4 ms·

Let me rephrase that for you: "While fresh food might be a factor, conventionally grown food would be approximately as nutritious as organic."

jMyles 11y ago
Why do you say this? Organic food has serious, measurable benefits. The differences between organic and orthodox varies across food items, of course, but for some it is a very serious difference. http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php I surmise that your contention is based on the Stanford study? Have you ever actually read the study yourself? Do you realize that its methodology is widely regarded as fundamentally flawed? Start here for a good review: http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf ...and of course, the Stanford study is just one. Many other studies, which I and many others assert are of a superior design, have come to the opposite conclusion. This one is particularly compelling (sorry for the wordpress.com link, it's the only full text I can find online): https://donamarianadoces.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/nutritional-quality-organics2.pdf https://donamarianadoces.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/nutriti...
- cfmcdonald 11y ago
  From the study you cited: "Under the same assumptions, the 12% increase caused by switching to organic fruits and vegetables would correspond to an increase in life expectancy of, on average, 17 days for women and 25 days for men." This is 1) all based on a very tenuous model, not on a study of actual health outcomes ("The calculations behind these estimates depend on estimates of the relative risks of disease incidences according to fruit and vegetable consumption, most of which are known only with substantial uncertainty (Veerman et al., 2006).") 2) assumes a linear response (if a 1% increase in vitamins increases life expectancy by X, a 10% increase will increaes it by 10X), which also seems dubious 3) assumes that the input data about the nutritiousness of organic food is correct. And it's still a tiny effect. The life expectancy at birth for men in the Netherlands (the source of the model) is 81 years, or 29565 days, so it's a claimed 0.08% increase in life expectancy. Moreover, if organic food had a large effect on health we would expect today's rich kids to be substantially healthier than those of my generation, who ate Wonder Bread and Jif, but I have seen no such evidence. But then I am deeply skeptical of nutrition science in general.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    > But then I am deeply skeptical of nutrition science in general. Yeah, me too. And I acknowledge that these studies don't inspire confidence about health results, but I do think it's clear that organic food (especially animal products) is very much distinguishable from orthodox food. And it's reasonable to be concerned about some of the chemicals present in some orthodox food but absent in organic food. > Moreover, if organic food had a large effect on health we would expect today's rich kids to be substantially healthier than those of my generation, who ate Wonder Bread and Jif, but I have seen no such evidence. I'm not sure that's true - in order to properly assert this, you'd need to know that Wonder Bread and Jif had substantial quantities of pesticides that are prohibited under an organic label at the time you ate them.
- msellout 11y ago
  I say "approximately as nutritious" in comparison to junk food. If all you eat is sugar, fat, and salt, then eating any reasonably nutritious diet will have approximately the same effects.

jMyles 11y ago

Why do you say this? Organic food has serious, measurable benefits. The differences between organic and orthodox varies across food items, of course, but for some it is a very serious difference. http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php I surmise that your contention is based on the Stanford study? Have you ever actually read the study yourself? Do you realize that its methodology is widely regarded as fundamentally flawed? Start here for a good review: http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf ...and of course, the Stanford study is just one. Many other studies, which I and many others assert are of a superior design, have come to the opposite conclusion. This one is particularly compelling (sorry for the wordpress.com link, it's the only full text I can find online): https://donamarianadoces.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/nutritional-quality-organics2.pdf https://donamarianadoces.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/nutriti...

cfmcdonald 11y ago
From the study you cited: "Under the same assumptions, the 12% increase caused by switching to organic fruits and vegetables would correspond to an increase in life expectancy of, on average, 17 days for women and 25 days for men." This is 1) all based on a very tenuous model, not on a study of actual health outcomes ("The calculations behind these estimates depend on estimates of the relative risks of disease incidences according to fruit and vegetable consumption, most of which are known only with substantial uncertainty (Veerman et al., 2006).") 2) assumes a linear response (if a 1% increase in vitamins increases life expectancy by X, a 10% increase will increaes it by 10X), which also seems dubious 3) assumes that the input data about the nutritiousness of organic food is correct. And it's still a tiny effect. The life expectancy at birth for men in the Netherlands (the source of the model) is 81 years, or 29565 days, so it's a claimed 0.08% increase in life expectancy. Moreover, if organic food had a large effect on health we would expect today's rich kids to be substantially healthier than those of my generation, who ate Wonder Bread and Jif, but I have seen no such evidence. But then I am deeply skeptical of nutrition science in general.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > But then I am deeply skeptical of nutrition science in general. Yeah, me too. And I acknowledge that these studies don't inspire confidence about health results, but I do think it's clear that organic food (especially animal products) is very much distinguishable from orthodox food. And it's reasonable to be concerned about some of the chemicals present in some orthodox food but absent in organic food. > Moreover, if organic food had a large effect on health we would expect today's rich kids to be substantially healthier than those of my generation, who ate Wonder Bread and Jif, but I have seen no such evidence. I'm not sure that's true - in order to properly assert this, you'd need to know that Wonder Bread and Jif had substantial quantities of pesticides that are prohibited under an organic label at the time you ate them.
msellout 11y ago
I say "approximately as nutritious" in comparison to junk food. If all you eat is sugar, fat, and salt, then eating any reasonably nutritious diet will have approximately the same effects.