8 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoSurely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.
- dgesang 12y agoHa, yeah sure, we need to proof that natures goods are fine the way they are supposed to be, but highly manipulated goods don't. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons why so many people fear TTIP. Please stay on your side of the Atlantic.
- SpoonMeiser 12y agoHa ha
- zo1 12y agoI'll just go ahead and leave this here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- dgesang 12y agoWell, I didn't say that anything nature-related is ought to be good and desirable. What I meant is that 'conventional food' yet has to be proven to be equally safe as food that was not genetically tampered with, grown without using pesticides, etc. pp. And quite honestly, I doubt that Moore had genetic engineering and todays massive (ab)use of pesticides in mind when he first stated that law. He might even have added an exception ...
- breischl 12y ago(responding to @dgesang here, because of max comment depth) The conventionally-grown food looks similar, tastes similar, and people have been eating it for decades with no major, obvious consequences. So at first glance they are equivalent. So it seems reasonable that the burden would be on proving a difference, rather than an equivalence.
- dgesang 12y agoAnd organically-grown food have been eating it for EONS with no major, obvious consequences. 'Conventionally-grown food' have just been thrown on the market a few decades ago without knowing any long-term effects to humans eating them or to the environment they are grown in. I don't care about proof for equivalence or difference, I only care about safety. And any food should be proven to be safe BEFORE being released, not decades later.
- neilsharma 12y agoI'm not convinced that they are equally healthy. Its just that up to now, the vast majority of studies found no major nutritional difference. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103728.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103728.ht... Stanford study (others referenced this): 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... Those aren't conclusive and I'm open to being wrong, but this recent UK study seems to be the among the first to find significant differences. I bring up the organic definition in the US vs UK as a possible explanation for the results.
- jann 12y agoWhy is the difference between US and UK regulations important for the results? As far as I understood from the press release the study was conducted in the UK with UK products.
- judk 12y agoBecause "organic" is a meaningless label in USA, so USA "organic" is like the rest of USA produce.
- thrownaway2424 12y agoAs you allude, the US standard (USDA Organic) is next to useless. When I buy produce I don't differentiate between USDA Organic and conventionally grown. The California standard (CCOF) is a lot more sensible and was developed with less input from conventional large-scale growers.