Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study • Hacker News Board

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#21

Post by SeanLuke » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 3:00 AM UTC

drakaal wrote: post #10

kevingoslar wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings. For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organ…

The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arseni…

> You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic.

Support this claim.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#22

Post by jqm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 3:45 AM UTC

mixologic wrote: post #11

I would think we would be better at spotting sock puppets. "Expert reaction?" More like paid schill: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/ Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?

I can just about guarantee you those companies couldn't care less about a few 10 thousands of people eating a little organic food. It's not a threat to them and they simply don't care enough to put out sock puppets. This lack of caring actually gives the new hippie-science disregarding (or whatever you want to call it) authors like Micheal Pollan more air time because nobody calls them on it when they get out of bounds of good science. Nobody writes sensational books about the over-hype and under evidence of the benefits of organic farming nor the dangers of un-regulated and un-inspected food production.

The amount of anti-science junk regarding food production I see posted on HN is stunning given that this is supposed to be a group of intelligent rational people.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#23

Post by aaron695 » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 3:47 AM UTC

Organic is a toxic anti-science religion.

Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you?

Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not.

If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because they are fundamentalists.

I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion by the scientific community.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#24

Post by Retric » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 3:56 AM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #23

Organic is a toxic anti-science religion. Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you? Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not. If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because they are fundamentalists. I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion b…

Pesticides have not been proven harmless, just acceptably harmful. Much like how lead is bad for you but some lead in drinking water is accepted.

There is a similar issue with GMO food. Everything out there might be safe, but there is little research done before new strains enter mass production so some caution is reasonable even without demonstrated harm.

PS: IMO, anything still considered safe after 30 years is probably ok but organic / non GMO is a reasonable catch all for that kind of a track record.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#25

Post by SoftwareMaven » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 4:09 AM UTC

drakaal wrote: post #10

kevingoslar wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings. For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organ…

The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arseni…

we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US

Given the level of diet-related illness in the US, much of it a result of ultra cheap (through subsidies) sugars and grains, I can't help but wonder, "if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better choices?"

Of course, the issue there has nothing to do with organics and everything to do with subsidies.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#26

Post by jqm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 4:10 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #24

aaron695 wrote: post #23

Organic is a toxic anti-science religion. Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you? Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not. If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because they are fundamentalists. I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion b…

Pesticides have not been proven harmless, just acceptably harmful. Much like how lead is bad for you but some lead in drinking water is accepted. There is a similar issue with GMO food. Everything out there might be safe, but there is little research done before new strains enter mass production so some caution is reasonable even without demonstrated harm. PS: IMO, anything still considered safe after 30 years is pro…

Some pesticides are pretty harmful some are really not.

There are many unrelated types of compounds we are talking about here... from severe (and generally now banned) biocides like Methyl Bromide gas all the way to a light camomile tea solution.

It's like your dad saying "drugs are bad!" then proceeding to drink a six pack. Dose and type mean everything. Not all pesticides are dangerous to man nor the general environment.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#27

Post by jqm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 4:20 AM UTC

crazytony wrote: post #13

Istof wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know but "conventionally mass-produced" produces tend to be bigger and tasteless... that might have something to do with growers selecting them for the "wrong" trait (gene) [0]. Tomatoes being the best example; they are much better when bought at my local farmer's market (as opposed to buying them at Walmart). 0: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112648268/scientists-f...

Tomatoes are a terrible example. Ripe tomatoes damage very easily so tomatoes going to grocers are picked green and then reddened by exposing them to ethylene gas. This minimally affects flavor but causes the tomato to appear "ripe". If buying from farmers (not distributors) at your farmers market then those tomatoes were most likely ripened in the field then picked rather than gassed which is why they taste much bet…

I worked on a commercial tomato farm before. You are both right.

What you get in grocery stores is a green tomato that has been gassed so the flavor isn't the same as truly ripe tomato. Also, the varieties planted that are good for mass productions, packing and shipping aren't necessarily the best tasting varieties.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#28

Post by neona » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 4:34 AM UTC

drakaal wrote: post #10

kevingoslar wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings. For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organ…

The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arseni…

4% is an average anyway. There are absolutely people in the US that must spend a notable portion of their income on food. I'm not in the best of situations, and I generally end up spending 20-30% on food, and I don't even eat enough.

Food is already hard enough to get for many Americans.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#29

Post by neona » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 4:34 AM UTC

drakaal wrote: post #10

kevingoslar wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings. For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organ…

The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful. The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre. The squishier means you lose more in shipping. The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious. The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arseni…

4% is an average anyway. There are absolutely people in the US that must spend a notable portion of their income on food. I'm not in the best of situations, and I generally end up spending 20-30% on food, and I don't even eat enough.

Food is already hard enough to get for many Americans.

Re: Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

#30

Post by politician » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:14 AM UTC

pistle wrote: post #17

Quick, somebody put together the app that does some Bayesian work to score people and their quotes, research, funding, etc. to show on a scale where their tendencies would be expected to be for a given next statement. Let's get META!!! on meta-analyses. What's interesting is the turf battles going on over what I would say are details vs the "news you can use." Industrial agra => :P tasting + less desirable enviro imp…

"Deer: Predation or Starvation" [1], is an exercise many may remember from high school biology class.

In the exercise, the implicit goal is for students to recognize that the deer population shrinkage was a good and natural outcome leading to balance and that balance is good.

There are various problems with the exercise though; for example, we only see a few years of "balance" with the implication that it continues forever.

Replace wolves with food costs, and deer with humans. We would expect the Industrial Agra crowd to be "pro deer", and the Alternate Agra crowd to be "pro balance" while Industrial Agra itself is "pro wolf".

I find it interesting that if you're interested in rising human populations, then you're coupled to rising food prices no matter what. In other words, consumption of organics is non-linearly related to rising food prices and orthogonal to morality.

[1] http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/predator_prey_graphi...