Live data from Hacker News

Organic has no health benefits

news.bbc.co.uk

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste. It would be interesting to do a blind taste-test between organic and non-organic produce ... Pepsi Challenge style.

Interestingly enough that has been done with rats: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/dining/03curi.html

And the rats preferred organic.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#72
post #64
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Vague? So high cholesterol, hormones, high saturated fat, and heterocyclic amines are essential nutrients and not toxic to our bodies?

Saturated fat?

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&#38...

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#73
post #51
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but efficient farming is having a negative impact on the biosphere. Like with most issues, the question is "Where do we draw the line?" More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity_an... http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/modern_agriculture.htm...

Those list just a few studies and it looks like they are conflicting? I can't discuss this issue properly because I don't know enough about it.

I would prefer whichever method is both efficient and environmentally-safe. I'm just annoyed by the currently fashionable knee-jerk reaction of people that assume organic farming is better.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#74
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politi…

Thats all fine, Monstanto is not nice. Again: whats wrong with GMO food?

There's nothing wrong with GMO.

The current applications of it are however completely uninteresting to me. They center around higher yields. That's achieved through pesticide resistance and pest resistance. There's also some for other properties like shipability.

None of those features interest me. And despite the fact that the risk from them is arbitrarily close to zero, I chose not consume them, simply because again I don't see anything I care about.

Lower prices don't tempt me because I can easily afford food. Additionally I am quite upset about agricultural subsidies and protectionism and would like to see those go away. Thus price reductions not related to the elimination of farm subsidies only serve to remind me of my anger at this policy.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#75
post #33
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?

I was thinking about this the other day, a couple things that came to mind were - Is it not due to genetic diversity that we see the great complexity of species that have evolved on this planet, and the resiliency of the biosphere?

It would seem that the introduction of species that are in many ways genetically identical would lead to similar problems that are found in the monoculture crop production of industrial farming, i.e. greater susceptibility to pests and disease.

I also get the feeling that potential risks are not properly accounted for in the current system where wealth is often seen as arbitrary fiat capital and not as the health of our environment, the real wealth as it allows human beings to flourish and fuels the wealth of our ideas and actions.

Say there were detrimental effects of gmo food consumption how long would it take the public to become informed? There is still widespread use of plastics and chemicals with documented scientifically evidenced deleterious health effects. I suspect more people are 'marketed to' than read scientific reports.

There are the classic 'case study accomplishments' of gmo like the modified rice that provided vitamin A to a malnourished population. Counterpoint to this is that we live on an abundantly productive planet and the obstacles to proper nourishment of the members of our species are typically political.

We don't see large percentages of other species that are under-nourished, we also don't see other species that have developed lopsided and convoluted systems as ours have.

Regarding Monsanto et al. -

" Big Biotech with Monsanto leading the pack wants to replace those millions of years with seeds like the Terminator (named for the action hero governor of California) which goes sterile after one growing cycle and obligates farmers (they sign binding contracts with Monsanto) to buy more, a process Mexican investigator Silvia Ribiero tags "bio-slavery". " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross02142007.html

" Farmers are forced to sign contracts, agreeing to buy GMO seed at a company-fixed price. Monsanto's super-duper "Terminator" seed, named after California's action hero governor, goes sterile after one growing cycle and the campesinos are obligated to buy more. By getting hooked on Monsanto, Mexican farmers, once seed savers and repositories themselves of the knowledge of their inner workings, become consumers of seed, an arrangement that augurs poorly for the survival of Mexico's many native corns. "

If the number of corn species declines what happens if something like Panama disease that affects bananas were to strike corn crops? Ever more genetic modification, beholden to just a few large corporations for the solution?

A cynic might point out a certain degree of environmental havoc might work to the benefit of gmo companies as far as the short-sighted goals of a fiat currency profit are concerned.

" Moreover, as farmers from other climes who have resisted Monsanto and refused to buy into the GMO blitz, have learned only too traumatically, pollen blowing off contaminated fields will spread to non-GMO crops. Even more egregiously, Monsanto will then send "inspectors" (often off-duty cops) to your farm and detect their patented strains in your fields and charge you with stealing the corporation's property. "

" Mexican corn is, of course, not the only native crop that is being disappeared by global capitalism. Native seeds are under siege from pole to pole. In Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together to form the birthplace of agriculture, one of the very first acts of George Bush's neo-colonial satrap L. Paul Brenner was to issue the notorious Order 81 criminalizing the possession of native seeds. The U.S. military spread out throughout the land distributing little packets of GMO seeds, the euphemistically dubbed Operation "Amber Waves." To make sure that Iraq would no longer have a native agriculture, the national seed bank, located at Abu Ghraib, was looted and set afire. " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross11212007.html

To see a company attempting to become an arbiter of food supply by claiming property rights over plants that have evolved to the benefit of all the species on this planet naturally raises some questions and opposition.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#76
post #72
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vague? So high cholesterol, hormones, high saturated fat, and heterocyclic amines are essential nutrients and not toxic to our bodies?

Saturated fat? http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&#38...

Yes, saturated fats are the molecular basis of many hormones including testosterone and estrogen. You may need very little of them but you do need some.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#77
post #60
post #53

The assertion of the study, "Organic foods are not more nutritious" is a function of the metrics used to measure "nutritious". Did they check trace mineral content? Did they check phyto-nutrient levels? No, in fact, they checked nothing at all. This was not a study. It was a meta-study. Meta-analysis is a very poor tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Weaknesses Note in particular the File Drawer Problem.…

Organic food doesn't taste better. In fact, it can taste worse. There is an enormous amount of variation in taste of any given food each season, each harvest, each field, etc. You're just telling yourself what you want to believe.

Yes, and in any given season, all things being equal, organic food tastes better. You are just telling yourself what you want to believe.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#78
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GMOs significantly increase crop yields and are helping feed a growing world population. I think most of the world is willing to take the risk of a few genes getting loose for the benefit of keeping the world fed.

Except when they don't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/Th...

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#79
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saturated fat? http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&#38...

Yes, saturated fats are the molecular basis of many hormones including testosterone and estrogen. You may need very little of them but you do need some.

Did you notice the link and decide to respond with a non sequitur, or just miss the link?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#80
post #72
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vague? So high cholesterol, hormones, high saturated fat, and heterocyclic amines are essential nutrients and not toxic to our bodies?

Saturated fat? http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&#38...

Pop science doesn't vindicate textbook science which still discourages high amounts of saturated fat.

And the Massai (and Inuit) referred to in your link are hardly good examples. They have short lifespans (as low as in the 40s), suffer from atherosclerosis and thickening of the arteries. The Inuit are also not long lived and have a high rate of osteoporosis. These groups' "adaptation" to a high protein meat diet is hardly desirable. They are forced to eat a high meat diet out of circumstances, not as a chosen optimal way of life.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 95, No. 1: 26-37

ATHEROSCLEROSIS IN THE MASAI

Post reply on HN