Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/organic-food-isnt-more-nutritious-but-that-isnt-the-point/261929/

by awwstn2 • 14 years ago

32 67 14 years ago

This article actually reminded me of a couple reasons I want to buy organic food - not contributing to superbugs, and concern for field workers.

jonny_eh4• 14 years ago

A great example of moving the goal post.

Go down the list, as each on is stricken off the supporters will say "it was never about X, it was always about Y".

I'm constantly hearing about how organic food is: Healthier, tastier, or better for the environment. The scientific literature just doesn't hold up with any of those claims. [1]

On top of that, if there was some aspect of organic food that actually did make it better for the environment, then let's just use that with normal farming. Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy? [2]

[1] http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-food-pe...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

slantyyz• 14 years ago

>> Why create an arbitrary new category of food based on a fallacy?

I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name. Just like how people like to add the word "artisanal" to foods. It's a newish word (marketing wise) to describe doing things the old way.

r00fus• 14 years ago

> I thought organic food was bringing back an old category of food that just happened to have a new name.

It's an quality standards certification [1]. Part of it is "doing things the old fashioned way" but that's mainly a reaction to the negatives of big-agribusiness over-use of irradiation and pesticides... as new way of meeting organic requirements are found, as long as the quality standard is met, it's still organic.

That's not to say the term "organic" hasn't been co-opted, much like "green", or "hybrid" [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

MartinCron2• 14 years ago

I prefer the notion of labeling adulterated foods as "imitation", so when you go to the grocery store, you'll see things like "imitation" bread, cheese, etc.

jonny_eh4• 14 years ago

Farming has been evolving for thousands of years. There is no "old way".

varelse6• 14 years ago

[2] Just try to get agro-business to accept lower yields on poultry and livestock in exchange for halting the use of antibiotics in their feed. Good luck with that one. Doesn't seem like an appeal to nature whatsoever - it just seems like a practice that should be considered harmful.

But beyond my belief that produce and livestock that have been bred for flavor instead of yield/shelf-life taste better, and that the same people doing the former tend to farm organic in my biased experience, we're otherwise in agreement.

stinkytaco2• 14 years ago

I don't think you're being fair calling it a "moving goalpost". The "organic movement", if that's even a thing, is about a lot of things to lots of different people. It's about supporting local economies, safety and jobs for field workers, a reaction to the decline of rural culture and the rise of agribusiness, getting more fruits and vegetables and less corn byproducts into children, etc. It's also a movement with a long history and lots of different players pushing different agendas, co-opting a single word to relay their message.

It's like reading an article in Wired called "The Rise of the Geeks" or "Silicon Valley Rebels" depending on the time and context it could mean 1,000 different things.

When someone says "organic" they could mean "organic" in the sense the USDA means it, or the could mean: biodynamic, local, home grown, etc.

derleth10• 14 years ago

> more fruits and vegetables and less corn byproducts

Wow. What on earth do you think corn even is? Monsanto didn't invent the stuff, you know.

smartician4• 14 years ago

It's not moving the goalpost, it's pointing out a straw man fallacy. "Organic" just means that (among other things) no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used. I'm not sure who seriously expects that food produced like this would be "more nutritious", but it's proven that organic food contains less contaminants than conventional food [1]. Also, the studies mentioned probably only observe a few well-known micro-nutrients like vitamins. But I read somewhere that an apple for example contains more than a hundred organic compounds, the effects of which we haven't fully researched yet (ever heard of ursolic acid for example? [2]). Some studies showed that organic chicken and eggs contain more Omega 3 fatty acids.

The organic label is also an indicator that the production process is not as low-cost as possible, and usually high quality and low price are opposing goals. This is not necessarily always the case, but as I said it's an indicator.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-...

[2] http://www.naturalnews.com/036312_apple_peel_obesity_ursolic...

derleth10• 14 years ago

> no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used

Never mind that each of those things have greatly different effects on the safety of the food and other things:

> no synthetic fertilizers

A valid environmental concern, depending on how the fertilizers are used and where the runoff goes.

> irradiation

Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals.

> sewage sludge

A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic.

> genetic engineering

More fear-mongering nonsense when applied to food safety, but a valid concern as regards patent law and similar legal battles.

Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who claim Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world using vaccines, which they also believe are evil.

varelse6• 14 years ago

In my experience, locally grown farmers market produce is significantly tastier than store-bought produce from Canada and Mexico (and in the bay area, it's frequently cheaper too). That doesn't seem like it ought to be a surprise given the former was likely picked a day or two before I bought it and the latter up to several weeks beforehand. The local farmers here tend to grow organic because that's what their market demands.

Similarly, I spent some time in Vietnam recently eating the local poultry and the stark difference in taste and texture between it and American agro-chicken is astounding.

And finally, what good reason exists to O.D. poultry and livestock on the same antibiotics we depend on to avert bacterial pandemics just to increase yield?

sliverstorm2• 14 years ago

You're making a critical logical error. Locally grown produce which qualifies as organic, does not represent all produce sold under the organic label.

The tomatoes I grew on my porch this summer were the best tomatoes I ever had. They would qualify as organic; should I then attempt to apply that anecdote to this discussion, holding it forth as proof that organics are better?

varelse6• 14 years ago

Then I was being unclear - I tend to buy organic because I buy from farmers who breed for flavor and there's a strong correlation between that and organic farming in my experience.

Does that clear it up?

My only strong belief against conventional farming is the bat guano insane (IMO) use of antibiotics to increase yield.

rayiner• 14 years ago

I lived in Bangladesh until I was 5. I grew up eating chickens that were "local" in the sense that they were purchased live at the market down the street. The taste and texture is completely different. When we moved to the US, I couldn't even eat chicken for six months because it tasted so weird.

WiseWeasel• 14 years ago

My theory is that it's the diet and lifestyle of the chicken that most influences its taste and texture, hence why smaller-scale free-range chicken is more tasty and tougher than industrial chicken raised on grain and confined to a tiny cage their whole lives.

adrr• 14 years ago

You can buy live chickens, los angeles has a couple places that sell them. You can also buy "walking" chickens at most asian supermarkets, these are free range/semi wild chickens and meat is very stringy and has a more distinct taste.

inafield5• 14 years ago

Avoid chicken from Walmart unless you like chicken that's been soaked in salt water.

KingMob• 14 years ago

This article is making an awfully large assumption, that the "organic" in the supermarket is anything close to "organic" as originally envisioned. It's not.

Major agrobusiness concerns have latched onto "organic" as a way to charge premium prices, and hence, do the absolute bare minimum whlie fighting to water down the standard.

It's honestly so bad, I'm surprised "organic" food demonstrated any advantages at all in the study.

Polyn covers a lot of this in Omnivore's Dilemma, in the industrial organic section.

stinkytaco2• 14 years ago

Not to be a pedant, but if people are searching for the book it's Michael Pollan.

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62290639

flogic• 14 years ago

One thing I have noticed that organic tends to do well is add a bit of variety. The selection of foods is slightly different which I like. Also some food comes out slightly better since it isn't as hardened for the mass market supply chain.

fusiongyro• 14 years ago

What drives me nuts about the organic movement is the implicit acceptance of the defeatist notion that if you don't like a few things about wherever science and progress have gotten us, you should just throw it all out the window and go retro and primitive rather than progress farther and try to fix it. High scalability and high yield are necessary to feed billions. We have a surplus of food in this country precisely because of major agrobusiness, because maximizing profits means maximizing efficiency and yield.

The solution to "this food doesn't taste as good" is to make it taste better; the solution to "this food wasn't raised ethically" is to find a way to raise it more ethically. Throwing in the towel and lovingly nurturing your tomatoes one-by-one is emotionally satisfying but meaningless and unhelpful without proof, an abject waste of time and resources in the face of proof to the contrary.

ScottBurson• 14 years ago

I think you're mistaken to think there's not a lot of science in organic farming. Maintaining biodiversity, keeping soils healthy, figuring out what grows best in the various soil types, finding bugs that eat the plants and other bugs you don't want while not harming the ones you do want, ... I think there's probably quite a lot of science in it. (I'm not an expert on it, but this accords with things I've read.) It's just that most of that science doesn't involve the petrochemical industry. If that makes it "retro and primitive", well, I don't know what to tell you except that I think you have a screwy idea of what progress is.

derleth10• 14 years ago

> I think you're mistaken to think there's not a lot of science in organic farming.

The problem with organic farming is that it's associated with so much crap science, like radiation-phobia and chemophobia and various other quackery that masquerades as science while really being unsupported by either evidence or logic.

I'd love to be able to buy a greater variety of food without having to support people who think GMO are The Devil based on irrational fears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemophobia

MartinCron2• 14 years ago

We have a surplus of food in this country precisely because of major agrobusiness, because maximizing profits means maximizing efficiency and yield.

The food surplus in this country has as much to do with dysfunctional legislation as it does maximizing profits.

tokenadult• 14 years ago

So here is a serious question for everybody (on all the "sides" that this issue has). What is the best evidence, gathered by statistically or economically valid procedures, on all of the relevant differences between "organic" food and any other kind of food? What are the claims on one aspect of the issue or another, and who has been researching the claims? Who is an especially thoughtful researcher who considers the meaningful contexts for a variety of human beings in a variety of relationships to the production and consumption of food?

(Personal background for my question: I have lived in two different countries, eating two radically different cuisines. I have many close relatives who are farmers in various places. I eat every day, as most of us do. I'm curious about what information on this issue is verifiable by more than personal anecdote. I have previously posted to HN that conducting human nutrition studies is HARD.)

pella2• 14 years ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4472008

pella2• 14 years ago

Organic and conventionally grown broccoli ( 2012 Aug 30 )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936597

"... In addition, organic broccoli maintained higher concentrations of bioactive compounds (ascorbic acid and phenolics) and antioxidant potential during storage than conventional broccoli, with higher potential health beneficial effects."

bunderbunder• 14 years ago

while switching to organic foods can be good for you insofar as doing so helps you avoid nasty things

Not true at all. The list of chemicals and additives that the USDA has approved for use in organic food is enormous.

And there's no reason to believe that the ones that are approved are safer, either. Because the primary criterion for determining whether an agrichemical is suitable for use in organic agriculture is how "natural" it is considered to be. And "natural" is not a good proxy for "safe", on account of the two being orthogonal characteristics.

It's not a good proxy for "green", either. Your local watershed doesn't really care that the excess phosphorus that's being dumped into it comes from certified organic bone meal.

evanlong• 14 years ago

From the Atlantic article:

There are the more immediate health benefits of buying organic: you'll avoid the chemicals, preservatives, and hormones that conventional farms often use to treat their foods. In the Stanford study, just 7 percent of organic foods were found to have traces of pesticides, compared to 38 percent of conventionally-farmed produce. Again, that doesn't mean organic foods will supercharge your health -- you'll just be at less risk of exposure to potentially harmful substances, for whatever that's worth to you. Quantifying that benefit is a contentious area and certainly worthy of more research.

Listen to what Bruce Ames (professor emeritus of biochemistry at UC Berkeley and senior scientist at Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute) had to say on this mornings Forum: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209051000

Basically, don't worry about those traces of pesticides. He explains it better than me. Listen.

lightweb2• 14 years ago

In a quest to heal my wife's life-long bouts with Fibromyalgia and other chronic pain disorders, we have had to try a number of things over the years. Food has been our biggest change to date.

We had to switch to buying organic foods because anything artificial sets her body off. Anything with pesticides does it too. This rules out pretty much all conventional produce entirely.

We also had to stop shopping from the center of the food store too. We cut out all the processed stuff and started cooking whole meals. We are extremely picky about what type of meat and dairy products we purchase because of GMO-containing animal feeds (not to mention anti-biotics, other things which are like anti-biotics but not called that; really insidious stuff, growth hormones, bad water, pathogens from neighboring operations, etc).

We started buying only pasture-raised animals and this year I'm learning to hunt since we moved to a place conducive to that activity. We're also getting dairy goats to help offset our $3500+ per year un-pasteurized dairy/cheese/butter costs. I mentioned in another comment that I'm raising 50 chickens for meat and eggs and have already learned to butcher them. They taste AMAZING!

We follow the GAPS Diet and Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions cookbook, and also the Weston A Price foundation. We take lots of High-Vitamin Butter Oil and Fermented Cod Liver Oil. We infuse a variety of herbs. We take pharmaceutical grade Pro-biotics when necessary.

There is a shit-ton more to food than just saying "Eat Organic" or not. We have to understand nutrition from an old-world view as well as a new-world understanding and blend the two together. The very soil that the food is grown in and the animals are raised on contains so much life that has a lot to do with how nutritious the food ends up being.

I could go on and on but I'll stop. I will say it's been a huge odyssey for us, on the quest to stop chronic illness. It is definitely working and worth it, however.

Oh, I treat my ADHD this way too.

voodoomagicman• 14 years ago

It is extremely unlikely that GMO animal feeds have any measurable effect on the meat you end up eating.. i have no doubt that your diet is healthy, but it seems like you are irrationally excluding more sustainable foods in favor of less sustainable ones. Would you be willing to do a blind test on GMO fed vs non GMO beef?

varelse6• 14 years ago

This is a lot like my occasional bouts with MSG sensitivity (cue MSG pedants in 3 2 1...). I thoroughly believe the science that shows a lack of correlation between pure MSG and the reported symptoms of said MSG sensitivity, but so what?

Every time I get the characteristic syndrome: a splitting migraine with auras and a general sense of fatigue it has been after eating heavily MSG-laden food. What makes this frustrating is that it doesn't always happen. But again, so what? The easiest way to avoid this unpleasant state of being is to avoid heavily MSG-laden food and by that I mean MSG's use as a food additive and not the amounts naturally present in just about everything (so calm down MSG pedants). It is one of the 20 basic amino acids after all.

I have my own theory here but no inclination to investigate because the above rule has almost no perceptible effect on my life, and life is too short to go on some sort of crusade to prove the existence of something I already know exists because I have experienced it repeatedly.

I suspect there is some additive (i.e. an anti-caking agent or preservative) put into some commercial MSGs that is the real culprit and not the MSG itself. I further suspect the sensitivity itself is variable depending on metabolic state.

And this relates to the person you're replying to: WTH would they want to do your blind test on GMO versus non GMO if eating non GMO is working for them and they can afford it? I'd hope that given recent events involving contamination of pet and human food from China that you'd be open to the presence of inappropriate substances in the food chain: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/world/asia/08food.html?pag...

Is it really such a stretch to be open to the notion that there's something real but difficult to quantify going on here?

billboebel• 14 years ago

Vegetables and fruit are only as good as the soil. Big commercial organic farms aren't able to have the quality of soil as smaller organic farms... so if big ag is just cranking out organic vegetables at the same rate as conventional vegetables then the quality of soil will be the same, and therefore the nutrient qualities will be similar.

SO if you want more nutrients find a local farmer to support - typically the smaller scale farm uses compost in their soil mix and crop rotates. Many smaller local farmers aren't certified organic but are "organic", often times go beyond what it means to be organic. Ask the farmer and if doesn't seem better than big ag, keep looking.

001sky• 14 years ago

Did people not read this thing? Folks, there is no new data in this. This is a study of studies. If anyone researched this issue 10 years ago, for example, you would be aware of this.

The nutrutious bit is link-bait. Organic is not changing the chemistry of the nutrient composition in food (like for like basis). That said, Organics are not equivalent per-se either. Organic methods are typically (historically) focuses on heterodox varietals and small batch production. Milk is not equivalent (due to fat solubility) lack of hormones, etc. Organic meat is more rare and again husbandry issues are not similar or comparable. There is less pesticide residue obviously (and it matters - nb-pesticides are waterproof). And the food is typically fresher, more local, etc. This is all non-controversial.

The bit that has changed is that Organic has been commoditized and mass-produced (horizon, etc). And also bought out by BigCos. That makes organic less distinct. Frankly, less interesting/differentiated in many places. And the prices of commodities are inflating, putting pressure on sales. And thats on the conventionals, in particular. The reasons for that are beyond scope (tl;dr=politics).

In any event, that is just some context.

laserDinosaur• 14 years ago

I think one of the problems is there is a huge misconception that 'organic' food does not use pesticides, letting people think they are avoiding nasty chemicals by eating organic. It's a shock to these people to find out that organic farms still use pesticides, they are just natural pesticides. Organic or not, you don't keep bugs away by asking them nicely. The main problem being it's very hard to enforce these natural pesticides people are coming up with because there are so many, and the long term studies have not been done yet. The SGU podcast mentioned a while back how there was a farm which was using some type of flower based pesticide in massive quantities on their farm, but over a period of a year the flowers began to rot and created a substance they was very poisonous, causing a lot of people to get sick. I actually stay away from organic food, I don't trust whatever they have come up with the keep bugs away.

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point

Related Stories