# I don't buy "organic," because there's no nutritional difference **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516 "2014-10-25T21:07:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/61 "2014-10-26T14:59:19Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Yes, the biggest problem with organics is that if it becomes the norm, then basically the world starves. Then it’s not going to become the norm. Rich people can afford better things. Better cars, better clothes, better houses, and [gasp!!] better food. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/62 "2014-10-26T15:07:40Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Ok, but I still maintain that a lot of very attractive red tomatoes taste like plastic and that Red Delicious apples taste like blocks of wood. I personally buy a mix of local organic produce at the farmer’s market and the regular kind at my local supermarket. For which you should blame buying tomatoes in October (to be tough enough to travel from their farm, the yum has been bred out). [And red delicious apples just suck. Don’t even buy them.](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/heritage-apples-john-bunker-maine) Honeycrisp and Cripps Pink. Yum. I love Pink Lady apples but feel guilty buying them (they’re generally from New Zealand). The best food is local and in-season. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/63 "2014-10-26T15:10:39Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Ok, but I still maintain that a lot of very attractive red tomatoes taste like plastic and that Red Delicious apples taste like blocks of wood. I personally buy a mix of local organic produce at the farmer’s market and the regular kind at my local supermarket. The reason that many store-bought tomatoes have little flavor is that they are bred to look good and handle easily when shipped long distances without blemishes, and are picked when still green. Some of the best-tasting tomatoes “look funny” (have ridges or funny colors, or tend to have cosmetically off-putting defects) and are less likely to sell. I’m pretty sure you could grow Red Delicious apples under the purest of organic conditions and they’d still taste like crap (it’s ironic that these apples were originally supposed to have had good flavor, but that’s not been the case for a long time). [Penn & Teller’s “organic food taste test”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs). ---
**Author:** ![LC\_Strawhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@LC\_Strawhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LC_Strawhouse)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/64 "2014-10-26T15:49:10Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > “Nearly 100% of organic food in supermarkets comes from a producer owned by one of the major food companies that also sells regular food.” DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00277.x So organic certified farms and non-organic farms may have the same parent company. Big deal. That’s not the same thing as “most organic produce comes from the same factory farms as traditional produce”. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/65 "2014-10-26T17:21:15Z")
> [@LC\_Strawhouse](#): > > So organic certified farms and non-organic farms may have the same parent company. Big deal. That’s not the same thing as “most organic produce comes from the same factory farms as traditional produce”. It’s mono-culture with pesticides applied. Just different pesticides. **Bricker** asks if the flavor is different. So far we haven’t seen any reason why a big farm company is going to do anything different to change the nutritional content of the produce. Big farms spray pesticides and practice monoculture. Most organic produce comes from big farms (e.g. Earthbound). Even before the consolidation we’ve seen over the past decade, the majority of the organic produce coming out of CA came from ~2% of the farms (DOI 10.1300/J064v21n04\_06). You can visit them in the next time your drive through the San Joaquin valley. These big farms may spray pesticides (albeit from a smaller list) and practice monoculture and stick an organic label on their products. We can’t taste the pesticides. Unless we have some reason to believe they are adopting other, optional practices, we have no reason to believe the flavor content will be altered. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/66 "2014-10-26T17:32:36Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The lack of evil _artificial_ pesticides. Use of “natural” pesticides is fine. So, they use pesticides derived from plants, like **strychnine** … But only to a limited extent, [same as everybody else.](http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/3133fact.pdf) > [@EPA](#): > > Strychnine is currently registered for use only below-ground as a bait application to control pocket gophers. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I love rice and pastas, but I find I can cut the portion size of those grains in half, add more vegetables (like asparagus or broccolini) and it tastes just as good if not better. Rice and pasta are just filler and vehicles for the sauces, anyway. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …and the quality is basically guaranteed **as fresh as humanly possible.** Until he tosses it in the freezer for a couple months. The point goes to the grocery store or butcher shop, whose meat is generally fresher. ---
**Author:** ![LC\_Strawhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@LC\_Strawhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LC_Strawhouse)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/67 "2014-10-26T17:52:31Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > It’s mono-culture with pesticides applied. Just different pesticides. **Bricker** asks if the flavor is different. So far we haven’t seen any reason why a big farm company is going to do anything different to change the nutritional content of the produce. Big farms spray pesticides and practice monoculture. Most organic produce comes from big farms (e.g. Earthbound). Even before the consolidation we’ve seen over the past decade, the majority of the organic produce coming out of CA came from ~2% of the farms (DOI 10.1300/J064v21n04\_06). You can visit them in the next time your drive through the San Joaquin valley. These big farms may spray pesticides (albeit from a smaller list) and practice monoculture and stick an organic label on their products. We can’t taste the pesticides. Unless we have some reason to believe they are adopting other, optional practices, we have no reason to believe the flavor content will be altered. I posted the USDA fact sheet earlier and, as it says, organic certification is more than just using different pesticides (which is just one part of it). It also deals with fertilizers (no use of sewage sludge), animal welfare standards, land sustainability, etc. So taste and nutrition aren’t really the main issue - to use a much more extreme example, organic vs non-organic is somewhat akin to the choice between buying “non blood diamonds” and “blood diamonds”. I don’t even get into organic all that much, but there are some good intentions behind it - which some people are willing to pay for. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/68 "2014-10-26T18:00:55Z")
The flavour of organic grown tomatoes may be better, but not because the plants are happier - on the contrary in fact. Stressed tomato plants produce tastier fruit (but lower yields) - plants sprayed with pesticides suffer less stress from insect damage and produce larger yields, but the flavour may be diminished. Also, organic grown food may just be fresher due to having a shorter shelf life (I.e. it may be more likely to be local) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/69 "2014-10-26T18:11:28Z")
It’s also worth noting that choice of varieties may be quite a significant factor. Again in the case of tomatoes, industrial scale farming will tend to favour varieties with traits that are convenient for that mode of production - high yields of uniform, durable fruit produced all at once on vines with well-behaved growth. Organic farmers will select varieties that have different traits, such as a degree of natural pest resistance, or longer production (to suit a smaller market). Not all of these factors necessarily mean anything consistent about organic or regular farming or its outputs, of course - in fact, scale of market/production and the constant drive to reduce cost are probably the real reasons that supermarket tomatoes are mediocre. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/70 "2014-10-26T19:33:00Z")
> [@dataguy](#): > > Bricker, what is your position on GMOs in your food? Bring 'em on! ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/71 "2014-10-26T20:54:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bring 'em on! Incidentally, the use of genetic modification has massively reduced the amount of pesticides used on some crops. For corn, it’s down from ~200 g/ha in 1996 to ~10 g/ha in 2010. And yields have gone up, so the amount used per bushel has gone down even more. [http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/pesticides/infographic.jpg](http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/pesticides/infographic.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/72 "2014-10-26T21:34:12Z")
Nutrition: Sheesh, take a vitamin pill if you care. Generally speaking Americans suffer from excess fat, excess sugar and insufficient fiber. Scurvy isn’t a big issue > [@monstro](#): > > Are you implying that there is no science to support the view that the use of pesticides carries health risks? Because this would be [crazy wrong](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pesticides+health+risks&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=M_xMVLCfK5KhyATd8oGIDQ&ved=0CCYQgQMwAA) supposition to make. … > > It should also be remembered that we’re bombarded by thousands of potentially toxic substances. When risk assessments are done on the pesticides sprayed on your apples and peaches, they are done in isolation, not with the consideration that you will also be exposed to BPAs in your soup cans, pthalates in your water bottles and cosmetics, PCBs in your tuna fish, flame retardants in your clothing and furniture, and PAHs and VOCs when you go jogging in the afternoon. Or even the residential pesticides that you are exposed to. So keep that in mind when you review risk assessments published by EPA. > > …The science is there, but economic and political realities determine each and every one of its policies. This should make everyone a bit wary. Not conspiracy-minded, but critical-minded. Thanks for posting this. I’ll add though that while I think Budget Player Cadet went too far, I’m not especially worried about pesticides except insofar as I wash my fruit. I once saw a table comparing public risk perceptions and expert assessment of environmental risk. Basically one was an inversion of the other: scientists cared about habitat loss, global warming, smoking, seat belts, occupational hazards and obesity while the public cared about pesticides in food, terrorism, airplane crashes and nuclear power. Roughly speaking. I tried hard to dig something like that up, but this link is the best I can do: > **[Intro\_risk\_perception\_Schmidt.pdf](https://faculty.mercer.edu/butler_aj/documents/Intro_risk_perception_Schmidt.pdf)** > > 1784.57 KB ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/73 "2014-10-26T21:48:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I once saw a table comparing public risk perceptions and expert assessment of environmental risk. ETA: Found it google Perceptions of Risk by Slovic 1987. It could use an update. Here’s the 1987 table: [http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v08/08498t01.gif](http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v08/08498t01.gif) While pesticides get a reasonably high rating by the experts (8/30), I suspect that is due to the occupational risks rather than food safety concerns. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/74 "2014-10-26T22:02:29Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Here’s one of [2014 study](http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/Newcastle-study-organic-7112014.pdf) [warning: pdf] and meta analysis of the past studies saying that organic food has more nutritional value in terms of antioxidants, lower cadmium and lower pesticides. > > CNN has the [counterpoint](http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/05/opinion/carroll-organic-food-nutrition/index.html), but he has to get fairly technical to make his point, meaning that on a brief skim of the article, he’s questioning the value of antioxidants, which is a bigger point than whether the study is accurate.r just interpreting it differently or do you have different evidence for your claims? Another site also gave a good rebuttal. I’ll post relevant points and highlight: > [@](#): > > The team of scientists led by Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University in England, **did not conduct any new original laboratory or field work. The study was funded by the European Union and the Sheepdrove Trust, a British charity that funds research in support of organic farming–in other words, it’s in part an organic industry funded study.** > > … > > “It shows very clearly how you grow your food has an impact,” Leifert told the Times. “If you buy organic fruits and vegetables, you can be sure you have, on average, a higher amount of antioxidants at the same calorie level.” > > But **many in the scientific community are skeptical of the methodology and critical of the broad conclusions drawn in the study, including several researchers quoted in the Guardian and the New York Times. Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition at King’s College London, told the Guardian that the study has been “sexed up.”** > > There have been three other similar meta-analyses since 2009, which have all concluded that there are few, if any, differences in the nutritional content of organic and conventionally grown foods. The first, a review of 137 studies by scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009, concluded: > > **On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.** > > Another meta-analysis reviewed 237 studies comparing organic and conventional foods. This study, conducted by a team of Stanford scientists, concluded: > > **The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.** > > The authors of the new study, including Washington State University professor and long-time anti-GMO activist Charles Benbrook, say that the new study is more robust than the previous ones, partially because of the fact that more studies were included in the review. > > But Alan Dangour, food and nutrition scientist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and lead author of the first meta-analysis study, disagrees, saying that **weaker studies should have been excluded from the analysis.** > > “The quality of the available data varies greatly and it is therefore very surprising that, in their analysis, the authors decided to include all the data that they found, irrespective of their quality,” he said. **“Mixing good quality data with bad quality data in this way is highly problematic and significantly weakens confidence in the findings of the current analysis.”** > > Hank Campbell, science writer at Science 2.0, explains how such meta-analyses can be massaged to provide desired outcomes when bias is not eliminated: > > **In a review, they look at no data, of course, and 343 papers becomes the problem rather than the solution when the methodology is flawed. Meta-analysis, as everyone with statistics knowledge knows, can boost the strength of systematic reviews when done properly but easily suffers from bias unless the researchers are truly interested in controlling eligibility criteria and methodological quality. Without controlled eligibility, it’s easy to find any pattern you want.** > > Some have pointed out that the new study is not independently funded, as opposed to the previous three other studies. Marion Nestle, professor of public health, nutrition and food studies at New York University cited in the New York Times on this study, writes in her blog: > > **One of the funders is identified as the Sheepdrove Trust, which funds research in support of organic and sustainable farming. … The paper says “the Trust had no influence on the design and management of the research project and the preparation of publications from the project,” but that’s exactly studies funded by Coca-Cola say. It’s an amazing coincidence how the results of sponsored studies almost invariably favor the sponsor’s interests. And that’s true of results I like just as it is of results that I don’t like.** > > Others note that the study targets ten groups of chemicals, including conventional pesticide residues, antioxidants and metals, but does not examine other pertinent chemicals such as pesticides commonly used in organic agriculture that are approved by the National Organic Program. While synthetic pesticides are not used in organic agriculture, **organic pesticides such as rotenone and pyrethrin are used as these chemicals are produced by plant sources and considered ‘natural,’ even though they might be more toxic to people than some synthetic alternatives.** > **[Study claiming organic food more nutritious 'deeply flawed', say independent...](http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/15/study-claiming-organic-food-more-nutritious-deeply-flawed-say-independent-scientists/)** > > Are organic foods better for you? A new study published in the British Journal of Nutrition appears to indicate so and some media outlets that have covered the study seem to agree uncritically, but several researchers are cautious about the findings. Regarding the above point about rotenone and pyrethrin: > [@](#): > > A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a “soft” synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan. > > It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life. > > It should be noted, however, that we don’t know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don’t know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects. > > When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, “Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown,” or “Its persistence in the soil is unknown.” Again, researchers haven’t bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that “natural” chemicals are automatically safe. [http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html](http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/75 "2014-10-26T22:59:25Z")
I’m more concerned about the organic/liberal correlation **Bricker** alluded to. Someone provided a link that seems to show otherwise, but **Bricker** didn’t just think there is such a correlation, but intimated he had reasons to think the correlation isn’t accidental. In light of the cite provided above, I’m curious to know whether this has changed **Bricker** ’s thinking as to whatever the cause of that correlation was supposed to be. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/76 "2014-10-26T23:26:29Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Imagine if everyone in a city was able to get produce grown from one of the local high-rise farms. You don’t have to wait for high-rise farms. You can start a hydroponic garden in your own home. I’ve done it off and on over the years, and most recently on a shoe-string budget. [Here’s my chard crop from a couple years ago.](http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n563/BroomBroomstick/Plants/Hydropon01.jpg) Oh, and your link took me to a bunch of credit-card spam. Just sayin’ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/77 "2014-10-26T23:33:31Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’m more concerned about the organic/liberal correlation **Bricker** alluded to. Someone provided a link that seems to show otherwise, but **Bricker** didn’t just think there is such a correlation, but intimated he had reasons to think the correlation isn’t accidental. In light of the cite provided above, I’m curious to know whether this has changed **Bricker** ’s thinking as to whatever the cause of that correlation was supposed to be. I’m sorry – I missed the link you mention. Where is it? ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/78 "2014-10-26T23:38:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sorry – I missed the link you mention. Where is it? You must have me on ignore. 😛 To be fair, it was a random link I found on a quick search, but I was hoping to get your reasons for your statement as well. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/79 "2014-10-27T00:14:11Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’m more concerned about the organic/liberal correlation **Bricker** alluded to. My god. I’m not. The thread has been great once we got past that. A real discussion about the merits of “organic”. Inviting **Bricker** back and taking his nonsense seriously could derail the smart stuff. This thread is so much better without him. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516/80 "2014-10-27T13:41:09Z")
Eh. [A recent Gallup poll](http://www.gallup.com/poll/174524/forty-five-percent-americans-seek-organic-foods.aspx) found that 48% of Democrats “actively try to include” organic foods in their diet, versus 40% of Republicans. So, something of a partisan difference, I would say, but hardly a polarizing issue. The same poll shows household income predicts organic choices about as much (49% of those making over $75K eat organic, v. 42% of those making uncer $30K), and age bracket even more (53% of those 18-29 eat organic, v. 33% of those 65+). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-buy-organic-because-theres-no-nutritional-difference/702516.md?page=5)