Organic has no health benefits • Hacker News Board

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#11

Post by NickM » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:26 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #3

gamache wrote: post #2

It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…

To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly. What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

The article only seemed to be talking about the levels of nutrients found in organic vs non-organic foods. I would certainly suspect that the levels of pesticides and other such chemicals could also have a huge impact on health.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#12

Post by adamhowell » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:26 PM UTC

Nutritional science is broken. Boiling (pun intended) fruits and vegetables down to their individual nutrients is the only way we know how to measure their supposed benefits -- but nutrients don't act alone in foods, they act in combination with everything else in the food. But since we still can't measure that, we don't.

Also, reductionist nutritional science makes it possible for Lucky Charms to tout health benefits on the front of their box by listing individual nutrients. This is profitable for the food industry.

For more I'd recommend "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#13

Post by mattmaroon » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:28 PM UTC

I don't eat organic vegetables because I believe they are significantly better for me health-wise. I do so where possible because they're tastier (having not been engineered to retain excess water to increase weight for sale) and MUCH better for the environment.

I do limit myself to organic/all natural prepared foods though due to lack of preservatives. See In Defense of Food as to why. There's very little doubt that stuff is awful for your health.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#14

Post by gamache » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:29 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #3

gamache wrote: post #2

It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…

To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly. What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

'Verifiable' is the tough part. That is not my job.

But if I were to give it a shot, I might investigate the effects of pesticide runoff on the farming environment, and those who live around it. Or animal farms' antibiotic carpet-bombing's effect on drug-resistance of pathogens. Or the effects of farming chemical production on those who live near the factories.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#15

Post by RyanMcGreal » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:30 PM UTC

gamache wrote: post #2

It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…

Not only that: it showed that there is little or no difference in nutrition for the specific nutrients studied - despite the fact that nutrition does not reduce to a few vitamins and minerals.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#16

Post by wglb » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:30 PM UTC

adamhowell wrote: post #12

Nutritional science is broken. Boiling (pun intended) fruits and vegetables down to their individual nutrients is the only way we know how to measure their supposed benefits -- but nutrients don't act alone in foods, they act in combination with everything else in the food. But since we still can't measure that, we don't. Also, reductionist nutritional science makes it possible for Lucky Charms to tout health benefit…

Excellent counter.

In Omnivore's Dilemma, he notes that there exists evidence that the old idea about nutrition being reduceable to just three basic components is likely to be wrong.

If you don't know where to look for evidence, it is quite likely you aren't going to find it.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#17

Post by easp » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:31 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #3

gamache wrote: post #2

It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…

To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly. What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

A PCB laced hamburger and one with no such contamination are going to have the same nutritional content.

Really though, part of the point of organic food is that it dumps less crap in the environment. Even if the direct impact on human health is non existent, less fertilizer runoff means fewer low oxygen deadzones at the mouth of major rivers, which means more fish, etc.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#18

Post by dtf » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:34 PM UTC

I don't know, what's a consumer to do? I read this, and then the side panel has links to three previous BBC News articles:

- Organic produce 'better for you': £12m study shows organic food contains more antioxidants and less fatty acids.

- Organic food 'better' for heart: 10 year study shows tomatoes contain more antioxidants.

- Organic veg given health boost: research shows soup made from organic veg contains six times more aspirin (?!)

Many of these kinds of stories seem to have the grubby handprints of PR companies all over them. Are antioxidants good or bad? I don't even know any more...

Until I know any better, I'll be sticking to my trusty two criteria:

1. Does it taste good?

2. Is the price in line with the taste?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#19

Post by mcantelon » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:35 PM UTC

"...there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health"

Sounds like the tobacco lobby of yesteryear.

Given the fact that cancer is on the rise and I have a choice between food treated with carcinogens and food not treated with carcinogens, I'll take the food not treated with carcinogens, thanks.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#20

Post by GHFigs » Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 4:36 PM UTC

As is typical for science reporting, the headline makes a broader claim than the article itself: "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." (emphasis mine)