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

Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

csanr.wsu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 208 posts

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#71

Post by kaitai »

spingsprong wrote: post #6
jayvanguard wrote: post #4

It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies: "Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carr…

Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants. Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy. So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?

Studies re: antioxidants show that large doses of isolated compounds are not so good for you. The famous vitamin E study is an example of this. Scientists decided to study vitamin E, though, because people whose diets were high in naturally-occurring vitamin E had improved mortality -- in particular, these diets were cardioprotective. A similar paradox is being seen, to a lesser degree, in comparing diets high in fish and diets that include fish oil supplements or omega-3 supplements.

The combination of studies shows not that "antioxidants are bad" but that we don't understand how to isolate their benefits. Diets high in antioxidants from whole foods (dead plants and animals), rather than nutraceuticals or supplements, are consistently linked with health. Apparently it's not so simple as isolating one compound -- we need a balance of chemical compounds coming in, working in concert.

(It's like we evolved to thrive on real food instead of pills! Weird!)

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#72

Post by maerF0x0 »

SixSigma wrote: post #51
mark_l_watson wrote: post #13

I am generally pleased with the good availability of locally grown organic food where we live in the mountains of Central Arizona. If people don't want organic food, I could generally care less except for one thing: efforts to put legal roadblocks in the way of locally grown food. For example: A few years ago our Senator Jon Kyle, after taking large campaign contributions from Monsanto, submitted the American Food Sa…

You might choose not to eat the non-organic food but you can't avoid the Atrazine [1] in the rain, which is enough to turn the male northern leopard frog tadpoles to turn into hermaphrodites. The families of the people who work in the factory farm system are also affected. You can see talks [2] on both these subjects in the Edible Education course from Berkeley [3], hosted by Michael Pollan and Raj Patel. I can recom…

> The families of the people who work in the factory farm system are also affected.

That is the exact reason I've often chosen organic for years. People used to say "Its no better for you" and I'd reply "Maybe, but its better for them, the workers"

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#73

Post by tokenadult »

Another comment has already pointed out that until we see the underlying study we can't be sure that this press release is really important. I note that the claim "In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops" doesn't tell us anything important unless it can be shown that those "key antioxidants" are genuinely important for human health, and despite some hand-waving in the press release, there is no epidemiological evidence at all that the presence or absence of particular antioxidants in foodstuffs is associated with better health in human beings.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#74

Post by Blahah »

boyaka wrote: post #65
hrvbr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo. Main rules, taken from the EC site: - Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently - Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned - On-site resources are put to good use, such…

I think rather than talking about GMOs we need to point out the crops that are seriously and obviously bad for us: the transgenically modified crops, or apparently I just found it can be called TGM. [0] This saves us from the debate every time where somebody talks about how all our food and animals are GMO. The real destroyers of the American food supply are the 7 major crops that have been transgenically modified wi…

Transgenics are absolutely not "seriously and obviously bad for us". Almost the entire debate around GMOs is about transgenically modified crops, and to date nobody has clearly demonstrated harm from transgenics in even a single case. It's a technology, it has myriad uses and there is nothing intrinsic to it that is harmful.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#75

Post by kaitai »

jeremyw wrote: post #17

And a 2012 survey of 200+ studies showed no significant difference in nutrition or contaminants. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685 http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triag...

Well, it found no significant difference in nutrients measured except for phosphorus (the difference in phosphorus was significant but not clinically significant), and it did find that organic foods were lower in pesticides and organic chicken and pork were much less likely to have antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

I thought the reporting on this survey was so weird. Headlines trumpeting "NO DIFFERENCE!" Antibiotic-resistant bacteria freak me the heck out. Pesticides don't seem so tasty. And that CAFO chicken tastes like styrofoam -- being a vegetarian is no loss if you only know that *&^!. But a piece of pork that really tastes like pork..... mmmmmmm....... Doesn't anyone buy food for the taste anymore?

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#76

Post by kaitai »

byerley wrote: post #63

Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc... "No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinic…

The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it.

If you buy only the tastiest plants and animals I will guarantee you a healthy diet.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#77

Post by micro_cam »

maxerickson wrote: post #39
mark_l_watson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second bill was better than the first. My senator, Jon Kyle, has a history of supported nutty bills, BTW. When George W. Bush was president, he proposed a bill that would create a small national committee that would have the power to have any university professor fired because of their political views. Being a senator does not guarantee rational behavior :-) when I wrote to my Senator about this Bill, his respons…

I was more interested in your answer to the first question than the aside about how we each expect senators to behave. It'd also like more information about the university professors, I either didn't notice at the time or completely forgot about it.

Not the op but I think I can explain. In rural areas a home gardner may have more an acre garden and a high tunnel (green house) and produce more then they can use or eat so lots of people will donate/share/sell for extra money a few things.

Where I live in Montana they can sell at the farmers market or roadside stands without jumping through too many hoops but for whatever reason they need to package things to sell it in stores (a store owner explained that otherwise too much liability falls on the store but i'm not sure that is it).

So I can go to a small locally owned store and buy a one pound bag of spinach grown just down the road and put in the bag by the farmer but I can't say, pick out a few local apples (or squash or bulk salad mix) unless I actually drive up the road to the orchard/farm or go to the once a week farmers market.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#78

Post by ahomescu1 »

> [...] organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops.

This immediately made me wonder if organic crops are also "up to 69%" more expensive? If so, it kinda balances out (you eat less organic food to compensate for its price).

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#79

Post by neilsharma »

I haven't read the specific paper, but the press release skips over the finer nuances in the debate.

First, how is the European standard of "organic" defined exactly? Both the UK's and US' seem to cover the basics (no growth hormones, limited herbicides and pesticides use, must feed the animal organic foods, etc.), but fertility and biological standards in the soil might vary. It is possible that that UK might have naturally less-polluted soil than the US (fewer heavy metals?), contributing to the difference. Also, organic doesn't mean hormones or pesticides-free; rather, it just defines which pesticides can be used and are not as detrimental to the environment. There might be different standards here too.

UK's standard: https://www.gov.uk/converting-to-organic-farming

US' standard: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards

Secondly, most organic studies in the states dive into which fruits/vegetables are subject to the most pesticide use. Apples, strawberries, and grapes seem to have the most in the US, but avocados, corn, and pineapple have the least. Studies that make blanket statements like "organic foods are better for you" without acknowledging the differences in the cultivation and biology of different species are lacking in my book.

Extensive List: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php

I'd buy organic, mostly for the more humane way farmers treat livestock and lower environmental pollution, but I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans.

Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]

#80

Post by zzleeper »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #78

> [...] organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops. This immediately made me wonder if organic crops are also "up to 69%" more expensive? If so, it kinda balances out (you eat less organic food to compensate for its price).

Say its 200% more expensive. Is it still worth it? I mean, you can't just eat twice as much of the other food to balance ..
Post reply on HN