Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/organic-food-isnt-more-nutritious-but-that-isnt-the-point/261929/



Of all the food-related countercultural buzzwords that have gone mainstream in recent years, organic ranks among the most confusing. Like its cousins (cf. local, free-range, or worst of all, natural), the term's promotion by grocery stores everywhere has caused it to escape the strict definitions laid out by the USDA . But from Stanford University comes new research suggesting what we should have known all along: organic food isn't actually more nutritious than traditionally-farmed goods.

In a widely publicized and discussed analysis of more than 200 studies comparing organic to regular food products, researchers have found that organics don't have more vitamins or minerals (with the lone exception of phosphorus, which we all get in sufficient amounts anyway). Nor do they have an appreciable effect when it comes to heading off food-borne illness, although the germs found in conventional meat do have a higher chance of being drug-resistant (more on that in a bit).

That we needed a study to understand how nutritionally similar organic foods are to non-organics is a perfect example of the way we've lost sight of what the term really means. It's worth keeping in mind that organic refers only to a particular method of production; while switching to organic foods can be good for you insofar as doing so helps you avoid nasty things like chemicals and additives, there's nothing in the organic foods themselves that gives them an inherent nutritional advantage over non-organics. In other words, it's not wrong to say organic food is "healthier" than non-organics. It's just unrealistic to think that your organic diet is slowly turning you into Clark Kent.

(You laugh, but according to a Nielsen study cited by USA Today, a ton of people believe just that, or something close to it. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they bought organic food because they thought it was more nutritious.)


*** why i want 'organic'.
i got turned on to "organic" through 3 different but sort of related avenues.

1 -- was a hippie -- i wanted to do things the heal both the earth and people.

2 -- i started reading MFK Fisher -- her experiences with produce in france -- that a tomato tasted different there -- it tasted like a tomato

3 -- our wonderful national treasure -- alice waters. -- cooking is an act of love -- and you want to serve the best -- most flavorful things that you can to your loved ones.

i don't think the the individual cells of my body can tell much difference between an organic tomato -- or a grass fed, humanely raised beef -- but i'm failing those 3 venues that i learned when i don't do them.

cooking at the end has become the most important reason of all -- i want 'the best' both for my self and those i love -- i deserve it -- and so do they.

[KurtNYC]

1. this other article and thread rips the Stanford press release / study even harder

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273201

Perhaps next Stanford can tell us that bacon is low carb or some other mis-matched strawman.

[4th law of robotics]

11. Except many people have claimed organic is more nutritious over the years

So it isn't a strawman.

Google organic + nutritious and ignore the various links to this new study and you'll find quite a few who claim organic is more nutritious.

Like say the Organic Trade Association: http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

[KurtNYC]

13. Pesticides are the driver for organic purchasers -- NOT nutrition

therefore attacking organic as no more nutritious than conventional IS a strawman.

If you Googled organic + nutritious you would have seen these:

#1 "People buy organic food for three main reasons: they believe they are safer, kinder to the environment, or healthier." NOTE: it doesn't list nutrition as one of the 3

#6 Organic food: nutrition study leaves health question unanswered. Fans of organic food will be pleased it contains fewer contaminants,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/sep/04/organic-study-health-questions?newsfeed=true

#7 Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/organic-food-isnt-more-nutritious-but-that-isnt-the-point/261929/

[4th law of robotics]

14. True/false

organic producers have in the past claimed a nutritional benefit to organic over conventional crops?

/and I specifically said to leave out references to this study. Since it's new and widely linked of course it will dominate your google search. But that wasn't the case until recently right?

//this is a classic example of moving goalposts. "Organic is so much healthier for you. It has more and better vitamins and fewer pesticides and is better for the environment". Actually no, it isn't any more nutritious. "oh we never said it was more nutritious, we only cared about the pesticides and the environment and working conditions".

[hifiguy]

21. This would seem to be logical.

Wouldn't the primary difference between an organic tomato or apple be whether preservatives or pesticides were used, assuming that the tomato or apple are of the same variety? They would otherwise be pretty much identical, wouldn't they?

[jberryhill]

2. 10 pounds of organic wheat weighs the same as 10 pounds of non-organic wheat

I'd love a research grant to investigate that claim further.

[Live and Learn]

3. +1 lol nt

[jberryhill]

4. Bottled water may be wetter than tap water

But we'll have to wait until the results are in.

[4th law of robotics]

17. In this case organic producers *have* argued

that their products are more nutritious.

[jberryhill]

22. And Wonder Bread grows healthy bodies twelve ways

The point is about what motivates people to eat organic food.

Inflated claims are made about anything by someone or another.

Was there a widespread belief in this claim?

[4th law of robotics]

23. Do you count a majority as "widespread"?

http://kdvr.com/2012/09/04/organic-vs-conventional-produce-is-one-more-nutritious/

A 2010 Nielson study showed 76 percent of people buy organic food because they think it’s healthier. Fifty-one percent buy it because they think it’s more nutritious.

[jberryhill]

26. I guess it depends on what their understanding of "nutritious" is

You know, a majority of people think "cloud computing" is adversely affected by weather conditions, since they believe it involves real clouds.

If, in a survey, "nutritious" was defined as "containing a specified set of nutrients", then I'd be inclined to agree.

But I'd bet that if you asked a followup multiple choice question on the subject, you'd find that a good many of them think "nutritious" is a synonym for "tastes good".

I doubt many in the population could come up with a working definition of the word.

Now take Wonder Bread. We never had it, but I had friends who did. Not only did their bodies fail to noticeably grow in twelve different ways, let alone one, but I don't think they were measurably healthier for it either.

[4th law of robotics]

27. And the goalposts are moved again

1) organic producers never claimed to be more nutritious.
2) ok they did claim it but people never bought organic for that reason.
3) ok they did buy it for that reason but they didn't know what nutritious meant.

Now take Wonder Bread. We never had it, but I had friends who did. Not only did their bodies fail to noticeably grow in twelve different ways, let alone one, but I don't think they were measurably healthier for it either.

We'll ignore that this is a total tangent for a moment. If someone were to test the notion that wonder bread was healthier and find in fact no it is not would you give them a pass for making that claim because most people are too stupid to understand what healthy means?

[jberryhill]

28. That is a false statement of where we've been

Where in the hell did I say this:

"1) organic producers never claimed to be more nutritious"

Don't make up shit and attribute it to me as if I said that.

Go play with your own goalposts, since you obviously have a desire to attribute to others statements they did not make.

My comment, to which you argumentatively responded was kind of a "no duh," since I never believed organic produce had a nutrient content which differed significantly from any other produce. Never heard such a claim, and don't really give a rat's ass when I shop whether the produce is organic or not. That's why I put it in terms of whether 10 pounds of X weighs the same as 10 pounds of Y.

YOU on the other hand, have an emotional need which I am obviously not going to satisfy for you.

[4th law of robotics]

29. What we know so far:

Organic producers falsely claimed their food was more nutritious than conventional foods (via the link I provided).

They are not (via the OP).

But 51% of consumers believed this is true (via the link I provided).

Any questions?

/and I'm guessing once this story dies down they will go back to claiming that organic is more nutritious than conventional.

[jberryhill]

30. What do you think you are arguing about?

Let's recap:

I said:

"10 pounds of organic wheat weighs the same as 10 pounds of non-organic wheat"

You decided to argue with that.

Why?

I have no idea.

But.... get help.

[4th law of robotics]

31. Your comment clearly implied this study was a strawman

it wasn't. It was refuting a claim actually made.

[jberryhill]

32. My comment was a joke

Okay, Rain Man?

I personally never made the claim, never heard the claim, and wouldn't have believed it if I heard it.

Your obsession is... odd.

My comment reflects my "no shit, Sherlock" reaction to the study.

But, Hallelujah, people who believe stupid shit have been saved from eating food which is no worse for them than any other food. Saints rejoice!

[byeya]

5. Organic farrming is good for the soil; traditional farming is more like mining in the sense of top

soil loss and wasted water.

[enough]

8. +1 (nt)

[central scrutinizer]

6. Labor issues as well as nutrition issues

Would you want to work in a field recently sprayed with herbicides? Also, most of the organic farmers tend to treat their workers better - better pay, better working conditions. Americans don't realize how much food should really cost due to undocumented workers working for sub minimum wage.

[xchrom]

7. +1

[4th law of robotics]

10. I've argued on here for higher pay

and shifting to legal workers in agriculture and I've been told that would make food too expensive.

As a basis for comparison on average a 2 dollar head of lettuce returns 16 cents to the laborers.

So if we were to double their wages that 2 dollar head of lettuce would skyrocket to . . . 2.16.

A 40% increase in wages will cost the average household a crippling 15 dollars a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/17/could-farms-survive-without-illegal-labor/the-costs-and-benefits-of-a-raise-for-field-workers

[LanternWaste]

24. I'd shudder to think of working in any environment consistently sprayed with herbicides

I'd shudder to think of working in any environment consistently sprayed with herbicides-- but it often seems Agribusiness wants us to not merely tolerate that, but to actually condone and defend it.

[4th law of robotics]

9. Organic is a fad for rich 1st worlders or something forced on poor third worlders

Going-local is a good idea for building up the local economy and helping the environment and giving yourself more control over how your food is produced (local entities dependent on a single market will always be more accountable than foreign entities that can suffer a few poisonings a year).

[KurtNYC]

15. Organic was the ONLY method of agriculture for thousands of years

although the term was coined in the 1940s due to the fad of spraying chemicals on food.

If organic is a fad then so is civilization.

How is organic "forced on third worlders" pray tell ? It is the way food has been grown for hundreds of generations.

[4th law of robotics]

16. Polio was the norm for thousands of years

today I would say it is forced on third worlders by poverty and lack of access to necessary resources.

Do you agree? Can something both be the norm for a long time and then be an unwelcome situation forced on you once a better alternative exists?

I know you want to get off on a tangent and start arguing that polio is nothing like organic. Fine fine, focus on my second paragraph.

[KurtNYC]

19. Your mind reading abilities are no more reliable than your ability

to follow YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

You introduced polio and then immediately said it was a tangent.

You said organic was being forced on the 3rd world. Now you say they had organic farming all along.

[4th law of robotics]

20. Wow, really? How do you not get this?

The point was that something could be our natural state for thousands of years but yet today be considered something that is forced on people by poverty because we have superior alternatives.

Yes or no to that statement?

[siligut]

38. Okay, I think I may have finally realized your point

And maybe what a couple of others are trying to communicate. The Stanford study is helpful for you because it states that nutritionally organics and conventionally grown produce are nearly the same.

No one is denying that, that is true.

[4th law of robotics]

39. Except many people, as I have cited

have claimed that organic is more nutritious. Which is a lie.

[Zoeisright]

12. The point of this article is that those who CANNOT afford organic

don't need to worry about it. Many Americans are worried about affording food, period. Promulgating the lie that organic is better for you only adds to their anxiety.

[LanternWaste]

18. I began purchasing organic three years ago due to its lack of unnecessary chemical treatments.

I began purchasing organic three years ago due to its lack of unnecessary chemical treatments. Between that, meeting many new friends at the Farmers Market, and getting a (rather late-in-life) education re: farming and distribution of farm products, it's been nothing but a positive experience.

As an aside: a tried free-range beef for the first time about three or four months ago, and from where I sit, the taste truly is staggeringly different, so I've been purchasing more and more free range from a local butcher.


But in the end, I imagine someone, somewhere will attempt to trivialize or minimize that particular type of collective change in our diets to illustrate how clever they are for out entertainment...

[hunter]

25. It's proposition 37 in California requiring labling of GMO food...

The chemically and genetically "enhanced" food industry giants are beginning to spew...

Put on your haz-mat suit.

[DeSwiss]

33. The Stanford Organic Food Study.....

...brought to you by your friends at MONSANTO and CARGILL.

I rarely accept any so-called ''study'' put out by universities and authorized agencies these days because the colleges are bought and paid-for and the government agencies (I'm looking at you FDA!) like the whole fucking system -- is corrupt as hell.

- Always checked your sources for corporate cooties, I always say......

K&R

[xchrom]

34. I can't disagree w/ you.

Who sponsors what is extremely important.

[Canuckistanian]

35. I never assumed organics were more nutritious

I buy them for what they DON'T have and the SUSTAINABLE process by which they're grown.

Sure, massive amounts of chemicals make prettier produce and a lower price, but at what long-term cost? If nothing else, encouraging organics will mean promotion of local, smaller farms and less emphasis on importing damn near everything in the produce department.

This whole Stanford study was a giant strawman for the GMO and chemical industries.

[Honeycombe8]

36. I have never read an article claiming organic food to be more nutritious. Maybe they're out there.

But I haven't seen 'em. The reason for organic food is the WHOLESOMENESS, the more natural it is (as in back to nature), the less harmful pesticides (if any pesticides at all), no hormones (meat).

[marmar]

37. k/r

[WillyT]

40. K & R !!!