7 ms·

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to contro

by igrekel 17y ago

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

michael_dorfman 17y ago
Also, this study looked at the people eating the food, and ignored the people growing the good. Obviously, farmers are exposed to pesticides (and other petrochemicals) in much greater concentrations than consumers....
- by 17y ago
  According to the abstact of the study, which the BBC do not link, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 the objective was "We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." and it was "restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients". The word 'nutrient' according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient does not cover pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth hormones and all the other medicines and chemicals excluded by organic farmers. The study, according to the link above, did not conclude that 'Organic has no health benefits'.
apgwoz 17y ago
Exactly. The article avoids the "truth" as to why most people even eat Organic. The health benefits in eating organic are in what you aren't eating (e.g. pesticides, etc).
- Retric 17y ago
  It's also just a strait up lie. "Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour. Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. " PS: There is a difference between saying there is no significant effect vs. no effect.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    I disagree - it's called margin of error and confidence intervals. If the difference is not large enough it can easily fall into the realm of statistical error. I would check myself I were you. Disagreeing with research is fine, but calling a bunch of trained scientists liars is a pretty serious accusation, especially when you yourself are not trained in the field.
    - Retric 17y ago
      Edit: The report is fine it's the reporting that's off. Note: not large enough to be of any public health relevance It's like overclocking a 4Ghz CPU by 0.01 Ghz. It's measurably faster, but not noticeably faster in normal use. So you can say it's an insignificant change, but you can't say they are the same speed. So "Organic has no health benefits" would not be a true statement without significant qualifiers.
meta 17y ago
I was under the impression that "Organic" in Canada is mostly a meaningless title. It isn't enforced and can be applied to a wide swath of products that most people would not consider Organic. I checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_Ame...) and it says that the Government has published a set of Guidelines but applying organic labels is up to "Private Sector"... However, doing some more google-fu I found (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtml http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtm...) which seems to imply that on June 30, 2009 the Canadian Government finally got it's Organic ducks-in-a-row. So, that seems to imply that only within the last month did Canada actually gain an Organic label that is regulated and trustworthy: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtml http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtm...
- 321abc 17y ago
  The meaning of "organic" is getting watered down: http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=60100242006 http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=6010024200... For example, "products labeled 'Made With Organic Ingredients', which contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, but can contain up to 30 percent non-organic ingredients"
- igrekel 17y ago
  You are right. Actually, I shouldn't have said Canada, I should have said Quebec.
DanielStraight 17y ago
Right. Who actually thought organic foods had more vitamins?
- easp 17y ago
  To be fair, I've met more than one pro-organic person who thinks organic foods are more nutritious. These are often the same people who worry about vague things like "toxins" from eating meat.
  - hachiya 17y ago
    Vague? So high cholesterol, hormones, high saturated fat, and heterocyclic amines are essential nutrients and not toxic to our bodies?
    - req2 17y ago
      Saturated fat? http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=heart.disease&conitem=a03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac____ http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&#38...
      - biohacker42 17y ago
        Yes, saturated fats are the molecular basis of many hormones including testosterone and estrogen. You may need very little of them but you do need some.
        req2 17y ago
        Did you notice the link and decide to respond with a non sequitur, or just miss the link?
        biohacker42 17y ago
        I noticed it was a link to men's health and my latent homophobia prevented me from rtfa. (I am only half joking.)
dbz 17y ago
There are lots of reasons to eat organic foods- besides health benefit. I quote "Organic farmers build soil. Soil is the foundation of the food chain and the primary focus of organic farming. We’re facing the worst topsoil erosion in history due to our current agricultural practice of chemical intensive, mono-crop farming." http://nutiva.com/nutrition/organic.php http://nutiva.com/nutrition/organic.php That site gives a lot of -interesting?- reasons to eat organic. But that reason in particular stands out to me. Anyone seen pictures of the dust bowl? Here you go~ http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dustbowl.jpg http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploa...
biohacker42 17y ago
Avoiding pesticides is half of why I go organic the other is just plain taste. I don't know if that's because the plant varieties are different, or the method or whatever, but I've blind tested myself (no, it's not scientific, more like Mythbusters's level science) and I can easily tell the produce apart. That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.
- easp 17y ago
  There are a motif reasons for the better taste. Often organic produce doesn't get shipped as far, which means growers can pick varieties bread for something other than shelf-life and durability. Also, organic farmers manage the soil differently. Intensive industrial farming depletes soils and relies on extensive use of refined fertilizers to make up forthe deficit. The soil at organic farms is often richer and plants can pick up more minerals, which can have a real impact on flavor.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Actually, some organic products get shipped further - when there is no local production. Milk is a good example of this. Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk - it is pasteurized at higher temperatures, has lower levels of Vitamin D as a result, because it has to last longer during shipping in a larger distribution network.
    - jamroom 17y ago
      Organic milk has other ancillary benefits you won't find in "plain" milk: The land and animals are treated much better. If you have ever seen a "normal" dairy farm, and watch the amount of antibiotics used to prevent the cow's udders from become infected, it becomes clear that life (for a cow at least) on a organic dairy farm is much a much nicer existence (and thus one I personally want to encourage). Also - the grains that are fed to organic dairy cows must be organic, which means more acres of organic grain production. Many organic dairy farms also do not milk cows that are in the later stages of pregnancy, which reduces the amount of estrogen in the milk fat (high levels of estrogen in the diet are linked to cancer).
omouse 17y ago
What's the problem with GMOs?
- raintrees 17y ago
  Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me. I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects. Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties... Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures. Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto. And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it. All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Thats all fine, Monstanto is not nice. Again: whats wrong with GMO food?
    - raintrees 17y ago
      I am sorry I rambled without answering that... I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!) Having a food factory produce vast quantities of recent experiments that overwhelm other sources of non-experiment strains gives me pause for concern. I understand from general consensus that we were told DDT was perfectly safe, and I vaguely remember seeing a promotional video showing children being sprayed with it, to show how "safe it was." I now understand that it is not safe at all. I guess it again circles around to whom do I trust? And is the information I am receiving accurate? I guess I am being a bit of a food Luddite...
zngtk4 17y ago
But has there been any evidence ever that the pesticides used on foods are harmful? Or is it all just fear?
rjurney 17y ago
Before 'monocultures' - agricultural output was terrible. Is that not important at all?

by igrekel 17y ago

michael_dorfman 17y ago

Also, this study looked at the people eating the food, and ignored the people growing the good. Obviously, farmers are exposed to pesticides (and other petrochemicals) in much greater concentrations than consumers....

by 17y ago
According to the abstact of the study, which the BBC do not link, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 the objective was "We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." and it was "restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients". The word 'nutrient' according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient does not cover pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth hormones and all the other medicines and chemicals excluded by organic farmers. The study, according to the link above, did not conclude that 'Organic has no health benefits'.

apgwoz 17y ago

Exactly. The article avoids the "truth" as to why most people even eat Organic. The health benefits in eating organic are in what you aren't eating (e.g. pesticides, etc).

Retric 17y ago
It's also just a strait up lie. "Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour. Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. " PS: There is a difference between saying there is no significant effect vs. no effect.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I disagree - it's called margin of error and confidence intervals. If the difference is not large enough it can easily fall into the realm of statistical error. I would check myself I were you. Disagreeing with research is fine, but calling a bunch of trained scientists liars is a pretty serious accusation, especially when you yourself are not trained in the field.
  - Retric 17y ago
    Edit: The report is fine it's the reporting that's off. Note: not large enough to be of any public health relevance It's like overclocking a 4Ghz CPU by 0.01 Ghz. It's measurably faster, but not noticeably faster in normal use. So you can say it's an insignificant change, but you can't say they are the same speed. So "Organic has no health benefits" would not be a true statement without significant qualifiers.

meta 17y ago

I was under the impression that "Organic" in Canada is mostly a meaningless title. It isn't enforced and can be applied to a wide swath of products that most people would not consider Organic. I checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_Ame...) and it says that the Government has published a set of Guidelines but applying organic labels is up to "Private Sector"... However, doing some more google-fu I found (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtml http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtm...) which seems to imply that on June 30, 2009 the Canadian Government finally got it's Organic ducks-in-a-row. So, that seems to imply that only within the last month did Canada actually gain an Organic label that is regulated and trustworthy: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtml http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtm...

321abc 17y ago
The meaning of "organic" is getting watered down: http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=60100242006 http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=6010024200... For example, "products labeled 'Made With Organic Ingredients', which contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, but can contain up to 30 percent non-organic ingredients"
igrekel 17y ago
You are right. Actually, I shouldn't have said Canada, I should have said Quebec.

DanielStraight 17y ago

Right. Who actually thought organic foods had more vitamins?

easp 17y ago
To be fair, I've met more than one pro-organic person who thinks organic foods are more nutritious. These are often the same people who worry about vague things like "toxins" from eating meat.
- hachiya 17y ago
  Vague? So high cholesterol, hormones, high saturated fat, and heterocyclic amines are essential nutrients and not toxic to our bodies?
  - req2 17y ago
    Saturated fat? http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=heart.disease&conitem=a03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac____ http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&#38...
    - biohacker42 17y ago
      Yes, saturated fats are the molecular basis of many hormones including testosterone and estrogen. You may need very little of them but you do need some.
      - req2 17y ago
        Did you notice the link and decide to respond with a non sequitur, or just miss the link?
        biohacker42 17y ago
        I noticed it was a link to men's health and my latent homophobia prevented me from rtfa. (I am only half joking.)

dbz 17y ago

There are lots of reasons to eat organic foods- besides health benefit. I quote "Organic farmers build soil. Soil is the foundation of the food chain and the primary focus of organic farming. We’re facing the worst topsoil erosion in history due to our current agricultural practice of chemical intensive, mono-crop farming." http://nutiva.com/nutrition/organic.php http://nutiva.com/nutrition/organic.php That site gives a lot of -interesting?- reasons to eat organic. But that reason in particular stands out to me. Anyone seen pictures of the dust bowl? Here you go~ http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dustbowl.jpg http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploa...

biohacker42 17y ago

Avoiding pesticides is half of why I go organic the other is just plain taste. I don't know if that's because the plant varieties are different, or the method or whatever, but I've blind tested myself (no, it's not scientific, more like Mythbusters's level science) and I can easily tell the produce apart. That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.

easp 17y ago
There are a motif reasons for the better taste. Often organic produce doesn't get shipped as far, which means growers can pick varieties bread for something other than shelf-life and durability. Also, organic farmers manage the soil differently. Intensive industrial farming depletes soils and relies on extensive use of refined fertilizers to make up forthe deficit. The soil at organic farms is often richer and plants can pick up more minerals, which can have a real impact on flavor.
- rjurney 17y ago
  Actually, some organic products get shipped further - when there is no local production. Milk is a good example of this. Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk - it is pasteurized at higher temperatures, has lower levels of Vitamin D as a result, because it has to last longer during shipping in a larger distribution network.
  - jamroom 17y ago
    Organic milk has other ancillary benefits you won't find in "plain" milk: The land and animals are treated much better. If you have ever seen a "normal" dairy farm, and watch the amount of antibiotics used to prevent the cow's udders from become infected, it becomes clear that life (for a cow at least) on a organic dairy farm is much a much nicer existence (and thus one I personally want to encourage). Also - the grains that are fed to organic dairy cows must be organic, which means more acres of organic grain production. Many organic dairy farms also do not milk cows that are in the later stages of pregnancy, which reduces the amount of estrogen in the milk fat (high levels of estrogen in the diet are linked to cancer).

omouse 17y ago

What's the problem with GMOs?

raintrees 17y ago
Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me. I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects. Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties... Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures. Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto. And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it. All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.
- rjurney 17y ago
  Thats all fine, Monstanto is not nice. Again: whats wrong with GMO food?
  - raintrees 17y ago
    I am sorry I rambled without answering that... I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!) Having a food factory produce vast quantities of recent experiments that overwhelm other sources of non-experiment strains gives me pause for concern. I understand from general consensus that we were told DDT was perfectly safe, and I vaguely remember seeing a promotional video showing children being sprayed with it, to show how "safe it was." I now understand that it is not safe at all. I guess it again circles around to whom do I trust? And is the information I am receiving accurate? I guess I am being a bit of a food Luddite...

zngtk4 17y ago

But has there been any evidence ever that the pesticides used on foods are harmful? Or is it all just fear?

rjurney 17y ago

Before 'monocultures' - agricultural output was terrible. Is that not important at all?