
Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf] - mikevm
http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf
======
mark_l_watson
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.

~~~
SixSigma
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine)

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

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

~~~
maerF0x0
> 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"

~~~
keenerd
As someone who comes from a family of small farmers, this is not really true.
Organic pesticides are on-average more harmful to the people who use them than
modern pesticides. Simply put, organic pesticides attack animal/fungal life
indiscriminately. Including human life. Most organic pesticides will kill you
at fairly low quantities. Most man-made ones won't, they are tailored to a
task. And organic farmers need to use a lot more pesticides than non-organic
farmers to achieve the same results, making human toxicity even more likely.

~~~
ambler0
I've never heard of this. Do you have an actual source?

~~~
keenerd
Only primary sources. Pick a few chemicals, find their LD50 from a MSDS, find
their application rate. Run the numbers.

An organic fungicide: copper sulfate pentahydrate (aka CuSO4)

A non-organic fungicide: iprodione (aka Rovral)

LD50 of CuSO4: 472 mg/kg (rat) [1]

LD50 of Rovral: 2g/kg (rat) [2]

So straight up, the organic is four times more lethal to mammals. But that is
just the beginning, because you have to use a lot more of the organics! How
much would Farmer Joe have to use on his small, 10 acre plot? Assuming the
worst, lets look at the maximum seasonal application.

rate of CuSO4: 16 pounds/acre per season [3]

rate of Rovral: 12 pints/acre per season [4]

Skipping the basic algebra, in one year Joe could apply enough organic
fungicide (72.5kg) to kill 1700 people. One year of non-organic (1.3kg) would
be enough to kill 7 people. (Assuming a spherical man of 90 kg.)

[1]
[http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coppersu.htm](http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coppersu.htm)

[2]
[http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mpAKR005.pdf](http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mpAKR005.pdf)

[3] [http://growabundant.com/copper/](http://growabundant.com/copper/)

[4]
[http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldAKR006.pdf](http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldAKR006.pdf)

edit: ambago, you are full of bunk. The USDA has very strict guidelines for
labeling. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification)

~~~
ewoodrich
LD50 (acute toxicity) does not necessarily correlate with harmful health
effects from chronic exposure. Can you cite studies that demonstrate harms
from exposure at the levels used in organic farming?

~~~
keenerd
We are talking about risks to people working in the fields. Every time a
farmer applies anything to a field, he will have to put on safety gear,
measure out an amount, mix it with water, load it into the sprayer, drive the
tractor around, and then clean up afterwards. When you are working with enough
of a chemical to kill a hundred people, every single one of these steps
carries the risk of an acute exposure. Dead is dead, regardless of how it
happens. Don't dismiss it.

edit: From source [1]:

> Chronic toxicity: Vineyard sprayers experienced liver disease after 3 to 15
> years of exposure to copper sulfate solution in Bordeaux mixture [8]. Long
> term effects are more likely in individuals with Wilson's disease, a
> condition which causes excessive absorption and storage of copper [25].
> Chronic exposure to low levels of copper can lead to anemia [8]

So yeah, its still bad for you.

------
byerley
Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? -
[http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-
evidenc...](http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-
health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html)

"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."

~~~
kaitai
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.

~~~
judk
Sugar is a very tasty plant.

~~~
sleep-less
Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in
reasonable quantity.

~~~
manicdee
That is correct, if by "reasonable quantity" you mean, "not adding any to your
diet that already has plenty of fruit and vegetables."

------
SigmundA
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
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](http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm)

~~~
SigmundA
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

This is actually _worse_ than you present it, because the "GMO" label is not
applied to variously laboratory techniques like repeated exposure to mutagens
followed by detailed analysis to determine which subjects have mutations of
interest, followed by selective breeding, more exposure to mutagens, etc.

The actual distinction usually made with the misleading "GMO" name is between
genetic modification by inclusion of specific genes from another species
("GMO") vs. all other methods of modifying a genome (not-"GMO").

This actually ties into a problem with the degree to which "organic" labelling
is meaningful, since usually organic is defined as including non-GMO using the
misleading definition of "GMO".

~~~
SigmundA
I very much agree. The black / white, organic / not organic and GMO / not GMO
is a non-useful abstraction IMO and instead misleads and confuses.

The following paper describes the problem in detail regarding GMO
classification:
[http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...](http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102656)

Some relevant quotes:

"Examination of the exact language of the excluded methods definition at 7 CFR
205.2 will bring out the key issues.

1\. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence
their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural
conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic
production. The phrase “not possible under natural conditions or processes”
has become problematic in the context of “traditional” breeding methods that
involve disruption of normal plant cell growth. For example, mutagenesis can
be a process in which chemical or radiation stress is applied on a cell to
force mutation to happen, but it also commonly occurs in nature and at least
some of the mutagenesis chemicals are derived from nature. (More on
mutagenesis under 5. traditional breeding). The concept of "natural" is not
defined in any regulations and is very blurred after centuries of humans
manipulating the environment and plants, animals and microbes."

And:

"5\. traditional breeding,

This term is assumed to include breeding methods that have been used prior to
the emergence of transgenic technologies. It is not clear at which point
traditional breeding techniques are divided from modern or non-traditional
breeding techniques. Is there a time point at which all techniques before that
time are considered traditional and all new techniques developed after that
time are not considered traditional? The use of transposons (see below Part B)
since the 1930's or chemical, physical, and biological mutagens since the
1940's are blurring the distinction between traditional breeding and
biotechnology."

------
jayvanguard
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
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?

~~~
kaitai
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!)

~~~
Dylan16807
You're going a little bit strawman by the end there. There are many types of
diets that qualify as 'balanced real food', and the questions are in why they
have different health benefits and trying to find the bottleneck compounds so
that you can have more benefits at once. So you would still eat real food, but
for chemicals whose ideal quantities require extremely biased diets you would
put some in a pill and focus your diet on filling in the rest of the concert
evenly.

~~~
kaitai
I don't think there are many chemicals that work that way, though. Is there
any one chemical that is so great for us that only a very biased diet would
give it?

Different soil conditions could lead to deficiencies -- if you only "eat
local" you might have to pay attention to selenium or magnesium
([http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geochem/doc/averages/se/usa.html](http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geochem/doc/averages/se/usa.html))
due to geography or geology. But setting aside deficiency, what chemical would
we want to load up on in isolation?

(ok, caffeine comes to mind. but that's not really for health, and I get it
pretty well from ground plant products.)

------
neilsharma
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](https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming)

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

~~~
dgesang
> 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?

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

~~~
fnordsensei
Weird thinking. While I agree that it's a sensible null hypothesis, I'm not
sure I agree that the burden of evidence automatically should be on proponents
of organic food.

"Organic" food is what we've eaten since the beginning of time. It'd make
sense that you'd have to show that the alteration you're introducing to the
natural state of affairs isn't detrimental to health of the consumer. I.e.,
I'm making the same argument as you, I just consider unaltered food to be the
baseline.

Also, "organic" is a weird name. Organic as opposed to what? Bananas made out
of mineral oil?

~~~
fnordsensei
Selective breeding is a comparatively slow and safe process. You're altering a
species within its own parameters. It has little resemblance to the
frankensteining we're doing right now. I'm not against it, I'm just not sure
we've a developed a proper test suite to secure the process.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Selective breeding has allowed humans to transform wolves into Chihuahuas, an
inedible wild grass called Teosinte into Corn (Maize), and many other drastic
modifications. But those aren't "frankensteining", apparently. To paraphrase
Stewart Brand, inserting the DNA to express a protein that a mammal cell
normally does into a plant cell does not mean it will be furry.

~~~
serf
I took 'frankensteining' to mean a rapid progression and skip over many states
which would have been encountered via selective breeding.

To take your example, the wolf -> chihuahua would have been frankensteining
had it been over the course of a singular or very small amount of generations.

------
dekhn
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](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.

~~~
saraid216
Science: clearly doesn't matter unless it informs consumer decision-making in
a valuable way.

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

~~~
saraid216
Then go read the context. You're not required to make life-altering decisions
when comprehending data. That's for people who cite single studies as
justification for their latest hare-brained scheme to do.

------
mikevm
More information on the study (including the paper) here:
[http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-
areas/nutrit...](http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-
areas/nutritional-quality/bjn-2014/)

~~~
Scitr
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](http://scitr.com/a2d)

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

------
oh_sigh
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"?

~~~
asadotzler
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_sigh
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.

------
MrQuincle
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
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.

~~~
MrQuincle
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/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2008/09/rusted_roots.html)

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. :-)

------
wyager
>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
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.

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

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-
stu...](http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-
significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food), because several
commenters were complaining about there being no link to the paper.

We had to compress the title to fit.

~~~
mikevm
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.

~~~
dang
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.

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

[http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685)

[http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-
triag...](http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-
organic-food/)

~~~
asadotzler
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.

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

------
zak_mc_kracken
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.

------
stillsut
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
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
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.

~~~
stillsut
> 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

No, the organic food fight has always been about _should we reap the
(positive) economies of scale_ that are so abundant in agriculture? That's the
cost structure of concern here and it only applies to one side - those
currently taking advantage of those efficiencies. We were able to feed society
with family farms, it just took 90% of the population to be farmers.

~~~
Dylan16807
Nah, 'organic' food is still easily mass-produced with big machines, you just
avoid certain untrendy things.

Especially since large farms can easily be more environmentally-friendly,
mostly through fuel savings, and _market the hell out of that_.

------
fideloper
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).

------
jheriko
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.

------
SixSigma
> 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.

------
phazmatis
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.

------
codewiz
First reactions of "experts" on this study range from cautious to skeptical:
[http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-
study-c...](http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-
comparing-the-nutritional-content-of-organic-and-conventional-foods/)

------
ahomescu1
> [...] 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
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 ..

------
alrs
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?

~~~
jqm
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:)

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

------
rabidmachine9
I wish this was a smaller article and not a 18 page paper

------
wirrbel
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).

~~~
erdle
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.

~~~
jqm
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...](http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=organic-
agriculture.html)

"(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.

------
tokenadult
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.

~~~
vixin
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.

~~~
tokenadult
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.)

------
baldfat
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://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/the_debate_about_peer_review)

[http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-
scienti...](http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-
papers-broken/)

~~~
dekhn
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".

~~~
baldfat
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.

~~~
dekhn
Your complaint about peer review might be valid but it's irrelevant to this
particular study (using the term peer review when describing a study isjust
something PR people do to make them seem more valid). Peer review isn't a
panacea, but that's not really its role, either. We expect too much of peer
review, but it's not directly related to the issues of replication or open
data (it certainly doesn't prevent either of those things from happening).

Studies like this actually build on previous studies, and if carried out
properly, address many issues about individual publications.

------
CR45H
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
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).

------
listic
What is "organic food"?

~~~
listic
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.

