4 ms·

I hate to be the one to inform you but organic broccoli isn't any healthier than conventional broccoli.

rubicon33 8y ago
And I hate to be the one to inform you, that I tend not to take random internet comments to heart. But if you're saying that eating organic food in general has no health benefits vs. conventional food, I'd love to read whatever source you've derived that from. I always keep an open mind.
- driverdan 8y ago
  There have been many studies on the topic. The occasional differences are statistically significant but not significant enough to impact health. Here are a few reviews: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=organic&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxto... > Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946 > CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods. https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-foods-safer-healthier-than-conventional-alternatives-systematic-review https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-food... > Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Discussion of those papers: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-from-organic-food/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-from-org... Discussion of meat and milk: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-meat-and-milk/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-mea...
  - mirimir 8y ago
    There's ~no correlation between nutrient content and levels of toxic contaminants. If one added a lethal dose of botulism toxin to some food, it wouldn't change the nutrient content. But it would still kill you.
mirimir 8y ago
That's because "organic" by the FDA's definition is bullshit. There are all sorts of exceptions. For one thing, it's difficult to find arable land that hasn't been contaminated with persistent pesticides. Also, some kinds of indirect exposures are allowed. For example, say that you raise "non-organic" chickens. You can feed their waste (after sterilization, of course) to your dairy cattle, and still market the milk as "organic". If you could find uncontaminated land, you could produce actual contaminant-free food. Well, maybe not "contaminant-free", given all the crap floating around, but much closer.

And I hate to be the one to inform you, that I tend not to take random internet comments to heart. But if you're saying that eating organic food in general has no health benefits vs. conventional food, I'd love to read whatever source you've derived that from. I always keep an open mind.

driverdan 8y ago
There have been many studies on the topic. The occasional differences are statistically significant but not significant enough to impact health. Here are a few reviews: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=organic&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxto... > Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946 > CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods. https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-foods-safer-healthier-than-conventional-alternatives-systematic-review https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-food... > Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Discussion of those papers: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-from-organic-food/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-from-org... Discussion of meat and milk: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-meat-and-milk/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-mea...
- mirimir 8y ago
  There's ~no correlation between nutrient content and levels of toxic contaminants. If one added a lethal dose of botulism toxin to some food, it wouldn't change the nutrient content. But it would still kill you.

mirimir 8y ago

That's because "organic" by the FDA's definition is bullshit. There are all sorts of exceptions. For one thing, it's difficult to find arable land that hasn't been contaminated with persistent pesticides. Also, some kinds of indirect exposures are allowed. For example, say that you raise "non-organic" chickens. You can feed their waste (after sterilization, of course) to your dairy cattle, and still market the milk as "organic". If you could find uncontaminated land, you could produce actual contaminant-free food. Well, maybe not "contaminant-free", given all the crap floating around, but much closer.