and loose the benefits of deeper roots to get water. Reliance on artificial pesticides means that when economic conditions prevent them being bought, natural methods aren't in place (or have been forgotten) and pests run riot ruining crops. Organic methods manage the soil and improve natural fertility.

Eating only non-organic foods here in the developed world won't help those elsewhere in the world that are hungry.

Of course the reasons are complex, and clearly artificial fertilizers and pesticides are (just like any technology) not the solution to everything , but they play an extremely important part in maximizing food production and limiting environmental impact. In the west they play a vital role in maintaining our high standard of living. Organic farming is a waste of important resource (land).

The point on economic conditions changing is not a valid one, you might make the same argument for investing in an a road network or electricity grid, saying that if economic conditions change and fuel is no longer affordable the economy will collapse.

Regarding the point on roots rising to get nutrients from fertilizers in the topsoil - are you sure that's true? There are many negative effects of fertilizers but I don't think that's one of them.

As I said in my first post, maximising food production isn't usually the issue. The only environmental impact you seem to cite is increased land use, and you don't seem to cover the many other environmental problems artificial fertilisers and pesticides cause.

Its also not clear that organic farming requires increased land use. Many people confuse organic farming with traditional farming carried out pre-"green revolution", which is better perhaps termed "low knowledge" farming. To farm organically you don't simply remove the artificial fertilisers and pesticides, you use techniques such as monitored crop rotations, green fertiliser plantings, natural predation and so on.

I don't have much time at the moment, but a quick google instantly brings up [1] and [2] showing examples of models and actual implementations of organic systems that increase rather than decrease yield. A google or pubmed search for organic yields, organic farming, organic developing countries etc. will give you weeks worth of reading on the subject.

My point regarding economic conditions changing is indeed valid. A farm reliant on pesticides may be wiped out entirely by a short, small economic downturn for that farmer which means she cannot buy pesticides for a short while. This leaves the farmer in a much worse position than if they had used free, natural methods and pest management, which may have a lower impact but fail catastrophically much less often. When you're crops are wiped out, it really is often game over. Lets compare that to, say, a investing in a road used to transport the crops to market. The economy falters a little for a year, and there is no money to repair the road, so you can't get to market. You crops survive and have to be thrown away. Next year, or the year after, the economy picks up and the road is repaired. You've had a very hard year or two, but you've still got your crops and you can get back on your feet.

I can't find the study regarding the roots, it was conducted a few years back (I used to run an organic coffee company and took notice of these things), it was a study conducted in Ethiopia by several NGOs and a couple of EU Universities. I'll try and dig it out when I get home tonight and update this post. The roots either tended to grow upwards/owards (closer to ground level, not out of the ground) rather than downwards, or were shorter/fatter due to having the nutrients they needed closer to hand. During dry spells (more common without irrigation) they performed much less well than organic counterparts which could tap into the lowering water levels for longer.

[1] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...

[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.ht...

I understand that it depends on the fruit (I'd assume great absorption differences between strawberries and grapefruit, for example).

But (speculatively... I haven't read the study methods eitehr) that still keeps it interesting. If she cleans/peels the fruit as you would for a person to eat it, ideally there shouldn't be enough pesticides still in it to affect the flies -- and potentially affect human health as well, though this would obviously require further study.

I said "like" washing them - I don't know what the step entails.

The materials and methods section should contain such steps. Washing and peeling was not indicated.

This article doesn't mention whether they tested or measured sequestration of compounds in the fruit, but my guess is that this has been carefully studied in the past, though possibly not w.r.t. fruit flies.

I don't know what/where/how but there's a timeline in place for spraying the fruits. They need to be sprayed with chemical "a" at "b" days of age, and then perhaps with chemical "c" at "d" days after/before "e" event (flowering, budding, being pulled, etc). These would be timed in a such a way as to prevent specific insects or diseases that are interested in the plant at those times. For example, it might be that the pesticide for fruit flies isn't applied until after the fruit has developed.

That being said, all pesticides have an "inert" date at which point the chemical is not doing anything. I'd be interested in learning whether that date is after the sell date. If not, then your post raises a really important question. If the pesticide's chemical(s) are inert before it is sold, then it puts it to bed, I think. I don't know enough about pesticides/organic to know where to even look for stuff like that though.

I read yesterday that GM food is better because it does not need to be covered with pesticides so much. GM plants have built in protection, on purpose, to lower the need for dumping chemicals in the earth.

Now they can make GM fruit and vegetables taste great and look great, they don't have to taste like plastic.

You're assuming companies like Monsanto haven't made some other undisclosed alterations which are detrimental to health.

Is there any evidence that this has ever been the case? I completely understand that people would be hesitant to embrace GM crops, but I've never really understood the "health" argument. Has anyone actually demonstrated that any GM crops contain chemicals harmful to humans?

no but i guess it takes time to find out, and the studies are often financed by the companies like monsanto them selves.

Which is not to say that they publish ALL these studies, they are not legally bound to.

Shame.

I'm not saying Monsanto has done anything at all, but it would be odd if they didn't tweak their product a little.

The meaning of your comment isn't particularly clear. Monsanto (and other GM crop developers) have tweaked their product. They've played with the genetics to make it roundup resistant or give it other desirable characteristics. They're pretty open about that.

To argue that GM crops have health implications for humans is to argue that GM crops contain harmful chemicals at levels higher than their natural counterparts. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence pointing towards this. Genetic modifications made to crops are done with a particular purpose in mind, and normally only involve very slight modifications to the existing crop's genetic makup. Given how widely distributed GM crops are and the level of scrutiny applied to the process, any harmful chemicals introduced as a result of the GM process would be noticed.

Biology is more complex than a list of good vs bad chemicals, so you're assertion that GM crops are OK if you can't find any harmful chemicals doesn't hold up.

We really need long term human trials and these aren't being done at all. Ria is trying to achieve this in fruit flies, which is better than nothing.

Just watch the reaction of the media and GM manufacturers to her work, this should be telling ;-)

The problem with GM foods is less to do with health and more to do with public control of food supply. There's a good documentary called Food Inc. which looks at the effect of GM crops on farmers and some of the pretty openly evil tactics of Monsanto to cement their monopoly on supply of seeds.

One of the most popular types of GM crops is the "roundup ready" variety. The purpose of this crop is precisely so they can spray it with roundup.

The "built-in protection" is achieved by the plant producing its own pesticide, in the form of a toxin, so you don't have to spray it. Look for "BT corn". It is argued that it is safer since the dose is lower, but you can't really be sure it is totally harmless either. (And apparently the soil is contaminated by the plant as well)

My main gripe with organic food is the following: if there is evidence that chemical A or fertilizer B are dangerous for humans and/or the environment, shouldn't we ban them altogether? Why make it a luxury to eat healthy? Why should we allow some affluent vegan live to 110, while girls in inner city districts have their first period 2-3 earlier than 50 years ago because of growth hormones in cheap meat?

Because some people can only afford cheap products. It's much better to eat "unhealthy" food than to not eat at all.

If this were true, why then the obesity epidemic that we currently see in the poorer parts of the US?

Because it's the cheapest foods that are the ones that cause obesity.

Who's talking about America? I'm talking about "third world". That's poor. Fat people in America are wealthy.

Your gripe isn't with organic food, it's with the FDA, which is headed and controlled by captains of the agriculture industry.

I currently live in Italy, where there is no such thing as FDA and where GM food is banned, still many prefer to buy organic.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the UK the reasoning is very clear, and contrasts with medicine.

With medicine, products that can't be proven safe (to x degree) are banned.

With food, products the are proven dangerous (to x degree) are banned.

So with one, the default is "it's not ok", and with the other, it's "it is ok".

Having your paper published in PLOSone at age 14 is pretty impressive. Good on her, and good on Dr. Bauer at SMU who took her into his lab and treated her ideas with respect.

I dont really care about the anti-corporation aspect of it. In the past, I preferred to buy organic foods in the hope that my overall intake of pesticides would decrease. I was recently dismayed to find that organic foods have known to be contaminated with synthetic pesticides - i assume due to proximity to conventional crops. Also, it seems that plenty of pesticides are used in growing organic foods so my original reason for preferring them is gone.

Indeed. Organic foods are also treated by pesticides. From the skeptoid article:

"Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not. Supporters of organics claim that the much larger amounts of chemicals they use is OK because those chemicals are all-natural. But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe or healthy — consider the examples of hemlock, mercury, lead, toadstools, box jellyfish neurotoxin, asbestos — not to mention a nearly infinite number of toxic bacteria and viruses (E. coli, salmonella, bubonic plague, smallpox). When you hear any product claim to be healthy because its ingredients are all natural, be skeptical. By no definition can "all natural" mean that a product is healthful."

I think it’s a shame that the organic farming is being reduced to the quality of the results. For me, a big part of the deal is producing stuff in a sensible way, preferably without loads of chemicals and without torture. Not everything that’s labeled as organic was produced in a sensible way, not everything organic has to be better than the “conventional” stuff and yes, organic is a huge marketing force right now, which is a pity. But I take the organic approach as a great way to think and talk about the way we produce our food, and that’s the main advantage of organic food for me.

>> * it’s a shame that the organic farming is being reduced to the quality of the results*

So, you'd rather eat something that tastes like poo that is "healthy" for you instead? I never understood the people who eat horrid tasting food.

>> without torture

What torture are we giving to plants exactly?

If anything, you would be offering up more torture by buying from organic farms. You have to use more land and use more people humping around under the hot sun for 12 hours to keep up. Farming in many cases is essentially legalized slavery. Asking for "better" food creates a demand for more people to do the work.

>> * organic is a huge marketing force right now*

Not only is it a huge force, it is a huge farce. What you'd consider organic probably doesn't align with the legal definitions of organic, much less what is marketed as organic.

>> a great way to think and talk about the way we produce our food

Yes, and the arguments against organic farming are logical, while the arguments for organic farming tend to be emotional.

Feed people in Africa on the cheap? So-called inorganic wins.

Food that last longer so I don't have to pick through rotten food at the grocery store? Score another for not organic.

Buying something that reflects your expectations? Not organic wins again.

Tastes better and more healthy? Doesn't seem to be a clear winner.

  | So, you'd rather eat something that tastes like poo
  | that is "healthy" for you instead? I never understood
  | the people who eat horrid tasting food.

You're not exactly responding to the most stellar post, but you can at least keep things civil. For instance, you're going off on taste here, when nothing in the parent post, or the article is talking about taste, so why are you?

  | >> without torture
  |
  | What torture are we giving to plants exactly?

Do you really think that the parent poster was referring to plants being tortured. I'm not exactly sure what was being referenced, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't plant torture. Again, let's be civil/reasonable here.

  | Farming in many cases is essentially
  | legalized slavery. Asking for "better" food
  | creates a demand for more people to do the
  | work.

Isn't what complaining about food tasting like 'poo' above implicitly demanding better food?

  | >> * organic is a huge marketing force right
  | now*
  |
  | Not only is it a huge force, it is a huge
  | farce.  What you'd consider organic probably
  | doesn't align with the legal definitions of
  | organic, much less what is marketed as
  | organic.

Then let's change the legal guidelines?

  | >> a great way to think and talk about the way
  | we produce our food
  |
  | Yes, and the arguments against organic farming
  | are logical, while the arguments for organic
  | farming tend to be emotional.

Right. Run-off and ocean dead-zones are just 'emotional' arguments.

  | Feed people in Africa on the cheap? So-called
  | inorganic wins.

If you want to feed people in Africa, we need to improve their political situation. You're ignoring all of the food that is destroyed (or not created) in order to manipulate prices.

  | Food that last longer so I don't have to pick
  | through rotten food at the grocery store?
  | Score another for not organic.

If your grocery store has rotten food on the shelves, then I suggest a new grocery store. (Note: exagerating your point here comes across as an appeal to emotion that you disapproved of above)

Did she match the fruit for price? Organic food tends to be high end and I can well believe it would be grown more carefully than the mass-market product independently of the organic aspect.

Is it possible to tell if something's organic by looking at it?

And is it possible to tell if somebody eats organic by looking at him?

There is maybe some good corelation between what we wear and what we eat.

no it's not, in general.

But if you want to train a computer vision system on 10M apples and try to look for statistical differences, then I'm sure we'd all be interested in the results.

Result of study: "Pesticdes harm the health of insects".

Better for what? Or better for whom? Human beings have been doing the thing that all heterotrophs do for a long time: eating other things in their environment. Uniquely among living things, as it appears so far, human beings have been systematically trying to understand their environment so that they enjoy more safe, tasty things to eat. In my lifetime, this human enterprise (manifested as empirical trying things out, that is tinkering, and usually given the label "science") has massively increased human well-being all around the world.

Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,

http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2...

originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."

http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity....

A comparison of period life expectancy tables and cohort life expectancy tables for men and women in Britain

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/period-and-cohort-l...

helps make the picture more clear. ("Period life expectancy" is what is usually reported for a whole country. But cohort life expectancy provides a better estimate of future lifespans of young people today,

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1...

and is still steadily on the rise around the world.) Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w...

Bearing in mind the distinction between period life expectancy and cohort life expectancy, a person at any given age can look up period life tables to see what can be correctly described as a MINIMUM life expectancy at that person's current age.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

(The links shown are for United States data, but data like these are available for most developed countries.)

Poison is not good for you????? I am glad that years of research was spent to suggest this......

In other news, someone proves that earworms, ladybirds and mites fare better on a diet of organic non-GM corn than on conventionally grown and sprayed pest resistant corn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com