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

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#101

Post by omouse »

jacquesm wrote: post #93
billswift wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you please point out examples where GMO crops have been wiped out because of monoculture? I have yet to see any examples and yet people continue to use that argument. (Serious question, I would love to see more info on this issue!)

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#102

Post by rjurney »

jamroom wrote: post #66
rjurney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, some organic products get shipped further - when there is no local production. Milk is a good example of this. Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk - it is pasteurized at higher temperatures, has lower levels of Vitamin D as a result, because it has to last longer during shipping in a larger distribution network.

Organic milk has other ancillary benefits you won't find in "plain" milk: The land and animals are treated much better. If you have ever seen a "normal" dairy farm, and watch the amount of antibiotics used to prevent the cow's udders from become infected, it becomes clear that life (for a cow at least) on a organic dairy farm is much a much nicer existence (and thus one I personally want to encourage). Also - the gra…

And all of that is less important from a health perspective than a reduction in Vitamin D. Its a net loss.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#103

Post by rjurney »

biohacker42 wrote: post #69
rjurney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, some organic products get shipped further - when there is no local production. Milk is a good example of this. Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk - it is pasteurized at higher temperatures, has lower levels of Vitamin D as a result, because it has to last longer during shipping in a larger distribution network.

Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk I'm not sure about that when you factor in that in the US (and Canada?) antibiotics and recombinant bovine growth hormone are commonly given to cattle. The side effects of rGBH include puss in the milk.

And yet we actually have incredibly clean, great milk without any significant levels of these things.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#104

Post by jacquesm »

omouse wrote: post #101
jacquesm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you please point out examples where GMO crops have been wiped out because of monoculture? I have yet to see any examples and yet people continue to use that argument. (Serious question, I would love to see more info on this issue!)

That is exactly the problem, this will work until it fails. Score to date: 0.

But we do have examples of such crop failures due to monocultures in 'regular' agriculture. All we have with regards to a GMO problem is speculation and a hope that it will never happen.

The only instance that I'm familiar with that shows a little bit of what the risks are is a south african incident where farmers lost up to 80% of their GMO corn crops.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#105

Post by tokenadult »

easp wrote: post #97
tokenadult wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is…

You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving.

You need to take that up with the historians of economics. The last few major famines in my lifetime were all in countries that have adequate capacity to produce food, but had governments at those times that tried to impose Marxist socialism on their populations.

More to the point of this thread, will you allow the smallholders you mention to use whatever means they find economical or convenient to grow food on their own land, or will you insist that they grow only "organic" crops?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#106

Post by mattmaroon »

joeyo wrote: post #37
erikwiffin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Local produce is almost never organic. Locally produced prepared foods also almost always have preservatives and flavor enhancers as well.

Locavorism also saves so little in shipping energy and cost that it's almost worthless in any health or environmental sense.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#107

Post by jcl »

tokenadult wrote: post #62
pyre wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Capsaicin in peppers is one example of a fruit with a powerful toxin (irritant) for one class of animals. Mammals in general can't eat chili peppers without severe irritation of the digestive tract. Birds can eat chili peppers without harm--capsaicin is specific to biochemical properties of mammals. Birds don't have teeth, and don't grind up seeds as they eat fruit. Mammals as a class have very effective grinding tee…

It's ironic that most peppers are now sown because of their irritant properties.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#108

Post by philwelch »

lutorm wrote: post #43
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 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.

If we all ate organic, a third of the world population would have to starve to death from sheer shortage of food.

Don't talk about animal feed, either--we'd have to raise more cattle just for the manure if we didn't use chemical fertilizers.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#109

Post by calambrac »

omouse wrote: post #99
calambrac wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's a whole list:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_sui...

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#110

Post by joeyo »

mattmaroon wrote: post #106
joeyo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Local produce is almost never organic. Locally produced prepared foods also almost always have preservatives and flavor enhancers as well. Locavorism also saves so little in shipping energy and cost that it's almost worthless in any health or environmental sense.

I guess it depends on where you live, but at my local farmers market there is a sizable percentage of the vendors that either meet the FDA organic standards or meet a fraction of them (no pesticides or no antibiotics). With respect to preservatives and flavor enhancers, I have no specific knowledge, but I would imagine that whatever are applied to local produce would necessarily be less than or equal to whatever is normally applied when something has to be shipped from across the world, absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Finally, with respect to your energy/environmental argument: I am not advocating buying local as a way to save on energy costs; I am advocating buying local as a way to get significantly fresher produce. With that said, even if buying local saves a single cent per pound of produce (not unreasonable [1] at current gas prices) that could be savings of upwards of $5.4B per year if every american shopped local ($0.01/lb * ~300 million amercians * ~1800 lbs of food consumed/american/year).

1. http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/04/buy-local-vs-shop-l...

Post reply on HN