http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32205139/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/
The only person I know who buys organic food does so because she doesn’t want pesticides, not because she thinks it has more nutrients. Even before I knew she did this, that’s what I thought the main purpose was of organic foods.
Did the above study miss the point of why people buy organic foods? Or do most people buy it thinking it has greater nutritional value?
I think some do - I’ve met them. Given that, the above study is certainly worth it from a public information POV.
But I’d agree more seem to do it for a combination of other reasons - purportedly better taste, pesticide avoidance, more ecologically friendly, etc.
The study didn’t miss the point. The study was simply designed to see if there’s any measurable difference between the nutrients available in organic vs. conventional produce.
Pollan’s *Omnivore’s Dilemma *talks about how carrots, for example, might show differences in their stored nutrients based on the overall health of the soil in which they’re grown; a carrot root, like potatoes and other tubers, is essentially the plant’s storage tank. So it makes sense to design a study that tries to measure that specific type of data. No point missed.
You know who DID miss the point? The editors at MSNBC, for shining a spotlight on the study.
Lots of studies are done. Most of them are banal and so out of the realm of most people’s day-to-day existence or even scientific understanding as to be essentially meaningless. Out of all the studies scientists perform to examine this or that, *this *is the one they trumpet? That makes it confusing for people who people like you and me, who buy organic produce for the reasons **Tamerlane **just listed.
The current episode of Penn & Teller’s program “Bullshit” running on Showtime was about organic foods.
They talked about many of the reasons people give for buying organically grown foods, and in their opinion at least, debunked them all.
As I recall, the arguments they discussed were:
Taste – They actually did a couple of single-blind and one non-blind taste tests, and people either picked the regular fruit or picked the one they thought was organic even though it wasn’t. I don’t know if they edited out a bunch of other people getting it right. But in my opinion, based on the few times I had organically grown fruits or veggies, I agree that there isn’t really much difference
Pesticides - They had a couple of experts (I forget their credentials, but they sounded impressive) talk about how organic farmers do use pesticides to one degree or another, they were just organic pesticides. Penn reinforced this point by poisoning someone with hemlock, a completely organic substance.
Environmentally Friendly – Again their experts said that organic farms were not more environmentally friendly for a few reasons. They require more land for the same output, they don’t have the benefit of high-tech chemistry to keep the soil good, and I forget what. It really didn’t seem to me they presented much evidence here other than the experts word.
Nutrient value of the food – The experts say the studies shoe there isn’t any significant difference. Again no cites, just a voiced opinion.
Support the small farmer – Apparently the vast majority of organic foods sold in the US come from one of a couple of sources (I don’t remember the names) but they are among the largest food producers in the nation. As organic foods became the rage, they’ve basically taken over the market, and much of their food is actually grown in China. The “local” farmer produces only a small fraction of the organic food on the market.
Now I know Penn can be a real ass when he’s up on his soapbox, and there is no doubt the program is quite obviously slanted to showcase their belief. But god help me I love to watch him.
I thought (as I almost always think) that they glossed over a lot of stuff. But this is only a half hour show, and who knows how much they left out from their side as well. I enjoyed it, and if I’m not absolutely convinced, it was certainly something to think about.
Without knowing it, you highlighted the problem of “buying organic” perfectly. Each person has their own definition of what the term “organic” means. Some think: no pesticides, no herbicides, no hormones, no antibiotics, radiation free, grass fed, free range, sustainable, small farm, local farm, better flavor, non-carcinogenic, and yes, a LOT of people believe that it has more nutrients. I have actually heard people refer to each of those aspects when talking about buying organic.
As a result, organic labeled foods can retail anywhere from 2 to 5 times the cost of, dare we say, in-organic food. And it didn’t take long for big business to catch on to that, label everything they can “organic” and trick people into paying that premium.
The reality is that USD Organic label as nothing to do with those above points except the use of some chemicals, or certain lengths of time.
So if you ask me, that research was exactly what was needed, and I’d like to see it posted next to the organic produce section at my local megalomart and the door to the local co-op as required reading.
The coverage of this story pissed me off so much. I’m sure the study itself was legitimate (though the conclusion seems so obvious that I’m skeptical about its impetus), but the story in our crappy free local daily was basically “organic: stop wasting your money”. Organic is equally nutritious but potentially much more healthy, if ingesting dangerous chemicals factors into one’s idea of health. Most importantly, organic is much better for the environment and is more expensive because you’re not handing the extra cost off onto others.
Organic is definitely not the end-all-be-all (especially in greenwashing situations), but I feel quite comfortable saying that as a characteristic, organic is necessarily better than conventional.
I find it hard to believe to believe that I am ingesting dangerous chemicals, do you have any proof? The whole point of the FDA is to ensure that the products used in food manufacturing are both safe and edible. It sounds more like the propaganda that the Organic Food Industry wants to instill in us, “Our food doesn’t use dangerous chemicals, does yours?”
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Do you have any evidencewhatsoever to support this claim?
That is debatable at best. Organic production has a vast number of environmental negatives compared to in-organic food. Whethe rit is better for the environmkent depends entrirely on which inconvenient factors you choose to ignore.
To me the only honest comparison is between total organic and total in-organic production systems. Total organic couldn’t support the world’s population and would lead to massive environmnental problems if we tried.
So a claim that “organic is much better for the environment” is incorrect.
Nonsense. It’s more expensive because of the costs of getting certified and because of the reduced productivity and increased labour costs compared to in-organic production. Nothing more
Then you really need to do some research on this subject.
The study mentioned in the OP is highly relevant.
Claims that organic foods are considerably more nutritious have been a major selling point for the industry (before this latest report, there have been mixed findings as to whether this is true), regardless of whether some posters here buy for other reasons. Organic produce remains more expensive than “chemical” alternatives, and if consumers who’ve been buying into the “more nutrients” argument are disillusioned by these new findings, the market will take a hit. So expect a big pushback from organic food producers.
It’d be nice if, instead of the back-and-forth claims, farmers and researchers busied themselves chiefly in finding ways to bring us the most nutritious and best-tasting produce possible, including organic alternatives for those who want them.
Here’s the thing about that. How do organic farmers select their crops? They choose those with enhanced natural resistance to pests.
How do the crops acquire natural pest resistance? Natural selection over the years has enabled the plant to produce pesticides all by themselves.
Who tests these natural pesticides? Nobody.
So, I can buy food which has had a single well tested and approved pesticide used on it, or I can choose one which, by natural selection, produces a complex brew of chemicals, none of which has been tested, but which kills pests more efficiently than other plants.
Is that true? Could someone say “The whole point of the FDA is to provide legal cover for giant agribusiness to conduct chemical experimentation on a gigantic scale without lawsuits” and be as right as your statement?
I mean, it’s crystal-clear that in some administrations, science and public health have been very minor considerations behind business interests in agencies like EPA and FDA.
My apologies, I was trying to remember a term and couldn’t. What I meant to say was that a big chunk of the “F” part of the FDA is to ensure that foods and food additives are GRAS (Food additive - Wikipedia), that was the term I couldn’t remember.
The original comment referred to “eating dangerous chemicals.” My point was that we have an FDA that is tasked to evaluate those chemicals and deem them safe. If you want to say that the FDA is a corrupt federal bureaucracy that is in the pocket of big business, you’ll need to either start a new thread or post a site.
Then it would come down to a differing system of beliefs. I recognize and understand the current agro-business environment and it’s relationship to the FDA. I’m not do not like mass feed lots and over fertilized farming. I also see the label “organic” as a big joke played on hippies and people that mean well but don’t understand what’s going on.
You do understand that many people (I don’t know about “most,” but I feel safe saying many) know perfectly well that the term organic is not defined rigidly by the government and that it is widely abused by food producers and sellers, and that these people are angry about that, and many have written to their political representatives and asked that the definition be given specific, legally enforceable meaning? It’s not that we are unknowing victims of clever merchants so much as the fact that (to date) our politicians have decided big agribusiness are their real constituents, not us, and change has been glacial in party platforms.
If you mean “USDA”, you might want to do a little research before making that claim:
Also, organic operations are smaller, as measured in acres per farm.
You can include me in that group of people that are angry about how this all worked out. I’m in the food industry so I’ve watched this transition over the past few years. There was a time when I would seek out organic produce because I knew it would taste better and was better for the environment. The best examples were tomatoes and strawberries–both had evolved into giant, bright red, orbs of watery goo. Organic beef and milk were also vastly superior, so when I needed to show off great flavours I paid the premium for it.
Free range chicken used to taste better than factory raised. What does that term mean to you? What do you picture? Happy chickens in a big yard playing with toys? The reality is that “free range” now means the factory chicken coup has a small door leading to a small patch of dirt. But the chickens can’t go outside until they are of a certain age (I think in the 12 week range) because they don’t have antibiotics and they risk infection. So by the time the door is unlocked they’re not about to use it, then they’re slaughtered at 16 weeks or so. My numbers might be slightly off but the concept remains the same. Now all the factory chicken is labeled “free range” and the term is meaningless, but the price difference remains the same. The food industry is more than happy to take advantage of consumer ignorance.
Kobe beef used to mean something, I don’t have any proof one way or another, but I don’t bother with it because I think it’s just another marketing term.
The term “organic” is not nothing more than a marketing ploy, which is why I’m glad there are finally studies showing that what we label and price as organic has become meaningless. I vote with my wallet since I’m not allowed to actually vote. 5 years ago everything in my kitchen was organic, now nothing. Except for salt, because I find that humorous – it’s NaCl which is NOT organic, and they’ve removed the clumping agents that were (like corn starch).
What do you think nicotine is? Do you think nobody’s ever tested nicotine? What about caffeine? What about capsaicin?
Scientists are constantly testing plant-created pesticides. What’s more, plant-created pesticides have an historical record, and over the years we’ve figured out that some of them cause illness (jimson weed, tobacco) while others rarely do (chilli peppers). Human-made pesticides are less than 100 years old. They also often hang out in the ecosystem, in larger quantities, than do plant-created pesticides.
The ones useful to us get tested. The others are not.
This is only true in the sense that, once we test them, we can generally find some use for them. Many of the healthful compounds in fruits and vegetables are designed to deter predators. Nutrition scientists are constantly testing new compounds found in plant foods to discover what health effects (beneficial or deleterious) they may have for consumers. It’s simply untrue that these natural pesticides don’t get tested.
Edit: for example, look at oxalic acid.
As to your first comment, I sifted through page after page, and pdf after pdf, without any mention of nutrition or nutritive value. Which is why I don’t think this study missed the point. There are a significant number of people that made the assumption that organic food had higher nutritive value, and Big Organic was more than happy to play along.
I do want to point out that I was wrong about irradiated foods, and that the USD Organic labeling rules prohibit the use of radiation.
As to your second point about smaller farms, I did not see any requirement that the farm be small. The study seems to suggest that this is in fact the case, but the USDA Organic label does not guarantee it. Again, something Big Organic is happy to play along with.
But one of the points I was trying to make had to do with Lama Pacos’ comment about “dangerous chemicals.” I want to reiterate that the FDA is supposed to evaluate those chemicals for safety, and just because the chemical is inorganic doesn’t mean it’s dangerous, and just because it’s organic doesn’t mean it’s safe.
The contention that no pesticides are used in organic farming is false, incidentally. Copper sulphate is used in considerable quantities to combat potato blight; pyrethrins and other substances are also permitted, because they’re naturally occurring (although they have to be artificially extracted). And ironically, because we have newer, more efficient alternatives to these chemicals, more needs to be used than in conventional farms. Copper sulphate is manufactured by dissolving copper in sulphuric acid. Pyrethrin is extremely toxic to aquatic life and bees (about whose preservation we hear so much at present). Where does this leave purveyors of the naturalistic fallacy?
Those questioning whether organics have ever been marketed as more nutritious should look at this archived page from the Soil Association’s website. No, the study did not miss the point; organics most certainly have been marketed as more nutritious, and it’s right to assess the evidence base for this claim. The Soil Association are now trying to say they never made this claim, but it is an outright lie.
Importantly, though, the study did not claim to have proven no differences across the board; most of the measurements had error bars in the 10-20% range, meaning that small variations might still exist. And for a couple of nutrients, the data was too weak to allow much of a conclusion at all; beta-carotene in organics could be anywhere between half and double the amount in conventional foodstuffs. The FSA arguably overstated the report’s conclusions when it claimed that it had found no nutritional differences, and no health benefits; the authors were explicit in complaining about the lack of evidence, particularly regarding measurable human health outcomes.