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

41–50 of 137 posts

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#41

Post by tokenadult »

dasil003 wrote: post #35
tokenadult wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Generally the most industrialized countries with the most modernized agriculture have people living the longest lives with least morbidity, so we have to wonder about the effect sizes of some of the issues we are worrying about here. As I mentioned in another post in this thread, plants "naturally" have toxins to prevent their being eaten, and human beings have had to develop cooking and selective breeding over time (and some agricultural practices that reduce production of those phytotoxins) to increase the safety of what they eat.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/wrangham/wrangham_index.html

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#42

Post by by »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #7
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.

Also, this study looked at the people eating the food, and ignored the people growing the good. Obviously, farmers are exposed to pesticides (and other petrochemicals) in much greater concentrations than consumers....

According to the abstact of the study, which the BBC do not link, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 the objective was "We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." and it was "restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients". The word 'nutrient' according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient does not cover pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth hormones and all the other medicines and chemicals excluded by organic farmers.

The study, according to the link above, did not conclude that 'Organic has no health benefits'.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#43

Post by lutorm »

omouse wrote: post #34
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.

I don't understand your point. What are the supposed benefits of GMO grops that makes it easier for me to eat organic? Are you talking about global food supply? If so, there are many other issues we can bring up, one being that most food grown in the US goes either to animal feed or to plants that make HFCS and a slew of other things that don't really count as "food" to me.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#44

Post by lutorm »

DannoHung wrote: post #23

I really think more people need to worry about eating nonprocessed food before they start discriminating between organic or not.

That's a good point, in a choice between eating nonorganic fresh vegetables and an "organic" TV dinner it's likely the veggies come out on top.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#45

Post by butterfi »

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…

"Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?"

Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses? I remember a time when large parts of Los Angeles were fruit trees, and are now strip malls and parking lots.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#46

Post by raintrees »

omouse wrote: post #33
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?

Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me.

I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects.

Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties...

Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures.

Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto.

And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it.

All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#47

Post by jff »

butterfi wrote: post #45
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…

"Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?" Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses? I remember a time when large parts of Los Angeles were fruit trees, and are now strip malls and parking lots.

Because to LA residents, milk and apples come from the store, not from cows and trees. I jest... partly.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#48

Post by Retric »

apgwoz wrote: post #10
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.

Exactly. The article avoids the "truth" as to why most people even eat Organic. The health benefits in eating organic are in what you aren't eating (e.g. pesticides, etc).

It's also just a strait up lie.

"Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. "

PS: There is a difference between saying there is no significant effect vs. no effect.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#49

Post by michael_h »

omouse wrote: post #33
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?

It's a risk/benefit problem. If things go wrong, we're talking about serious and permanent damage. What if roundup-ready plants end up messing with the bee population (or whatever)? What will happen to species down the food chain? What affects will arise after a while from bio-magnification? Point is, nobody yet knows. GMOs are fine, but you had better be 100% sure of what the consequences are.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#50

Post by pyre »

tokenadult wrote: post #30
parenthesis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head, other questions to consider are: • The environmental effects of different methods of farming and food production. • Are toxins more or less present in the food produced by different methods? • Is the food more or less pleasurable to eat?

Are toxins more or less present in the food produced by different methods? This is a good question to ask, because most plants contain phytotoxins adapted to keep microbes or animals from eating them. Human selective breeding of plants already has made plants less toxic as human foods, and human bioengineering of plants could help some kinds of plants become still less toxic to human eaters. http://www3.interscience.…

Out of curiosity, what would be the point of making a fruit toxic to animals? I thought that animals eating a ripe fruit was the entire reason for the fruit (to distribute seeds).
Post reply on HN