Organic Foods No Healthier Than Ordinary Foods

[Oberon]

I have come to have a real distrust of the scientific community as a whole. It has become a huge, self serving business that seems to seek results that will propagate the field.

Unlike the organic foods industry of course.

That sounds good on the surface, but nobody even knows where these "papers" come from or what these "papers" even say. Everybody has "papers"...I have "papers".

At least, nobody except those who actually read the article, where it specifically states their method for obtaining past research.

I just don't see any real information here.

You could try reading it. That might help.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is Just a marketing exercise.... or they would have tested for toxic residues as well as nutrition.

 

[Oberon]

This is Just a marketing exercise.... or they would have tested for toxic residues as well as nutrition.

Right. It wasn't an experiment. It was a review of studies. They didn't test anything. They reviewed the literature in the field (i.e. all the past tests).

However, as long as we are looking at toxicity, do you know how many toxins are natural? Apples, celery, etc, all have natural carcinogens. However, luckily pesticides and the natural toxins are not present in levels that are at all dangerous. pheww.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Right. It wasn't an experiment. It was a review of studies. They didn't test anything. They reviewed the literature in the field (i.e. all the past tests).

However, as long as we are looking at toxicity, do you know how many toxins are natural? Apples, celery, etc, all have natural carcinogens. However, luckily pesticides and the natural toxins are not present in levels that are at all dangerous. pheww.

Unfortunately though they test for Pesticides, and on average thing are usually fine in these tests, this is not always so. Nor do they, nor could they test every item of produce from every farm ( how ever slap happy a farm worker might be) so there is a fair chance that some of us ingest some dangerous levels some of the time. Organic lowers that risk.

 

[Nepenthe]

Right. It wasn't an experiment. It was a review of studies. They didn't test anything. They reviewed the literature in the field (i.e. all the past tests).

However, as long as we are looking at toxicity, do you know how many toxins are natural? Apples, celery, etc, all have natural carcinogens. However, luckily pesticides and the natural toxins are not present in levels that are at all dangerous. pheww.

Mmmm... arsenic.

This was a meta-analysis, right? I'm gonna guess that the arguments against the study are going to start to emphasize that fact since the sources of the meta-analysis may have been biased or skewed. Though at this point it looks to be a pretty solid scientific study and I see little reason to dispute the nutritional (or lack thereof) claims of organics.

Next study please!

 

[Oberon]

Unfortunately though they test for Pesticides, and on average thing are usually fine in these tests, this is not always so. Nor do they, nor could they test every item of produce from every farm ( how ever slap happy a farm worker might be) so there is a fair chance that some of us ingest some dangerous levels some of the time. Organic lowers that risk.

You aren't hearing my point. Virtually ALL FRUITS AND VEGETABLES HAVE TOXINS! These toxins/carinogens are 100% natural. They are produced BY THE PLANTS THEMSELVES! In fact, these plants have been evovling pesticides of their own for thousands of years through evolution.

The question is, are the levels of pesticide residue, or the levels of natural carcinogens in the plants themselves, something to be concerned about? The answer is no. There are more carcinogens naturally occuring in the plants than you will find in residues.

 

[gnomon]

This study needs to be followed up with other studies.

Namely:
1) Comparing the cost efficiency between organic and industrial farming. While many people find it quaint to have their own small plot of home grown tomatoes such a thing is just not feasible for the millions of people in the United States. With the growing organic industry, primarily owned by large agribusiness, we should be able to start measuring the cost efficiency.

2) How they affect the environment? The assumption that organic is better, because it's organic, is not enough. Effects on topsoil, livestock, waterways, etc. They all need to be compared.

What the study from the OP does tell us is that the nutritional debate does not grant either form an economic or social advantage.

 

[NoahideHiker]

Why? You are essentially blaming the scientific community for your inability to differentiate between genuine scientific research and complete crap.

Why do a significant portion of the public believe that organic foods are substantially more healthy/nutritious than non-organically produced foods? Because of very clever advertising that appeals to the public ignorance. The idea that ‘more natural’=’better’ is simple enough for them to understand and buy into – it just happens to be utterly false.

So why are you taking a pot shot at the scientific community over this? Have you actually bothered to check what they are actually saying on this matter?

The article in the OP had this to say regarding the nutritional differences:
”A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.”

Take this paper for another example:
But feel free to have a distrust regarding the scientific community. That you don’t know that they are saying should be a barrier to that distrust.

Settle down Francis. Not every simple opinion has to blow up up into a huge ******* match. :faint:

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Unlike the organic foods industry of course.

I don't think anyone disputes that. What is in dispute is the idea that this article seems to be dismissing the idea that certified-organic produce is no different than conventional foods, and obviously there is a difference, even if certified organic produce is **** compared to homegrown, real-organic food.

At least, nobody except those who actually read the article, where it specifically states their method for obtaining past research.

I assume you mean this:
"A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference."

Which papers? What foods were studied? What was measured?...It's not saying anything real.

I read the article up and down a few times just to make sure I didn't miss anything...I didn't. The entire article is completely meaningless. There is no reference to any real documents other than the fact that there are documents that exist and that the review that was published in the American Journal of Clinical Research that this article references was of these documents. The article itself says nothing.

You could try reading it. That might help.

Without a heavy level of mental interpretation of the words in this article, one could not possibly take anything from it of value. If I was interested in further examining the results of this review of past research (which I'm not), I'd first try to find this review in the referenced journal.

 

[Oberon]

I assume you mean this:

No. I actually meant the research paper itself, not the article on the paper. I didn't actually read through the link posted by the OP. I got the paper itself instead. You should read it. It would answer your questions.

 

[themadhair]

Settle down Francis. Not every simple opinion has to blow up up into a huge ******* match. :faint:

Do you hold an opinion or a condition of wilful ignorance? I opine it to be the latter.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

No. I actually meant the research paper itself, not the article on the paper. I didn't actually read through the link posted by the OP. I got the paper itself instead. You should read it. It would answer your questions.

Ah, that makes sense then. Yes, I think I might like to read that, just out of curiosity. If you have the link handy, that would be very appreciated.

 

[Oberon]

Ah, that makes sense then. Yes, I think I might like to read that, just out of curiosity. If you have the link handy, that would be very appreciated.

I got it through my university. It may be available online. If you want to set up a throw-away email address (at yahoo or something) I can send you the article on .pdf. Or if you have another way to get it to you, I woud be happy to do that.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I got it through my university. It may be available online. If you want to set up a throw-away email address (at yahoo or something) I can send you the article on .pdf. Or if you have another way to get it to you, I woud be happy to do that.

Eh...I'll just pass then. I'm interested, but not interested enough to do any amount of work beyond clicking a link. lol

 

[themadhair]

Eh...I'll just pass then. I'm interested, but not interested enough to do any amount of work beyond clicking a link. lol

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
Normally you can get papers easily enough through google scholar. Don't know why the above isn't on there.

 

[Oberon]

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
Normally you can get papers easily enough through google scholar. Don't know why the above isn't on there.

While your link is very informative, I am not sure that it is the article referred to by the OP. The OP link (if I recall correctly) refers to an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. And again, if anyone would like to access the article, and either willing to create a throw-away free email account or knows some other method, I am more than happy to send the journal article cited by the news story in the OP.

 

[Mr Cheese]

A short article that surprised me and may surprise some of you.



Organic food is no healthier, study finds - Yahoo! News

yeah but it tastes better....

fresh veggies from our garden... beats anythign from a store

 

[Mr Cheese]

People actualy pay for studies of the blatently obvius?

yes....

it took science five years to admit, yes baked beans do indeed make you fart
Recently a long term study proclaimed, ducks like water.....

:sarcasticscience at its best

 

[themadhair]

While your link is very informative, I am not sure that it is the article referred to by the OP. The OP link (if I recall correctly) refers to an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. And again, if anyone would like to access the article, and either willing to create a throw-away free email account or knows some other method, I am more than happy to send the journal article cited by the news story in the OP.

It is the paper referenced in the OP. It was commissioned by the FSA.

Relevant quote:

5.1 Search results
The literature searches yielded 52,471 citations. Of these, 292 articles were identified as potentially relevant. Full copies of 281 of these papers were obtained; full copies of 6 (2%) potentially eligible publications and 5 (2%) of unknown eligibility (unknown peer review status) were unobtainable despite numerous attempts. Examination of full texts resulted in the exclusion of 145 studies for a variety of reasons including absence of peer review, no relevant outcome measure and lack of direct comparison of organic vs. other agricultural production method (see Appendix 6). A further 15 relevant papers were identified via hand searching of reference lists, and 11 relevant papers were identified by direct author contact. A total of 162 publications (60 field trials, 76 farm surveys, 23 basket surveys and
3 combination designs) were identified and included in the review (see Figure 2).

 

[blackout]

Organic Foods No Healthier Than Ordinary Foods

Organic Foods ARE Ordinary Foods.
They are simply ordinary foods not sprayed with and grown in poisons.
Of course it is healthier not to ingest all kinds of pesticides.

Beyond that... I would intuitively prefer to eat produce grown (appropriately)
from heirloom seeds.
(non genetically modified)

an interesting blurb about heirloom...

Typically, heirlooms have adapted over time to whatever climate and soil they have grown in. Due to their genetics, they are often resistant to local pests, diseases, and extremes of weather.