15 ms·

Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

306 points by mikevm 12y ago

mikevm 12y ago
More information on the study (including the paper) here: http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutritional-quality/bjn-2014/ http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutrit...
- Scitr 12y ago
  How did you find that? When I looked up the title I got a link to journals.cambridge.org that redirects to a login page. Your link is much better. http://scitr.com/a2d http://scitr.com/a2d
  - mikevm 12y ago
    The link I gave above is the 2nd Google search result when I search for the name of the paper.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >"Abstract >"Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods. Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively. >"Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons." //
vixin 12y ago
Heartening that everyone can read this research largely if not entirely funded by tax payers from the authors' respective countries.
jayvanguard 12y ago
It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies: "Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods."
- spingsprong 12y ago
  Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants. Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy. So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?
  - tnyswutnw 12y ago
    You'd conclude everything is unhealthy if you lived your life the way studies told you to. Problem is most studies you see these days are backed/funded by an agenda to be basically their marketing. I'd like to see a study that dismisses labels like "organic"/not and look for the nutritional content AND poisonous content. That way, we'd find the best current/future farming methods available instead of this inane religious branding war between marketing giants.
  - guelo 12y ago
    That leads to the obvious conclusion that we should skip the foods and eat the pesticides directly!
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    The studies that have shown antioxidants are unhealthy use mega doses. Getting enoug vitamin E is healthy; getting 100 times the needed amount isn't.
  - 12y ago
dekhn 12y ago
Like the article says, the authors didn't claim the differences they found actually have any impact on health. They just claim they measured a difference, and the difference was significant (unlikely to be explained by chance). That's fine, but this really doesn't inform consumer decision making in a valuable way. Many consumers would hear this and immediately assume that consuming organic food is safer, which isn't well-supported. Note that low levels of toxic chemicals can often be completely harmless (if you want a better explanation than that, buy http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 and read the section on the Ames test, dose response relationships, and why tests aren't useful predictors of risk at low concentrations.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Science: clearly doesn't matter unless it informs consumer decision-making in a valuable way.
  - judk 12y ago
    Data without context is low information content. Your snark is misplaced.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      Then go read the context. You're not required to make life-altering decisions when comprehending data. That's for people who cite single studies as justification for their latest hare-brained scheme to do.
SigmundA 12y ago
The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set. The paper seems thin on how they classified the data as organic or not, looks like they took that source data's word for it. I am very skeptical anytime someone uses such vague terminology such as organic. Most compounds considered "synthetic" are technically organic in a chemical sense. When does something become synthetic? After all many forms chemical synthesis involves basic forms of human preparation (mechanical separation and cooking). How much human modification of a raw material crosses the line into syntheses? Manure vs compost vs fertilizer. The distinction varies by country/law/standard/organization/person. For instance the paper says they included "biodynamic" techniques as organic. Never heard of this before, looking into it it seems akin alchemy, mixing spirituality with farming protocols. The "natural" vs standard medicine debate overlaps in many way with this issue and is full of pseudoscience that pervades and pollutes the information available.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- hrvbr 12y ago
  In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo. Main rules, taken from the EC site: - Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently - Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned - On-site resources are put to good use, such as manure for fertiliser or feed produced on the farm - Disease-resistant plant and animal species adapted to the local environment are used - Livestock are raised in a free-range, open-air environment and are fed on organic fodder - Animal husbandry practices are tailored to the various livestock species http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm
  - 12y ago
mark_l_watson 12y ago
I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto. This Bill would make home gardeners, local community gardens and small local growers jump through the same hoops as the multi billion dollar food corporations. I believe that it was generally accepted that this was an attempt to force people to buy from the large food conglomerates - at least that is my belief.
- jqm 12y ago
  The common line is that this bill is to stymie small farmers and promote Monsanto. I don't think it was the intent of the bill at all, nor does it need to be the outcome. Food born illness is a serious problem (~48 million people will have some form of it in the US this year). Just look at the articles on people who are fatally poisoned by things like greens and cantaloupe. The act attempts to address this by making sure food is properly traceable back to source and cleanliness measures are taken along the way. This is most certainly in the public interest, and the intent is not to promote big agriculture but to insure process and accountability. It doesn't actually prevent you from growing and consuming food from your own garden, but when you distribute that food, the government should be able to make sure you aren't doing things like watering it with raw sewage. This is overdue in my opinion. It's just like restaurant inspection. Necessary. Small growers shouldn't be exempted from putting people at risk. They can and should grow and process food cleanly, they should keep records, and if they are unable to, they shouldn't do it. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm237934.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm237934.ht... TLDR; not a conspiracy but a reasonable and overdue precaution.
  - mark_l_watson 12y ago
    I don't view the Bill as a "conspiracy," just a large corporation trying to increase profits. You make good points on food safety, definitely important, but I personally feel more secure buying food from the same local farmers every week or so at our local farmers markets than food that is grown on huge farms and shipped from long distances. I have the same opinion about meat. I would rather buy locally grown free range chicken from small local farms than chicken grown in small cages living in their own poop. All that said, we are supposed to be a free country, so I feel like it is important to maintain the rights of both people like you who prefer food from large grocery stores, and also people like me who like my food raised by very nearby local small farmers. Really, why shouldn't we both get what we want?
jeremyw 12y ago
And a 2012 survey of 200+ studies showed no significant difference in nutrition or contaminants. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-organic-food/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triag...
- asadotzler 12y ago
  2012 was a long time ago. Seriously. Would you use un-patched software from 2.5 years ago? I wouldn't. Science can move fast too. Relying on old data is foolish when there's a lot more newer data that can be analyzed.
  - toufka 12y ago
    Most of the papers used in this study were published between 1990 and 2010. The data is likely older than that.
  - jeremyw 12y ago
    The newer data shows the same feeble trend as before. A little plus, a little minus. Press releases notwishstanding the signal has been weak and remains weak. Best to avoid confirmation bias here.
- Scitr 12y ago
  http://scitr.com/a2f http://scitr.com/a2f
- kaitai 12y ago
  Well, it found no significant difference in nutrients measured except for phosphorus (the difference in phosphorus was significant but not clinically significant), and it did find that organic foods were lower in pesticides and organic chicken and pork were much less likely to have antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I thought the reporting on this survey was so weird. Headlines trumpeting "NO DIFFERENCE!" Antibiotic-resistant bacteria freak me the heck out. Pesticides don't seem so tasty. And that CAFO chicken tastes like styrofoam -- being a vegetarian is no loss if you only know that *&^!. But a piece of pork that really tastes like pork..... mmmmmmm....... Doesn't anyone buy food for the taste anymore?
oh_sigh 12y ago
On a general note, how do meta analyses handle publication biases? For example, this study used 343 studies to derive their conclusions. But what if there were 5000 studies which showed that organic and non-organic food have no differences, but were not published or peer reviewed because they were deemed "not interesting"?
- asadotzler 12y ago
  They usually have a definition for the kinds of studies they'll use. For example, they might say "only studies of this size betwee these years that measure this thing". I'll bet if you read the full analysis, you'll find something like that in it.
  - oh_sigh 12y ago
    You're correct. The full study has a cool flow chart of how they selected their papers, how they removed certain studies, mixed in other studies, etc. But it doesn't handle the case of papers that were never published in the first place. I'm not even sure it's possible to handle, which is what I'm asking.
- learc83 12y ago
  In addition to publication bias, it's also very easy to pick a selection criteria that produces the result you're trying to get, and justify that criteria after the fact.
- gwern 12y ago
  Generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_meta-analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_met... From the paper: > Funnel plots, Egger tests of funnel plot asymmetry and fail-safe number tests were used to assess publication bias (37) (see online supplementary Table S13 for further information). (Some fail-safe tests are completely worthless and misleading, but I haven't looked to see which they used.) > Strong or moderate funnel plot asymmetry consistent with a publication bias was detected for approximately half of the parameters. However, it is not possible to definitively attribute discrepancies between large precise studies and small imprecise studies to publication bias, which remains strongly suspected rather than detected where asymmetry is severe (see Table 1 and online supplementary Table S13). There's a table of all the endpoints they looked at, like the various antioxidants, with a column grading none to high: > Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger tests, two fail-safe number tests, and trim and fill (see online supplementary Table S13). Overall publication bias was considered high when indicated by two or more methods, moderate when indicated by one method, and low when indicated by none of the methods. The overall quality of evidence was then assessed across domains as in standard GRADE appraisal. A copy-paste of the publication bias column and then a `xclip -o | sort | uniq -c` says that there were 16 parameters where publication bias was estimated to be low or 'none', 17 'medium', and 3 'strong'. That said, publication bias tests are considered to be fairly weak in that you need a lot of studies to be confident bias isn't there, and looking at figure 3, the # of studies for the parameters may vary from what looks like a low of 4 to a high of 332; so the publication bias estimate for the latter will probably be good, but the former means next to nothing.
wirrbel 12y ago
Again quite a poor press release for a university. * Antioxidants have lost a lot in recent studies in terms of supposed health benefits. Mentioning antioxidants without reference to today's antioxidants and health research is implying a not-proven health benefit of organic food for antioxidants, while the health benefit can only soundly be expressed for the lower levels of pollutants. * There is no link to the paper or a preprint of the article. Apart from this, it is great to know that organic food is less polluted than conventional food (and it would be great if we got those numbers down for conventional food as well).
- hausen 12y ago
  Not only it is a poor press release, but it has FALSE information. "The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition..." The study, entitled “Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” is nowhere to be found, either on the BJN website, or elsewhere on the web. Until the peer-reviewed results are out, consider it as hype, not science. I wish I could mod down the submission.
  - stefantalpalaru 12y ago
    http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20...
- erdle 12y ago
  Would love to see the paper as well. Everything you said about antioxidants is true and I have equity in a company that has spent millions on researching antioxidants at multiple universities, on two continents. Most benefits that companies make claims on are only seen after ingesting impossible to eat"natural" quantities of the antioxidants. Even more interesting, the heavy metal claims. Heavy metals are generally leeched from the soil and to conduct a test such as this you need two very different plots of land. If the heavy metals were in the solutions applied to the conventionally grown crops, then it would be pretty easy to know where they came from and alert the governing agencies. Therefore, they came from the soil. Although there are no real enforced standards for organic in US, most private companies that set the standards have some specifications for the soil. If you were to convert a field from conventional to organic, the general rules state that the field needs to become farrow and tested for at least 7 years. In theory this does gets rid of chemical pesticides, but there are no major studies to prove it and there is no impact on residual heavy metals. And as someone that grew up in the produce, food and beverage business I will say that just because something is labeled organic, it does not mean it is organic. It certainly does not mean that the private company they chose to "inspect" there farms followed through with all of their privately chosen standards. My family's company has caught more than a few competitors and business partners cheating the system, selling organic product in quantities that the industry knows the company cannot meet in terms of production. General rule of thumb for buying organic: is it smaller and more "meh" looking than the conventional fruit or vegetable... it's probably organic. If it's processed and packaged... it's anyone's guess. There certainly is no governing body trying to enforce standards. After all, regulations would only cut the profit margins for the already established major organic players.
zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
I'm glad to see some kind of serious, fact-based conversation finally taking place. I'm getting tired of reading nonsense such as "it's not organic, it's bad for your body" or "it's organic, it's very healthy". There's also an important array of distinctions between ingredients that are "not organic" (whatever that means): genetically modified food needs to be in a separate bucket from food that came from non pesticided crops, etc... Overall, people will be stunned to find out how beneficial OGM foods are over their natural counterpart, and how much of it they're already eating on a daily basis without realizing it, and being more healthy for it.
baldfat 12y ago
Scary! "is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications" Have we not learned that "peer-reviewed publications" are of questionable value due to the on going debate on peer-reviews. http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_about_peer_review http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_abou... http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/ http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scienti...
- baldfat 12y ago
  That is why there needs to be more backing then what was published in the letter. The whole backing of data was that it was peer-reviewed.
- dekhn 12y ago
  Would you prefer they used non-peer-reviewed publications? Also, it was a metastudy, which can address non-systematic variation in poor studies (it wouldn't necessarily protect you against systematic variation, for example if "all peer reviewed studies were flawed in the same way".
  - baldfat 12y ago
    No I would prefer data that was validated by a secondary source. The idea that one can do science by writing a paper and just have it signing off by someone seems flawed and damaging to science and medicine. Reason I haven't dropped this after being down voted over 5 times. Having had a son who went through the whole cancer deal and then realize that so much of the cancer research is flawed due to bad peer-reviewed papers that caused loss of years of research makes me always question "peer-reviewed." It needs to be replicated and the data needs to be open. Science and especially medical research is seriously damaged by the lack of either one of these.
    - dekhn 12y ago
      Your complaint about peer review might be valid but it's irrelevant to this particular study (using the term peer review when describing a study isjust something PR people do to make them seem more valid). Peer review isn't a panacea, but that's not really its role, either. We expect too much of peer review, but it's not directly related to the issues of replication or open data (it certainly doesn't prevent either of those things from happening). Studies like this actually build on previous studies, and if carried out properly, address many issues about individual publications.
jheriko 12y ago
i wish we could see a balanced analysis of this... there are many, many advantages to 'modern' food production - this is why we did it to begin with. the economic advantages may cause the problem where the quality of the food drops in some ways but other advantages potentially balance it out. it also seems to be a bit arbitrary as well... the 'artificial processes' used to improve food quality are often used on 'organic' foods as well. especially when they 'just' make the product better.
SixSigma 12y ago
> lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones Organic is the convention, intensive factory crops are the new kids on the block. This whole frame of reference is the wrong way round.
CR45H 12y ago
Likely a shit study like all the others that try to do this. The reality is that there no real difference. This has been proved over and over again; but these idiots have an agenda and will never quit.
- ertdfgcb 12y ago
  I know you're probably a troll, but this is science: nothing is ever "proven", nothing is ever 100% certain, and they mentioned in the press release why this study is better than the previous ones that show no difference between organics and non-organics (basically, it used way more data and it's newer).
alrs 12y ago
How well paid are the people who jump in to these threads to astroturf on behalf on a lobby? Are they on-call to deal with weekend work? Is it the same players that have been doing this since the 80s, or is there someone disrupting the industry?
- jqm 12y ago
  I highly doubt the "lobby" cares enough about what a few thousand hackers think about organic food to plant astroturfers. Sometimes there simply isn't a conspiracy...sorry. (Now if it were Microsoft on the other hand:)
- z92 12y ago
  > Are they on-call to deal with weekend work? Reading some of the answers here, I am having a first hand experience on how strong the lobby is. My guess is that, they are full time employee. There should be hierarchical overseeing managers and performance review, for it to be this much effective.
stillsut 12y ago
When the situation is reversed: (e.g. 'Non-Organic foods are just as healthy as Organic foods') there's often ad hom's directed at the researchers and an alleged 'whoring oneself out' to Big-Agri. I wonder if people think it's reasonable to consider the hidden incentives in study that come up positively for Organics? After all, organic is usually: - much more expensive (ability to charge a premium / higher margin) - suppliers can maintain a semi-monopoly by limiting who gets to use the label "organic" These characteristics, are afterall, a business's dream, not the ability to sell a commodity in an int'ly competitive market.
- personZ 12y ago
  There are "hidden incentives" in virtually every study, and one should always remain highly skeptical. One of the biggest perversions of science is the probability of wide publication (essentially the virality of a finding), vastly increasing the likelihood of finding the desired outcome. However to your "business's dream", organic products are more expensive to buy because they're much more expensive to produce. If we actually look at businesses in operation, the vast majority seek to minimize selling price by doing everything possible to minimize production costs, which is the opposite of your claim.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Businesses don't do everything possible to minimize absolute production costs, they try to minimize relative production costs. All else being equal, if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins, and we will all make more profit. "All else being equal" is the hard part but it's not too far from reality in some situations.
    - stillsut 12y ago
      > if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins No, the organic food fight has always been about should we reap the (positive) economies of scale that are so abundant in agriculture? That's the cost structure of concern here and it only applies to one side - those currently taking advantage of those efficiencies. We were able to feed society with family farms, it just took 90% of the population to be farmers.
MrQuincle 12y ago
There is publication bias with respect to publishing something that shows a difference between organic and non-organic food. I think a meta-analysis will only amplify this tendency. I'd be happy if they actually put hypotheses out there why organic food would be better, come up with a possible mechanism, and test that. Cadmium (which they state as the one metal that comes with lower concentrations for organic food), for example, can be part of certain fertilizers. Cadmium also depletes anti-oxidants. So, it might just be the case that getting rid of these fertilizers, would get rid of the differences between organic and non-organic food... Without studying the underlying mechanisms of uptake and use, we will never know.
- gmac 12y ago
  The antioxidants are maybe a red herring, but surely a key and blindingly obvious hypothesis is: food that's not been sprayed with nasty chemicals will be lower in levels of nasty chemicals. That (plus this similar hypothesis: environments that haven't been sprayed with nasty chemicals will be lower in levels of nasty chemicals) is the whole reason I buy organic stuff, and appears unsurprisingly vindicated here.
  - MrQuincle 12y ago
    Composting manure might concentrate metals, and other issues, which are difficult to think about when the processes are not known to the buyer: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2008/09/rusted_roots.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/... My grandpa who had an orchard was not into organic farming at all, but also he already used wasps to get rid of certain insects. I think it's important to know what happens down there on the field and to me "organic" comes across at times as a marketing trick, but's that maybe me. :-)
tokenadult 12y ago
Another comment has already pointed out that until we see the underlying study we can't be sure that this press release is really important. I note that the claim "In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops" doesn't tell us anything important unless it can be shown that those "key antioxidants" are genuinely important for human health, and despite some hand-waving in the press release, there is no epidemiological evidence at all that the presence or absence of particular antioxidants in foodstuffs is associated with better health in human beings.
- vixin 12y ago
  The evidence for molecular intervention (almost always with positive outcome) of antioxidants in the form of phytochemicals (the ones that have been around us for millions of years) in the biochemistry that occurs in animal bodies is overwhelming as a search in the literature will tell you. I've read hundreds of papers reporting such results. No one talks about proof in science but this is at least indicative though we have far to go. To ignore the chemistry while waiting for epidemiologists to come to questionable conclusions seems odd to me. Thanks to the countless variables present when people are involved, epidemiological studies are always subject to debate. Knowing as a raw fact that carbon monoxide irreversibly combines with haemoglobin told me a long time ago that smoking is a mug's game I was likely to lose. I didn't need later 'reassurance' from epidemiology to persuade me give up.
  - tokenadult 12y ago
    What's a good review article on the topic? What kind of underlying studies contribute to metaanalysis on this issue, in vitro studies of direct application of the antioxidants, or carefully controlled in vivo studies of consumption of different kinds of foodstuffs? (I did the expected Google Scholar search back when this thread was more active, and I'm not seeing many citations to reliable secondary sources even now in this thread.)
ahomescu1 12y ago
> [...] organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops. This immediately made me wonder if organic crops are also "up to 69%" more expensive? If so, it kinda balances out (you eat less organic food to compensate for its price).
- zzleeper 12y ago
  Say its 200% more expensive. Is it still worth it? I mean, you can't just eat twice as much of the other food to balance ..
neilsharma 12y ago
I haven't read the specific paper, but the press release skips over the finer nuances in the debate. First, how is the European standard of "organic" defined exactly? Both the UK's and US' seem to cover the basics (no growth hormones, limited herbicides and pesticides use, must feed the animal organic foods, etc.), but fertility and biological standards in the soil might vary. It is possible that that UK might have naturally less-polluted soil than the US (fewer heavy metals?), contributing to the difference. Also, organic doesn't mean hormones or pesticides-free; rather, it just defines which pesticides can be used and are not as detrimental to the environment. There might be different standards here too. UK's standard: https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming US' standard: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards Secondly, most organic studies in the states dive into which fruits/vegetables are subject to the most pesticide use. Apples, strawberries, and grapes seem to have the most in the US, but avocados, corn, and pineapple have the least. Studies that make blanket statements like "organic foods are better for you" without acknowledging the differences in the cultivation and biology of different species are lacking in my book. Extensive List: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php I'd buy organic, mostly for the more humane way farmers treat livestock and lower environmental pollution, but I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans.
- dgesang 12y ago
  > I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans. I'm curious what convinced you that they are equally healthy in the first place?
  - SpoonMeiser 12y ago
    Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
    - dgesang 12y ago
byerley 12y ago
Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc... "No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."
- kaitai 12y ago
  The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it. If you buy only the tastiest plants and animals I will guarantee you a healthy diet.
  - judk 12y ago
    Sugar is a very tasty plant.
    - sleep-less 12y ago
      Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in reasonable quantity.
      - manicdee 12y ago
        That is correct, if by "reasonable quantity" you mean, "not adding any to your diet that already has plenty of fruit and vegetables."
    - 12y ago
wyager 12y ago
>Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones. More info? Did it go from .0000000002mg/kg to .0000000001mg/kg? I'm not very satisfied by this summary.
interpares 12y ago
This is great. Now if only I could use an app to make sure that a piece of produce labeled as organic was truly organic. The higher prices associated with organic produce seem like they could be a big temptation for bait-and-switchers. I know there are stringent certifications, but the incentive is there.
fideloper 12y ago
This is sort of surprising to me, since I thought organic has only been marketed as more nutritious when in fact it isn't necessarily. The rise of organic food was more about sustainability than nutrition from what I've read (quite a few books). Reducing the use of pesticides, crop rotation, careful ways to not strip the soil of nutrition, etc... I've always worked under the presumption that the "it's healthier" argument wasn't the case (despite the clever wording of marketing when big food got their hands on Organic).
phazmatis 12y ago
This isn't surprising. If you tune your Genetic Rearranger 3000 to spit out blueberries that are really friggin' blue, and don't develop rough surfaces, and are resistant to certain molds, and don't track other metrics like nutrition content, then there is a greater than zero chance that whatever you're not tracking will be diminished.
listic 12y ago
What is "organic food"?
- listic 12y ago
  Downvoting instead of defining the term that is not explained in the article nor could I find a satisfactory definition online for? I take it as an evidence that this is one of those "taboo" subjects that everyone expects everyone else to know definition of, even though not sure themselves.
dang 12y ago
Url changed from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-stu..., because several commenters were complaining about there being no link to the paper. We had to compress the title to fit.
- mikevm 12y ago
  I actually did that on purpose, and then immediately commented on the submission with a link to a page that contains the paper and supplemental data. The reason I preferred to post the press release was simply because it explains the significance of the study and gives a little history, something that might not be obvious if I simply linked to the paper directly. Unfortunately, my comment wasn't seen by many :-(. It would've been nice if one could post some supplementary text when submitting a link.
  - dang 12y ago
    You did the right thing. We generally prefer the best popular article on a paper, with a link to the paper in comments. This case was unusual because the subject was controversial, the thread ballooned quickly, and the link to the paper got lost.
StephenGL 12y ago
Now if they could better prove the value of antioxidants.....
codewiz 12y ago
First reactions of "experts" on this study range from cautious to skeptical: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-comparing-the-nutritional-content-of-organic-and-conventional-foods/ http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-c...
rabidmachine9 12y ago
I wish this was a smaller article and not a 18 page paper

306 points by mikevm 12y ago

More information on the study (including the paper) here: http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutritional-quality/bjn-2014/ http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutrit...

Scitr 12y ago
How did you find that? When I looked up the title I got a link to journals.cambridge.org that redirects to a login page. Your link is much better. http://scitr.com/a2d http://scitr.com/a2d
- mikevm 12y ago
  The link I gave above is the 2nd Google search result when I search for the name of the paper.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>"Abstract >"Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods. Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively. >"Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons." //

vixin 12y ago

Heartening that everyone can read this research largely if not entirely funded by tax payers from the authors' respective countries.

jayvanguard 12y ago

It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies: "Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods."

spingsprong 12y ago
Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants. Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy. So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?
- tnyswutnw 12y ago
  You'd conclude everything is unhealthy if you lived your life the way studies told you to. Problem is most studies you see these days are backed/funded by an agenda to be basically their marketing. I'd like to see a study that dismisses labels like "organic"/not and look for the nutritional content AND poisonous content. That way, we'd find the best current/future farming methods available instead of this inane religious branding war between marketing giants.
- guelo 12y ago
  That leads to the obvious conclusion that we should skip the foods and eat the pesticides directly!
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  The studies that have shown antioxidants are unhealthy use mega doses. Getting enoug vitamin E is healthy; getting 100 times the needed amount isn't.
- 12y ago

dekhn 12y ago

Like the article says, the authors didn't claim the differences they found actually have any impact on health. They just claim they measured a difference, and the difference was significant (unlikely to be explained by chance). That's fine, but this really doesn't inform consumer decision making in a valuable way. Many consumers would hear this and immediately assume that consuming organic food is safer, which isn't well-supported. Note that low levels of toxic chemicals can often be completely harmless (if you want a better explanation than that, buy http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 and read the section on the Ames test, dose response relationships, and why tests aren't useful predictors of risk at low concentrations.

saraid216 12y ago
Science: clearly doesn't matter unless it informs consumer decision-making in a valuable way.
- judk 12y ago
  Data without context is low information content. Your snark is misplaced.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    Then go read the context. You're not required to make life-altering decisions when comprehending data. That's for people who cite single studies as justification for their latest hare-brained scheme to do.

SigmundA 12y ago

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space. There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set. The paper seems thin on how they classified the data as organic or not, looks like they took that source data's word for it. I am very skeptical anytime someone uses such vague terminology such as organic. Most compounds considered "synthetic" are technically organic in a chemical sense. When does something become synthetic? After all many forms chemical synthesis involves basic forms of human preparation (mechanical separation and cooking). How much human modification of a raw material crosses the line into syntheses? Manure vs compost vs fertilizer. The distinction varies by country/law/standard/organization/person. For instance the paper says they included "biodynamic" techniques as organic. Never heard of this before, looking into it it seems akin alchemy, mixing spirituality with farming protocols. The "natural" vs standard medicine debate overlaps in many way with this issue and is full of pseudoscience that pervades and pollutes the information available.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hrvbr 12y ago
In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo. Main rules, taken from the EC site: - Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently - Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned - On-site resources are put to good use, such as manure for fertiliser or feed produced on the farm - Disease-resistant plant and animal species adapted to the local environment are used - Livestock are raised in a free-range, open-air environment and are fed on organic fodder - Animal husbandry practices are tailored to the various livestock species http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm
- 12y ago

mark_l_watson 12y ago

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto. This Bill would make home gardeners, local community gardens and small local growers jump through the same hoops as the multi billion dollar food corporations. I believe that it was generally accepted that this was an attempt to force people to buy from the large food conglomerates - at least that is my belief.

jqm 12y ago
The common line is that this bill is to stymie small farmers and promote Monsanto. I don't think it was the intent of the bill at all, nor does it need to be the outcome. Food born illness is a serious problem (~48 million people will have some form of it in the US this year). Just look at the articles on people who are fatally poisoned by things like greens and cantaloupe. The act attempts to address this by making sure food is properly traceable back to source and cleanliness measures are taken along the way. This is most certainly in the public interest, and the intent is not to promote big agriculture but to insure process and accountability. It doesn't actually prevent you from growing and consuming food from your own garden, but when you distribute that food, the government should be able to make sure you aren't doing things like watering it with raw sewage. This is overdue in my opinion. It's just like restaurant inspection. Necessary. Small growers shouldn't be exempted from putting people at risk. They can and should grow and process food cleanly, they should keep records, and if they are unable to, they shouldn't do it. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm237934.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm237934.ht... TLDR; not a conspiracy but a reasonable and overdue precaution.
- mark_l_watson 12y ago
  I don't view the Bill as a "conspiracy," just a large corporation trying to increase profits. You make good points on food safety, definitely important, but I personally feel more secure buying food from the same local farmers every week or so at our local farmers markets than food that is grown on huge farms and shipped from long distances. I have the same opinion about meat. I would rather buy locally grown free range chicken from small local farms than chicken grown in small cages living in their own poop. All that said, we are supposed to be a free country, so I feel like it is important to maintain the rights of both people like you who prefer food from large grocery stores, and also people like me who like my food raised by very nearby local small farmers. Really, why shouldn't we both get what we want?

jeremyw 12y ago

And a 2012 survey of 200+ studies showed no significant difference in nutrition or contaminants. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-organic-food/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triag...

asadotzler 12y ago
2012 was a long time ago. Seriously. Would you use un-patched software from 2.5 years ago? I wouldn't. Science can move fast too. Relying on old data is foolish when there's a lot more newer data that can be analyzed.
- toufka 12y ago
  Most of the papers used in this study were published between 1990 and 2010. The data is likely older than that.
- jeremyw 12y ago
  The newer data shows the same feeble trend as before. A little plus, a little minus. Press releases notwishstanding the signal has been weak and remains weak. Best to avoid confirmation bias here.
Scitr 12y ago
http://scitr.com/a2f http://scitr.com/a2f
kaitai 12y ago
Well, it found no significant difference in nutrients measured except for phosphorus (the difference in phosphorus was significant but not clinically significant), and it did find that organic foods were lower in pesticides and organic chicken and pork were much less likely to have antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I thought the reporting on this survey was so weird. Headlines trumpeting "NO DIFFERENCE!" Antibiotic-resistant bacteria freak me the heck out. Pesticides don't seem so tasty. And that CAFO chicken tastes like styrofoam -- being a vegetarian is no loss if you only know that *&^!. But a piece of pork that really tastes like pork..... mmmmmmm....... Doesn't anyone buy food for the taste anymore?

oh_sigh 12y ago

On a general note, how do meta analyses handle publication biases? For example, this study used 343 studies to derive their conclusions. But what if there were 5000 studies which showed that organic and non-organic food have no differences, but were not published or peer reviewed because they were deemed "not interesting"?

asadotzler 12y ago
They usually have a definition for the kinds of studies they'll use. For example, they might say "only studies of this size betwee these years that measure this thing". I'll bet if you read the full analysis, you'll find something like that in it.
- oh_sigh 12y ago
  You're correct. The full study has a cool flow chart of how they selected their papers, how they removed certain studies, mixed in other studies, etc. But it doesn't handle the case of papers that were never published in the first place. I'm not even sure it's possible to handle, which is what I'm asking.
learc83 12y ago
In addition to publication bias, it's also very easy to pick a selection criteria that produces the result you're trying to get, and justify that criteria after the fact.
gwern 12y ago
Generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_meta-analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_met... From the paper: > Funnel plots, Egger tests of funnel plot asymmetry and fail-safe number tests were used to assess publication bias (37) (see online supplementary Table S13 for further information). (Some fail-safe tests are completely worthless and misleading, but I haven't looked to see which they used.) > Strong or moderate funnel plot asymmetry consistent with a publication bias was detected for approximately half of the parameters. However, it is not possible to definitively attribute discrepancies between large precise studies and small imprecise studies to publication bias, which remains strongly suspected rather than detected where asymmetry is severe (see Table 1 and online supplementary Table S13). There's a table of all the endpoints they looked at, like the various antioxidants, with a column grading none to high: > Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger tests, two fail-safe number tests, and trim and fill (see online supplementary Table S13). Overall publication bias was considered high when indicated by two or more methods, moderate when indicated by one method, and low when indicated by none of the methods. The overall quality of evidence was then assessed across domains as in standard GRADE appraisal. A copy-paste of the publication bias column and then a `xclip -o | sort | uniq -c` says that there were 16 parameters where publication bias was estimated to be low or 'none', 17 'medium', and 3 'strong'. That said, publication bias tests are considered to be fairly weak in that you need a lot of studies to be confident bias isn't there, and looking at figure 3, the # of studies for the parameters may vary from what looks like a low of 4 to a high of 332; so the publication bias estimate for the latter will probably be good, but the former means next to nothing.

wirrbel 12y ago

Again quite a poor press release for a university. * Antioxidants have lost a lot in recent studies in terms of supposed health benefits. Mentioning antioxidants without reference to today's antioxidants and health research is implying a not-proven health benefit of organic food for antioxidants, while the health benefit can only soundly be expressed for the lower levels of pollutants. * There is no link to the paper or a preprint of the article. Apart from this, it is great to know that organic food is less polluted than conventional food (and it would be great if we got those numbers down for conventional food as well).

hausen 12y ago
Not only it is a poor press release, but it has FALSE information. "The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition..." The study, entitled “Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” is nowhere to be found, either on the BJN website, or elsewhere on the web. Until the peer-reviewed results are out, consider it as hype, not science. I wish I could mod down the submission.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20...
erdle 12y ago
Would love to see the paper as well. Everything you said about antioxidants is true and I have equity in a company that has spent millions on researching antioxidants at multiple universities, on two continents. Most benefits that companies make claims on are only seen after ingesting impossible to eat"natural" quantities of the antioxidants. Even more interesting, the heavy metal claims. Heavy metals are generally leeched from the soil and to conduct a test such as this you need two very different plots of land. If the heavy metals were in the solutions applied to the conventionally grown crops, then it would be pretty easy to know where they came from and alert the governing agencies. Therefore, they came from the soil. Although there are no real enforced standards for organic in US, most private companies that set the standards have some specifications for the soil. If you were to convert a field from conventional to organic, the general rules state that the field needs to become farrow and tested for at least 7 years. In theory this does gets rid of chemical pesticides, but there are no major studies to prove it and there is no impact on residual heavy metals. And as someone that grew up in the produce, food and beverage business I will say that just because something is labeled organic, it does not mean it is organic. It certainly does not mean that the private company they chose to "inspect" there farms followed through with all of their privately chosen standards. My family's company has caught more than a few competitors and business partners cheating the system, selling organic product in quantities that the industry knows the company cannot meet in terms of production. General rule of thumb for buying organic: is it smaller and more "meh" looking than the conventional fruit or vegetable... it's probably organic. If it's processed and packaged... it's anyone's guess. There certainly is no governing body trying to enforce standards. After all, regulations would only cut the profit margins for the already established major organic players.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago

I'm glad to see some kind of serious, fact-based conversation finally taking place. I'm getting tired of reading nonsense such as "it's not organic, it's bad for your body" or "it's organic, it's very healthy". There's also an important array of distinctions between ingredients that are "not organic" (whatever that means): genetically modified food needs to be in a separate bucket from food that came from non pesticided crops, etc... Overall, people will be stunned to find out how beneficial OGM foods are over their natural counterpart, and how much of it they're already eating on a daily basis without realizing it, and being more healthy for it.

baldfat 12y ago

Scary! "is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications" Have we not learned that "peer-reviewed publications" are of questionable value due to the on going debate on peer-reviews. http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_about_peer_review http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_abou... http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/ http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scienti...

baldfat 12y ago
That is why there needs to be more backing then what was published in the letter. The whole backing of data was that it was peer-reviewed.
dekhn 12y ago
Would you prefer they used non-peer-reviewed publications? Also, it was a metastudy, which can address non-systematic variation in poor studies (it wouldn't necessarily protect you against systematic variation, for example if "all peer reviewed studies were flawed in the same way".
- baldfat 12y ago
  No I would prefer data that was validated by a secondary source. The idea that one can do science by writing a paper and just have it signing off by someone seems flawed and damaging to science and medicine. Reason I haven't dropped this after being down voted over 5 times. Having had a son who went through the whole cancer deal and then realize that so much of the cancer research is flawed due to bad peer-reviewed papers that caused loss of years of research makes me always question "peer-reviewed." It needs to be replicated and the data needs to be open. Science and especially medical research is seriously damaged by the lack of either one of these.
  - dekhn 12y ago
    Your complaint about peer review might be valid but it's irrelevant to this particular study (using the term peer review when describing a study isjust something PR people do to make them seem more valid). Peer review isn't a panacea, but that's not really its role, either. We expect too much of peer review, but it's not directly related to the issues of replication or open data (it certainly doesn't prevent either of those things from happening). Studies like this actually build on previous studies, and if carried out properly, address many issues about individual publications.

jheriko 12y ago

i wish we could see a balanced analysis of this... there are many, many advantages to 'modern' food production - this is why we did it to begin with. the economic advantages may cause the problem where the quality of the food drops in some ways but other advantages potentially balance it out. it also seems to be a bit arbitrary as well... the 'artificial processes' used to improve food quality are often used on 'organic' foods as well. especially when they 'just' make the product better.

SixSigma 12y ago

> lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones Organic is the convention, intensive factory crops are the new kids on the block. This whole frame of reference is the wrong way round.

CR45H 12y ago

Likely a shit study like all the others that try to do this. The reality is that there no real difference. This has been proved over and over again; but these idiots have an agenda and will never quit.

ertdfgcb 12y ago
I know you're probably a troll, but this is science: nothing is ever "proven", nothing is ever 100% certain, and they mentioned in the press release why this study is better than the previous ones that show no difference between organics and non-organics (basically, it used way more data and it's newer).

alrs 12y ago

How well paid are the people who jump in to these threads to astroturf on behalf on a lobby? Are they on-call to deal with weekend work? Is it the same players that have been doing this since the 80s, or is there someone disrupting the industry?

jqm 12y ago
I highly doubt the "lobby" cares enough about what a few thousand hackers think about organic food to plant astroturfers. Sometimes there simply isn't a conspiracy...sorry. (Now if it were Microsoft on the other hand:)
z92 12y ago
> Are they on-call to deal with weekend work? Reading some of the answers here, I am having a first hand experience on how strong the lobby is. My guess is that, they are full time employee. There should be hierarchical overseeing managers and performance review, for it to be this much effective.

stillsut 12y ago

When the situation is reversed: (e.g. 'Non-Organic foods are just as healthy as Organic foods') there's often ad hom's directed at the researchers and an alleged 'whoring oneself out' to Big-Agri. I wonder if people think it's reasonable to consider the hidden incentives in study that come up positively for Organics? After all, organic is usually: - much more expensive (ability to charge a premium / higher margin) - suppliers can maintain a semi-monopoly by limiting who gets to use the label "organic" These characteristics, are afterall, a business's dream, not the ability to sell a commodity in an int'ly competitive market.

personZ 12y ago
There are "hidden incentives" in virtually every study, and one should always remain highly skeptical. One of the biggest perversions of science is the probability of wide publication (essentially the virality of a finding), vastly increasing the likelihood of finding the desired outcome. However to your "business's dream", organic products are more expensive to buy because they're much more expensive to produce. If we actually look at businesses in operation, the vast majority seek to minimize selling price by doing everything possible to minimize production costs, which is the opposite of your claim.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Businesses don't do everything possible to minimize absolute production costs, they try to minimize relative production costs. All else being equal, if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins, and we will all make more profit. "All else being equal" is the hard part but it's not too far from reality in some situations.
  - stillsut 12y ago
    > if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins No, the organic food fight has always been about should we reap the (positive) economies of scale that are so abundant in agriculture? That's the cost structure of concern here and it only applies to one side - those currently taking advantage of those efficiencies. We were able to feed society with family farms, it just took 90% of the population to be farmers.

MrQuincle 12y ago

There is publication bias with respect to publishing something that shows a difference between organic and non-organic food. I think a meta-analysis will only amplify this tendency. I'd be happy if they actually put hypotheses out there why organic food would be better, come up with a possible mechanism, and test that. Cadmium (which they state as the one metal that comes with lower concentrations for organic food), for example, can be part of certain fertilizers. Cadmium also depletes anti-oxidants. So, it might just be the case that getting rid of these fertilizers, would get rid of the differences between organic and non-organic food... Without studying the underlying mechanisms of uptake and use, we will never know.

gmac 12y ago
The antioxidants are maybe a red herring, but surely a key and blindingly obvious hypothesis is: food that's not been sprayed with nasty chemicals will be lower in levels of nasty chemicals. That (plus this similar hypothesis: environments that haven't been sprayed with nasty chemicals will be lower in levels of nasty chemicals) is the whole reason I buy organic stuff, and appears unsurprisingly vindicated here.
- MrQuincle 12y ago
  Composting manure might concentrate metals, and other issues, which are difficult to think about when the processes are not known to the buyer: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2008/09/rusted_roots.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/... My grandpa who had an orchard was not into organic farming at all, but also he already used wasps to get rid of certain insects. I think it's important to know what happens down there on the field and to me "organic" comes across at times as a marketing trick, but's that maybe me. :-)

tokenadult 12y ago

Another comment has already pointed out that until we see the underlying study we can't be sure that this press release is really important. I note that the claim "In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops" doesn't tell us anything important unless it can be shown that those "key antioxidants" are genuinely important for human health, and despite some hand-waving in the press release, there is no epidemiological evidence at all that the presence or absence of particular antioxidants in foodstuffs is associated with better health in human beings.

vixin 12y ago
The evidence for molecular intervention (almost always with positive outcome) of antioxidants in the form of phytochemicals (the ones that have been around us for millions of years) in the biochemistry that occurs in animal bodies is overwhelming as a search in the literature will tell you. I've read hundreds of papers reporting such results. No one talks about proof in science but this is at least indicative though we have far to go. To ignore the chemistry while waiting for epidemiologists to come to questionable conclusions seems odd to me. Thanks to the countless variables present when people are involved, epidemiological studies are always subject to debate. Knowing as a raw fact that carbon monoxide irreversibly combines with haemoglobin told me a long time ago that smoking is a mug's game I was likely to lose. I didn't need later 'reassurance' from epidemiology to persuade me give up.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  What's a good review article on the topic? What kind of underlying studies contribute to metaanalysis on this issue, in vitro studies of direct application of the antioxidants, or carefully controlled in vivo studies of consumption of different kinds of foodstuffs? (I did the expected Google Scholar search back when this thread was more active, and I'm not seeing many citations to reliable secondary sources even now in this thread.)

ahomescu1 12y ago

> [...] organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops. This immediately made me wonder if organic crops are also "up to 69%" more expensive? If so, it kinda balances out (you eat less organic food to compensate for its price).

zzleeper 12y ago
Say its 200% more expensive. Is it still worth it? I mean, you can't just eat twice as much of the other food to balance ..

neilsharma 12y ago

I haven't read the specific paper, but the press release skips over the finer nuances in the debate. First, how is the European standard of "organic" defined exactly? Both the UK's and US' seem to cover the basics (no growth hormones, limited herbicides and pesticides use, must feed the animal organic foods, etc.), but fertility and biological standards in the soil might vary. It is possible that that UK might have naturally less-polluted soil than the US (fewer heavy metals?), contributing to the difference. Also, organic doesn't mean hormones or pesticides-free; rather, it just defines which pesticides can be used and are not as detrimental to the environment. There might be different standards here too. UK's standard: https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming US' standard: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards Secondly, most organic studies in the states dive into which fruits/vegetables are subject to the most pesticide use. Apples, strawberries, and grapes seem to have the most in the US, but avocados, corn, and pineapple have the least. Studies that make blanket statements like "organic foods are better for you" without acknowledging the differences in the cultivation and biology of different species are lacking in my book. Extensive List: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php I'd buy organic, mostly for the more humane way farmers treat livestock and lower environmental pollution, but I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans.

dgesang 12y ago
> I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans. I'm curious what convinced you that they are equally healthy in the first place?
- SpoonMeiser 12y ago
  Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
  - dgesang 12y ago

byerley 12y ago

Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc... "No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."

kaitai 12y ago
The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it. If you buy only the tastiest plants and animals I will guarantee you a healthy diet.
- judk 12y ago
  Sugar is a very tasty plant.
  - sleep-less 12y ago
    Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in reasonable quantity.
    - manicdee 12y ago
      That is correct, if by "reasonable quantity" you mean, "not adding any to your diet that already has plenty of fruit and vegetables."
  - 12y ago

wyager 12y ago

>Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones. More info? Did it go from .0000000002mg/kg to .0000000001mg/kg? I'm not very satisfied by this summary.

interpares 12y ago

This is great. Now if only I could use an app to make sure that a piece of produce labeled as organic was truly organic. The higher prices associated with organic produce seem like they could be a big temptation for bait-and-switchers. I know there are stringent certifications, but the incentive is there.

fideloper 12y ago

This is sort of surprising to me, since I thought organic has only been marketed as more nutritious when in fact it isn't necessarily. The rise of organic food was more about sustainability than nutrition from what I've read (quite a few books). Reducing the use of pesticides, crop rotation, careful ways to not strip the soil of nutrition, etc... I've always worked under the presumption that the "it's healthier" argument wasn't the case (despite the clever wording of marketing when big food got their hands on Organic).

phazmatis 12y ago

This isn't surprising. If you tune your Genetic Rearranger 3000 to spit out blueberries that are really friggin' blue, and don't develop rough surfaces, and are resistant to certain molds, and don't track other metrics like nutrition content, then there is a greater than zero chance that whatever you're not tracking will be diminished.

listic 12y ago

What is "organic food"?

listic 12y ago
Downvoting instead of defining the term that is not explained in the article nor could I find a satisfactory definition online for? I take it as an evidence that this is one of those "taboo" subjects that everyone expects everyone else to know definition of, even though not sure themselves.

dang 12y ago

Url changed from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-stu..., because several commenters were complaining about there being no link to the paper. We had to compress the title to fit.

mikevm 12y ago
I actually did that on purpose, and then immediately commented on the submission with a link to a page that contains the paper and supplemental data. The reason I preferred to post the press release was simply because it explains the significance of the study and gives a little history, something that might not be obvious if I simply linked to the paper directly. Unfortunately, my comment wasn't seen by many :-(. It would've been nice if one could post some supplementary text when submitting a link.
- dang 12y ago
  You did the right thing. We generally prefer the best popular article on a paper, with a link to the paper in comments. This case was unusual because the subject was controversial, the thread ballooned quickly, and the link to the paper got lost.

StephenGL 12y ago

Now if they could better prove the value of antioxidants.....

codewiz 12y ago

First reactions of "experts" on this study range from cautious to skeptical: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-comparing-the-nutritional-content-of-organic-and-conventional-foods/ http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-c...

rabidmachine9 12y ago

I wish this was a smaller article and not a 18 page paper