organic food no healthier than non-organic food

lepelaar · **Posted:** Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:43 am

I always thought that the idea behind organic agriculture is that it's better for biodiversity. I've never expected it to be inherently healthier.

supercarrot · **Posted:** Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:08 am

but how do you explain the obvious difference in strawberries? organic ones are deeeeeep red, and grocery store ones are not so much. (perhaps it's just that the grocery store ones were picked underripe, but still. i'm still not willing to accept the study as-is.)

joshua · **Posted:** Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:22 am

supercarrot wrote:

but how do you explain the obvious difference in strawberries? organic ones are deeeeeep red, and grocery store ones are not so much. (perhaps it's just that the grocery store ones were picked underripe, but still. i'm still not willing to accept the study as-is.)

I'd wager you're on the right track - strawberries picked young and shipped halfway across the planet in between stints in cool-rooms, versus perfectly-ripe picked-yesterday (I'm picking on both extremes here, but some of the best strawberries I've had weren't organic but were super fresh from a very loving farm)

GraciaKai · **Posted:** Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:34 am

All I know is that the organic blueberries I get taste a million times better than the conventional ones that were grown a few miles from my house. I'm in NJ and we are the land of blueberries, but the local ones available to me don't hold a candle to the organic option from Washington that were flown across the country to get to me.

If I eat a blueberry I want it to taste like a freaking blueberry, it should be fresh, tart, sweet, and firm. Not a mushy bland blue blob. I'm going for taste and quality of the overall produce and fruit I buy when it comes to organic versus conventional.

joshua · **Posted:** Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:24 pm

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

seems to parrot many things already said here, but nice to have it somewhere accessible for the masses also

Vantine · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:12 pm

I thought this was interesting because of the comments that NPR received. They basically hurt people's feelings...

raynedropp · **Joined:** Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:44 am **Posts:** 174

It took me a minute to dig this up, but it's interesting. Apparently this guy wrote an article critical of the study and it was... cyber attacked? Not sure I totally believe it, but the articles are interesting anyway. http://www.nationofchange.org/article-debunking-organic-food-hit-piece-targeted-massive-cyber-attack-1346858121

Tofulish · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:16 pm

The Natural News ran an article talking about the connections between the scientists involved in the study and Big Tobacco and the fact that Stanford has ties to Cargill.

Quote:

Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

The evidence we show here (see below) demonstrates how this study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food. The era is different, but the anti-science tactics are the same (and many of the quack science players are the same!).

Chipmunk · **Posted:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:51 am

I wonder why they're attacking the people involved instead of explaining what's wrong with the statistical methods used or reanalyzing the data (I don't really; this is after all Natural News). Do they think the peer reviewers and editors are in on the conspiracy too? What about the statisticians who have read the paper and declined to comment?

This is what the last paragraph of the paper actually says

Quote:

In summary, our comprehensive review of the published literature on the comparative health outcomes, nutrition, and safety of organic and conventional foods identified limited evidence for the superiority of organic foods. The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

lepelaar · **Posted:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:59 am

Natural News calling anyone else "anti-science" or "quack" is the height of hypocrisy.

Vantine · **Posted:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:15 am

lepelaar wrote:

Natural News calling anyone else "anti-science" or "quack" is the height of hypocrisy.

Hey, now! Anyone who uses Alex Jones as a legitimate news source is...wait, what were we talking about?

Don't worry about organic food, according to the "Health Ranger" Obama is going to take over all of America and force us to live in a dictatorship. Plus, vaccines are a conspiracy, the Anonymous take down of GoDaddy was a psyop by the US government, and every bit of science news he doesn't like is a because of a payoff from "Big Pharma."

Sometimes, there is no scientific evidence to support ideas that we hold dear. That's life. The difference between science and faith is that science is willing to change its mind.

linanil · **Posted:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:57 am

See that is the problem with science, changing it's mind. If science was so good, wouldn't it be right the first time? silly science

supercarrot · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:28 am

yes, thank you for registering and bumping an old thread to say the same thing that was in the very first post that we had already discussed how it might have been a flawed study.

also, vitamins and nutrient content shouldn't be the only metric we measure by. how about the health of the soil? how about streams downhill? how about micro ecosystems near the farm? how about the health effects on the pesticide applicators? even if the study is true (which chances are, it's not) organic is still better for everyone involved. (except the pesticide companies.)

mrsbadmouth · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:42 am

(That was spam.)

Tofulish · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:01 am

(Yes, but was it organic?)

supercarrot · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:20 am

oh, ok. it didn't have a link they were promoting, so i just thought it was a dummy.

lepelaar · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:55 am

There was a www link in their profile. Sneaky mustard.

Moon · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:57 am

Tofulish wrote:

(Yes, but was it organic?)

Organic SPAM probably isn't vegan.

Spam spam spam spam spammity spam wonderful spam!

Sorry, had a Monty Python moment there.

supercarrot · **Posted:** Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:40 am

lepelaar wrote:

There was a www link in their profile. Sneaky mustard.

oh! that WAS sneaky.

Post Punk Kitchen Forum

organic food no healthier than non-organic food

Who is online