Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You, Says Study

Story here:

If you're thinking that organic produce will help you stay healthier, a new finding may come as a surprise. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods. "There's a definite lack of evidence," says researcher Crystal Smith-Spangler at Stanford University School of Medicine, especially when it comes to studies of people.

She and her colleagues collected 200 peer-reviewed studies that examined differences between organic and conventional food, or the people who eat it.

Any thoughts? I buy organic products and always looking for people to toss me the output of their gardens for the free vegetables, so I'm not at all hostile to organic food. But if you demand scientific evidence of creationists, shouldn't the same approach apply to claims of organic food producers, creators of new healthy diets, and supplement makers?

Let's talk food politics.

The article hinted at it, but not everyone buys organic because they think it's healthier. Some buy organic simply because it's a much more environmentally friendly way to farm and one that doesn't rely on petroleum-based fertilizers.

Heck, I even buy some organic products for no health or environmental reason. I buy organic bananas because they don't turn brown and mushy in a just a few days and there's nothing worse than a brown, mushy banana.

I heard this on NPR this morning, and I really want to see more science on this. We buy organic and it is expensive. If there isn't a health benefit, I want to know.

OG_slinger wrote:

The article hinted at it, but not everyone buys organic because they think it's healthier. Some buy organic simply because it's a much more environmentally friendly way to farm and one that doesn't rely on petroleum-based fertilizers.

Yeah, I buy organic often and was under no impression that it was healthier for me. I don't see why it would be, unless you're assuming the pesticide does not get sufficiently washed off / removed.

I usually buy organic if the organic produce looks better than the conventional, or if it's a product I like anyway. I eat a lot of Whole Foods store brand...

OG_slinger wrote:

The article hinted at it, but not everyone buys organic because they think it's healthier. Some buy organic simply because it's a much more environmentally friendly way to farm and one that doesn't rely on petroleum-based fertilizers.

Right, the study doesn't address the environmental aspects of farming. It also leave out the question of the impact of pesticides on health. It sounds like they were just looking for evidence that an organically-grown food was more nutritious than your standard industrial-farmed food.

Though now that I look at this article, "Ten Good Reasons to Buy Organic," it doesn't look like the health claims are a prominent reason for buying organic other than as a way to avoid pesticides.

Funkenpants wrote:

Any thoughts? I buy organic products and always looking for people to toss me the output of their gardens for the free vegetables, so I'm not at all hostile to organic food. But if you demand scientific evidence of creationists, shouldn't the same approach apply to claims of organic food producers, creators of new healthy diets, and supplement makers?

Let's talk food politics.

I'm not even remotely surprised by these findings, personally. There's a lot to be said for both the reductionism of the nutritionist approach to food and the measure of "industrial organic", as those familiar with Michael Pollan's work would see this. Actually, those who have read his stuff (like The Omnivore's Dilemma or In Defense of Food) will recognize a lot of his points in a study like this.

Buy local. Know your grower/producer. And down with the FDA/USDA.

[drops mic]

Yeah I don't buy it for the health benefit, I buy it for the environmental benefit.

I've never assumed they were more nutritious. Occasionally they taste a bit better but I'd guess that has more to do with minimising the time between harvest and getting to me.

Funkenpants wrote:

Though now that I look at this article, "Ten Good Reasons to Buy Organic," it doesn't look like the health claims are a prominent reason for buying organic other than as a way to avoid pesticides.

That list might not hit the health angle very hard, but the advertising at my local Whole Foods Market certainly does. You can't hardly read a sign or a bit of product packaging without seeing the word "healthy" a gazillion times.

I was under the impression that organic meat (i.e. from animals not pumped full of growth hormones, antibiotics, etc) is healthier for you than mass-produced meat, but that for plant crops there's little to no difference.

My interest in purchasing plant produce grown organically is environmental, not health-related. My interest in purchasing meat from organic-raised animals is both health and environmental. But that article only delves into non-meat organic foods.

As I have mentioned to my fiancee a few times. If so many of these things that are supposed to be an electric chair on a plate, in a glass, etc. life spans would be shortening, not lengthening.

I am lucky, it is damned easy to get local produce in just about any supermarket in Michigan, we have a lot of farms. Sometimes I will drive to the farm myself, most farmers have stands and markets of their own. I never have to drive more than 30-60 minutes.

But the outlandish claims are what get me. For some odd reason, starving nations have had organic farm lobbyists get a foothold, forcing them away from genetically modified crops that are pest resistant(less spraying or horrid crap that ends up in the water), have a higher protein content, can grow in sandy soil, etc. Africa still needs these nobel prize winning crops.

KingGorilla wrote:

For some odd reason, starving nations have had organic farm lobbyists get a foothold, forcing them away from genetically modified crops that are pest resistant(less spraying or horrid crap that ends up in the water), have a higher protein content, can grow in sandy soil, etc. Africa still needs these nobel prize winning crops.

To be fair, the giant ag companies have also played a giant role in forcing farmers in developing nations away from GMO crops. GMO crops are only a commercial business because the ag companies have introduced genes that make sure that no viable seeds are produced from the crop. That means farmers have to purchase seeds every year, something they've never had to do in thousands of years of farming and something they really can't afford since they also can't afford fertilizer or irrigation a lot of the time.

Luckily there's quite a few UN-backed crop research groups that develop drought and pest-resistant hybrids for staple crops and are getting into GMOs (but leaving out the terminator genes).

Minarchist wrote:

Buy local.

With you.

Minarchist wrote:

Know your grower/producer.

Totes with you.

Minarchist wrote:

And down with the FDA/USDA.

With.. bwuh?

IMAGE(http://www.capitalcentury.com/jungle.jpg)

Yeah, I think the limitation of pesticides (some evidence their use is helping in bee hive collapse syndromes) is the only reason to buy organically-farmed crops. Meat-wise, well, I don't think pumping your meat full of steroids is good for the animal or you either so I prefer free-range meat.... I guess that counts as organic? I don't think we use as much of that stuff on animals as you do in the USA...

My assumption has always been that the fundamental organic food is about the same as conventional food, but that all you get is the actual food, instead of a whacking great pile of bizarre chemical substances that happen to kill insects.

As someone who worked at Whole Foods and spoke with any number of customers, I was always amazed when people made grandiose claims about the health benefits of eating organic. I was never under this assumption, but I tend to be a lefty, tree-hugging environmentalist type. Which means, as others have said, my primary reason for buying organic when I could was largely environmental in concern.

Here's a take from Boingboing
boingboing.net/2012/09/04/why-oversimplified-science-new.html

They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.

And the people setting those regulations have absolutely no ties to big agriculture. No sir.

I have bought grapes this season from the Grocery Store (Albertsons), Trader Joe's, Costco, and the Farmers Market.

The Farmers Market grapes were the best tasting of the bunch. Trader Joe's were good. Costco and Albertsons were okay.

Farmers Market was around $2/lb (probably less because the farmer rounded down and gave me an extra bunch.)
Trader Joe's around 1.67.
Costco and Albertsons around 1.20.

I never would buy Costco or Albertsons above $1.50/lb.

I also buy local oranges from the farmers market that are not organic but growth with "best practices". They are delicious and cheap.. $8 for 25 lbs.

PS ... wash all fruit and veggies to get rid of pesticide residue.

garion333 wrote:
They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.

And the people setting those regulations have absolutely no ties to big agriculture. No sir.

Better than no regulation. What you are saying is we need stronger less biased regulation. How would getting rid of the FDA help in that?

goman wrote:
garion333 wrote:
They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.

And the people setting those regulations have absolutely no ties to big agriculture. No sir.

Better than no regulation. What you are saying is we need stronger less biased regulation. How would getting rid of the FDA help in that?

Where did I say we should get rid of the FDA?

garion333 wrote:
goman wrote:
garion333 wrote:
They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.

And the people setting those regulations have absolutely no ties to big agriculture. No sir.

Better than no regulation. What you are saying is we need stronger less biased regulation. How would getting rid of the FDA help in that?

Where did I say we should get rid of the FDA?

Woops ... thought you were Minarchist. Your avatars are similar.

hehehe

Another problem with "conventional" style farming is that is can be used to mask problems with growing the food the agriculturist wants to sell such as bad soil and insect infestations.

Organic farming is more planned out to deal with these problems before they happen. Organic farms are also most likely to be closer to population centers so they cannot get away with flyby spraying of crops.

What troubles me is that 'organic' can still use organic pesticides or certain pesticides and chemicals which were grandfathered in. Health wise I don't see any reason to believe these are less harmful than the modern pesticides and it's a hell of a markup when 'certified organic' might be just as toxic, or even more so. Perhaps the enviromental case can be made as sufficient justification, I'm admittedly not well read on that aspect yet.

As a secondary issue my local store that specializes in organics as well as the organic section of the bigger supermarkets here always have a ton of stuff which falls under the umbrella of bs panaceas and other pseudo-science products. This lumping may be coincidental but to me it suggests that the target market of these products and organic foods is basically the same demographic which doesn't exactly encourage me on the organic food front.

Tanglebones wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

And down with the FDA/USDA.

With.. bwuh?

IMAGE(http://www.capitalcentury.com/jungle.jpg)

I'm down with destroying the existing entities and replacing them with ones that work and aren't directly tied to the industry they're regulating.

How do we go about that?

I like the concept of organic food, I just don't like that they've hijacked the word organic for it. My highschool chemistry lessons make me confused everytime I hear someone say a bit of food is organic and I go "Bwuh? Er, it contains carbon doesn't it?". Couldn't they have picked a better word?

I also like seeing claims of "Organic Water", that always gives me a chuckle.

Many of the mainstream organic foods suppliers these days are owned by the same large food corporations that supply the "non-organic" foods... So whether you pay 50¢ or $5 for that apple, most of that money is leaving your community and entering someone's offshore account. That's why it's far more important to just buy local and support smaller businesses/farmers than whether or not one buys organic. It's more about the health of the community than it is personal health.

I grow organic rice here on Sado (we do about 90/10 non-organic/organic). Never really thought the food was more healthy, as in more vitamins and whatever per grain than non-organic, but that it was rice sans pesticides and weed-killers that we use on the other stuff. No one really knows what the long term effects of spaying all those chemicals throughout the growing season are. Maybe there are none. I don't know.

Organic is better for the environment, though, cause you're not putting those chemicals into the ground and having it move on to the water table. Our organic fields are the first fields that melt-water from the mountains reaches on Sado, so I also know that our organic fields are not getting any runoff. That's pretty cool.

The way we plant our organic rice is definitely more labor intensive than the non-organic stuff, so that factors into the cost a bit. The labor is also why we keep the ratio at about 90/10. I couldn't imagine doing all our fields organic. Would take forever to plant!

What does Japan require to be considered organic? I'm fairly certain there is no hand planting requirement to be labelled organic here in the United States. Or is that just an issue in rice farming?