
Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study - alexfarran
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-comparing-the-nutritional-content-of-organic-and-conventional-foods/
======
kevingoslar
Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The
responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied
intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the
original paper's findings.

For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly
lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect
of organic produce, and one of the cornerstones of the argument for organic
foods. This affects not only the health of consumers (around which there can
be an absolutely healthy debate despite the fact that less poison is probably
almost always better here), but also impacts the environmental footprint of
farming.

There are also loads of straw-man arguments, which further undermines the
trust in the credibility of the responders. The OP never denied that eating
more fruits and vegetables - organic or not - is better than eating none at
all. All that the paper did was publishing findings about the differences
between organic and non-organic produce. I don't think antioxidants or
phenolic compounds were framed as essential nutrients, and besides that non-
essential nutrients do have effects on the consumer's wellbeing and health as
well.

A truly unbiased response would feel more balanced. It would welcome certain
findings, rounding out the picture with additional facts that might change
certain conclusions drawn from the data, and add contradicting data found on a
similar scale of research to the conversation. Such a straight and drastic
dismissals of the paper in its entirety, however, based on carefully selected
details, feels motivated by external factors beyond science or neutral dialog.

~~~
drakaal
The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more
about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and
squishier, and more flavorful.

The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre.

The squishier means you lose more in shipping.

The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious.

The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your
plants with arsenic and call them Organic. That would work well, (and is used
in certain organic farms often for strawberries) but the residue would be more
harmful even in lower amounts than say a Coal-Tar Pesticide (basically an
artificial flavor sprayed on to mimic the smell of a predator, or the flavor
of something an insect doesn't like)

Organic != Safe

Traditional != Dangerous

My biggest concern is that we cannot produce enough food via organic farming
to feed everyone. If we move too much of the market to Organics, we may end up
like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we
currently enjoy in the US.

My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic"
means safe. NightShade is an all natural herb. Doesn't mean I should brew tea
of it and have it at bed time.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
_we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead
of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US_

Given the level of diet-related illness in the US, much of it a result of
ultra cheap (through subsidies) sugars and grains, I can't help but wonder,
"if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better
choices?"

Of course, the issue there has nothing to do with organics and everything to
do with subsidies.

~~~
hueving
"if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better
choices?"

No. They will still choose the cheapest/most-convenient.

------
mixologic
I would think we would be better at spotting sock puppets. "Expert reaction?"
More like paid schill: [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-
us/funding/](http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/)

Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?

~~~
jqm
I can just about guarantee you those companies couldn't care less about a few
10 thousands of people eating a little organic food. It's not a threat to them
and they simply don't care enough to put out sock puppets. This lack of caring
actually gives the new hippie-science disregarding (or whatever you want to
call it) authors like Micheal Pollan more air time because nobody calls them
on it when they get out of bounds of good science. Nobody writes sensational
books about the over-hype and under evidence of the benefits of organic
farming nor the dangers of un-regulated and un-inspected food production.

The amount of anti-science junk regarding food production I see posted on HN
is stunning given that this is supposed to be a group of intelligent rational
people.

~~~
pyre
All you've basically done is attempted to marginalize a group of people
("couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people"), while calling them
out for being 'wrong.' In addition, you've attempted to call out HN as being
the negation of a "group of intelligent rational people" because they don't
share your views. On top of that, you've in no way told us _why_ all of these
people are wrong, other than "the people that know the _real_ truth have
better things to do than explain it to you."

~~~
jqm
I haven't called anyone out for being wrong (except the original poster on his
shill suspicion, I believe he is unreasonable and almost certainly wrong on
that count).

All I'm saying is that it is unlikely these companies care enough about a
small niche market that doesn't really doesn't pose a danger to their business
nor impact them enough to post shills.

As for unscientific views on the topic of food production... It's not a matter
of "wrong". It's a matter of acceptance of science. The rejection of science
in favor of unreasonable conspiracy theories and anti-scientific pop authors
by this many presumably intelligent members of a "tech" site is surprising and
a bit disturbing.

------
falcolas
> The paper also reports a decrease in protein, nitrates and fibre in the
> organically grown crops, which may be undesirable, and which are maybe
> unsurprisingly not referred to by the authors in their advocacy of
> organically grown produce.

Hmm. I think this is important, and something I certainly overlooked in the
initial hype.

~~~
PeterGriffin2
If there's a decrease in both protein and fibre, what is there an increase of
to compensate for it? There has to be "more" of something per unit of mass.

~~~
Istof
I don't know but "conventionally mass-produced" produces tend to be bigger and
tasteless... that might have something to do with growers selecting them for
the "wrong" trait (gene) [0]. Tomatoes being the best example; they are much
better when bought at my local farmer's market (as opposed to buying them at
Walmart).

0:
[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112648268/scientists-f...](http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112648268/scientists-
find-gene-behind-ripe-tasteless-tomatoes/)

~~~
crazytony
Tomatoes are a terrible example. Ripe tomatoes damage very easily so tomatoes
going to grocers are picked green and then reddened by exposing them to
ethylene gas. This minimally affects flavor but causes the tomato to appear
"ripe".

If buying from farmers (not distributors) at your farmers market then those
tomatoes were most likely ripened in the field then picked rather than gassed
which is why they taste much better.

~~~
jqm
I worked on a commercial tomato farm before. You are both right.

What you get in grocery stores is a green tomato that has been gassed so the
flavor isn't the same as truly ripe tomato. Also, the varieties planted that
are good for mass productions, packing and shipping aren't necessarily the
best tasting varieties.

------
pistle
Quick, somebody put together the app that does some Bayesian work to score
people and their quotes, research, funding, etc. to show on a scale where
their tendencies would be expected to be for a given next statement. Let's get
META!!! on meta-analyses.

What's interesting is the turf battles going on over what I would say are
details vs the "news you can use."

Industrial agra => :P tasting + less desirable enviro impact.

Alt agra => less offputting, better enviro impact, but big hand waving around
potential to be capable of scale and affordable for current and future
population.

I get a sense there's this looming dread of having to deal with someone
saying, "We can't survive (or will have a bad time) as a species if we sit
back and slurp big agra, but we can't realistically keep everyone
around/afford it if we try to help everyone eat 'correctly/safely'."

If the organic path is the moral path, is it OK to allow food costs to
increase substantially? Is it OK to disallow the big agra calories and
nutrients which likely enable subsistence for those unable to fight over spots
for their Teslas and Priuses at Whole Foods?

~~~
politician
"Deer: Predation or Starvation" [1], is an exercise many may remember from
high school biology class.

In the exercise, the implicit goal is for students to recognize that the deer
population shrinkage was a good and natural outcome leading to balance and
that balance is good.

There are various problems with the exercise though; for example, we only see
a few years of "balance" with the implication that it continues forever.

Replace wolves with food costs, and deer with humans. We would expect the
Industrial Agra crowd to be "pro deer", and the Alternate Agra crowd to be
"pro balance" while Industrial Agra itself is "pro wolf".

I find it interesting that if you're interested in rising human populations,
then you're coupled to rising food prices no matter what. In other words,
consumption of organics is non-linearly related to rising food prices and
orthogonal to morality.

[1]
[http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/predator_prey_graphi...](http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/predator_prey_graphing.html)

~~~
pistle
Big agra has been able to shrink the cost per calorie at a rate which has kept
food costs in check, so I'm not sure I can allow the assumption of increased
costs being a given. We can talk portion of costs, relative costs, or per
capita... there could be advances that enable a new green revolution... if you
would just pray at the altar of big agra and wear your nitrate and phosphate
filters according to the directions. :)

------
coldtea
Of course a lot of the "experts" are on the payroll of big food corporations.

It's difficult to have independent science in this day and age on matters
where billions are at stake.

There is of course bias on the other side as well (e.g ideological), but
nothing trumps actual, solid, business interests as a bias.

~~~
pg890432
And the experts are also on non profit and large research universities,
including the university that published the study (University of Newcastle).
What's your point?

~~~
coldtea
I made my point already.

A lot of the experts are on the payroll of the food industry. They work
directly on it, or their research is funded by it. The same way there was tons
of tobacco industry sponsored studies in the seventies, that said it was all
OK. The same way studies on sugar were downplayed.

A university (research funds aside) doesn't have the kind of multi-billion
interests a whole industry have. Their researchers have other shit that can
interfere with their research (e.g the need to churn out papers to stay
afloat, or the desire to write a controversial paper to make their names
known), but nothing that trumps hard multibillion monetary interests.

------
ricardobeat
In their statements they all ignore the question of environmental impact,
pesticides, worker health, etc, which are the strongest reason to buy organic
(and not because the food has magical properties).

~~~
yabatopia
Exactly, for us the main reason to buy organic is we don't like the
concentrated industrialized production of regular food. We care about
sustainability, environmental impact, working conditions, treatment of
animals, etc. A carrot is a carrot, it's the story behind the carrot that
matters.

~~~
specialist
Yup. Also, I vote with my dollars, preferring local, small business, cash
transactions.

------
bellerocky
I don't think anyone in my family eats organic foods. Many of the older
generation have lived into their 90's and 80's. My grandparents are in their
80's now. Would their parents have lived into their 100's had they eaten
organic food? They weren't sickly miserable people all their lives. I just
don't get the ultra-health kick. My take is to stop worrying about your food
so much and eat whatever satisfies your hunger, just not too much.
Micromanaging our diets is this generation's yogurt enema.

~~~
pyre
The way that food is produced now differs significantly than the way it was
produced even 50 years ago. To use the lives of your relatives that lived into
their 80's and 90's as 'proof' that no one needs organic food is disingenuous,
regardless of the existence (or lack) of health benefits to eating organic
food.

As an example, did your 90-year-old relatives eat Monstano-engineered "Round
Up-Ready" corn for a majority of their lives? If not, then how can you claim
that their lives have any bearing on the current situation?

~~~
bellerocky
50 years ago they were spraying crops with DTD and other terrible pesticides.
If you don't remember, soldiers in the Spanish American war suffered more
casualties from the terrible food they were given than from combat[1]. The
industrial revolution started more than 90 years ago and industrialized
agriculture is not a new phenomenon.

I was thinking about this post this morning and wondering if the ultra-
longevity origanic food types would cut off their testiciles if it was shown
that you could squeeze out a few extra years of life if you did it early
enough. This micro-managing of food eaten is obsessive, although I think half
the people writing comments are actually conspiracy crazed about Monsanto and
other big companies who must be out to get them (which is not to say that big
companies are not screwing over people or small farms, they probably are).

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal)

------
aaron695
Organic is a toxic anti-science religion.

Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you?

Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not.

If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals
has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because
they are fundamentalists.

I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion by the scientific
community.

~~~
Retric
Pesticides have not been proven harmless, just acceptably harmful. Much like
how lead is bad for you but some lead in drinking water is accepted.

There is a similar issue with GMO food. Everything out there might be safe,
but there is little research done before new strains enter mass production so
some caution is reasonable even without demonstrated harm.

PS: IMO, anything still considered safe after 30 years is probably ok but
organic / non GMO is a reasonable catch all for that kind of a track record.

~~~
jqm
Some pesticides are pretty harmful some are really not.

There are many unrelated types of compounds we are talking about here... from
severe (and generally now banned) biocides like Methyl Bromide gas all the way
to a light camomile tea solution.

It's like your dad saying "drugs are bad!" then proceeding to drink a six
pack. Dose and type mean everything. Not all pesticides are dangerous to man
nor the general environment.

~~~
specialist
_Some pesticides are pretty harmful some are really not._

The burden of proof is on the advocates of pesticides.

I'm utterly exhausted by the endless hair splitting and PR campaigns. As a
consumer citizen, I do not have the resources or wherewithal to determine
which pesticides might be acceptible. When negative information is routinely
buried, such as the brouhaha over honey bee colony collapse disorder, I've
completely lost my patience and confidence in agribiz and its captured
regulators.

They can all rot.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There is testing, science etc for things like pesticides and residue. The
burden has been born and carried to a conclusion. Its new claims that the
testing was not good enough that have a burden - its easy to call foul or
claim hidden problems, then be conveniently too exhausted to do anything about
it. Sometimes its not that problems are buried; sometimes they're not real.

~~~
Retric
That's a perfectly rational argument, however there is a long history of
pesticides turning out to be more harmful than originally thought. There are
even commonly used pesticides that are known to be harmful to people that are
still in common use with the assumption that the residue is not harmful.

Unfortunately, that's vary hard to test as the population for a study is much
smaller than the population effected by any given pesticide. When you include
environmental effects the argument generally becomes one of acceptable harm.
As there is also a ridiculous oversupply of food there also clearly over used.

~~~
specialist
_...pesticides turning out to be more harmful than originally thought._

Licenses (to sell pesticides) should be periodically reauthorized, given the
current best available science. Factoring cost to benefit in the
authorization, of course.

Like all these intractable policy issues, at the heart it's about governance.
Right now the burden of proof (of harm) is on the critics. That's inefficient
and unnecessarily adversarial.

------
elouisyoung
this article is fucking trash

