
Is Organic More Nutritious? New Study Adds to the Evidence - sergeant3
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/18/467136329/is-organic-more-nutritious-new-study-adds-to-the-evidence
======
torgoguys
The meta-analysis cited at the beginning of this article has problems. But
even if it didn't, you only need to read the conclusion to know the headline
writers are getting this wrong.

As alluded to in that conclusion, the study isn't so much a comparison of
organic vs. conventional as it is a comparison of grass fed vs. grain fed
animals. The article does refer to this in passing and then continues along.

And it is odd to tout the increase in omega-3s anyway. "Yay, we raised the
omega-3s found in beef from a tiny-amount to a statistically-interstingly-
higher-but-still-tiny-amount."

Going on to the next study cited in the article doesn't help it. Note how the
article shifts from saying that the compounds are potentially beneficial over
to saying they are. And then it ignores the evidence mounting that maybe all
of our hopes that lots of dietary antioxidants would help us live
longer/better may have been sadly misplaced.

Bah...I hate the state of health news reporting.

~~~
mathattack
Take it from the source - NPR is playing to a pro-organic audience.

I personally hope organic is healthier because I can afford to buy it, but I'm
reminded of watching the super at my old building toss the recycling into the
regular trash - perhaps it's all really treated the same.

~~~
dasil003
If it's all treated the same that would be a massive scandal, regardless of
the ultimate health effects.

~~~
mathattack
My understanding is that the testing regime for organic is very weak. I would
be surprised if this doesn't happen a lot. Perhaps genetic testing could give
some hints? (Of GMOs if not pesticides?)

------
exodust
I buy organic carrots and milk as a priority.

Carrots are highly absorbent, more so than other vegetables. They absorb so
much that can't be washed or peeled away.

With milk, I just want to know the cow is happy. Buying organic increases the
chance of that. You may laugh, but we all have our reasons.

I'd be interested to hear what other products people here consider a must-buy-
organic. I can't afford to buy everything organic, but I'm willing to expand
my essential organic list if convinced.

~~~
aaron695
> With milk, I just want to know the cow is happy

This is idiotic. Organic farmers can't use chemicals to stop ticks, lice and
other pests.

The cows can be living in hell to keep you happy.

They don't care about the fact they are eating a, basically religiously
created feed.

For happy cows drink soy or plant based milks or non organic.

~~~
exodust
Do you run an organic dairy farm? No. You're just another armchair expert,
pretending to have a monopoly on the facts.

The organic milk I buy comes from a dairy farm about 90 min drive from where I
live. It runs about 150 head of cattle - Freisian/Jersery cross on 300 acres.
Their milk processing plant is next to the farm.

Whether you "organic or not organic" is up to you, but I try to source milk
from local farms with an emphasis on welfare of the animal and quality of the
product.

Supermarket milk is generally ultra-heat treated to increase shelf life, even
the so-called "organic" variety. The animals are packed in to increase
"efficiency" and make the milk cheaper.

In the end, I don't mind paying more, and I'm supporting local dairy farmers.
What the hell are you doing?

~~~
RealityVoid
> Supermarket milk is generally ultra-heat treated to increase shelf life,
> even the so-called "organic" variety.

Yes, it is, but I'd like to know why you frame this as a bad thing.

> In the end, I don't mind paying more, and I'm supporting local dairy
> farmers. What the hell are you doing?

While I appreciate your good intetions, I think the "What the hell are you
doing?" is a little bit overstated, since this is a low-impact, low effort
activity and, really, does the fact that you're doing something oblige me to
somehow "one-up" you?

~~~
exodust
Over-heat treated milk = poor taste. It's a balance, and the correct balance
is usually not achieved by the popular supermarket milks.

> _does the fact that you 're doing something oblige me to somehow "one-up"
> you?_

Not unless you called me an idiot for doing something. Which you didn't, but
the person I was replying to did.

I don't mind at all if someone calls my argument into question, but at least
come back with more than opinion. There are plenty of reasons beyond the
welfare of animals to support local business. I admit it's not just the
happiness of the cow which motivates me. Perhaps I should have explained that.

The more money we can circulate in the local community, the healthier that
community is. I'm no economics expert, but I have a hunch that spending up at
my local restaurants, cafes, dairy farms and businesses is doing my bit to
improve the region where I live. I also try to do my "bit" for the environment
and animal welfare within the eating habits I currently enjoy. Hence.... "what
are you doing" was an invitation to suggest a "non idiotic" approach since
they thought so little of mine!

------
rangibaby
Even if the nutrition is the same or worse ("organic" or not), varieties of
fruit and vegetable that aren't big, brightly colored, perfectly round, non-
bruising, transportable, shelf-stable, beautiful, tastes-of-nothing _garbage_
are better in my opinion.

Why? Because if they actually tasted different to all the other processed junk
out there, then maybe people would choose them instead.

~~~
dragonwriter
> varieties of fruit and vegetable that aren't big, brightly colored,
> perfectly round, non-bruising, transportable, shelf-stable, beautiful,
> tastes-of-nothing garbage are better in my opinion.

Heirloom varieties (what you seem to be praising) and organic methods have
only a casual relationship (sure, organic certification may require non-GMO,
but lots of the work on big, brightly colore. perfectly round, non-bruising,
transportable, shelf-stable, beautiful varieties -- that incidentally produces
tastes-of-nothing garbage -- is non-GMO "traditional" breeding methods that's
perfectly capable of being organic, and often is what you get when you buy
organic. Heck, because of the way GM methods work, you end up preserving other
traits besides the one you want to change better than "traditional" breeding.)

~~~
rangibaby
Yes, that's why I put "organic" in scare quotes. George Carlin's piece food
lingo said it better than me:

Natural

The last one of these bullshit food words is natural. And these comments are
directed at all you environmental jackoffs out there. The word natural is
completely meaningless. Everything is natural. Nature includes everything.
It's not just trees and flowers and the northern spotted owl. It's everything
in the universe. Untreated raw sewage, polyester, toxic chemical waste, used
bandages, monkey shit. It's all perfectly natural. It's just not real good
food. But you know something? It is zesty. And it's tangy, too. Bon appe'tit,
consumers.

The rest of the chapter is here if you'd like to read it:
[http://pastebin.com/jejt4dfm](http://pastebin.com/jejt4dfm)

------
bandrami
It's odd that "more nutritious" keeps coming up; to the extent I prefer
organic it's because it's "more sustainable" and occasionally "less toxic".

~~~
stevetrewick
"Organic" methods produce considerably less food per unit of land (and other
inputs) than conventional farming [0] (that being one of the reasons for the
price difference). How does that make it "more sustainable" ?

" _Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition,
and about 16 million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to
entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3
billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we 're using now._"[0]

[0][http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-
sushi/httpblogss...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-
sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-
sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)

~~~
linuskendall
... and yet the world produces on average more than 5000 calories per person.
Is "increased productivity" really what we require?

There is also the issue that the idea of greater productivity is highly
geographical and seems to be valid in the context of European and North
American monocropping agricultural systems. Other farming systems may produce
a lot more overall nutrients - it is not at all clear that systems fueled by
synthetic fertilisers are more productive as far as overall ecnomic/livelihood
benefit or nutrients are concerned in East Asian and African agriculture.
Results got from research done in Europe and North America (greater
productivity in monocropping non-organic systems) are often suggested as valid
in the context of "ensuring sufficient food production Africa / East Asia"
which at least from what I know of Bengal seem to be a truth which requires
substantial modification (see for example a relatively conservative discussion
in [1]).

Further, Rodal Institute's longitudinal study[1] seem to suggest that organic
practices can indeed match conventional.

Finally - hunger and starvation is generally not an issue of too little food
production as Amartya Sen's nobel prize winning research on Bengal famines
highlighted.

[0]
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ac116e/ac116e05.htm](http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ac116e/ac116e05.htm)
[1] [http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-
trial/](http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/)

------
finid
Eating organic, for me, has very little to do with whether organic is more
nutritious or not, but about not ingesting pesticide residues when I'm eating.

That's really what it's all about - for me. That organic tends to be more
nutritious is a bonus,

~~~
cko
Organic vegetables are allowed to have organic pesticides. When you find out
what they are you will not be pleased.

~~~
fractallyte
Now that really depends on the 'organic' standards the farmer has decided to
follow.

The UK Soil Association Organic standards
([http://www.soilassociation.org/organicstandards](http://www.soilassociation.org/organicstandards))
are known to be some of the strictest. And section 4.11 on controlling pests
and disease makes me very pleased to support organic farming.

------
spirit555
> Organic crops tend to be exposed to higher levels of stress — including
> insect attacks, Seal says. And in response, they form compounds to help
> combat the stress.

I wonder then... what about indoor grows using organic methods that are bug
free and stress free with all variables controlled for optimum conditions.

~~~
swe
You still get bugs inside

~~~
glibgil
No, there are cleanroom indoor farms. No bugs.

~~~
whyenot
Unless you are sterilizing everything entering the cleanroom, that is simply
not possible. Fungal spores, bacteria, and viruses are everywhere. If one of
your workers is a smoker, they can spread Tobacco Mosaic Virus, for example.

~~~
glibgil
Yep, that's what a cleanroom is. I know what words mean, thanks
[http://imgur.com/EYm8jyn](http://imgur.com/EYm8jyn)

~~~
greglindahl
Clean rooms are not perfectly clean. I've always wondered if Intel, which is
famous for wanting all of their fab cleanrooms to be the same, also infects
them with the same bacteria and mites...

~~~
glibgil
> Clean rooms are not perfectly clean

Yeah, but they are still clean and known as cleanrooms. I know about microbes,
thanks

------
domsl
The best thing about organic food is that it uses no gas to produce fertilizer
like for conventional food [1]. Using gas to produce food is just crazy if you
think about it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Nitrogen_fertilizer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Nitrogen_fertilizers)

~~~
swe
Numbers vary, but somewhere between 7-12 calories of hydrocarbon energy in
every 1 calorie of food. That's precooked; afterwards it can be 25 or more.

The entire food system is heavily dependent on hydrocarbon energy and long
supply lines.

Take oil and natural gas away and billions of people would starve to death.

~~~
wl
Are you using food kilocalories for hydrocarbon energy or normal calories?

~~~
swe
kilocalorie

