

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious - colins_pride
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/organic_food_isnt_more_nutritious/

======
kwamenum86
I never thought the argument was that organic food is more beneficial
nutritionally. I thought it is supposed to be _less harmful_ overall. This is
an important distinction.

~~~
jacoblyles
I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a
popular opinion in California, regardless.

Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs
without evidence? Religion.

How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?

~~~
andreyf
If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how
otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-
natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing.

But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to
save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and
"artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 100% organic? Malaria. And
there's little more artificial than the chemical-soaked neon bednets saving
millions of lives across Africa.

~~~
tvon
That's a ridiculous argument.

You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with
saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for
those of us with access to alternatives.

~~~
andreyf
It isn't an argument - note my use of the word "sometimes". It's a counter-
example to the dogma of organic == good, artificial == evil. The burden of
proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural"
ingredients. So, show us one study which shows people who only consume
"organic" food to be healthier than those who eat genetically engineered food.
You simply won't find it.

For a more concrete argument, let me point you to The China Study [1], which
gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the
"organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food". If people really cared
about their health, they'd be vegetarian.

Organic food has a lot more to do with identity marketing (like BMW and A&F)
than it does real nutrition.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study>

~~~
dejb
You are demonstrating the same 'them and us' attitude that is present in the
original article. You show your mistake by lumping together 'organic/all-
natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging' as if they were all a
single proposition pushed by some united group of science haters. If you can't
evaluate each proposition on it's merits then you are failing prey to dogma
yourself.

> the burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from
> "all natural" ingredients.

Why should the burden of proof fall one way or the other on this proposition?
This is the classic technique of those who see themselves as guardians of
scientific orthodoxy.

> which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health
> than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food"

That doesn't mean that knowing the value of organic food also wouldn't be
useful.

------
dejb
We don't even fully understand the elements and combinations of substances
that make up 'nutritious'. So the claims of the author that 'Organic Food
Isn't More Nutritious' are demonstrably an overstatement.

It's funny how the author can exaggerate the studies findings like this while
showing such disdain for others who respond to his exaggerated conclusion
rather than address the studies findings directly. The study has some good
information but I'd prefer to hear it from an author that wasn't so partisan
to a particular view.

------
diN0bot
> "The Soil Association’s response, published in papers across the land,
> entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic
> food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non-
> organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states
> that they aren’t looking at the impact on the environment of organic
> agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has
> extensively examined in other research."

> "The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it,
> the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific."

true, but the SA's response is an excellent marketing response. ple think what
they're told, and if no one outright makes the claim about the environmental
impact, then people will conclude, oh, it's already to eat non-organic.

------
enthalpyx
But it is more tasty.

~~~
jrockway
Indeed. We still don't understand enough about food to say that organic food
is not better. If you stopped eating real food and only ate lard, soy protein,
cardboard, and a vitamin pill, you would probably not do too well. But that is
all we use to understand the nutritional value of food. (Vitamins, minerals,
fat, carbohydrates, and protein.)

(Admittedly the American food system is getting close to this. Corn is soooo
good for you(r wallet), after all.)

~~~
stcredzero
_We still don't understand enough about food to say..._

Here here! The notion that we pretty much understand what's going on with
food, digestion, and metabolism is as widespread as it is harmful. We have
only scratched the surface.

I remember seeing a diagram of human metabolism during a talk. It was huge and
messy! Spaghetti-coded-Rube-Goldberg-intertwined-messy! And it's only a
diagram of what we _do_ understand -- there's even more in there! Biology at
the cellular and molecular level was not "designed" to be understood by a
human intelligence.

------
321abc
There's a metafilter thread about this here:

<http://www.metafilter.com/83702/Cuz-Im-freefree-rangin>

