Organic food not quite healthier according to study.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jericho

Jericho

New member
Pretty much knew this myself. Organic is really just a buzz word so they can charge you more money. It fits right up there with antioxidant
 
Haha, I'm glad I never bought the whole "organic" trend. You're totally right- They slap the so-called Organic label on something just so they can jack up the price.
 
The article was more about a lack of much real data. There is probably a good reason for that; organic is such a fuzzy concept, it would be hard to design a scientific study.

Actually, I always thought of organic food as a wacky hippie concept, and never thought it would go mainstream as it has.
 
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. These ultimatum it's either 100% good or 100% bad mindsets are silly.

Organic does not and never has meant "more nutritious". As far as I know, no organization (legit organization) has ever said that organic foods are more nutritious than "regular" foods.

Nor is organic a "fuzzy concept" in the sense of certified organic foods.

Food that is organic - and in the sense of certified organic, not some amorphous version of organic - means that the items in question were raised w/out hormones, chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, etc. For crops it means they are grown in fields that have not been chemically fertilized or pest treated for a period of time (I believe it's 3 years, but that might be wrong). For animals it means they are not treated with anti-biotics or hormones.

“What is organic food? Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.” Consumer Brochure, USDA National Organic Program,
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that the concept is not abused. The USDA definitions are loosey-goosey enough that some items do creep through and get called "organic" when they're not. The penalties for calling something organic when it isn't are also a bit wishy-washy ... and enforcement is not always consistent.

But bottom line is that "organic" is NOT just some marketing mumbo-jumbo or a "wacky hippy concept". For those of us who actually care about where our food comes from and how modern farming techniques are destroying land and screwing with our world ... organic DOES have a meaning.

It doesn't mean healthier in the sense of more nutrients. It means healthier in the sense of less treated, fewer chemicals, less contamination, and a more earth-friendly method of growing and producing the food we eat.
 
I like the taste of organic milk better than regular milk but other than that I can't tell the difference between the two labels.
 
Also it seems that no one is taking into account the last paragraphs of the original article:

While questions remain as to whether organic foods have any extra nutritional value, people buy organic for a number of other reasons as well.

Organic foods are made without the use of conventional pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics or hormones — which could potentially reap benefits for people's health and the environment.

The current review, Dangour and his colleagues point out, did not look for studies on the possible health benefits of reduced exposure to those substances. Nor did it address the environmental impact of organic food production.
Click to expand...

So again, not just a "buzzword" or a "hippie concept".
 
KaraCooks said:
Nor is organic a "fuzzy concept" in the sense of certified organic foods.

Food that is organic - and in the sense of certified organic, not some amorphous version of organic - means that the items in question were raised w/out hormones, chemical fertilizers,
Click to expand...
All fertilizers are chemicals.
chemical pesticides, etc.
Click to expand...
All pesticides are chemicals. Everything is chemicals.
For crops it means they are grown in fields that have not been chemically fertilized or pest treated for a period of time (I believe it's 3 years, but that might be wrong). For animals it means they are not treated with anti-biotics or hormones.



That doesn't mean that the concept is not abused. The USDA definitions are loosey-goosey enough that some items do creep through and get called "organic" when they're not. The penalties for calling something organic when it isn't are also a bit wishy-washy ... and enforcement is not always consistent.

But bottom line is that "organic" is NOT just some marketing mumbo-jumbo or a "wacky hippy concept". For those of us who actually care about where our food comes from and how modern farming techniques are destroying land and screwing with our world ... organic DOES have a meaning.

It doesn't mean healthier in the sense of more nutrients. It means healthier in the sense of less treated, fewer chemicals, less contamination, and a more earth-friendly method of growing and producing the food we eat.
Click to expand...
So, nothing tangible. In order to show a benefit, you are going to have to do some kind of scientific test. What would that be?

If you try to test organic food versus food grown with "chemicals" you will have to specify which chemicals. There are zillions of them. And they have already been tested before they were approved.

Now I know that the organic kooks will tell you all those tests mean nothing. It all fixed. Archer-Daniels-Midland blah, blah, blah. Nonsense.
 
All fertilizers are chemicals.
Click to expand...
Really? Cow manure is a chemical?

Everything is chemicals.
Click to expand...
Ok, if you want to get that pedantic about it, everthing we eat, breathe, wear, drink ... all those things are "chemicals". Water is a chemical by definition. You're playing semantic games to try to discredit a legitimate and valid method of farming and livestock production.

In order to show a benefit, you are going to have to do some kind of scientific test. What would that be?
Click to expand...
Really. So you think that eating a chicken shot full of antibiotics and hormones to promote growth is just exactly the same as eating a chicken that was raised w/out those things? Or drinking milk from a cow injected with Bovine Recombinate Growth Hormone in order to get her to produce more milk is the same as drinking milk from a cow not treated with hormones?

Again, semantic games.

Now I know that the organic kooks will tell you all those tests mean nothing. It all fixed. Archer-Daniels-Midland blah, blah, blah. Nonsense.
Click to expand...
I guess that makes me an Organic Kook. I happen to believe that we're better off eating food as close to it's natural state as possible. I do believe that ADM, AgCon, and all those other "big food" industries are damaging us in ways that we don't even understand yet. I do believe that sourcing my food from ethical producers - and yes making sure that my animals weren't shot up with antibiotics and hormones and my fruit and veggies were grown w/out the use of - let's call them MANUFACTURED fertilizers - is important.

So I'll take the label of Organic Kook with pride. I'd rather that than Cynical Apologist for the Industrial Food Manufacturing Complex. [damn the javascript that won't let me put smileys in - there's a wink and a grin there - not meant to be as harsh as it comes across w/out the smileys]
 
Last edited:
You realize that it is those big food makers who own almost the entire 'organic' market.

And Harold's word splitting is on the money. That's what they do, they split hairs on the wording so that 'all natural' and 'no chemcials' food is no better than regular food.
 
KaraCooks said:
Really. So you think that eating a chicken shot full of antibiotics and hormones to promote growth is just exactly the same as eating a chicken that was raised w/out those things? Or drinking milk from a cow injected with Bovine Recombinate Growth Hormone in order to get her to produce more milk is the same as drinking milk from a cow not treated with hormones?

Again, semantic games.
Click to expand...
All you are being asked to do is to link to some scientific studies that show that there is indeed a meaningful difference.
 
You realize that it is those big food makers who own almost the entire 'organic' market.
Click to expand...
You don't have to buy from the big food makers. And if you do, you can influence how they make food by choosing to buy foods that are not overly processed - the more people who buy the less processed food, the more they're going to be swayed to make food that way. Supply and demand at work.

And Harold's word splitting is on the money. That's what they do, they split hairs on the wording so that 'all natural' and 'no chemcials' food is no better than regular food.
Click to expand...
Well no. I disagree.

You seem to be focusing on one element of the whole "organic" concept - which is that organic food is better for humans.

Many of us who choose to purchase organic food, choose to do so not because we believe the food is necessarily better for US, but better for the environment and more humane when it comes to how animals are raised.

For example ... using rGBH as one case (from the wikipedia article which has links to the studies referenced:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin):

Two meta-analyses have been published on rBST's effects on bovine health.[8][9] Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. However, the study did not show if using "natural" growth hormones had the same or worse effects (the study in fact notes that synthetic BST can be made to be identical to natural BST). The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.

A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[10] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the recommendations of external committees were that, despite not finding a significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada.[11]
Click to expand...

The jury is still out on whether rGBH milk is good or bad or neutral for humans. The studies are pretty conclusive that injecting cows with rGBH is bad for the cows in all kinds of ways.

I choose to drink milk and consume milk products provided by local dairies (as much as possible) where the cows have not been injected with rGBH or antibiotics.

I don't do it because I believe the milk is somehow better for me (although as I said, the jury is out on that). I do it because not injecting the cows with a genetically altered hormone to force them to lactate is (IMO) a better thing for the environment, the humane raising of the cow, and the world at large.

I'm really getting tired of hearing that "organic is a scam" or "organic is a buzzword". It's not. It's not the holy grail that some people make it out to be, but there ARE valid reasons to consume organic foods.

And quite frankly it's a little freakin' insulting to be classed as a mindless idiot who buys "organic" because she's too stupid to know the difference.

And btw, Jericho, that article you linked is so biased as to make me laugh out loud. There are no actual studies referenced in anything he wrote, just a bunch of opinions stated as facts.
 
Last edited:
I think most people who buy organic food have some expectation that it will have health benefits. Maybe it will, but I certainly do not assume that it will. Will hormones fed to cows have an effect on the person eating the beef or drinking the milk? I don't know. I'd like to see the evidence one way or another. Somehow it made it through the USDA approval process.

Natural is not necessarily healthier than synthetic. Asbestos is natural. So is uranium.

As far as the environment is concerned, I would not assume organic is better there, either. Fertilizers and pesticides increase the yield per acre, so if everybody used organic methods, we might need to clear cut some Amazon rain forest to grow enough food.
 
KaraCooks said:
Many of us who choose to purchase organic food, choose to do so not because we believe the food is necessarily better for US, but better for the environment and more humane when it comes to how animals are raised.
Click to expand...





Less bias for you?
 
I think most people who buy organic food have some expectation that it will have health benefits
Click to expand...
Sure ... because it's been hyped as "healthier". Some people just believe hype. But just because there's hype and just because people believe the hype doesn't mean that whatever benefits there are, are negated.

Will hormones fed to cows have an effect on the person eating the beef or drinking the milk? I don't know. I'd like to see the evidence one way or another. Somehow it made it through the USDA approval process.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep pushing the "healthy" aspect and keep totally ignoring everything I've typed about things I spoke to that are my (and many others') reasons for choosing milk from hormone free cows - namely the humane treatment of the animals that we cultivate for food, whether as a source of food (milk) or as food themselves (chickens, beef, pigs, etc.) Some of us believe that this is AS important as any other choice we make in how we choose our food.

And just because something has passed the USDA process doesn't make it safe. It just means it passed. Again, as I pointed out in another thread, the USDA considers french fries to count as vegetables for the purposes of determining the nutritional value of school children's meals. I don't necessarily trust the USDA any further than I can spit.

Natural is not necessarily healthier than synthetic. Asbestos is natural. So is uranium.
Click to expand...
Totally agree and I have made similar posts when people talk about taking herbal medications because they're (natural). Natural is not necessarily better ... nor is it necessarily safe. Belladonna is natural. A snake is natural. You can still get bitten by a "natural" rattlesnake and die from it.

My argument here is not "natural for the sake of natural".

Fertilizers and pesticides increase the yield per acre, so if everybody used organic methods, we might need to clear cut some Amazon rain forest to grow enough food.
Click to expand...
That's a tired argument that the anti-organic crowd uses again and again. Increased yields per acre deplete the soil faster than traditional methods of farming, requiring more fertilizer, resulting in more depletion, etc., etc., etc. ... vicious cycle. We could still grow enough food for our population if we localized food again and quit relying on monster organizations to feed the entire nation. Sure it might mean that you couldn't have grocery stores full of cheap (and tasteless) hundreds of varieties of veggies and fruit, but would that truly be so horrible?

I'm really not understanding the knee jerk reactions here against organic. It's just as unreasonable to insist that organic is the masturbatory fantasy of the hippie-dippy crowd than it is to insist that organic is the be-all-and-end-all of the food world.

Absolutism is silly in either direction.
 
Less bias for you?
Click to expand...
Somewhat.

But I find it interesting that you take an article that is heavily qualified (see my emphasis below) and use it to make some kind of absolutist statement about how organic methods are not any better than industrial ag.

The report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found "many" organic products had lower ecological impacts than conventional methods using fertilisers and pesticides. But academics at the Manchester Business School (MBS), who conducted the study, said that was counterbalanced by other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken - which are significantly less energy efficient and can be more polluting than intensively-farmed equivalents.

Ken Green, professor of environmental management at MBS, who co-wrote the report, said: "You cannot say that all organic food is better for the environment than all food grown conventionally. If you look carefully at the amount of energy required to produce these foods you get a complicated picture. In some cases, the carbon footprint for organics is larger."

The study did not take into account factors such as the increased biodiversity created by organic farming or the improved landscape.

The report said: "There is certainly insufficient evidence available to state that organic agriculture overall would have less of an environmental impact than conventional agriculture.
Click to expand...

Again ... knee jerk absolutist reactions baffle me. Why the hostility towards people trying to get back to a less "fucked around with" method of producing our food?
 
Here's a counterpoint article for you. Not from a completely unbiased source, but at least it offers references and links to studies:



(The article was featured on NPR, which is where I first heard of it: )
 
I still find it hilarious that the "organic" food I choose to buy is looked down upon by anyone (and I say "organics" because going over the entire span of human existence almost all the food we ate was "organic". NON organic food is the real oddity in the grand scheme of things.)

If giving the option between chemical injected commercially produced mutant chickens, and chickens that come from a farm I can literally drive past (and that looks like an actual farm) yea... I don't mind paying an extra 98 cents a pound for that.

An option between eggs that come from chickens that live their entire lives in a cage never moving, and buying them for 2 dollars a dozen from a local women in town that picks them off the ground herself, yea, I'll pay an extra dollar a dozen there. Don't even have to give that one a second thought (by the by, "organic" eggs have rich orange-yellow yolks as opposed to pale yellow and have a much better taste).

As for milk, organic milk to me just has a better taste. I can drink skim milk in a good organic milk and I really won't in a regular milk. On top of that, unhomogenized milk is the best thing ever made by god. My lord that is some good stuff. If you have never had it, you should. I am a milk fiend, so paying a little more for milk here is better for my diet than anything, especially since I only buy whole milk. I am way less likely to chug the good stuff. Rather sip it like a fine brandy...

And nothing has such a more dramatic taste difference to me than beef. It just tastes more...beefier. LoL

And yes, due to the increased popularity of organics in the food industry a lot of big name companies are producing organic foods. If they are true organics, I don't care either way, but for a lot of things I choose to buy from companies that are located a few counties over from me or closer rather than across the country. It's not hard to figure out which these are. The closer it was made to you, probably the better it is for you.

Is my entire post opinion? Oh yea. I didn't even try to find any articles to support "organics". The whole things just seems so silly. Common sense should tell you food in its most natural state is probably better for you. What if we just don't know what these "chemicals" are doing to us as a people long term?

You can shove articles down my throat all day, but It won't change how these foods taste to me, or that ethically I believe it's a better choice, or that given the two options I'm going to take the one I KNOW isn't going to hurt me or my family rather than the one that might (even if it probably won't).
 
Penn & Teller said it best in the episode of Bullshit about Organic food.

It's a religion to those who believe in it.

Facts and science will phase no one who is absolutely sure of it. I'm going to step out of this one. I just thought the article was interesting.
 
Last edited:
Wow. That was just insulting and downright rude.

I lost a lot of respect for you Jericho in this thread. I'm pretty stunned at your closed-minded refusal to acknowledge that there is some validity in the idea of growing/raising food in a less processed manner.

[edit - I removed the profanity since some have objected to it, despite others use of profanity in this same thread. I stand by the comment that it's insulting and rude to imply that I'm ignoring science and fact because I'm treating organic as "a religion to those who believe in it"]
 
Last edited:
Wow some serious debate here! I love that

Now, some thoughts, not backed up by logs or a scientific study that I am aware of...


Didn't our human race eat organic not to long ago? I am part of the generation that is supposed to live less than their parents, and though food is not the ONE reason, I believe it is part of it. As well as our human race used to be more active, and our environment and stress levels were different.

As for organic food, its a new term on an old practice. That's like calling breast feed natural milk as opposed to formula.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top