
Organic has no health benefits - epi0Bauqu
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm
======
igrekel
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.

~~~
biohacker42
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.

~~~
callmeed
_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.

~~~
biohacker42
Interestingly enough that has been done with rats:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/dining/03curi.html>

And the rats preferred organic.

~~~
tokenadult
Thanks for this very interesting link, by an author whose writings I like a
lot. (He is a chemist who writes about food, a good background to have for
this thread.)

It is a puzzler that he mentions one small sample of rats

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

that doesn't show the same result (indifference to whether or not food is
"organic") shown in many human studies he mentions in his article. This kind
of study needs a bigger sample size and a great deal more replication.

Here's another problem: how do we know that either human beings or rats prefer
what is best for them? Preferences for smells and tastes may have evolutionary
origins that are then exploited by adaptations of food organisms in ways that
are not beneficial to the eater.

------
gamache
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.

~~~
tokenadult
_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>

~~~
dasil003
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?

~~~
billswift
Yes it is wild superstition. There is no evidence that most modern
insecticides harm humans at all (some do but they are less commonly used,
mostly only for specific classes of pest). DDT for example had no deleterious
effect on human health, until the environmentalist idiots got it banned and
malaria started killing millions again in tropical regions. The most dangerous
insecticides were phased out long ago, first the arsenicals, then nicotine
sulfate, both of which were very dangerous to people.

ETA: DDT was dusted directly on people for flea and lice control and typhus
prevention and was primarily sprayed indoors for malaria prevention so there
was a lot more direct human contact than even production plant workers have
with insecticides currently.

~~~
dasil003
Wrong. There is plenty of evidence. Now clearly an argument can be made that
the consequences of malaria are far worse, but to say "there is no evidence"
reveals that you have some sort of idealogical bone to pick with
environmentalists and you are not 1/10th as objective you'd like to think.

~~~
tokenadult
_There is plenty of evidence._

Where is the evidence of direct DDT harm to human beings? I don't recall that
ever being mentioned when DDT was banned in the United States (within my
lifetime, so I remember the contemporary news reports on the issue). If there
is a harm, how does it compare to the harm of insect-borne diseases?

------
adamhowell
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
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.

------
mattmaroon
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
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. :/

~~~
mattmaroon
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.

~~~
jrockway
Be careful with this. You can get the "USDA Organic" logo with less than 100%
organic ingredients. So it's possible that your frozen dinner has
preservatives and other crap in it that you are trying to avoid by "going
organic". Read the ingredients to be sure. If it's something you can't buy and
add to your food yourself, it's probably in there for the seller's benefit;
not for yours. (Less spoilage == higher profit margin.)

~~~
mattmaroon
Umm, not legally. The USDA regulations specifically forbid artificial
preservatives. (Natural ones like citric acid are fine.)

They can and sometimes do cheat, even though the fines are enormous, but
reading labels won't help with that.

------
jff
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.

~~~
omouse
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.

~~~
lutorm
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.

~~~
philwelch
If we all ate organic, a third of the world population would have to starve to
death from sheer shortage of food.

Don't talk about animal feed, either--we'd have to raise more cattle just for
the manure if we didn't use chemical fertilizers.

~~~
calambrac
That's a mighty strong statement of fact to throw out without any kind of
citation. Care to share a couple?

~~~
philwelch
I've attributed these claims to statements by Norman Borlaug elsewhere in the
thread. Here specifically: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=730793>

------
dtf
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?

~~~
tokenadult
_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.

~~~
easp
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.

~~~
tokenadult
_You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets
in order for people to avoid starving._

You need to take that up with the historians of economics. The last few major
famines in my lifetime were all in countries that have adequate capacity to
produce food, but had governments at those times that tried to impose Marxist
socialism on their populations.

More to the point of this thread, will you allow the smallholders you mention
to use whatever means they find economical or convenient to grow food on their
own land, or will you insist that they grow only "organic" crops?

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

~~~
lutorm
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
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?

------
teilo
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?

~~~
rjurney
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.

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

~~~
rjurney
No, I grow both organic and non organic vegetables, so I actually know what
I'm talking about.

How about you? ;)

~~~
teilo
Ditto.

------
jayded
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.

