Whole Foods may disagree, along with the flock of progressively liberal Whole Foods customers that are willing to pay premium prices for “organic” food, but I contend this is the functional equivalent of homeopathy.
I always though that the selling point wasn’t increased nutrition, but lack of harmful pesticides.
I don’t buy organic either, I never thought the risk of pesticides in my food was high.
I think it depends on whether you are talking meat and dairy vs fruits and vegetables. The former are subject to fat soluble pesticides and hormones. And, of course, there is the idea that organic farming is less harmful to the environment.
I pretty much agree with you. I’ve never read anything that convinced me that “organic” (which I think is a pretty vague term) food is actually better for me.
I will say that some organic food does in fact taste better, which is admittedly an entirely subjective thing.
There is (or was – haven’t seen them in a while) a farm that takes a stand at my local greenmarket that sells free-range chickens, raised with no hormones or antibiotics or anything. I don’t believe that those chickens are better for me than Perdue chickens, but they sure do taste amazing.
As to the shoppers at Whole Foods being " progressively liberal ," I don’t know. Maybe. But the founder and CEO calls himself a libertarian, and I believe he’s known for anti-union, anti-ACA stances.
Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that Whole Foods sells incredibly overpriced stuff, so I wouldn’t shop there even if I thought that organic food was better for me.
You’re not supposed to be ingesting any significant amount of pesticide residues. I’m not a farmer, but my understanding is that Federal regulations are such that you’re not allowed to apply pesticides close to harvest.
Some people claim organic produce tastes better, that’s obviously a subjective judgment about which I have no opinion.
I think a solid discussion on the merits of organically grown foods will be worthwhile. I am sorry that you had to start the thread with a straw man argument addressing a nutritional issue that is not any part of a serious discussion.
The primary issues regarding organic foods revolve about the ways in which they refrain from introducing toxins to human food consumption and the ways in which they mitigate the massive destruction of various insects and mammals that humans regard as competitors for or contaminants of food.
That’s pretty doubtful, actually.
It has more to do with pesticide use during growth and the resulting run-off/contaminating the water table, etc.
I tend to agree with Bricker on this one although I also have no idea why he had to poison the well with a nonsensical jab at the evil “Liberals”.
Farming with the use of conventional pesticides and hormones can be done responsibly with minimal damage to the environment and conversely organic farming can be done irresponsibly.
Simply slapping labels like “organic” on a farming method or the end product don’t even begin to tell the entire story.
It may turn out to be a strawman argument here – in other words, it may develop that no SDMB posters will defend the idea that organic food offers nutritional benefits over ordinary commercial farm-grown food.
But it’s certainly not a fantasy with respect to the outside world. I can supply a bunch a links that show such claims from organic food enthusiasts.
Does the weight of evidence show that standard commercial farm food has more toxins than organic food?
Because the vast majority of organic food consumers are politically liberal.
And because I believe that’s not a random correlation.
I never eat organic foods. Nothing but gravel and steel shavings for me!
The use of “organic” as a buzzword irritates me; all food is organic.
The lack of evil artificial pesticides. Use of “natural” pesticides is fine. So, they use pesticides derived from plants, like strychnine, or use breeds of plants that produce their own.
This is one of the reasons I’ve never entirely bought into the organic movement – there are plenty of natural things that will harm you, and plenty of “artificial” things that won’t (or that are even helpful!). Not that factory farming and Monsanto are great things, but I’m not convinced that organic foods are appreciable more healthy than their non-organic equivalents.
I suspect that a very large proportion of claims for better nutrition are made by enthusiasts with little to no actual knowledge or experience who are simply throwing stuff at the wall (including claims for nutrition) in their opposition to big agri-business.
That would be a point to be discussed through the thread, although that claim does come from people who have actually studied the process rather than a bunch of uninformed, if enthusiastic, patrons of Whole Foods.
I buy organic and any difference in nutrition was never an important issue. I buy organic vegetables and fruit because it tends to harm the environment less and allow for a larger biodiversity. I buy organic dairy products and meat because of the vastly better living conditions for the animals.
Btw. a survey here concluded that organic farmers in general have better sperm quality than non-organic farmers. Homeopathy probably.
Okay I’m convinced. In the future, I will go organic for all my sperm needs. 
I don’t make a huge effort at organic food but I appreciate seeing it as an option. Maybe I’m a sucker, but I see it as a shorthand that the food producer is at least attempting to treat the end consumer with some modicum of respect.
I shop at Whole Foods maybe 1/5 of the time, when it happens to be the nearest store at the time I need to stock up. Guess I missed the Rush Limbaugh Bat-signal that decent folks don’t shop there.
I don’t buy the froo-frah claims they make, but sometimes I’ll pay the Whole Foods premium because they have really good quality fresh food.
I’ll kick myself though for supporting a company owned by a libertarian asshole.
Homeopathy? So, what, they sprinkle their diluted semen on the crops? :dubious: