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

21–30 of 137 posts

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#21

Post by meta »

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.

I was under the impression that "Organic" in Canada is mostly a meaningless title. It isn't enforced and can be applied to a wide swath of products that most people would not consider Organic.

I checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#North_Ame...) and it says that the Government has published a set of Guidelines but applying organic labels is up to "Private Sector"...

However, doing some more google-fu I found (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtm...) which seems to imply that on June 30, 2009 the Canadian Government finally got it's Organic ducks-in-a-row.

So, that seems to imply that only within the last month did Canada actually gain an Organic label that is regulated and trustworthy: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/stainte.shtm...

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#22

Post by erikwiffin »

mattmaroon wrote: post #13

I don't eat organic vegetables because I believe they are significantly better for me health-wise. I do so where possible because they're tastier (having not been engineered to retain excess water to increase weight for sale) and MUCH better for the environment. I do limit myself to organic/all natural prepared foods though due to lack of preservatives. See In Defense of Food as to why. There's very little doubt that…

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. :/

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#24

Post by sophacles »

So, the book Omnivore's Dilemma asks a question which I'm not sure is sufficiently answered by this study, but may be answered elsewhere (and I just don't know): Is it correct to treat food as a commodity. For example (ripping straight from the book here) is a carrot grown in Michigan the same as a carrot grown in Florida? There is a base assumption that we can treat the foodstuffs as commodities, but if this is not true, we cannot believe this study.

If the organic is grown in already marginal land, while the "standard" food is grown somewhere fertile, is it possible to get these results, or possibly results indicating organic food is less healthful?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#25

Post by DanielStraight »

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.

Right. Who actually thought organic foods had more vitamins?

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#26

Post by mattmaroon »

erikwiffin wrote: post #22
mattmaroon wrote: post #13

I don't eat organic vegetables because I believe they are significantly better for me health-wise. I do so where possible because they're tastier (having not been engineered to retain excess water to increase weight for sale) and MUCH better for the environment. I do limit myself to organic/all natural prepared foods though due to lack of preservatives. See In Defense of Food as to why. There's very little doubt that…

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. :/

Preservatives are found in processed foods, not vegetables. Organic vegetables generally don't last any less long than normal ones.

They make lots of organic frozen prepared foods. You can get organic macaroni and cheese in a box that's just like the regular (but tastes better). There are organic canned soups, pasta sauce, frozen burritos, etc.

You name it you can buy it.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#27

Post by dbz »

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.

There are lots of reasons to eat organic foods- besides health benefit. I quote

"Organic farmers build soil.

Soil is the foundation of the food chain and the primary focus of organic farming. We’re facing the worst topsoil erosion in history due to our current agricultural practice of chemical intensive, mono-crop farming."

http://nutiva.com/nutrition/organic.php

That site gives a lot of -interesting?- reasons to eat organic. But that reason in particular stands out to me. Anyone seen pictures of the dust bowl? Here you go~

http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploa...

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#28

Post by biohacker42 »

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.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#29

Post by Robin_Message »

mcantelon wrote: post #19

"...there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health" Sounds like the tobacco lobby of yesteryear. Given the fact that cancer is on the rise and I have a choice between food treated with carcinogens and food not treated with carcinogens, I'll take the food not treated with carcinogens, thanks.

I don't mind eating food containing tiny amounts of carcinogens, but I do object to poor farmers, without safety equipment, handling drums of the stuff.

Re: Organic has no health benefits

#30

Post by tokenadult »

parenthesis wrote: post #8
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

Off the top of my head, other questions to consider are: • The environmental effects of different methods of farming and food production. • Are toxins more or less present in the food produced by different methods? • Is the food more or less pleasurable to eat?

Are toxins more or less present in the food produced by different methods?

This is a good question to ask, because most plants contain phytotoxins adapted to keep microbes or animals from eating them. Human selective breeding of plants already has made plants less toxic as human foods, and human bioengineering of plants could help some kinds of plants become still less toxic to human eaters.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109862182/abstrac...

Post reply on HN