Organic Food no healthier than regular food.

[MKSheppard]

Link

LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.

The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.

(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; editing by Simon Jessop)

[Tsyroc]

I thought most people bought organic foods to avoid the pesticide and herbicide residue found on regular fruits and vegetables. While organic milk is supposed to come from cows that have not had any hormones and antibiotics pumped into them. Supposedly some of that stuff was being passed on to consumers in the milk.

Personally I buy organic milk because it comes in cardboard cartons and the way it's stocked at the store I frequent I can get it with a much longer expiration date than I can with the standard milk. I'd pay the little extra just for the extra week or so in expiration over the stuff.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I mainly buy Organic because much of it is locally-produced (mainly by the Hutterite colony up north) and because often, whether this is entirely in my mind or no, it just tastes better.

[Akhlut]

The pesticide/herbicide issue still exists, though. Many pesticides and herbicides are hormone mimics, which are known to be biologically active in unintended animals (frogs and fish, for instance) to such an extent that it can influence the sex of those animals to a large degree, skewing male-female ratios.

Further, overuse of industrial agriculture products in the Midwest has contributed vastly to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, creating a hypoxic area some 6,000+ square miles in size.

So, while there might not be nutritional differences between the two, organic farming still creates less problems than industrial agriculture.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What types of food did this study look at? Things are a bit more complex than "all organic food" vs. "all conventional food." There is a huge amount of variation within each category, and I'm not terribly surprised that if you lumpt hem all into those categories that things just about even out.

[Androsphinx]

I can be PMed for the article as a PDF, if anyone is interested in reading it.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

These studies come out every once in a while, no doubt funded by agribusiness. This is no different than the studies that showed no statistical link between secondhand smoke and cancer. A person shouldn't put chemicals into his body that are scientifically known to be harmful based on statistical studies. Besides, even if organic food actually weren't better for a person, it tastes better and is less harmful to the environment to grow, especially if it isn't shipped halfway across the country before showing up on the aisle.

[MKSheppard]

These studies come out every once in a while, no doubt funded by agribusiness.

Reading comprehension is your friend:

The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

[General Zod]

These studies come out every once in a while, no doubt funded by agribusiness. This is no different than the studies that showed no statistical link between secondhand smoke and cancer. A person shouldn't put chemicals into his body that are scientifically known to be harmful based on statistical studies. Besides, even if organic food actually weren't better for a person, it tastes better and is less harmful to the environment to grow, especially if it isn't shipped halfway across the country before showing up on the aisle.

The obvious problem with "organics" (I absolutely loathe that term) is it's much more expensive, and you generally can't really produce nearly as much as traditional crops.

[Lagmonster]

These studies come out every once in a while, no doubt funded by agribusiness.

In Canada, Health Canada performs its own studies into the nutritional and health value of foods. The Canada Food Inspection Agency regulates and audits food quality and produces studies assessing same.

This is no different than the studies that showed no statistical link between secondhand smoke and cancer. A person shouldn't put chemicals into his body that are scientifically known to be harmful based on statistical studies.

I seem to recall that CFIA found at least 10% of organic crop contains pesticide residue. The US countered with figures as high as 25%. I'd have to dig through their records before I stated it with certainty, but that's what was reported. In both countries, there are a variety of 'natural', but still potentially hazardous, pesticides and growth agents which are allowable under 'organic' food production regulations (For that, I refer you to the CGSB Act CAN/CGSB 32.311). And neither matter because the same standards apply for toxicity and health.

Besides, even if organic food actually weren't better for a person, it tastes better and is less harmful to the environment to grow, especially if it isn't shipped halfway across the country before showing up on the aisle.

Taste is subjective, thus only relevant to you. Environmental impact isn't relevant to this thread.

[Alyrium Denryle]

These studies come out every once in a while, no doubt funded by agribusiness. This is no different than the studies that showed no statistical link between secondhand smoke and cancer. A person shouldn't put chemicals into his body that are scientifically known to be harmful based on statistical studies. Besides, even if organic food actually weren't better for a person, it tastes better and is less harmful to the environment to grow, especially if it isn't shipped halfway across the country before showing up on the aisle.

Load of bullshit. The entire point of using agrochemicals is to increase food yield per acre. To get the same amount of organic food as non-organic food you have to clear more land. Lots more. Moreover, while growth hormones are not used, fertilizers in the form of metric tonne after metric tonne of feces are, and the crops often use more water. This creates runoff, which eutrophicates the ocean just as well as artificial fertilizers do. Just because the fertilizers are not synthetic does not mean they are better or less harmful to the environment. Also, unless you are buying from a farmers market, the organically grown food you eat is still shipped halfway across the damn country most of the time.

Then there is your lovely ad homineum attack on the study itself. It is also probably full of shit, as the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is at a Govt funded university, and likely near ALL of their research money (and a meta analysis is about as cheap as it comes for research, just tedious) comes from the British government.

You can take your foot out of your mouth at your leisure.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only actual value in organic foods as such is the fact that they're usually far less energy intensive to produce, but that's relative since they're produced at a lower yield per acre. Only in cases where the energy required to produce the food is lower on a per ton basis is organics genuinely something to be considered, and then only in areas where farmland is not at a premium, itself. Water consumption per ton is another very important metric to consider; these two things actually determine the value of organics, not the supposed nutritional benefits, of which of course there are absolutely none, since they're the same thing.

There are, however, certain side benefits in organics which make some organic products worth buying. They're usually produced much closer to where they're consumed, which further reduces energy cost in the development and transport of foodstuffs, another positive which must be considered. Also all-organic be prepared products (for instance, the Annie's corporation soups, macaroni and cheese, etc.) are invariably produced without trans fats, MSG, and high fructose corn syrup. This makes processed organic products generally preferable to their processed non-organic competitors, but not because they're organic, but rather because the organic food philosophy tends to leave out a lot of the very bad additives which large corporations tend to put in those kinds of foods normally. Now there is the cost differential, but the lack of tranfats and so on is a genuinely positive development which makes it worth some extra money, and, for instance, I don't even have to pay it in some cases--I can get a 15-pack of Annie's macaroni and cheese at Costco for the same price as a 15-pack of Kraft that's laden with those horrible things, for instance. It's just that the individual boxes are slightly smaller in the former case... But that's good because smaller portion sizes are something Americans need to start eating anyway.

[JediToren]

At the supermarket I've noticed that organic foods like waffles and potato wedges are usually lower in fat, sugar, and colesterol than mainstream American foods. This is due to Americans loving high fat, high sugar foods in mass quantities.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At the supermarket I've noticed that organic foods like waffles and potato wedges are usually lower in fat, sugar, and colesterol than mainstream American foods. This is due to Americans loving high fat, high sugar foods in mass quantities.

I frequently see regular Organic foods which have lower levels of these than nominal "lite" diet foods, for that matter, so it is true that comparing organic and non-organic products on an exactly equal basis would come up with the conclusion that organic is no better than regular food.. Which is very true. The difference is the things that usually accompany the organic label, i.e., the reduced portions and use of less sugar, salt, and fat (esp. transfats are gone entirely), and absence of MSG and HCFS.

[madd0ct0r]

organic chicken in the UK HAS to use slower growing breeds to get the organic stamp.


Nutritionally better? probably not. Better texture? you bet.

[Broomstick]

A person shouldn't put chemicals into his body that are scientifically known to be harmful based on statistical studies.

Then don't eat peanuts - they naturally contain aflatoxins.

Don't eat quiona - it naturally contains saponins.

Don't eat tomatoes or potatoes - they contain trace amounts of toxins

Don't eat raw almonds - they contain a cyanide precursor

Don't eat honey - it contains botulism spores

It's not just a matter of toxic/non-toxic, it is also very much dose related. Virtually all plant foods contain toxins of some sort, though usually in amounts too small to trouble humans. That is why you have a liver and kidneys, to detoxify and filter out the bad stuff.

Organic food is not some Magic Food that is completely non-harmful and super good for you. It's just food. It may even be food with more pests and parasites than non-organic food. Agri-business food is not some Magic Toxin, either. There's a concept called "middle of the road' that seems to have disappeared from the modern world.

Truth is, I'm eating mostly organic vegetables right now - because I have a garden and I don't use pesticides on it. I also still buy commercially produced food. It's not something I lose sleep over, really.

Now, another concern of organic food is what may be in the soil. Some crops will readily absorb things that are very, very bad for you. I have recently learned, for example, that spinach is sometimes used to clean up lead contamination in the soil, as it picks up the element very readily. That's good because, after several years, the lead levels in such soil may drop to safe levels but meanwhile that spinach - no matter how organically grown, no matter how pesticide free - is contaminated, potentially badly enough to make you quite ill.

[General Zod]

A person shouldn't put chemicals into his body that are scientifically known to be harmful based on statistical studies.

Then don't eat peanuts - they naturally contain aflatoxins.

Don't eat quiona - it naturally contains saponins.

Don't eat tomatoes or potatoes - they contain trace amounts of toxins

Don't eat raw almonds - they contain a cyanide precursor

Don't eat honey - it contains botulism spores

It's not just a matter of toxic/non-toxic, it is also very much dose related. Virtually all plant foods contain toxins of some sort, though usually in amounts too small to trouble humans. That is why you have a liver and kidneys, to detoxify and filter out the bad stuff.

Organic food is not some Magic Food that is completely non-harmful and super good for you. It's just food. It may even be food with more pests and parasites than non-organic food. Agri-business food is not some Magic Toxin, either. There's a concept called "middle of the road' that seems to have disappeared from the modern world.

Truth is, I'm eating mostly organic vegetables right now - because I have a garden and I don't use pesticides on it. I also still buy commercially produced food. It's not something I lose sleep over, really.

Now, another concern of organic food is what may be in the soil. Some crops will readily absorb things that are very, very bad for you. I have recently learned, for example, that spinach is sometimes used to clean up lead contamination in the soil, as it picks up the element very readily. That's good because, after several years, the lead levels in such soil may drop to safe levels but meanwhile that spinach - no matter how organically grown, no matter how pesticide free - is contaminated, potentially badly enough to make you quite ill.

Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide. Its been proven to be harmful to human life if over-consumed yet people drink lots of it every year.

[aerius]

One of our local supermarkets has organic and regular versions of almost all the produce they sell, my wife & I have done taste tests on them and to be honest, we can't tell the difference with most of the stuff. Organic celery has a bit more flavour and is usually a bit more stringy as well, Gala apples are a bit smaller and taste better. Onions, carrots, peppers, mushrooms, pears, berries, potatoes, corn, it all tastes the same to me so we just buy the regular stuff.

[Batman]

Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide. Its been proven to be harmful to human life if over-consumed yet people drink lots of it every year.

Virtually EVERYTHING humans need to survive is dangerous in large enough doses. Water, oxygen, salt, vitamins...

[weemadando]

In terms of buying produce, I'll buy a mix of organic and others, but the key factor is:

Seasonal and local. Organic can be a nice touch, but I don't lose my shit about it either way.

Where I do try and go organic is in meat. Because I like my meat to be free range and as chemical free as possible.

It all comes down to the fact that I try and support farming practices which are sustainable. Which in Australia it's often hard to find.

[Lagmonster]

At the end of the day, if you somehow think non-organic isn't good enough for you, just be thankful that you live somewhere that gives you the freedom to turn down food.

I pay taxes for the assurance that the food I consume is monitored to be safe. After that, my only responsibility is to ensure that a) I actually have enough food, considering cost, and b) I have good food, considering nutritional value and taste.

[Count Chocula]

This British study doesn't seem to contain any original research. So a group of researchers analyzed 50 years' worth of other studies, then published their conclusion? Isn't that analagous to earning a PhD in Archaeology by studying the works of other archaeologists in the college library (I know, a bit of a stretch since a PhD is supposed to have original work)? And as noted, the study is focused only on the nutritional value of organic vs. "regular" food. Would it have been too much to ask for a funded study to, maybe, go buy some organic and "regular" food and have it analyzed for nutritional content? And, while they were at it, analyze what if any trace toxicity, hormones, spores, insects, or other harmful substances were in the respective foods. Just looking at other peoples' work and drawing conclusions from that seems like a lazy way to address the issue.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

This British study doesn't seem to contain any original research. So a group of researchers analyzed 50 years' worth of other studies, then published their conclusion? Isn't that analagous to earning a PhD in Archaeology by studying the works of other archaeologists in the college library (I know, a bit of a stretch since a PhD is supposed to have original work)? And as noted, the study is focused only on the nutritional value of organic vs. "regular" food. Would it have been too much to ask for a funded study to, maybe, go buy some organic and "regular" food and have it analyzed for nutritional content? And, while they were at it, analyze what if any trace toxicity, hormones, spores, insects, or other harmful substances were in the respective foods. Just looking at other peoples' work and drawing conclusions from that seems like a lazy way to address the issue.

What is the point of redoing all those experimental results? It's difficult enough to go over over hundreds of journals, each the product of hundreds of man hours, over the course of 50 years and to catalogue the whole lot them. To actually hire and pay an army of testers who would do a whole list of routine tests on every conceivable crop planted on every inch of soil, is by no means a trivial task.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not just a matter of toxic/non-toxic, it is also very much dose related. Virtually all plant foods contain toxins of some sort, though usually in amounts too small to trouble humans. That is why you have a liver and kidneys, to detoxify and filter out the bad stuff.

Organic food is not some Magic Food that is completely non-harmful and super good for you. It's just food. It may even be food with more pests and parasites than non-organic food. Agri-business food is not some Magic Toxin, either. There's a concept called "middle of the road' that seems to have disappeared from the modern world.

Yes, but if you're worried about eating pesticide and high doses animal growth hormones (and you might be) because you know your body hasn't evolved defenses against those chemicals because they weren't part of our environment until a century ago... organic food might be the answer for you. Eating half of one and half of the other won't be, and the agribusinesses won't stop using new chemicals unless someone regulates the bejeezus out of them.

Now, another concern of organic food is what may be in the soil. Some crops will readily absorb things that are very, very bad for you. I have recently learned, for example, that spinach is sometimes used to clean up lead contamination in the soil, as it picks up the element very readily. That's good because, after several years, the lead levels in such soil may drop to safe levels but meanwhile that spinach - no matter how organically grown, no matter how pesticide free - is contaminated, potentially badly enough to make you quite ill.

Is this not a concern for food grown with pesticides and such? The fact that I spray spinach with bug-killers doesn't make it any less effective at absorbing lead out of the soil.

[Isolder74]

Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide. Its been proven to be harmful to human life if over-consumed yet people drink lots of it every year.

You know you can get twice as many signatures if you use acid/base nomiclature. Say hello to Hydrogen Hydroxide!!!! H-OH