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

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

seedmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#11

Post by stcredzero »

jrockway wrote: post #5
enthalpyx wrote: post #3

But it is more tasty.

Indeed. We still don't understand enough about food to say that organic food is not better. If you stopped eating real food and only ate lard, soy protein, cardboard, and a vitamin pill, you would probably not do too well. But that is all we use to understand the nutritional value of food. (Vitamins, minerals, fat, carbohydrates, and protein.) (Admittedly the American food system is getting close to this. Corn is soo…

We still don't understand enough about food to say...

Here here! The notion that we pretty much understand what's going on with food, digestion, and metabolism is as widespread as it is harmful. We have only scratched the surface.

I remember seeing a diagram of human metabolism during a talk. It was huge and messy! Spaghetti-coded-Rube-Goldberg-intertwined-messy! And it's only a diagram of what we do understand -- there's even more in there! Biology at the cellular and molecular level was not "designed" to be understood by a human intelligence.

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#12

Post by tvon »

andreyf wrote: post #8
jacoblyles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?

If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 10…

That's a ridiculous argument.

You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for those of us with access to alternatives.

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#14

Post by tvon »

jacoblyles wrote: post #7
kwamenum86 wrote: post #2

I never thought the argument was that organic food is more beneficial nutritionally. I thought it is supposed to be less harmful overall. This is an important distinction.

I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?

I suspect you were down modded for making a snide comment.

I for one down-modded you for obnoxiously whining about being down-modded, something which I'm quite sick of.

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#15

Post by darkxanthos »

andreyf wrote: post #8
jacoblyles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?

If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 10…

How is it that saying what goes into our food must be going into our bodies Means we aren't thinking straight? Don't forget there was a period when cigarettes were seen as ok for you too.

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#16

Post by andreyf »

tvon wrote: post #12
andreyf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 10…

That's a ridiculous argument. You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for those of us with access to alternatives.

It isn't an argument - note my use of the word "sometimes". It's a counter-example to the dogma of organic == good, artificial == evil. The burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients. So, show us one study which shows people who only consume "organic" food to be healthier than those who eat genetically engineered food. You simply won't find it.

For a more concrete argument, let me point you to The China Study [1], which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food". If people really cared about their health, they'd be vegetarian.

Organic food has a lot more to do with identity marketing (like BMW and A&F) than it does real nutrition.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#17

Post by stcredzero »

andreyf wrote: post #8
jacoblyles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?

If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 10…

I don't think the original commenter was thinking along these dogmatic lines. I think he's coming from the direction that there's a lot that we don't know about food, and how our metabolism works. Sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone, until we understand more.

As for hybrid rice, yes, it saved lots of lives. But many argue that there were negative side effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Here's a story that predates the Green Revolution. I think it might be illuminating.

A long time ago in China, there was a public official named Confucius. (Yes, that Confucius.) For the betterment of his nation, he engaged in a huge campaign to popularize the eating of polished (white) rice. He did this because white rice is much easier to store for longer periods, and more conducive to warehousing and other logistical activities. Thus did Confucius greatly reduce the incidence of famine in his country. However, in the following years, there was an epidemic of beri-beri in China.

Human beings didn't discover vitamin B1 until the late 1800s.

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#18

Post by stcredzero »

andreyf wrote: post #10
ajscherer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer the taste of conventionally grown produce. It is difficult to measure taste, but I haven't seen any blind taste tests resulting in a clear winner either way. The only convincing argument I have seen in favor of organic food is the environmental argument. I have to balance that against my belief that for every acre of organic crop grown, somebody somewhere is going to sleep hungry. I realize, however, that an…

any scientific or quantitative argument [...] is irrelevant A sign of the dark ages, and the death of the enlightenment. No, I don't imagine we'll burn witches at the stake, but my wife and daughter can't eat half their favorite foods when we visit some relatives' homes (for fear of really upsetting people), precisely because of nutritional dogma.

A sign of the dark ages, and the death of the enlightenment

Relax, man! He's just talking about the realities of marketing.

For many, it's not so much Organic/Natural vs. big-bad industry/science. A lot of the organic and/or local stuff is fresher and tastes better. Not all of it will be, though. But if someone can make some money convincing people that it is, then someone will. That's just the market.

Actually, I think people should go by taste. We have only a partial understanding of food and our metabolism, but we've probably evolved very keen ways of determining what food is good for us. The only conscious attention we probably need has to do with moderation. (Otherwise, I'd eat a box of ice cream sandwiches every day!)

Re: Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious

#20

Post by mcantelon »

andreyf wrote: post #8
jacoblyles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any quantitative research which shows that, though it is a popular opinion in California, regardless. Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion. How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?

If I had a free thinker award to give, I'd give you one. It's amazing how otherwise "open minded" people seem to fall prey to the dogmas of organic/all-natural/no-additives/USDA-approved/recycled-packaging marketing. But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 10…

Living in a society with rising cancer rates and given the choice between food bathed in possibily carcinogenic pesticides and food that isn't, curiously enough I'll choose the food without the pesticides.
Post reply on HN