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

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#91

Post by sammyo »

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.

Some food is grown for visual appeal as well as more realistic goals as increased shelf life or disease resistance. The huge beautiful, yet almost flavorless Golden Delicious being a classic example.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#92

Post by billswift »

Femur wrote: post #67
michael_h wrote: post #49

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.

Actually, the two biggest benefits of GMOs should lead to their support by environmentalists; the fact that most environmentalists oppose GMOs, without knowing anything about the science in my experience, show their opposition is religious rather than rational. The two benefits are 1) because of their higher yields, less land need be cultivated, letting much go "back to nature", and 2) GMOs mostly need less cultivation, which means less fuels for tractors and less transportation for fertilizers, and less requirements for many pesticides.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#93

Post by jacquesm »

billswift wrote: post #92
Femur wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, the two biggest benefits of GMOs should lead to their support by environmentalists; the fact that most environmentalists oppose GMOs, without knowing anything about the science in my experience, show their opposition is religious rather than rational. The two benefits are 1) because of their higher yields, less land need be cultivated, letting much go "back to nature", and 2) GMOs mostly need less cultivati…

That's all perfectly true until something wipes out your monoculture, then it is a bit of a problem.

Too many eggs in a single basket is always a dangerous strategy, it will work perfectly for a long time and then one day you lose all your eggs. That's only a matter of time.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#94

Post by rjurney »

teilo wrote: post #77
rjurney wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I grow both organic and non organic vegetables, so I actually know what I'm talking about.

How about you? ;)

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#95

Post by rjurney »

raintrees wrote: post #68
rjurney wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am sorry I rambled without answering that... I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!) Havin…

This year I lost every single one of my potatoes to scab. Imagine I planted those just after a civil war in central Africa. I need as much food - now, as I can get, right? Potato scab could seriously fuck me up. Therefore GMO potatoes sure seem like a great idea to me - if they're immune to scab.

Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food.

Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have.

Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know.

1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it?

2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it?

The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#96

Post by billswift »

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…

Yes it is wild superstition. There is no evidence that most modern insecticides harm humans at all (some do but they are less commonly used, mostly only for specific classes of pest). DDT for example had no deleterious effect on human health, until the environmentalist idiots got it banned and malaria started killing millions again in tropical regions. The most dangerous insecticides were phased out long ago, first the arsenicals, then nicotine sulfate, both of which were very dangerous to people.

ETA: DDT was dusted directly on people for flea and lice control and typhus prevention and was primarily sprayed indoors for malaria prevention so there was a lot more direct human contact than even production plant workers have with insecticides currently.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#97

Post by easp »

tokenadult wrote: post #32
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.

Or they might be permitted some land of their own where they can grow their own food, or be given access to commons to where they and their animals can forrage.

You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving. People are perfectly capable of providing their own food given some land some seeds and some sun, and some water. The amount of land required isn't even all that high.

Indeed, it is probably their ability to produce a surplus that lead to markets in the first place and those markets made it possible to justify cutting people off from the ability to feed themselves. At this point, there are plenty of cities in the US where it isn't legal to store rain water that falls on your own land.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#98

Post by omouse »

shard wrote: post #85
omouse wrote: 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.

I don't think that's a valid argument. It's perfectly okay to notice that what you're benefiting from is not something you want to support. I can replace words in your argument thus: "It's amazing how many people have jumped on the safe work conditions bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of horrible work conditions in third world countries."

You're comparing apples and oranges there.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#99

Post by omouse »

calambrac wrote: post #78
Femur wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

More sources needed. I don't trust the word of a single sensationlist gossip rag.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#100

Post by hachiya »

biohacker42 wrote: post #83
hachiya wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious. Exercise, exercise, exercise.

I'd prefer to not need to be "protected" from a preventable condition in the first place, and fully enjoy the benefits of exercise as well.
Post reply on HN