Organic has no health benefits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm

by epi0Bauqu • 17 years ago

46 133 17 years ago

news.bbc.co.uk

gamache2• 17 years ago

It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception.

The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly.

tokenadult9• 17 years ago

To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly.

What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming?

http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

parenthesis• 17 years ago

Off the top of my head, other questions to consider are:

• The environmental effects of different methods of farming and food production.

• Are toxins more or less present in the food produced by different methods?

• Is the food more or less pleasurable to eat?

NickM• 17 years ago

The article only seemed to be talking about the levels of nutrients found in organic vs non-organic foods. I would certainly suspect that the levels of pesticides and other such chemicals could also have a huge impact on health.

gamache2• 17 years ago

'Verifiable' is the tough part. That is not my job.

But if I were to give it a shot, I might investigate the effects of pesticide runoff on the farming environment, and those who live around it. Or animal farms' antibiotic carpet-bombing's effect on drug-resistance of pathogens. Or the effects of farming chemical production on those who live near the factories.

easp4• 17 years ago

A PCB laced hamburger and one with no such contamination are going to have the same nutritional content.

Really though, part of the point of organic food is that it dumps less crap in the environment. Even if the direct impact on human health is non existent, less fertilizer runoff means fewer low oxygen deadzones at the mouth of major rivers, which means more fish, etc.

dasil0033• 17 years ago

Are you suggesting that we should do anything unless we can prove it's a bad idea? I'm all for science, but it is not wild superstition to think that the effects of eating trace amounts of pesticides in all our food over the course of decades might be bad for our health. Now certainly this should be studied, but how long will it take to achieve results, and how possible is it really to isolate the variables? In the meantime should we just assume superfarming methods are all a-okay?

karzeem• 17 years ago

"There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found."

To add to your point, "no evidence of any extra health benefits" is different from "evidence that there are no extra health benefits".

RyanMcGreal• 17 years ago

Not only that: it showed that there is little or no difference in nutrition for the specific nutrients studied - despite the fact that nutrition does not reduce to a few vitamins and minerals.

igrekel4• 17 years ago

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

michael_dorfman• 17 years ago

Also, this study looked at the people eating the food, and ignored the people growing the good. Obviously, farmers are exposed to pesticides (and other petrochemicals) in much greater concentrations than consumers....

by• 17 years ago

According to the abstact of the study, which the BBC do not link, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 the objective was "We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." and it was "restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients". The word 'nutrient' according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient does not cover pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth hormones and all the other medicines and chemicals excluded by organic farmers.

The study, according to the link above, did not conclude that 'Organic has no health benefits'.

apgwoz• 17 years ago

Exactly. The article avoids the "truth" as to why most people even eat Organic. The health benefits in eating organic are in what you aren't eating (e.g. pesticides, etc).

Retric2• 17 years ago

It's also just a strait up lie.

"Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. "

PS: There is a difference between saying there is no significant effect vs. no effect.

meta• 17 years ago

I was under the impression that "Organic" in Canada is mostly a meaningless title. It isn't enforced and can be applied to a wide swath of products that most people would not consider Organic.

I checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_Ame...) and it says that the Government has published a set of Guidelines but applying organic labels is up to "Private Sector"...

However, doing some more google-fu I found (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtm...) which seems to imply that on June 30, 2009 the Canadian Government finally got it's Organic ducks-in-a-row.

So, that seems to imply that only within the last month did Canada actually gain an Organic label that is regulated and trustworthy: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtm...

321abc• 17 years ago

The meaning of "organic" is getting watered down:

http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=6010024200...

For example, "products labeled 'Made With Organic Ingredients', which contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, but can contain up to 30 percent non-organic ingredients"

igrekel4• 17 years ago

You are right. Actually, I shouldn't have said Canada, I should have said Quebec.

DanielStraight• 17 years ago

Right. Who actually thought organic foods had more vitamins?

easp4• 17 years ago

To be fair, I've met more than one pro-organic person who thinks organic foods are more nutritious. These are often the same people who worry about vague things like "toxins" from eating meat.

dbz• 17 years ago

There are lots of reasons to eat organic foods- besides health benefit. I quote

"Organic farmers build soil.

Soil is the foundation of the food chain and the primary focus of organic farming. We’re facing the worst topsoil erosion in history due to our current agricultural practice of chemical intensive, mono-crop farming."

http://nutiva.com/nutrition/organic.php

That site gives a lot of -interesting?- reasons to eat organic. But that reason in particular stands out to me. Anyone seen pictures of the dust bowl? Here you go~

http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploa...

biohacker427• 17 years ago

Avoiding pesticides is half of why I go organic the other is just plain taste.

I don't know if that's because the plant varieties are different, or the method or whatever, but I've blind tested myself (no, it's not scientific, more like Mythbusters's level science) and I can easily tell the produce apart.

That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.

easp4• 17 years ago

There are a motif reasons for the better taste. Often organic produce doesn't get shipped as far, which means growers can pick varieties bread for something other than shelf-life and durability.

Also, organic farmers manage the soil differently. Intensive industrial farming depletes soils and relies on extensive use of refined fertilizers to make up forthe deficit. The soil at organic farms is often richer and plants can pick up more minerals, which can have a real impact on flavor.

potatolicious2• 17 years ago

Agreed. I bought a bundle of organic cilantro a little while back and it was stinking up the place (in a good way) that normal cilantro simply doesn't. Much or the organic stuff just tastes better.

This goes doubly for eggs - organic & free-range eggs are just a world apart from regular farm eggs.

callmeed2• 17 years ago

That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.

It would be interesting to do a blind taste-test between organic and non-organic produce ... Pepsi Challenge style.

sammyo• 17 years ago

Some food is grown for visual appeal as well as more realistic goals as increased shelf life or disease resistance. The huge beautiful, yet almost flavorless Golden Delicious being a classic example.

omouse6• 17 years ago

What's the problem with GMOs?

raintrees3• 17 years ago

Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me.

I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects.

Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties...

Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures.

Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto.

And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it.

All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.

michael_h• 17 years ago

It's a risk/benefit problem. If things go wrong, we're talking about serious and permanent damage. What if roundup-ready plants end up messing with the bee population (or whatever)? What will happen to species down the food chain? What affects will arise after a while from bio-magnification? Point is, nobody yet knows. GMOs are fine, but you had better be 100% sure of what the consequences are.

cb5• 17 years ago

I was thinking about this the other day, a couple things that came to mind were - Is it not due to genetic diversity that we see the great complexity of species that have evolved on this planet, and the resiliency of the biosphere?

It would seem that the introduction of species that are in many ways genetically identical would lead to similar problems that are found in the monoculture crop production of industrial farming, i.e. greater susceptibility to pests and disease.

I also get the feeling that potential risks are not properly accounted for in the current system where wealth is often seen as arbitrary fiat capital and not as the health of our environment, the real wealth as it allows human beings to flourish and fuels the wealth of our ideas and actions.

Say there were detrimental effects of gmo food consumption how long would it take the public to become informed? There is still widespread use of plastics and chemicals with documented scientifically evidenced deleterious health effects. I suspect more people are 'marketed to' than read scientific reports.

There are the classic 'case study accomplishments' of gmo like the modified rice that provided vitamin A to a malnourished population. Counterpoint to this is that we live on an abundantly productive planet and the obstacles to proper nourishment of the members of our species are typically political.

We don't see large percentages of other species that are under-nourished, we also don't see other species that have developed lopsided and convoluted systems as ours have.

Regarding Monsanto et al. -

" Big Biotech with Monsanto leading the pack wants to replace those millions of years with seeds like the Terminator (named for the action hero governor of California) which goes sterile after one growing cycle and obligates farmers (they sign binding contracts with Monsanto) to buy more, a process Mexican investigator Silvia Ribiero tags "bio-slavery". " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross02142007.html

" Farmers are forced to sign contracts, agreeing to buy GMO seed at a company-fixed price. Monsanto's super-duper "Terminator" seed, named after California's action hero governor, goes sterile after one growing cycle and the campesinos are obligated to buy more. By getting hooked on Monsanto, Mexican farmers, once seed savers and repositories themselves of the knowledge of their inner workings, become consumers of seed, an arrangement that augurs poorly for the survival of Mexico's many native corns. "

If the number of corn species declines what happens if something like Panama disease that affects bananas were to strike corn crops? Ever more genetic modification, beholden to just a few large corporations for the solution?

A cynic might point out a certain degree of environmental havoc might work to the benefit of gmo companies as far as the short-sighted goals of a fiat currency profit are concerned.

" Moreover, as farmers from other climes who have resisted Monsanto and refused to buy into the GMO blitz, have learned only too traumatically, pollen blowing off contaminated fields will spread to non-GMO crops. Even more egregiously, Monsanto will then send "inspectors" (often off-duty cops) to your farm and detect their patented strains in your fields and charge you with stealing the corporation's property. "

" Mexican corn is, of course, not the only native crop that is being disappeared by global capitalism. Native seeds are under siege from pole to pole. In Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together to form the birthplace of agriculture, one of the very first acts of George Bush's neo-colonial satrap L. Paul Brenner was to issue the notorious Order 81 criminalizing the possession of native seeds. The U.S. military spread out throughout the land distributing little packets of GMO seeds, the euphemistically dubbed Operation "Amber Waves." To make sure that Iraq would no longer have a native agriculture, the national seed bank, located at Abu Ghraib, was looted and set afire. " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross11212007.html

To see a company attempting to become an arbiter of food supply by claiming property rights over plants that have evolved to the benefit of all the species on this planet naturally raises some questions and opposition.

zngtk4• 17 years ago

But has there been any evidence ever that the pesticides used on foods are harmful? Or is it all just fear?

rjurney13• 17 years ago

Before 'monocultures' - agricultural output was terrible. Is that not important at all?

adamhowell• 17 years ago

Nutritional science is broken. Boiling (pun intended) fruits and vegetables down to their individual nutrients is the only way we know how to measure their supposed benefits -- but nutrients don't act alone in foods, they act in combination with everything else in the food. But since we still can't measure that, we don't.

Also, reductionist nutritional science makes it possible for Lucky Charms to tout health benefits on the front of their box by listing individual nutrients. This is profitable for the food industry.

For more I'd recommend "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.

wglb• 17 years ago

Excellent counter.

In Omnivore's Dilemma, he notes that there exists evidence that the old idea about nutrition being reduceable to just three basic components is likely to be wrong.

If you don't know where to look for evidence, it is quite likely you aren't going to find it.

mattmaroon4• 17 years ago

I don't eat organic vegetables because I believe they are significantly better for me health-wise. I do so where possible because they're tastier (having not been engineered to retain excess water to increase weight for sale) and MUCH better for the environment.

I do limit myself to organic/all natural prepared foods though due to lack of preservatives. See In Defense of Food as to why. There's very little doubt that stuff is awful for your health.

erikwiffin• 17 years ago

I don't eat organic vegetables due to a lack of preservatives.

I cook only for myself, and I often find my irradiated, preservative laced, genetically engineered food going bad. If I bought organic, I'd never get to eat anything. :/

mattmaroon4• 17 years ago

Preservatives are found in processed foods, not vegetables. Organic vegetables generally don't last any less long than normal ones.

They make lots of organic frozen prepared foods. You can get organic macaroni and cheese in a box that's just like the regular (but tastes better). There are organic canned soups, pasta sauce, frozen burritos, etc.

You name it you can buy it.

joeyo2• 17 years ago

An alternative is to buy locally produced food, which often is also organic. It may have a shorter shelf life, but it's sitting on your shelf most of that time, not on the shelf at the grocers waiting to be bought.

dtf• 17 years ago

I don't know, what's a consumer to do? I read this, and then the side panel has links to three previous BBC News articles:

- Organic produce 'better for you': £12m study shows organic food contains more antioxidants and less fatty acids.

- Organic food 'better' for heart: 10 year study shows tomatoes contain more antioxidants.

- Organic veg given health boost: research shows soup made from organic veg contains six times more aspirin (?!)

Many of these kinds of stories seem to have the grubby handprints of PR companies all over them. Are antioxidants good or bad? I don't even know any more...

Until I know any better, I'll be sticking to my trusty two criteria:

1. Does it taste good?

2. Is the price in line with the taste?

tokenadult9• 17 years ago

Is the price in line with the taste?

Most of us reading HN are consumers in industrialized countries with thriving, free-market economies. For eaters in poor countries, every gain in efficiency in agriculture is a reduction in price of food for eaters who devote most of their income to food. There have to be seriously inexpensive ways to produce food in some countries for some people to eat at all.

easp4• 17 years ago

Or they might be permitted some land of their own where they can grow their own food, or be given access to commons to where they and their animals can forrage.

You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving. People are perfectly capable of providing their own food given some land some seeds and some sun, and some water. The amount of land required isn't even all that high.

Indeed, it is probably their ability to produce a surplus that lead to markets in the first place and those markets made it possible to justify cutting people off from the ability to feed themselves. At this point, there are plenty of cities in the US where it isn't legal to store rain water that falls on your own land.

mcantelon• 17 years ago

"...there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health"

Sounds like the tobacco lobby of yesteryear.

Given the fact that cancer is on the rise and I have a choice between food treated with carcinogens and food not treated with carcinogens, I'll take the food not treated with carcinogens, thanks.

Robin_Message• 17 years ago

I don't mind eating food containing tiny amounts of carcinogens, but I do object to poor farmers, without safety equipment, handling drums of the stuff.

GHFigs• 17 years ago

As is typical for science reporting, the headline makes a broader claim than the article itself: "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority." (emphasis mine)

DannoHung• 17 years ago

I really think more people need to worry about eating nonprocessed food before they start discriminating between organic or not.

lutorm2• 17 years ago

That's a good point, in a choice between eating nonorganic fresh vegetables and an "organic" TV dinner it's likely the veggies come out on top.

sophacles• 17 years ago

So, the book Omnivore's Dilemma asks a question which I'm not sure is sufficiently answered by this study, but may be answered elsewhere (and I just don't know): Is it correct to treat food as a commodity. For example (ripping straight from the book here) is a carrot grown in Michigan the same as a carrot grown in Florida? There is a base assumption that we can treat the foodstuffs as commodities, but if this is not true, we cannot believe this study.

If the organic is grown in already marginal land, while the "standard" food is grown somewhere fertile, is it possible to get these results, or possibly results indicating organic food is less healthful?

jff2• 17 years ago

If you want bruised, overpriced fruit and vegetables, head on down to the local organic market!

Spend 10 minutes to sort through a basket of tomatoes at the hippie organic market on Maui (the only store in the village) to find the four or five that aren't bruised to hell and back, then pay double price for the privilege.

And then there's the sustainability and economic problems. Can the farms near NYC produce enough organic produce to supply the whole city? How much will a head of lettuce cost if everyone is buying organic? Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?

Apparently it's already too expensive for low-income people to get fresh food--at least, we hear so every couple weeks on slow news days. Increase the popularity of organic food; it's going to get even harder for these people to get fruit and veg.

Posting this on a Silicon Valley site... thank god for the -8 point limit, because I sense many a "downvote for disagreement" coming.

omouse6• 17 years ago

You're absolutely right. It's amazing how many people have jumped on the organic bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of GMO crops and efficient farming. It's like climbing up a ladder and then kicking it away once you're at the top.

lutorm2• 17 years ago

I don't understand your point. What are the supposed benefits of GMO grops that makes it easier for me to eat organic? Are you talking about global food supply? If so, there are many other issues we can bring up, one being that most food grown in the US goes either to animal feed or to plants that make HFCS and a slew of other things that don't really count as "food" to me.

oz• 17 years ago

Yes, but efficient farming is having a negative impact on the biosphere. Like with most issues, the question is "Where do we draw the line?"

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity_an...

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/modern_agriculture.htm...

shard2• 17 years ago

I don't think that's a valid argument. It's perfectly okay to notice that what you're benefiting from is not something you want to support. I can replace words in your argument thus: "It's amazing how many people have jumped on the safe work conditions bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of horrible work conditions in third world countries."

calambrac7• 17 years ago

GMO crops have only been around since, at the very earliest, 1986, so it's pretty hard to say that people at the top of the ladder are there because of them. Lumping "efficient farming" in with GMOs to make that argument is wholly disingenuous - efficient farming could have nothing to do at all with GMO crops (see: Polyface Farm).

butterfi• 17 years ago

"Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?"

Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses? I remember a time when large parts of Los Angeles were fruit trees, and are now strip malls and parking lots.

jff2• 17 years ago

Because to LA residents, milk and apples come from the store, not from cows and trees. I jest... partly.

jrockway3• 17 years ago

Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses?

Easy, money and risk. Building a high-rise building with 200 units takes about as much land as two or three single-family homes. But it is much riskier to build the high-rise; it costs more, and all 200 units might not sell. So it's easier to just build the single-family homes; now you only have two things to sell instead of 200. Very inefficient use of space, but efficient use of space is not rewarded in any way. The fact that there is no longer any place to grow crops is Someone Else's Problem. You have money to make!

jrockway3• 17 years ago

The problem is that our current farming practices are not sustainable. They are dangerous for the farmers. Farms produce an incredible amount of toxic waste (poisoning anything in the rivers their fields drain to), and consume an amazing amount of petroleum. (Fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides don't grow on trees. They require a large amount of energy to produce.)

So, if you are willing to poison our planet to make high-fructose corn syrup slightly more profitable, conventional farming is great. If you want your kids' kids to have strawberries, though... maybe not so good.

(Remember, commercial farms in the US don't grow fruits and vegetables; they grow corn. The government pays them extra for that.)

But anyway, if people not having enough healthy food is a problem, the government should subsidize healthy food instead of corn. I would rather my tax money help a poor family eat well (balanced, nutrient-rich, sustainable whole foods) than to pay someone to dump toxins in our rivers so that we can have soda that's one cent cheaper per liter. Unfortunately, I am not a congressperson, and there's a lot of money to be made selling sugar (erm, corn) water to kids.

The deeper problem is that businesses and industries tend to only analyze their direct costs. They would be fined if they, as a single entity, killed off all the fish in a river. So they don't do that. They let just enough toxic waste run off their fields to not be doing anything illegal. The problem is that when all their neighbors do that, they end up killing off all the fish. But it's not anyone's fault, so they keep doing the same thing. Externalities are either going to be the death of capitalism, or the death of human life on earth. I am betting on the second one.

philwelch3• 17 years ago

Norman Borlaug is an agronomist whose work has been credited for saving a billion lives from starvation. His work transformed formerly-starving nations like India into net exporters of food. His take on organic farming:

That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html

I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called “organic” methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot.

--30th Anniversary Lecture, The Norwegian Nobel Institute, Oslo, September 8, 2000

zargon• 17 years ago

My conventional grocer ships the kale to Wisconsin from Georgia, and by the time it gets here it is yellow and wilted. Compared to the farmers market, where the kale I find is dark green and crisp. Same story for most other produce. The winters drive me crazy, because kale grows great in January in Wisconsin, yet the grocers insist on shipping it from Georgia, so I go without.

Efficiency compared to what? Stripping of minerals? Loss of topsoil? Petroleum dependence? Water contamination? Yeah, it's true, conventional farming is more efficient at all those.

You're concerned about needing more farm land with "organic" practices, but in truth, "conventional" farming is destroying arable land at an alarming rate.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/09/soil/mann-te...

teilo3• 17 years ago

The assertion of the study, "Organic foods are not more nutritious" is a function of the metrics used to measure "nutritious".

Did they check trace mineral content? Did they check phyto-nutrient levels?

No, in fact, they checked nothing at all. This was not a study. It was a meta-study. Meta-analysis is a very poor tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Weaknesses

Note in particular the File Drawer Problem.

As other posters note: Organic food tastes better. Now, why is that? Is the only difference between the two really a matter of trace-pesticide use?

rjurney13• 17 years ago

Organic food doesn't taste better. In fact, it can taste worse. There is an enormous amount of variation in taste of any given food each season, each harvest, each field, etc. You're just telling yourself what you want to believe.

teilo3• 17 years ago

Yes, and in any given season, all things being equal, organic food tastes better. You are just telling yourself what you want to believe.

jayded• 17 years ago

The study was done in the UK. Conventional produce there may be very close to organic. However in the US this study would likely have very different results.

Organic has no health benefits

Related Stories