Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Organic has no health benefits

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#31

Post by jff »

If you want bruised, overpriced fruit and vegetables, head on down to the local organic market!

Spend 10 minutes to sort through a basket of tomatoes at the hippie organic market on Maui (the only store in the village) to find the four or five that aren't bruised to hell and back, then pay double price for the privilege.

And then there's the sustainability and economic problems. Can the farms near NYC produce enough organic produce to supply the whole city? How much will a head of lettuce cost if everyone is buying organic? Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?

Apparently it's already too expensive for low-income people to get fresh food--at least, we hear so every couple weeks on slow news days. Increase the popularity of organic food; it's going to get even harder for these people to get fruit and veg.

Posting this on a Silicon Valley site... thank god for the -8 point limit, because I sense many a "downvote for disagreement" coming.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#32

Post by tokenadult »

dtf wrote: post #18

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 ti…

Is the price in line with the taste?

Most of us reading HN are consumers in industrialized countries with thriving, free-market economies. For eaters in poor countries, every gain in efficiency in agriculture is a reduction in price of food for eaters who devote most of their income to food. There have to be seriously inexpensive ways to produce food in some countries for some people to eat at all.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#33

Post by omouse »

igrekel wrote: post #4

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

What's the problem with GMOs?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#34

Post by omouse »

jff wrote: post #31

If you want bruised, overpriced fruit and vegetables, head on down to the local organic market! Spend 10 minutes to sort through a basket of tomatoes at the hippie organic market on Maui (the only store in the village) to find the four or five that aren't bruised to hell and back, then pay double price for the privilege. And then there's the sustainability and economic problems. Can the farms near NYC produce enough…

You're absolutely right. It's amazing how many people have jumped on the organic bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of GMO crops and efficient farming. It's like climbing up a ladder and then kicking it away once you're at the top.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#35

Post by dasil003 »

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

Are you suggesting that we should do anything unless we can prove it's a bad idea? I'm all for science, but it is not wild superstition to think that the effects of eating trace amounts of pesticides in all our food over the course of decades might be bad for our health. Now certainly this should be studied, but how long will it take to achieve results, and how possible is it really to isolate the variables? In the meantime should we just assume superfarming methods are all a-okay?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#36

Post by easp »

DanielStraight wrote: post #25
igrekel wrote: post #4

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

Right. Who actually thought organic foods had more vitamins?

To be fair, I've met more than one pro-organic person who thinks organic foods are more nutritious. These are often the same people who worry about vague things like "toxins" from eating meat.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#37

Post by joeyo »

erikwiffin wrote: post #22
mattmaroon wrote: post #13

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…

I don't eat organic vegetables due to a lack of preservatives. I cook only for myself, and I often find my irradiated, preservative laced, genetically engineered food going bad. If I bought organic, I'd never get to eat anything. :/

An alternative is to buy locally produced food, which often is also organic. It may have a shorter shelf life, but it's sitting on your shelf most of that time, not on the shelf at the grocers waiting to be bought.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#38

Post by easp »

biohacker42 wrote: post #28
igrekel wrote: post #4

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

Avoiding pesticides is half of why I go organic the other is just plain taste. I don't know if that's because the plant varieties are different, or the method or whatever, but I've blind tested myself (no, it's not scientific, more like Mythbusters's level science) and I can easily tell the produce apart. That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.

There are a motif reasons for the better taste. Often organic produce doesn't get shipped as far, which means growers can pick varieties bread for something other than shelf-life and durability.

Also, organic farmers manage the soil differently. Intensive industrial farming depletes soils and relies on extensive use of refined fertilizers to make up forthe deficit. The soil at organic farms is often richer and plants can pick up more minerals, which can have a real impact on flavor.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#39

Post by potatolicious »

biohacker42 wrote: post #28
igrekel wrote: post #4

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

Avoiding pesticides is half of why I go organic the other is just plain taste. I don't know if that's because the plant varieties are different, or the method or whatever, but I've blind tested myself (no, it's not scientific, more like Mythbusters's level science) and I can easily tell the produce apart. That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.

Agreed. I bought a bundle of organic cilantro a little while back and it was stinking up the place (in a good way) that normal cilantro simply doesn't. Much or the organic stuff just tastes better.

This goes doubly for eggs - organic & free-range eggs are just a world apart from regular farm eggs.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#40

Post by zngtk4 »

igrekel wrote: post #4

Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.

But has there been any evidence ever that the pesticides used on foods are harmful? Or is it all just fear?
Post reply on HN