4 ms·

Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent r

Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings. For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organic produce, and one of the cornerstones of the argument for organic foods. This affects not only the health of consumers (around which there can be an absolutely healthy debate despite the fact that less poison is probably almost always better here), but also impacts the environmental footprint of farming. There are also loads of straw-man arguments, which further undermines the trust in the credibility of the responders. The OP never denied that eating more fruits and vegetables - organic or not - is better than eating none at all. All that the paper did was publishing findings about the differences between organic and non-organic produce. I don't think antioxidants or phenolic compounds were framed as essential nutrients, and besides that non-essential nutrients do have effects on the consumer's wellbeing and health as well. A truly unbiased response would feel more balanced. It would welcome certain findings, rounding out the picture with additional facts that might change certain conclusions drawn from the data, and add contradicting data found on a similar scale of research to the conversation. Such a straight and drastic dismissals of the paper in its entirety, however, based on carefully selected details, feels motivated by external factors beyond science or neutral dialog.

drakaal 12y ago
The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. That would work well, (and is used in certain organic farms often for strawberries) but the residue would be more harmful even in lower amounts than say a Coal-Tar Pesticide (basically an artificial flavor sprayed on to mimic the smell of a predator, or the flavor of something an insect doesn't like) Organic != Safe Traditional != Dangerous My biggest concern is that we cannot produce enough food via organic farming to feed everyone. If we move too much of the market to Organics, we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US. My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. NightShade is an all natural herb. Doesn't mean I should brew tea of it and have it at bed time.
- Swizec 12y ago
  > My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot. Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marketing ploy.
  - jader201 12y ago
    There are three types of people in the world: those that aren't convinced that organic is safer and eat traditional, those that are convinced but don't care/can't afford organic and eat traditional, and those that eat organic -- and are convinced. That is, nobody eats organic that isn't convinced of its benefits -- why else would they opt for the more costly of the two?
- SeanLuke 12y ago
  > You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. Support this claim.
  - shadowmint 12y ago
    Well, you can call your plants organic, but you can't label them organic; at least in the US you're required to be certified to use that term in labeling. ...and actually the claim is explicitly false. 205.602 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production This is the National List of natural, or nonsynthetic, materials that are specifically prohibited in organic crop production. This list includes natural—but highly toxic—materials, *such as arsenic* See www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101542
    - drakaal 12y ago
      My bad. I don't farm anymore, and am out of date. 2009 they changed the rules. Previously you could use Arsenic in Organic farming. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/organic_arsenicals_fs.html http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/organic_arsenical...

drakaal 12y ago

The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. That would work well, (and is used in certain organic farms often for strawberries) but the residue would be more harmful even in lower amounts than say a Coal-Tar Pesticide (basically an artificial flavor sprayed on to mimic the smell of a predator, or the flavor of something an insect doesn't like) Organic != Safe Traditional != Dangerous My biggest concern is that we cannot produce enough food via organic farming to feed everyone. If we move too much of the market to Organics, we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US. My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. NightShade is an all natural herb. Doesn't mean I should brew tea of it and have it at bed time.

Swizec 12y ago
> My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot. Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marketing ploy.
- jader201 12y ago
  There are three types of people in the world: those that aren't convinced that organic is safer and eat traditional, those that are convinced but don't care/can't afford organic and eat traditional, and those that eat organic -- and are convinced. That is, nobody eats organic that isn't convinced of its benefits -- why else would they opt for the more costly of the two?
SeanLuke 12y ago
> You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. Support this claim.
- shadowmint 12y ago
  Well, you can call your plants organic, but you can't label them organic; at least in the US you're required to be certified to use that term in labeling. ...and actually the claim is explicitly false. 205.602 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production This is the National List of natural, or nonsynthetic, materials that are specifically prohibited in organic crop production. This list includes natural—but highly toxic—materials, *such as arsenic* See www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101542
  - drakaal 12y ago
    My bad. I don't farm anymore, and am out of date. 2009 they changed the rules. Previously you could use Arsenic in Organic farming. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/organic_arsenicals_fs.html http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/organic_arsenical...