Stanford study: Organic food no more nutritious than non-organic.

[cleanhippie]

Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a U.S. study.

--snip--

She and her colleagues reviewed more than 200 studies that compared either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or, more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves. The foods included organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry eggs and milk.

--snip--

Smith-Spangler and her colleagues found there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal products produced organically and conventionally - and the only nutrient difference was slightly more phosphorous in the organic products. Organic milk and chicken may also contain more omega-3 fatty acids, but that was based on only a few studies. More than one third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat. Smith-Spangler told Reuters Health it was uncommon for either organic or conventional foods to exceed the allowable limits for pesticides, so it was not clear whether a difference in residues would have an effect on health.

--snip--

"Right now I think it's all based on anecdotal evidence," said Chensheng Lu, who studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of Public Health.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/04/us-organic-idUSBRE88303620120904

Anecdotal evidence - n - non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal+evidence

While using less herbicides and pesticides IS something that needs to be done, immediately, it would seem that the "organic" movement may have just been a way (so far) to liberate more money from the pockets of consumers.

[KurtNYC]

1. I don't buy organics thinking they are more nutritious

The study does not address the factors that people now cite for organics:

- lower pesticide residues
- support for sustainable agriculture practices
- desire for local and seasonal produce
- taste and texture

[cleanhippie]

7. It does touch on some of that.

It does discuss the fact the organics do have "generally lower" pesticide residues. Just how that affects health and how much lower needs to be looked at further, they say.

Taste and texture has been studied elsewhere, and from what I have read, most people are unable to tell any difference at all. YMMV, but I would direct your attention to the definition of anecdotal evidence.

I am in no way saying that organic farming is bad, there is a lot from this practice that needs to be truly evaluated and incorporated into modern farming techniques; less-use of pesticides being the first and foremost.

[KurtNYC]

19. Heirloom tomatoes totally blow away Beefsteaks

on taste and texture. The soil you grow in affects taste -- that is widely accepted.

The study also lumped together organic everything versus non-organic everything but pesticide residue is a relatively larger factor in these:
#1 Apples - the MOST pesticide ridden of fruits
Spinach, Celery, Bell peppers, Peaches, Strawberries, Nectarines, Grapes, Lettuces, Blueberries and potatoes

[LanternWaste]

31. Precisely the reason I purchase organics-only when possible

"- lower pesticide residues"

Precisely the reason I purchase organics-only when possible. The old law of unintended consequences has a way of biting us collectively after we've become habituated and complacent to a product, e.g., lead paint.

[Sheepshank]

33. That's why I buy it.....

not for enhanced nutrients, but for less chemical additives.

Funny how you pay more for less product.

[pnwmom]

67. I buy organic meat and poultry because it doesn't contain

antibiotics and hormones.

[LadyHawkAZ]

103. I buy it for taste and texture

the fruits and veggies seem to have ripened longer and have much nicer flavor (that might just be a local thing, though) and the meat is more tender and tastier.

[trof]

105. Right. It's what organics DON'T have.

I don't know that anyone's claimed they were more NUTRITIOUS.
Just better for you without all the pesticides and antibiotics, etc.

[wordpix]

106. add: do not pollute ground & surface waters, kill off beneficial insects or birds

[Happyhippychick]

2. I never thought organic would be more nutritious, just healthier because of pesticides.

So I'm not understanding why this study was conducted in the first place unless people thought that if you grow a carrot in organic soil it magically has more vitamins.

[Pisces]

6. I'm sure it is Monsato who wants the message out. I'll continue to eat pesticide, hormone,

antibiotic free food. I guess they will be making commercials any day now touting how healthy roundup is in your vegetables based
off of this study.

[4th law of robotics]

37. "I'll continue to eat pesticide, hormone,antibiotic free food."

It doesn't exist.

Plants produce their own pesticides and antibiotics.

Animals produce their own hormones and antibiotics.


And even organic crops require the use of pesticides.

[Webster Green]

72. "And even organic crops require the use of pesticides."

That's bullshit. I've grown incredible organic gardens and I never used any pesticides.

[4th law of robotics]

74. Hehe, ok. In your garden perhaps

in real organic operations? Nope. Organic farmers on a commercial scale have the same problems non-organic farmers on a commercial scale have.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Yep. Organic farmers (not hobbyists) use pesticides on their crops.

[Webster Green]

78. Hee hee, my ass.

I was supplying caterers and a couple of restaurants. Not huge, but a little beyond a hobby.

There are methods to discourage pests that do not involve dangerous chemicals.

I don't know who you are shilling for, but here's a message to them from me: "Kiss my ass!"

[4th law of robotics]

79. That didn't take long

anyone who doesn't extol the virtues of organics in every possible way is a paid shill.

True science right there. You're either with me or you're with the enemy.

Here's a challenge for you: I want to grow say 10 acres of organic spinach. How do I convince pests not to eat it without the use of "chemicals".

[Webster Green]

81. I never had a problem with pests on my spinach.

It grows better in cool weather than warm, and the pest weren't out yet.

[4th law of robotics]

83. Interesting

insects are not interested in munching on all this delicious produce left out for them in large concentrations?

I wonder where actual farmers got the notion that they need to worry about insects eating their crops? Everyone in the city with a tiny garden knows that bugs aren't a real problem.

[sibelian]

86. So does everybody in the country with a tiny garden.

So what's the conclusion?

[4th law of robotics]

87. The tiny gardens are not representative of real agriculture

you aren't going to feed the roughly 50% of the worlds population that lives in cities with the occasional 10'x10' gardens.

[sibelian]

96. The occasional ones, no.

And you're not going to get that many people into gardening any time soon. Also, at the moment, there isn't the space. But when we start running out of the cheap hydrocarbons necessary to supply the manufacturers of all these pesticides what we mean by "real agriculture" will probably just have to change. It's not impossible, farmers managed pretty well for a very long time without any pesticides. I'd suspect the most successful approach isn't so much the size of your agricultural space as the way you use what you have to promote natural vigour and careful choice of what you grow. Forgive me if I sound condescending, but I don't know your background or experience, are you familiar with the concept of permaculture?

[KurtNYC]

130. Any exception to YOUR theory disproves YOUR theory

A "real" scientist would know that.

[4th law of robotics]

131. ?

What?

[wordpix]

111. +1

[wordpix]

109. answer: take care of your soil and birds and pest-eating insects will take care of you

you could also set free a bunch of ladybugs, but I didn't have to

[Webster Green]

119. +1

That's right. Good, old fashioned (organic) methods always worked well for me.

[4th law of robotics]

126. Wow those farmers sure are idiots

spending thousands on pesticides when they could get better yields for nothing.

How many acres do you produce on?

[Major Nikon]

121. The reality is that the organic produce market certainly does use pesticides

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it's practical. There are several pesticides approved for use on organic crops which organic producers can and do use. There's also plenty of pesticides(both organic and synthetic) which are completely harmless to humans.

[wordpix]

108. not true, I grew 5 ac. of organic corn, herbs & flowers + home garden & did not use ANY pesticides

The main pest was racoons in the corn and for that, we staked out the big dog at night on a long chain. Worked perfectly except when thunderstorms rolled in and I would run out to the field to bring her in the house. Some scary lightening and thunder while unhooking the metal chain...ah, those were the days.

[Pisces]

123. Then I'll eat less by eating organic and so will my children. Monsato has not fooled my family.

[4th law of robotics]

127. If you like

just realize that your concern is mostly based on propaganda rather than empirical evidence.

[obamanut2012]

132. Because thinking eating toxin-doused/fed food is bad is propaganda

[4th law of robotics]

133. Thinking monsanto is behind every non-organic ear of corn

and is dousing it with toxins designed to kill people just for the heck of it is propaganda.

[cleanhippie]

8. There is a popular misconception by the public that it is, in fact, "healthier".

The facts do not support that assertion.

And while I do not trust chemical companies and corporate farms any more than the next person, anyone who cries "Monsanto wants you to think that" or some other hysterical nonsense, is simply just not being honest about the reality of the situation.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

11. You seem very invested in discrediting organic food

Do you work for Monsanto?

[cleanhippie]

57. I think the last part of my response above is applicable to you.

Let me know when you are ready to have an adult conversation.

[Webster Green]

30. You don't think food lacking pesticides and chemicals would be healthier?

I strongly disagree.

[4th law of robotics]

38. Name one food that lacks "chemicals".

/did you know those sneaky companies even put chemicals in your water? Yes even pure distilled H20 contains chemicals.

[progressivebydesign]

45. Oh brother. MAN MADE CHEMICALS. how's that? n/t

[4th law of robotics]

48. It's an important distinction

and which manmade chemicals?

I can burn hydrogen and oxygen and produce H20. That is a manmade chemical is it not?

When people start talking about wanting chemical or DNA free food I set the timer to see how long it takes before Gaia or crystals or any of that woo is brought up.

[Webster Green]

61. Holy fuck!

That is so fucking clueless.

If you don't understand that pesticides can be harmful to health, you need to do a little research.

[4th law of robotics]

62. Could you point out where I said "pesticides cannot be harmful to your health"?

If you must rely on strawmen arguments to support your views then perhaps you should reassess those views.

[Webster Green]

69. You are being deliberately obtuse.

WTF are you saying anyway?

Jeezus!

[4th law of robotics]

75. Obtuse by asking you to prove your accusations against me?

That doesn't make sense.

True/false: commercial organic operations use "chemicals" to keep pests away?

[Webster Green]

82. The only thing I "accused" you of was being clueless.

And that is fairly obvious.

[4th law of robotics]

84. Not based on empirical evidence

you also tried to make it out as if I had claimed no pesticides could ever harmful to people. That was a bold-faced lie.

[Webster Green]

88. You are saying that water is a chemical, and pesticides are chemicals....

And since water isn't harmful, then pesticides wouldn't be harmful either. What was the point of that?

If I used vinegar to kill weeds, would that be more or less dangerous than using agent orange?

[4th law of robotics]

90. Water *is* a chemical

Do you deny this?

And since water isn't harmful, then pesticides wouldn't be harmful either. What was the point of that?

Wow. I never said any of that. I was simply pointing out the silliness of your using "chemical" as a scare-word to make normal agricultural practices seem scary. It appeals to people who are scientifically illiterate (there are CHEMICALS in my food now!?!?). But is pretty meaningless.

Pesticides aren't dangerous because they're chemicals. They may or may not be dangerous based on what they do to people.

If I used vinegar to kill weeds, would that be more or less dangerous than using agent orange?

If you refer to both as "chemicals" to make both appear deadly then would that be disingenuous?

[Webster Green]

92. Very strange.

We may as well be on different planets. You make no sense at all.

[4th law of robotics]

94. I make perfect sense

you choose not to understand.

There is a difference.

If I were dishonest this is where I would accuse you of being a paid shill.

But I am not that kind of person.

[cleanhippie]

58. I never said that.

[obamanut2012]

43. Of course Monsanto wants us to think that

Just like tobacco companies want us to think that their product really isn't all that bad, and won't kill us.

[obamanut2012]

46. The facts do support that organic is healthier

For the environment, the growers and pickers, the livestock. And for us.

Lettuce grown organically v. lettuce doused in chemicals.

Organic soybeans vs. GMO, toxin-saturated soy.

Eggs raised by chickens feed real food and treated humanely vs. eggs raised by debeaked chickens crammed in cages and fed, literally, shit and garbage.

Beef cattle allowed to roam and graze on grass and killed humanely vs. cattle fed corn and garbage and antibiotics (because they are so sick) and treated inhumanely and killed full of fear and pain.

Yeah, no effing difference at all.

[pnwmom]

68. Wrong. The article clearly demonstrates it IS healthier.

Healthier does not equate to simply "more nutritious."

It is healthier to be exposed to lower pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. (For example, the article cited a 33% increase in antibiotic-resistent infections among people who consume non-organic meat.)

There is also the issue of GMO foods, which are a particular concern for people with food allergies, which is a growing segment of the population. Unfortunately, the Monsantos of the world lobby against labeling for GMO's, and even want to be able to carry the label of "organic" for GMO foods.

[kestrel91316]

41. You'll never convince me a carrot grown in totally depleted soil and fertilized with manufactured

chemicals has as much nutrition as a carrot grown in healthy, living soil full of organic matter and the critters that nature intended. There is a lot about nutrition we don't know.

[cleanhippie]

59. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

[robinlynne]

54. for big agriculture to get the message out that we should not eat organic!

the local news was clearly saying dont buy organic. you are wasting your money. It was such an obivously paid for story.

[Brickbat]

3. "Nutrition" as in vitamin content isn't the only or even main reason to buy organic foods.

Organic is not my priority and even I can see that.

[jberryhill]

4. Who thought it was?

Next up - Hemp oil does not improve gas mileage.

[siligut]

16. So much wrong with this study

Where to start?

[obamanut2012]

47. I still want to know who funded it

I can't find the info.

[siligut]

97. Smith-Spangler was just on CNBC talking about the study

Again, as she spoke, the data was manipulated to make it appear that organic farming is a waste of money. Even more to the point, that pesticide use and GMOs pose no harm. I looked to see where Stanford research money comes from too, http://med.stanford.edu/rmg/. Can't find anything definitive, but just from what we know about Monsanto and Big Business pesticide companies, I can see their hand in this tripe.

[obamanut2012]

98. I think it's odd the funding source seems to be hidden

I think we all know what that means!

[sadbear]

5. I didn't know that was the point.

I was under the assumption that various chemicals and pesticides weren't good for us. (The stuff that organic food doesn't have is the reason I buy it.)

[The Midway Rebel]

9. How about sustainability?

How long can we keep injecting anti-biotics and spraying toxic chemicals, in the water, on our food and on the planet? To miss this question is to miss the other side of the coin entirely, IMHO.


I disagree that the "organic" movemnet was something created to take money from consumers but I can see where profit mongers turned it in that direction.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Organic is the farming of our history, the chemical industrial methods were created to increase

profit not the other way around....

[CanSocDem]

27. Exactly. (nt)

[Confusious]

93. No

Fertilizers happened to be created at a time when Europe was facing a food shortage in the 19th century.

It kept millions of people from starving.

Organic farming doesn't have the yields to feed the entire world.

[laundry_queen]

107. Yes, let's compare 19th century farming practices

with modern organic farming practices. EXACTLY the same.

[Confusious]

129. There were two points in there that you decided to merge

A. the post I was responding too:

"Organic is the farming of our history, the chemical industrial methods were created to increase profit not the other way around...."

I said "No, fertilizers came around during a time that Europe was facing a food shortage"

It wasn't because of profits.

B. Even with modern farming practices, almost all studies have shown that you don't get the yields from organic that you do using "regular" farming.

I'm sure you'll contest statement B, but that's what the studies have shown...

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0425/Are-crop-yields-the-Achilles-heel-of-organic-farming

Let's disagree with the conclusions of science when we don't like the results, and make fun of those who disagree with the conclusions of science when it's about something we agree with, like say, global warming.

[reformist2]

10. I've read that frozen veggies are the most nutritious of all.

[Happyhippychick]

20. Yes which makes sense since they are actually allowed to ripen on the vine/in the ground.

I never feel guilty when I feed my kids frozen although we prefer the taste of fresh.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Actually, not true.

Nutritional value in fruits and veggies largely depend on how much time passes between the time the produce is picked and when it is preserved -- in this case, freezing. If you pick green beans say on Tuesday, you can half of them using a water bath method that same afternoon but wait to freeze the second half until Saturday, the canned green beans should have more nutrition even though they had more processing.

[progressivebydesign]

49. however, buying from a local farmer who picked a ripe veggie 2 hours before.. is just as good.

the only reason frozen ones are more healthy than the dead veggies languishing in the produce aisle, is because they're picked and frozen fresh. I've purchased veggies picked an hour before, at the farmers market, and they're more healthy because they're fresh, and organic.

[tridim]

56. And about 10,000 times more convenient, especially if you live alone.

I always have a bag of frozen brocolli in the freezer.

[wordpix]

112. if you have to preserve, yes, but fresh from the garden are most nutritious

[ananda]

12. Being antibiotic and pesticide free IS healthier!

Organic is more expensive in the short run, but in the long
run less exposure to antibiotics and pesticides really
pays off!

[librechik]

35. yes of course, this is the real point of buying organic

once again this story/study deflects us from the real issues at stake. When will they grapple with the pesticide/toxin problem?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Organics taste better. That's what they have that conventional often lacks...

The lack of pesticides and other toxins along with the flavor profile is and always has been the reason for organic gardening. I don't think anyone ever thought they were more nutritious in the terms this piece offers.
Better food is a good thing.

[Aerows]

55. I got some nectarines on Sunday

from the grocery store, which were no doubt, factory farmed. They have absolutely no taste, and don't even really taste ripe, even though they have the color of ripe nectarines.

They taste NOTHING like the fresh peaches I got from an "along the highway" fruit vendor not too long ago.

[nanabugg]

15. It's the pesticides and herbicides and the GMOs!!! That's the diff.

[jillan]

17. Pesticide is an issue for me. I once had a long discussion with a professional landscaper about

my problems with aphids.

I tried everything and they were still coming back.... I was on the verge of buying some serious bug killer... and he told me not to. That it is not as strong as the commercial pesticides, they don't sell them on the shelves because they CAUSE CANCER.

[drm604]

18. Organic techniques supposedly require more land to grow a given amount of food.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/world/organic-food-yield/index.html

The comprehensive analysis of current scientific literature compared 316 organic and conventional crops across 34 species from 62 study sites.
Organic cereals and vegetables fared worst with yields 26% and 33% respectively lower than conventional agriculture.
But other organic produce fared much better.
Legumes (e.g. soybeans) were 11% lower while fruits were almost comparable with conventional farming with yields just 3% lower.

This needs to be weighed along with the other factors. What are the long term health effects of increased pesticide use versus the long term environmental effects (which also affect health) of converting more land to agricultural use?

I don't know what the answer is but there are many variables.

Finding alternatives to heavy pesticide use is obviously desirable but it needs to be done without reducing yield too much.

[BronxBoy]

42. I've seen that stat quoted on several occaisions

I'd be interested in learning more about the actual study. I've been growing commercially using organic and sustainable practices for over 8 years. And in that time a couple of things have become absolutely apparent to me.

It is very difficult to find an apple to apple comparison of organic and sustainable practices vs. conventional agriculture. Take the whole yield argument. Many of the sustainable farmers I know, including myself, make it a point to grow out a large percentage of open-pollinated or heirloom varieties. We do it for a lot or reasons including biodiversity and the preservation of varieties. By their very nature, many of these varieties do not have the disease resistance built into modern hybrid seed which are developed specifically for production and storage traits rather than taste and variety preservation. So if you conduct a study looking at the output of a conventional and organic farms that are growing tomatoes and do not take this factor into account, then from my perspective, that study tells me absolutely nothing. Modern commercial hybrids are bred to produce more and hold up better to transportation so the only surprise in a crop to crop study would be if they didn't outpace organic production.

Secondly, many times the very people conducting these studies don't even have a deep enough understanding of organic production and the economic models surrounding it. For example, I was asked to take part in a focus group at UGA regarding financing alternatives for organic farmers. There was also one recently in regards to crop insurance. Just 20 minutes into the group it became readily apparent that many of the assumptions and reasoning that was being used to conduct the study came from a strictly commodity based model and did not apply to any of the farmers sitting in that room, all of whom had active commercial operations.

One of my major frustrations with agencies like the USDA is, although their intentions are many times good, they have been unable or unwilling to build performance metrics that specifically account for organic production. And if that is not being done at a macro level, I'd be skeptical of a lot of these studies.

Having said that, you're right there are a lot of variables that factor into the equation.

And if there are any economists or statisticians or business students that are interested in this area, there are definitely some competitive research funds out there to fund this type of research. PM me if you'd like to know more info.

[hunter]

21. I don't buy it for health reasons. I buy it for environmental reasons.

Farming based on heavy pesticides and herbicide use sucks.

Great swaths of our nation are environmental dead zones, more barren than most deserts. Corn, soybeans, and poison, nothing more...

There's good evidence that exposure to pesticides lowers the intelligence of children living in agricultural communities.

Pesticide Exposure in Womb Affects I.Q.

By TARA PARKER-POPE

Babies exposed to high levels of common pesticides in the womb have lower I.Q. scores than their peers by the time they reach school age, according to three new studies.

The research, based on data collected in New York and California from about 1,000 pregnant women and their babies, is certain to set off a new debate about the benefits of organic produce and the risks of chemicals found in the food supply and consumer products. The pesticides, called organophosphates, are commonly sprayed on food crops and are often used to control cockroaches and other pests in city apartments.

The latest findings are based on three separate but similar studies financed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Two were conducted by researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University and studied urban families in New York; the third was done by researchers at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and focused on children in Salinas, Calif., an agricultural area. All three were published online on Thursday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/pesticide-exposure-in-womb-affects-i-q

This Stanford study is disingenuous... Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

[Avalux]

22. There's no reason to think organic would be more nutrituous. That's not the point.

I buy organic because I don't want my food adulterated by chemicals. I also grow my own for the same reason. Taste better too.

[DonCoquixote]

23. The Organic label is a nice idea

But like everything else, it gets stolen by food chains. There are some good organic products out there, my local chain,Publix, even has a section of their store defvoted to some, but as soon as some stores realized they could jack the price up, in they went.

I prefer to go to farmer's markets, especially because I know if I do not support them, some Walgreens will build on the farm.

[pansypoo53219]

24. NUTRITION IS NOT WHY WE EAT ORGANIC.

duh. never mind that its TASTES BETTER.

[HopeHoops]

26. Um, yeah - avoiding antibiotics and chemical poisons is sort of the point. It's the same food.

There's grass in the neighbors' yards. There are plenty of bugs in the neighbors' yards. The birds come to ours BECAUSE WE DON'T FUCKING POISON THE LAWN!

Why the hell do they need a study on something that isn't even the point of the issue?

[hlthe2b]

28. I don't know anyone who thinks organic is more nutritious. They eat because of pesticide concerns.

Seems almost like a straw man argument. Address the question that no one is really answering to influence opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Sorry, but I buy them because of the pesticide issue

More nutritious, for god sakes why would they?

But if I can avoid a few hormones, why not?

Oh and yes, at least to me they do taste better. But be more nutritious, why would they? (And the taste might have to do with the fact that I buy them directly from the farmer, so they are a tad more mature when they are harvested)

[qb]

32. This is akin to a study showing motorcycles go as fast as automobiles.

Who cares? I'm interested in their relative safety.

[LWolf]

34. That's kind of like saying that the sky is blue

whether or not you can see it through the smog. Living in an area with smog is going to affect health negatively, no matter how blue the sky is.

As many have already pointed out, nutritional value is not necessarily one of the reasons for preferring organic food production.

Pesticides and herbicides don't just end up being ingested by humans; they get into the ecosystem and affect the health of that system, as well.

Sustainability is a factor. So is the freedom and ability to produce our own food. When GMO crops are developed to be used in conjunction with herbicides, when seeds have a patent that makes seed saving illegal, it puts food production for all into the hands of a few, and that isn't healthy. When seen in this light, the gmo, NON-organic movement can be seen as a way to "own" food production, and to liberate more money from the pockets of farmers for Monsanto seed and product, for example. Organic farming is certainly more "liberating" to the farmer who wants to be independent from mega-corporate farming.

As for nutritional content? It kind of depends. If the Stanford study compared non-organic food to organic food produced on a larger farm that has gone organic in the last couple of decades, I wouldn't expect a big difference in nutritional value.

If, though, the organic food was grown in a family garden that has always been organic, focused not just on avoidance of chemicals, but on improvement of soil, I think you might find a significant difference. I don't know enough about modern commercial organic farming to know; do they do the intense work with compost, with adding organic matter, with soil health, that organic gardeners do, or does their "organic" label just depend on what kind of chemicals they are, or are not, using?

[4th law of robotics]

36. No health benefits *and* it costs twice as much! Sweet.

Love the "anecdotal evidence" guy.

I doubt he had such concerns when organic was assumed to be healthier (which was always a claim, rather than a verified fact).

[pnwmom]

70. That misstates the article. There ARE health benefits according to the Stanford report.

Just not increased nutrition. But there are health benefits to avoiding unnecessary exposure to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and unlabeled GMO's (particularly for people with allergies).

With organic meat, for example, there is no exposure to hormones or antibiotics in animal feed, which are passed on to the humans who eat them. This is related to an increase in antibiotic resistance among people, and is mentioned in the article at the OP.

[4th law of robotics]

77. According to the article:

Smith-Spangler told Reuters Health it was uncommon for either organic or conventional foods to exceed the allowable limits for pesticides, so it was not clear whether a difference in residues would have an effect on health.

[Luminous Animal]

89. The NY Times elaborates...

The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.

The scientists sidestepped the debate over whether the current limits are too high. “Some of my patients take solace in knowing that the pesticide levels are below safety thresholds,” Dr. Bravata said. “Others have questioned whether these standards are sufficiently rigorous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=1

[4th law of robotics]

91. Showing one is higher than the other doesn't prove one is deadly

if both are within the acceptable limits.

If your tap water has 2ppb arsenic but your bottled water only has 1ppb that means the bottled option has half as much arsenic. Does that mean tap water is deadly? Well no since up to 10ppb has been found safe for regular consumption.

It's easy enough to write an article that calls in to question certain assumptions to make things appear ominous. So for instance implying that the current acceptable levels are unsafe without any sort of evidence. That doesn't really mean much though.

[laundry_queen]

115. And if the research on 10ppb is found to be questionable? nt

[4th law of robotics]

128. Then present it

in this case the limits weren't found to be questionable.

Here is their evidence:


But others said more research is needed to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between organic and conventional foods, and it was premature to say organic foods aren't any healthier than non-organic versions.



Others said. Damning stuff.

[wordpix]

113. costs more because it's labor intensive-it's a business that grows jobs as well as good food

[4th law of robotics]

124. Adding jobs isn't necessarily a good thing

serfdoms had 100% employment rates (and were all organic).

We should be adding good jobs that actually benefit the most people.

[wordpix]

116. It does not cost 2x as much if you shop brands like Whole Foods 365 & grow your own garden

yes, 365 organics cost more than "conventional" but you're doing good things for your health and the planet when you buy it. Offset the cost by growing a garden. I have a little spot in a community garden and can grow everything I need for two for 8-9 mos. of the year.

[4th law of robotics]

125. Nothing costs any amount more if you just produce it yourself

that isn't a practical solution for most people though.

Also not everyone lives within walking distance to a whole foods. I don't. How much are we benefiting the planet by driving 30+ minutes to a whole foods to buy organic foods produced in another state?

Local: yes. This makes sense.

Organic for organics-sake? Meh. Depends.

[kestrel91316]

39. Better nutrition has never been much of my reason for buying organic. It has ALWAYS

been about decreasing use of pesticides and herbicides and other toxins, out of concern for the environment, the agricultural workers, and the consumer.

Just more propaganda from Monsanto and friends, AFAIAC.

[obamanut2012]

40. Who ever said it was (except for eggs and milk)?

Organic foods are kinder to the environment, the growers and pickers, and livestock. And, please tell me how putting LESS toxins in my body is a bad thing???

Also, less hormones, and, especially in the case of meat products, better tasting food.

Who funded this study? Monsanto?

[progressivebydesign]

50. they should have examined the produce routinely shipped from Chile, Mexico, and China, now.

And the impact of that, and the levels of chemicals on them in uncontrolled environments. One of the things that freaks me out is the "organic" produce being shipped to grocery chains, from thousands of miles away in other Countries. People buy organic thinking it's better for the Earth, but the corporations are shipping them thousands of miles overseas.

[obamanut2012]

63. TOTALLY agree

I have a relative who buys "Wal-Mart Organics," including soy milk. Pretty much none of it is from the US, and the soy is GMO. Yet, he crows about eating organic, and how he pays less than I do. I buy almost everything at Trader Joe's that I can;t get from farmer's market, so the cost is debatable, and I trust TJ's a hell of a lot more than Wal-Mart.

[progressivebydesign]

44. Is there really anyone out there that THOUGHT it was "more nutritious?" That's silly...

we buy it and grow it because it's not coated in life-killing chemicals.

I hate stupid studies and articles like that. NO ONE claimed that it was more nutritious. Frankly, some of the franken-veggies dreamed up by Monsanto, can be more nutritious because of genetic alteration.

I'm just funny about eating BUG KILLER and WEED KILLER in my salads.. But that's just me.

[Major Nikon]

118. The Organic Trade Association seems to think so

Growing crops in healthy soils results in food products that offer healthy nutrients. There is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates and pesticide residues than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

The trade in organic foods is now mostly owned by big agra. It shouldn't come as a big surprise that some organic food marketers are going to make misleading claims about their products.

[marlakay]

51. I buy organic because I don't want hormones in my food

along with extra pesticides and bacteria….

also try to buy local…this is best time of year for that!

[robinlynne]

52. This is some bullshit. Organic food is free of pesticide. It is not about nutrition! I saw this on t

the news and wondered who paid for the study. big agriculture for sure!

[K Gardner]

71. Exactly. There are WAY to many Food Docudramas out now for any "study"

to get away with trying to push consumers back to big factory farm, GMO-seeded, pesticide-laden foods.

Food, Inc.
Vegucated
Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead
Forks over Knives

I could go on...

[porphyrian]

53. Organic milk lasts longer, though - ultrapastuerized.

I think it tastes better, too.

[BronxBoy]

60. I Agree With a Lot of What Has Been Posted Already....

As someone who grows commercially using organic and sustainable practices, I am very disappointed at the way the "Organic" has been co-opted as a marketing term instead defining a way of crop production distinct and separate from the way conventional crops are grown which has, in my opinion some very distinct advantages and some disadvantages when it comes to food systems. I see the same thing happening with the "Local Produce". And as we all post here, there is an active on-going effort to define standards for "Sustainable" And judging from some of the heavy hitters at the table, a lot of people understand the importance on putting their point of view into that definition.

While there is a large numbers of customers at our markets who really believe that nutrition is better, many of them buy organic or sustainably grown for many other reasons. A big one is the supporting the efforts of their local farmers. Another one is concern for the environment. And although it's almost a cliche, there is a growing demand among consumers that they know where there food comes from. I believe that people who specifically seek out organic products bring with them a belief and value system that transcends merely nutrition and price.

[obamanut2012]

64. Who funded the study?

NO ONE is reporting that, including NPR.

[NCarolinawoman]

85. I was wondering the same thing.

[obamanut2012]

99. I can't find the info anywhere

Interesting, huh?

[stuntcat]

102. RIGHT!?

NPR is where I heard this, this morning.

Oh but someone did mention quickly at the end of the report that ecologically the organics are better. Just that throw away lil' issue no one cares about, the FUTURE

Soon as I heard this it sounded to me like bu**sh** "news"

[grntuscarora]

110. bingo.

I'd be surprised if this study was done solely out of intellectual curiosity. As they say, follow the money.

[underpants]

120. Gee you think an interest in the California G.M. vote might want this kind of info out there?

This whole study stinks to high heaven

[grasswire]

65. LOCAL is more important than ORGANIC

For the earth, that is. And for the local economy as well.

[cleanhippie]

66. I would agree.

[pnwmom]

73. Local isn't better if they're feeding the livestock hormones and antibiotics

to fatten them up.

I'd rather buy non-local antibiotic and hormone-free poultry and meat.

[4th law of robotics]

80. This statement holds a lot of truth.

[wordpix]

117. however, local organic is best

[mzmolly]

76. Organic apples, oranges and berries do taste better.

And, they don't have unnecessary pesticides on or in them. I, like others here, feel the argument about nutritional content, is a straw-man.

From your article: "although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria,..."

There you have it.

[quinnox]

95. I gotta admit, as someone who is usually too broke to pay

the "organic" prices, I'm feeling some schadenfreude about this news.

[obamanut2012]

100. Why?

[wordpix]

114. one of my friends said organics are one thing he does not mind paying more for. It's your health &

the planet's we're talking about. You have NOTHING if either of those is gone.

[Warpy]

101. They need to stop reinventing this particular wheel.

This stuff has been known for over 30 years, at least.

What organic gardening and farming methods do improve are the soil and regional ecology. That's why the shift needs to be made, to rebuild our soil, depleted by factory farming methods.

Research dollars are hard to come by. Big Ag would serve us much better had they devoted these dollars to doing something more constructive.

[Matariki]

104. It's not the nutrition - it's the carcinogins, etc. from pesticides

Let's see this statement backed up - "Food sprayed with pesticides are no more likely to cause disease than organically grown produce".

And then let's look at what pesticides do to the entire ecosystem.

[Major Nikon]

122. The jury appears to still be out on that

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

They qualified that statement with this...

There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

So it seems as if it would be pretty hard to make the claim you listed, but it would also be pretty hard to claim the health risks from organic foods are lower.