Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf

by mikevm • 12 years ago

306 203 12 years ago

csanr.wsu.edu

mikevm3• 12 years ago

More information on the study (including the paper) here: http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutrit...

Scitr2• 12 years ago

How did you find that? When I looked up the title I got a link to journals.cambridge.org that redirects to a login page. Your link is much better.

http://scitr.com/a2d

mikevm3• 12 years ago

The link I gave above is the 2nd Google search result when I search for the name of the paper.

pbhjpbhj• 12 years ago

"Abstract
"Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods. Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively.
"Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons." //

vixin2• 12 years ago

Heartening that everyone can read this research largely if not entirely funded by tax payers from the authors' respective countries.

jayvanguard• 12 years ago

It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies:

"Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods."

spingsprong• 12 years ago

Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants.

Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy.

So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?

tnyswutnw• 12 years ago

You'd conclude everything is unhealthy if you lived your life the way studies told you to. Problem is most studies you see these days are backed/funded by an agenda to be basically their marketing.

I'd like to see a study that dismisses labels like "organic"/not and look for the nutritional content AND poisonous content.

That way, we'd find the best current/future farming methods available instead of this inane religious branding war between marketing giants.

guelo• 12 years ago

That leads to the obvious conclusion that we should skip the foods and eat the pesticides directly!

SoftwareMaven• 12 years ago

The studies that have shown antioxidants are unhealthy use mega doses. Getting enoug vitamin E is healthy; getting 100 times the needed amount isn't.

kaitai5• 12 years ago

Studies re: antioxidants show that large doses of isolated compounds are not so good for you. The famous vitamin E study is an example of this. Scientists decided to study vitamin E, though, because people whose diets were high in naturally-occurring vitamin E had improved mortality -- in particular, these diets were cardioprotective. A similar paradox is being seen, to a lesser degree, in comparing diets high in fish and diets that include fish oil supplements or omega-3 supplements.

The combination of studies shows not that "antioxidants are bad" but that we don't understand how to isolate their benefits. Diets high in antioxidants from whole foods (dead plants and animals), rather than nutraceuticals or supplements, are consistently linked with health. Apparently it's not so simple as isolating one compound -- we need a balance of chemical compounds coming in, working in concert.

(It's like we evolved to thrive on real food instead of pills! Weird!)

dekhn5• 12 years ago

Like the article says, the authors didn't claim the differences they found actually have any impact on health. They just claim they measured a difference, and the difference was significant (unlikely to be explained by chance).

That's fine, but this really doesn't inform consumer decision making in a valuable way. Many consumers would hear this and immediately assume that consuming organic food is safer, which isn't well-supported.

Note that low levels of toxic chemicals can often be completely harmless (if you want a better explanation than that, buy http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 and read the section on the Ames test, dose response relationships, and why tests aren't useful predictors of risk at low concentrations.

saraid2162• 12 years ago

Science: clearly doesn't matter unless it informs consumer decision-making in a valuable way.

judk5• 12 years ago

Data without context is low information content. Your snark is misplaced.

SigmundA6• 12 years ago

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space.

There are some standards varying by country some government enforced some not, and those standards have changed over time. This data seems to encompass data from many countries over a long period of time. This means how something is classified in the organic bin or not in highly inconsistent in the data set.

The paper seems thin on how they classified the data as organic or not, looks like they took that source data's word for it.

I am very skeptical anytime someone uses such vague terminology such as organic. Most compounds considered "synthetic" are technically organic in a chemical sense. When does something become synthetic? After all many forms chemical synthesis involves basic forms of human preparation (mechanical separation and cooking). How much human modification of a raw material crosses the line into syntheses? Manure vs compost vs fertilizer. The distinction varies by country/law/standard/organization/person.

For instance the paper says they included "biodynamic" techniques as organic. Never heard of this before, looking into it it seems akin alchemy, mixing spirituality with farming protocols.

The "natural" vs standard medicine debate overlaps in many way with this issue and is full of pseudoscience that pervades and pollutes the information available.

hrvbr• 12 years ago

In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo.

Main rules, taken from the EC site:

- Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently

- Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted

- Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned

- On-site resources are put to good use, such as manure for fertiliser or feed produced on the farm

- Disease-resistant plant and animal species adapted to the local environment are used

- Livestock are raised in a free-range, open-air environment and are fed on organic fodder

- Animal husbandry practices are tailored to the various livestock species

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm

SigmundA6• 12 years ago

Of course my point is this this paper is vague since it doesn't specify which country/entities formal definition of organic they followed in order to classify the data.

My point of varying and changing regulation stands as well, the EU original regulation went into effect in 1993, however I am not clear on what enforcement in which countries actually occurred when. It seems it had major revisions in 2007 and took some time overall for standards to be enforced fully.

I also find it interesting that the formal regulation for "organic" restricts but still allows "synthetic" fertilizers and antibiotics. It shows the reality that the line is draw arbitrarily.

GMO is a similar issue. If genetic modification is done in a lab it's labeled GMO and bad, if it's done through breeding it's not and ok. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if.

boyaka• 12 years ago

I think rather than talking about GMOs we need to point out the crops that are seriously and obviously bad for us: the transgenically modified crops, or apparently I just found it can be called TGM. [0]

This saves us from the debate every time where somebody talks about how all our food and animals are GMO. The real destroyers of the American food supply are the 7 major crops that have been transgenically modified with bacteria that produces insecticide and herbicide resistant bacteria so they can spray the crops with herbs: Corn, soy, cottonseed, alfalfa, papaya, canola, sugar beets.

[0] http://books.google.com/books?id=IX5mo9ylOF0C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA...

Edit: Here's some good info about terminology I guess: http://iddl.vt.edu/courses/HORT4764/lessons/seeds/seeds_page...

ewestern• 12 years ago

This is not really true. Here's the National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop. Anything sold as organic in the US has to abide by these guidelines. Here's the equivalent EU program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Eco-regulation. There are some small differences in requirements between the two in terms of prohibited inputs, but for the most part they are pretty similar. Other countries tend to follow one or the other programs as the US and Europe is where the organic consumers are. Obviously, determining where to draw the line between synthetic and natural is a judgement call, which some may disagree upon. But in a lot of cases it's pretty clear, and the authorities make distinctions accordingly. Another big question determining an input's permissibility: how does this input affect the biodiversity of the system?

You're right about "biodynamic" being ridiculous. All biodynamic farming, however, adheres to organic input regulations.

If you had some critique of the actual National Organic Program, that would be a more interesting avenue of inquiry.

jqm5• 12 years ago

In the US there is an official organic certification program.

You can't just call something "organic" and get away with it. It actually has legal specifications.

SigmundA6• 12 years ago

Unfortunately this paper isn't limited to the US or to data after the NPO was established as far as I can tell.

bitwize• 12 years ago

"Organic" in the sense of agriculture is very well-defined; it means using only mechanical processes and biological processes found in nature (e.g., artificial selection). No chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed: no pesticides, no fertilizers, no GMOs. Where the vagueness creeps in is when governments attempt to gerrymander the definition of organic so that e.g., Monsanto GMO crops can be classified as "organic" when they're not.

oldmanjay• 12 years ago

See, when you say stuff like "no chemicals or genetic tampering are allowed" you exclude literally everything man has eaten EVER.

I don't really care if people want to consume so-called "organic" food but the pseudo-scientific conversation surrounding it makes me cringe.

toufka2• 12 years ago

You do realize water is a chemical? And sunlight is probably the largest 'genetic tamperer' around? There is so much grey space between what you think you mean, and what you are actually saying that the terms you use are entirely meaningless at a practical level.

Houshalter• 12 years ago

I thought it was defined as "no use of pesticides". Other stuff is often included like fertilizers or genetic modification, but I don't see how that is relevant.

cbsmith• 12 years ago

The problem with the term "organic" is it's broad and not well defined. It's like "agile" in our space.

...and this if further complicated by the fact that this paper is based on combining data from almost 150 other studies.

mark_l_watson3• 12 years ago

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona.

If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example:

A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto. This Bill would make home gardeners, local community gardens and small local growers jump through the same hoops as the multi billion dollar food corporations. I believe that it was generally accepted that this was an attempt to force people to buy from the large food conglomerates - at least that is my belief.

jqm5• 12 years ago

The common line is that this bill is to stymie small farmers and promote Monsanto. I don't think it was the intent of the bill at all, nor does it need to be the outcome.

Food born illness is a serious problem (~48 million people will have some form of it in the US this year). Just look at the articles on people who are fatally poisoned by things like greens and cantaloupe.

The act attempts to address this by making sure food is properly traceable back to source and cleanliness measures are taken along the way. This is most certainly in the public interest, and the intent is not to promote big agriculture but to insure process and accountability. It doesn't actually prevent you from growing and consuming food from your own garden, but when you distribute that food, the government should be able to make sure you aren't doing things like watering it with raw sewage. This is overdue in my opinion. It's just like restaurant inspection. Necessary. Small growers shouldn't be exempted from putting people at risk. They can and should grow and process food cleanly, they should keep records, and if they are unable to, they shouldn't do it.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm237934.ht...

TLDR; not a conspiracy but a reasonable and overdue precaution.

mark_l_watson3• 12 years ago

I don't view the Bill as a "conspiracy," just a large corporation trying to increase profits.

You make good points on food safety, definitely important, but I personally feel more secure buying food from the same local farmers every week or so at our local farmers markets than food that is grown on huge farms and shipped from long distances.

I have the same opinion about meat. I would rather buy locally grown free range chicken from small local farms than chicken grown in small cages living in their own poop.

All that said, we are supposed to be a free country, so I feel like it is important to maintain the rights of both people like you who prefer food from large grocery stores, and also people like me who like my food raised by very nearby local small farmers. Really, why shouldn't we both get what we want?

mparr43• 12 years ago

I think it's neither a conspiracy nor a reasonable precaution.

Food borne illnesses are, in fact, a serious problem but regulations that crush the small farmer aren't the answer. Large scale farming may be incredibly efficient at producing food but they are equally efficient at propagating food borne illnesses.

Promoting small farms when possible is beneficial to society and the planet for a host of reasons, including the reduction of food borne illnesses. Nature abhors monoculture and always fights to restore ecological diversity.

maxerickson4• 12 years ago

Could you explain what you mean by home gardeners and how you think this proposed bill would have affected them? I don't think the average Senator is foolish enough to try to ban (or substantially regulate) backyard gardening.

Similar legislation was enacted btw:

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

But it had some provisions excluding smaller operations from federal oversight.

mark_l_watson3• 12 years ago

The second bill was better than the first.

My senator, Jon Kyle, has a history of supported nutty bills, BTW.

When George W. Bush was president, he proposed a bill that would create a small national committee that would have the power to have any university professor fired because of their political views. Being a senator does not guarantee rational behavior :-) when I wrote to my Senator about this Bill, his response was very unsatisfactory in my opinion, but now that a democrat is president, I doubt he would like an Obama appointed committee to have the same powers!

rdtsc2• 12 years ago

If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food.

How do you know that locally grown food is organic unless someone checks? Local grown and sold food doesn't necessarily mean "organic" it just means locally grown. Pesticides and chemicals are available for local growers too.

Unless you grow it or personally know where, who and how they grow the food you will not know what are you getting.

A lot of "farmers" I know (not in this country but in a country with a non-functioning FDA or USDA) have 2 lots. One lot to grow the food to sell and one to grow for themselves. The pesticide the shit out of one they sell. Nobody checks. Still looks good and pretty and people buy it and sellers make money.

Blahah5• 12 years ago

People in this thread seem to be under the misapprehension that organic farming doesn't use pesticides or 'chemicals'. Everything is a chemical, and organic farming in particular uses some nasty ones (rotenone, copper sulfate, pyrethrins). Pesticides are not automatically bad - in fact some of them are almost unbelievably benign to humans and/or to the environment.

randomdata6• 12 years ago

The pesticide the shit out of one they sell.

As a farmer myself, I find something intriguing in your comment. I take away visions of someone using way more chemical than necessary when reading this, but that stuff is expensive. There is no reason to use more. It's always considered a blessing when you don't have to use any, even if we assume the environmental/health impact is zero. Judicious use of pesticides can improve plant health and increase yields, but that happens in every country.

I guess I'm curious about what you are trying to say? A those "farmers" you referred to really that reckless with their incomes (never mind anything else that goes along with it) in a business that has incredibly slim margins?

SixSigma4• 12 years ago

You might choose not to eat the non-organic food but you can't avoid the Atrazine [1] in the rain, which is enough to turn the male northern leopard frog tadpoles to turn into hermaphrodites.

The families of the people who work in the factory farm system are also affected.

You can see talks [2] on both these subjects in the Edible Education course from Berkeley [3], hosted by Michael Pollan and Raj Patel. I can recommend the whole series, and the ones from previous years.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine

[2] http://vimeo.com/album/2192316/video/87586462

[3] http://vimeo.com/album/2192316

maerF0x0• 12 years ago

The families of the people who work in the factory farm system are also affected.

That is the exact reason I've often chosen organic for years. People used to say "Its no better for you" and I'd reply "Maybe, but its better for them, the workers"

ibisum3• 12 years ago

You might choose not to eat the non-organic food but you can't avoid the Atrazine [1] in the rain

That's a very US-centric point of view. It was banned in the EU for a reason.

randomdata6• 12 years ago

American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto

Was it just Monsanto? They are a relatively small business of the businesses that deal in agriculture. I'd be surprised if the bigger companies would let them have free reign over the decision making process like that (though I'm sure they're happy to have Monsanto as the fall guy, so to speak). The only reference to the bill, with respect to who wrote it, that I could find said it was prepared by multiple corporations.

shaneofalltrad• 12 years ago

Is there really bigger companies than Monsanto doing the same thing? If so, and the power/bullying that Monsanto has proven it holds, we need to be really scared. Because the financial needs to defeat Monsanto can bleed even a State dry, so if they are just a front of whats to come, how could we win? I would love to hear more on these other companies and organizations.

dingdingdang2• 12 years ago

Is there really bigger companies than Monsanto doing the same thing?

I concur, who are these hidden giants?

e2e8• 12 years ago

Off topic but just in case you didn't know, the expression is "I could NOT care less."

offtopic• 12 years ago

You might not be aware that the idom "I could care less" is in common usage, espechally in American english, and has the same meaning as "I could not care less".

jeremyw2• 12 years ago

And a 2012 survey of 200+ studies showed no significant difference in nutrition or contaminants.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triag...

asadotzler2• 12 years ago

2012 was a long time ago. Seriously. Would you use un-patched software from 2.5 years ago? I wouldn't. Science can move fast too. Relying on old data is foolish when there's a lot more newer data that can be analyzed.

toufka2• 12 years ago

Most of the papers used in this study were published between 1990 and 2010. The data is likely older than that.

jeremyw2• 12 years ago

The newer data shows the same feeble trend as before. A little plus, a little minus. Press releases notwishstanding the signal has been weak and remains weak. Best to avoid confirmation bias here.

Scitr2• 12 years ago

http://scitr.com/a2f

kaitai5• 12 years ago

Well, it found no significant difference in nutrients measured except for phosphorus (the difference in phosphorus was significant but not clinically significant), and it did find that organic foods were lower in pesticides and organic chicken and pork were much less likely to have antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

I thought the reporting on this survey was so weird. Headlines trumpeting "NO DIFFERENCE!" Antibiotic-resistant bacteria freak me the heck out. Pesticides don't seem so tasty. And that CAFO chicken tastes like styrofoam -- being a vegetarian is no loss if you only know that *&^!. But a piece of pork that really tastes like pork..... mmmmmmm....... Doesn't anyone buy food for the taste anymore?

oh_sigh2• 12 years ago

On a general note, how do meta analyses handle publication biases? For example, this study used 343 studies to derive their conclusions. But what if there were 5000 studies which showed that organic and non-organic food have no differences, but were not published or peer reviewed because they were deemed "not interesting"?

asadotzler2• 12 years ago

They usually have a definition for the kinds of studies they'll use. For example, they might say "only studies of this size betwee these years that measure this thing". I'll bet if you read the full analysis, you'll find something like that in it.

oh_sigh2• 12 years ago

You're correct. The full study has a cool flow chart of how they selected their papers, how they removed certain studies, mixed in other studies, etc. But it doesn't handle the case of papers that were never published in the first place. I'm not even sure it's possible to handle, which is what I'm asking.

learc83• 12 years ago

In addition to publication bias, it's also very easy to pick a selection criteria that produces the result you're trying to get, and justify that criteria after the fact.

gwern• 12 years ago

Generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias#Effect_on_met...

From the paper:

Funnel plots, Egger tests of funnel plot asymmetry and fail-safe number tests were used to assess publication bias (37) (see online supplementary Table S13 for further information).

(Some fail-safe tests are completely worthless and misleading, but I haven't looked to see which they used.)

Strong or moderate funnel plot asymmetry consistent with a publication bias was detected for approximately half of the parameters. However, it is not possible to definitively attribute discrepancies between large precise studies and small imprecise studies to publication bias, which remains strongly suspected rather than detected where asymmetry is severe (see Table 1 and online supplementary Table S13).

There's a table of all the endpoints they looked at, like the various antioxidants, with a column grading none to high:

Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger tests, two fail-safe number tests, and trim and fill (see online supplementary Table S13). Overall publication bias was considered high when indicated by two or more methods, moderate when indicated by one method, and low when indicated by none of the methods. The overall quality of evidence was then assessed across domains as in standard GRADE appraisal.

A copy-paste of the publication bias column and then a `xclip -o | sort | uniq -c` says that there were 16 parameters where publication bias was estimated to be low or 'none', 17 'medium', and 3 'strong'. That said, publication bias tests are considered to be fairly weak in that you need a lot of studies to be confident bias isn't there, and looking at figure 3, the # of studies for the parameters may vary from what looks like a low of 4 to a high of 332; so the publication bias estimate for the latter will probably be good, but the former means next to nothing.

wirrbel• 12 years ago

Again quite a poor press release for a university.

* Antioxidants have lost a lot in recent studies in terms of supposed health benefits. Mentioning antioxidants without reference to today's antioxidants and health research is implying a not-proven health benefit of organic food for antioxidants, while the health benefit can only soundly be expressed for the lower levels of pollutants.

* There is no link to the paper or a preprint of the article.

Apart from this, it is great to know that organic food is less polluted than conventional food (and it would be great if we got those numbers down for conventional food as well).

hausen• 12 years ago

Not only it is a poor press release, but it has FALSE information.

"The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition..."

The study, entitled “Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” is nowhere to be found, either on the BJN website, or elsewhere on the web.

Until the peer-reviewed results are out, consider it as hype, not science. I wish I could mod down the submission.

stefantalpalaru• 12 years ago

http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20...

erdle• 12 years ago

Would love to see the paper as well. Everything you said about antioxidants is true and I have equity in a company that has spent millions on researching antioxidants at multiple universities, on two continents. Most benefits that companies make claims on are only seen after ingesting impossible to eat"natural" quantities of the antioxidants.

Even more interesting, the heavy metal claims. Heavy metals are generally leeched from the soil and to conduct a test such as this you need two very different plots of land. If the heavy metals were in the solutions applied to the conventionally grown crops, then it would be pretty easy to know where they came from and alert the governing agencies. Therefore, they came from the soil.

Although there are no real enforced standards for organic in US, most private companies that set the standards have some specifications for the soil. If you were to convert a field from conventional to organic, the general rules state that the field needs to become farrow and tested for at least 7 years. In theory this does gets rid of chemical pesticides, but there are no major studies to prove it and there is no impact on residual heavy metals.

And as someone that grew up in the produce, food and beverage business I will say that just because something is labeled organic, it does not mean it is organic. It certainly does not mean that the private company they chose to "inspect" there farms followed through with all of their privately chosen standards. My family's company has caught more than a few competitors and business partners cheating the system, selling organic product in quantities that the industry knows the company cannot meet in terms of production.

General rule of thumb for buying organic: is it smaller and more "meh" looking than the conventional fruit or vegetable... it's probably organic. If it's processed and packaged... it's anyone's guess. There certainly is no governing body trying to enforce standards. After all, regulations would only cut the profit margins for the already established major organic players.

jqm5• 12 years ago

Probably during the time you grew up in the food business there were no enforceable organic standards in the US. I know when I was involved (in the 90's) standards were set by private companies as you describe.

There are now (as of early 2000's I believe). They are defined and there is an actual federal organic certification with clear rules about what comprises organic. I don't believe one can legally call a product organic in the marketplace without this certification.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=t...

"(OFPA) states that no person may affix a label to, or provide other marketing information concerning, an agricultural product if that label or information implies, directly or indirectly, that such product is produced and handled using organic methods, except in accordance with the OFPA" (exceptions provided for producers selling less than $5,000 a year).

What you say about metal levels in soils is insightful.

zak_mc_kracken• 12 years ago

I'm glad to see some kind of serious, fact-based conversation finally taking place. I'm getting tired of reading nonsense such as "it's not organic, it's bad for your body" or "it's organic, it's very healthy".

There's also an important array of distinctions between ingredients that are "not organic" (whatever that means): genetically modified food needs to be in a separate bucket from food that came from non pesticided crops, etc...

Overall, people will be stunned to find out how beneficial OGM foods are over their natural counterpart, and how much of it they're already eating on a daily basis without realizing it, and being more healthy for it.

baldfat3• 12 years ago

Scary! "is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications"

Have we not learned that "peer-reviewed publications" are of questionable value due to the on going debate on peer-reviews.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_abou...

http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scienti...

baldfat3• 12 years ago

That is why there needs to be more backing then what was published in the letter. The whole backing of data was that it was peer-reviewed.

dekhn5• 12 years ago

Would you prefer they used non-peer-reviewed publications?

Also, it was a metastudy, which can address non-systematic variation in poor studies (it wouldn't necessarily protect you against systematic variation, for example if "all peer reviewed studies were flawed in the same way".

baldfat3• 12 years ago

No I would prefer data that was validated by a secondary source. The idea that one can do science by writing a paper and just have it signing off by someone seems flawed and damaging to science and medicine.

Reason I haven't dropped this after being down voted over 5 times. Having had a son who went through the whole cancer deal and then realize that so much of the cancer research is flawed due to bad peer-reviewed papers that caused loss of years of research makes me always question "peer-reviewed." It needs to be replicated and the data needs to be open. Science and especially medical research is seriously damaged by the lack of either one of these.

jheriko• 12 years ago

i wish we could see a balanced analysis of this...

there are many, many advantages to 'modern' food production - this is why we did it to begin with. the economic advantages may cause the problem where the quality of the food drops in some ways but other advantages potentially balance it out.

it also seems to be a bit arbitrary as well... the 'artificial processes' used to improve food quality are often used on 'organic' foods as well. especially when they 'just' make the product better.

SixSigma4• 12 years ago

lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones

Organic is the convention, intensive factory crops are the new kids on the block. This whole frame of reference is the wrong way round.

CR45H• 12 years ago

Likely a shit study like all the others that try to do this. The reality is that there no real difference. This has been proved over and over again; but these idiots have an agenda and will never quit.

ertdfgcb• 12 years ago

I know you're probably a troll, but this is science: nothing is ever "proven", nothing is ever 100% certain, and they mentioned in the press release why this study is better than the previous ones that show no difference between organics and non-organics (basically, it used way more data and it's newer).

alrs• 12 years ago

How well paid are the people who jump in to these threads to astroturf on behalf on a lobby? Are they on-call to deal with weekend work?

Is it the same players that have been doing this since the 80s, or is there someone disrupting the industry?

jqm5• 12 years ago

I highly doubt the "lobby" cares enough about what a few thousand hackers think about organic food to plant astroturfers.

Sometimes there simply isn't a conspiracy...sorry.

(Now if it were Microsoft on the other hand:)

z92• 12 years ago

Are they on-call to deal with weekend work?

Reading some of the answers here, I am having a first hand experience on how strong the lobby is.

My guess is that, they are full time employee. There should be hierarchical overseeing managers and performance review, for it to be this much effective.

stillsut2• 12 years ago

When the situation is reversed: (e.g. 'Non-Organic foods are just as healthy as Organic foods') there's often ad hom's directed at the researchers and an alleged 'whoring oneself out' to Big-Agri.

I wonder if people think it's reasonable to consider the hidden incentives in study that come up positively for Organics? After all, organic is usually:

- much more expensive (ability to charge a premium / higher margin)

- suppliers can maintain a semi-monopoly by limiting who gets to use the label "organic"

These characteristics, are afterall, a business's dream, not the ability to sell a commodity in an int'ly competitive market.

personZ• 12 years ago

There are "hidden incentives" in virtually every study, and one should always remain highly skeptical. One of the biggest perversions of science is the probability of wide publication (essentially the virality of a finding), vastly increasing the likelihood of finding the desired outcome.

However to your "business's dream", organic products are more expensive to buy because they're much more expensive to produce. If we actually look at businesses in operation, the vast majority seek to minimize selling price by doing everything possible to minimize production costs, which is the opposite of your claim.

Dylan168074• 12 years ago

Businesses don't do everything possible to minimize absolute production costs, they try to minimize relative production costs. All else being equal, if my business and all my competitors are forced to pay twice as much for components, we will all raise prices, we will probably keep similar margins, and we will all make more profit. "All else being equal" is the hard part but it's not too far from reality in some situations.

MrQuincle2• 12 years ago

There is publication bias with respect to publishing something that shows a difference between organic and non-organic food. I think a meta-analysis will only amplify this tendency.

I'd be happy if they actually put hypotheses out there why organic food would be better, come up with a possible mechanism, and test that.

Cadmium (which they state as the one metal that comes with lower concentrations for organic food), for example, can be part of certain fertilizers. Cadmium also depletes anti-oxidants. So, it might just be the case that getting rid of these fertilizers, would get rid of the differences between organic and non-organic food...

Without studying the underlying mechanisms of uptake and use, we will never know.

gmac• 12 years ago

The antioxidants are maybe a red herring, but surely a key and blindingly obvious hypothesis is: food that's not been sprayed with nasty chemicals will be lower in levels of nasty chemicals. That (plus this similar hypothesis: environments that haven't been sprayed with nasty chemicals will be lower in levels of nasty chemicals) is the whole reason I buy organic stuff, and appears unsurprisingly vindicated here.

MrQuincle2• 12 years ago

Composting manure might concentrate metals, and other issues, which are difficult to think about when the processes are not known to the buyer: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/...

My grandpa who had an orchard was not into organic farming at all, but also he already used wasps to get rid of certain insects. I think it's important to know what happens down there on the field and to me "organic" comes across at times as a marketing trick, but's that maybe me. :-)

byerley• 12 years ago

Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc...

"No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."

ramblingrain4• 12 years ago

No. It sounds to me like the Stanford study failed to find a significant difference. That's different from demonstrating equivalence. There are some quotes in the article about how this disagrees with another study (not the Stanford one, but nonetheless). The paper itself quotes the paper you reference and draws many comparisons. This sounds like another look, with more data, and the Stanford study was by no means final. All of these are meta-analyses of hundreds of papers, so it's a pretty new area of statistical analysis and a very difficult one.

I haven't read the papers yet. For me, organic food means I'm not paying someone to add XYZ to the environment, and I like that. The risk assessment has not been done, and (see other comments) environmental affects are widespread and very troubling.

- full paper, source article: Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20...

- full paper, Stanford article: Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? http://media.dssimon.com/taperequest/acp75_study.pdf

kaitai5• 12 years ago

The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it.

If you buy only the tastiest plants and animals I will guarantee you a healthy diet.

judk5• 12 years ago

Sugar is a very tasty plant.

wyager• 12 years ago

Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones.

More info? Did it go from .0000000002mg/kg to .0000000001mg/kg?

I'm not very satisfied by this summary.

interpares• 12 years ago

This is great. Now if only I could use an app to make sure that a piece of produce labeled as organic was truly organic.

The higher prices associated with organic produce seem like they could be a big temptation for bait-and-switchers. I know there are stringent certifications, but the incentive is there.

tokenadult2• 12 years ago

Another comment has already pointed out that until we see the underlying study we can't be sure that this press release is really important. I note that the claim "In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops" doesn't tell us anything important unless it can be shown that those "key antioxidants" are genuinely important for human health, and despite some hand-waving in the press release, there is no epidemiological evidence at all that the presence or absence of particular antioxidants in foodstuffs is associated with better health in human beings.

vixin2• 12 years ago

The evidence for molecular intervention (almost always with positive outcome) of antioxidants in the form of phytochemicals (the ones that have been around us for millions of years) in the biochemistry that occurs in animal bodies is overwhelming as a search in the literature will tell you. I've read hundreds of papers reporting such results. No one talks about proof in science but this is at least indicative though we have far to go.

To ignore the chemistry while waiting for epidemiologists to come to questionable conclusions seems odd to me. Thanks to the countless variables present when people are involved, epidemiological studies are always subject to debate.

Knowing as a raw fact that carbon monoxide irreversibly combines with haemoglobin told me a long time ago that smoking is a mug's game I was likely to lose. I didn't need later 'reassurance' from epidemiology to persuade me give up.

tokenadult2• 12 years ago

What's a good review article on the topic? What kind of underlying studies contribute to metaanalysis on this issue, in vitro studies of direct application of the antioxidants, or carefully controlled in vivo studies of consumption of different kinds of foodstuffs? (I did the expected Google Scholar search back when this thread was more active, and I'm not seeing many citations to reliable secondary sources even now in this thread.)

ahomescu1• 12 years ago

[...] organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops.

This immediately made me wonder if organic crops are also "up to 69%" more expensive? If so, it kinda balances out (you eat less organic food to compensate for its price).

zzleeper• 12 years ago

Say its 200% more expensive. Is it still worth it? I mean, you can't just eat twice as much of the other food to balance ..

neilsharma2• 12 years ago

I haven't read the specific paper, but the press release skips over the finer nuances in the debate.

First, how is the European standard of "organic" defined exactly? Both the UK's and US' seem to cover the basics (no growth hormones, limited herbicides and pesticides use, must feed the animal organic foods, etc.), but fertility and biological standards in the soil might vary. It is possible that that UK might have naturally less-polluted soil than the US (fewer heavy metals?), contributing to the difference. Also, organic doesn't mean hormones or pesticides-free; rather, it just defines which pesticides can be used and are not as detrimental to the environment. There might be different standards here too.

UK's standard: https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming

US' standard: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards

Secondly, most organic studies in the states dive into which fruits/vegetables are subject to the most pesticide use. Apples, strawberries, and grapes seem to have the most in the US, but avocados, corn, and pineapple have the least. Studies that make blanket statements like "organic foods are better for you" without acknowledging the differences in the cultivation and biology of different species are lacking in my book.

Extensive List: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php

I'd buy organic, mostly for the more humane way farmers treat livestock and lower environmental pollution, but I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans.

dgesang4• 12 years ago

I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans.

I'm curious what convinced you that they are equally healthy in the first place?

SpoonMeiser2• 12 years ago

Surely that's the null hypothesis? It's up to proponents of organic food to prove a benefit.

neilsharma2• 12 years ago

I'm not convinced that they are equally healthy. Its just that up to now, the vast majority of studies found no major nutritional difference.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103728.ht...

Stanford study (others referenced this): http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc...

Those aren't conclusive and I'm open to being wrong, but this recent UK study seems to be the among the first to find significant differences. I bring up the organic definition in the US vs UK as a possible explanation for the results.

jann• 12 years ago

Why is the difference between US and UK regulations important for the results? As far as I understood from the press release the study was conducted in the UK with UK products.

judk5• 12 years ago

Because "organic" is a meaningless label in USA, so USA "organic" is like the rest of USA produce.

thrownaway2424• 12 years ago

As you allude, the US standard (USDA Organic) is next to useless. When I buy produce I don't differentiate between USDA Organic and conventionally grown. The California standard (CCOF) is a lot more sensible and was developed with less input from conventional large-scale growers.

fideloper• 12 years ago

This is sort of surprising to me, since I thought organic has only been marketed as more nutritious when in fact it isn't necessarily.

The rise of organic food was more about sustainability than nutrition from what I've read (quite a few books). Reducing the use of pesticides, crop rotation, careful ways to not strip the soil of nutrition, etc...

I've always worked under the presumption that the "it's healthier" argument wasn't the case (despite the clever wording of marketing when big food got their hands on Organic).

phazmatis• 12 years ago

This isn't surprising. If you tune your Genetic Rearranger 3000 to spit out blueberries that are really friggin' blue, and don't develop rough surfaces, and are resistant to certain molds, and don't track other metrics like nutrition content, then there is a greater than zero chance that whatever you're not tracking will be diminished.

listic2• 12 years ago

What is "organic food"?

listic2• 12 years ago

Downvoting instead of defining the term that is not explained in the article nor could I find a satisfactory definition online for?

I take it as an evidence that this is one of those "taboo" subjects that everyone expects everyone else to know definition of, even though not sure themselves.

dang2• 12 years ago

Url changed from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-stu..., because several commenters were complaining about there being no link to the paper.

We had to compress the title to fit.

mikevm3• 12 years ago

I actually did that on purpose, and then immediately commented on the submission with a link to a page that contains the paper and supplemental data.

The reason I preferred to post the press release was simply because it explains the significance of the study and gives a little history, something that might not be obvious if I simply linked to the paper directly.

Unfortunately, my comment wasn't seen by many :-(. It would've been nice if one could post some supplementary text when submitting a link.

dang2• 12 years ago

You did the right thing. We generally prefer the best popular article on a paper, with a link to the paper in comments.

This case was unusual because the subject was controversial, the thread ballooned quickly, and the link to the paper got lost.

StephenGL• 12 years ago

Now if they could better prove the value of antioxidants.....

codewiz• 12 years ago

First reactions of "experts" on this study range from cautious to skeptical: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-c...

rabidmachine9• 12 years ago

I wish this was a smaller article and not a 18 page paper

Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

Related Stories