Live data from Hacker News

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

csanr.wsu.edu

101–110 of 208 posts

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

#101
This is sort of surprising to me, since I thought organic has only been marketed as more nutritious when in fact it isn't necessarily.

The rise of organic food was more about sustainability than nutrition from what I've read (quite a few books). Reducing the use of pesticides, crop rotation, careful ways to not strip the soil of nutrition, etc...

I've always worked under the presumption that the "it's healthier" argument wasn't the case (despite the clever wording of marketing when big food got their hands on Organic).

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

#102
post #81

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 n…

> I'm still not convinced that organic is nutritionally superior or has levels of pesticides that prove harmful to humans. I'm curious what convinced you that they are equally healthy in the first place?

I'm not convinced that they are equally healthy. Its just that up to now, the vast majority of studies found no major nutritional difference.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103728.ht...

Stanford study (others referenced this): http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc...

Those aren't conclusive and I'm open to being wrong, but this recent UK study seems to be the among the first to find significant differences. I bring up the organic definition in the US vs UK as a possible explanation for the results.

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

#103
post #18

On a general note, how do meta analyses handle publication biases? For example, this study used 343 studies to derive their conclusions. But what if there were 5000 studies which showed that organic and non-organic food have no differences, but were not published or peer reviewed because they were deemed "not interesting"?

In addition to publication bias, it's also very easy to pick a selection criteria that produces the result you're trying to get, and justify that criteria after the fact.

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

#104
This isn't surprising. If you tune your Genetic Rearranger 3000 to spit out blueberries that are really friggin' blue, and don't develop rough surfaces, and are resistant to certain molds, and don't track other metrics like nutrition content, then there is a greater than zero chance that whatever you're not tracking will be diminished.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, I'm aware that small growers often want to sell produce. But "small local growers" were explicitly mentioned, hence the question. "Some home gardeners end up being small local growers" is sort of an answer, but why mention them both if you are only talking about the situation where "home gardener" is (at least becoming) a stretch?

I think we're having a rural/city dweller divide. I wouldn't consider anyone even a small grower unless they make their main living doing it but lots of people sell a few things to make ends meet.

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

#106
post #20

Again quite a poor press release for a university. * Antioxidants have lost a lot in recent studies in terms of supposed health benefits. Mentioning antioxidants without reference to today's antioxidants and health research is implying a not-proven health benefit of organic food for antioxidants, while the health benefit can only soundly be expressed for the lower levels of pollutants. * There is no link to the paper…

Would love to see the paper as well. Everything you said about antioxidants is true and I have equity in a company that has spent millions on researching antioxidants at multiple universities, on two continents. Most benefits that companies make claims on are only seen after ingesting impossible to eat"natural" quantities of the antioxidants.

Even more interesting, the heavy metal claims. Heavy metals are generally leeched from the soil and to conduct a test such as this you need two very different plots of land. If the heavy metals were in the solutions applied to the conventionally grown crops, then it would be pretty easy to know where they came from and alert the governing agencies. Therefore, they came from the soil.

Although there are no real enforced standards for organic in US, most private companies that set the standards have some specifications for the soil. If you were to convert a field from conventional to organic, the general rules state that the field needs to become farrow and tested for at least 7 years. In theory this does gets rid of chemical pesticides, but there are no major studies to prove it and there is no impact on residual heavy metals.

And as someone that grew up in the produce, food and beverage business I will say that just because something is labeled organic, it does not mean it is organic. It certainly does not mean that the private company they chose to "inspect" there farms followed through with all of their privately chosen standards. My family's company has caught more than a few competitors and business partners cheating the system, selling organic product in quantities that the industry knows the company cannot meet in terms of production.

General rule of thumb for buying organic: is it smaller and more "meh" looking than the conventional fruit or vegetable... it's probably organic. If it's processed and packaged... it's anyone's guess. There certainly is no governing body trying to enforce standards. After all, regulations would only cut the profit margins for the already established major organic players.

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

#107

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 n…

As you allude, the US standard (USDA Organic) is next to useless. When I buy produce I don't differentiate between USDA Organic and conventionally grown. The California standard (CCOF) is a lot more sensible and was developed with less input from conventional large-scale growers.

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

#108
post #106
post #20

Again quite a poor press release for a university. * Antioxidants have lost a lot in recent studies in terms of supposed health benefits. Mentioning antioxidants without reference to today's antioxidants and health research is implying a not-proven health benefit of organic food for antioxidants, while the health benefit can only soundly be expressed for the lower levels of pollutants. * There is no link to the paper…

Would love to see the paper as well. Everything you said about antioxidants is true and I have equity in a company that has spent millions on researching antioxidants at multiple universities, on two continents. Most benefits that companies make claims on are only seen after ingesting impossible to eat"natural" quantities of the antioxidants. Even more interesting, the heavy metal claims. Heavy metals are generally l…

Probably during the time you grew up in the food business there were no enforceable organic standards in the US. I know when I was involved (in the 90's) standards were set by private companies as you describe.

There are now (as of early 2000's I believe). They are defined and there is an actual federal organic certification with clear rules about what comprises organic. I don't believe one can legally call a product organic in the marketplace without this certification.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=t...

"(OFPA) states that no person may affix a label to, or provide other marketing information concerning, an agricultural product if that label or information implies, directly or indirectly, that such product is produced and handled using organic methods, except in accordance with the OFPA" (exceptions provided for producers selling less than $5,000 a year).

What you say about metal levels in soils is insightful.

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

#110

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…

> American Food Safety bill that was prepared by Monsanto

Was it just Monsanto? They are a relatively small business of the businesses that deal in agriculture. I'd be surprised if the bigger companies would let them have free reign over the decision making process like that (though I'm sure they're happy to have Monsanto as the fall guy, so to speak). The only reference to the bill, with respect to who wrote it, that I could find said it was prepared by multiple corporations.

Post reply on HN