Organic has no health benefits(news.bbc.co.uk)
news.bbc.co.uk
Organic has no health benefits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm
136 comments
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.
Exactly. The article avoids the "truth" as to why most people even eat Organic. The health benefits in eating organic are in what you aren't eating (e.g. pesticides, etc).
It's also just a strait up lie.
"Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.
Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. "
PS: There is a difference between saying there is no significant effect vs. no effect.
"Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.
Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. "
PS: There is a difference between saying there is no significant effect vs. no effect.
I disagree - it's called margin of error and confidence intervals. If the difference is not large enough it can easily fall into the realm of statistical error.
I would check myself I were you. Disagreeing with research is fine, but calling a bunch of trained scientists liars is a pretty serious accusation, especially when you yourself are not trained in the field.
I would check myself I were you. Disagreeing with research is fine, but calling a bunch of trained scientists liars is a pretty serious accusation, especially when you yourself are not trained in the field.
Edit: The report is fine it's the reporting that's off.
Note: not large enough to be of any public health relevance
It's like overclocking a 4Ghz CPU by 0.01 Ghz. It's measurably faster, but not noticeably faster in normal use. So you can say it's an insignificant change, but you can't say they are the same speed. So "Organic has no health benefits" would not be a true statement without significant qualifiers.
Note: not large enough to be of any public health relevance
It's like overclocking a 4Ghz CPU by 0.01 Ghz. It's measurably faster, but not noticeably faster in normal use. So you can say it's an insignificant change, but you can't say they are the same speed. So "Organic has no health benefits" would not be a true statement without significant qualifiers.
Also, this study looked at the people eating the food, and ignored the people growing the good. Obviously, farmers are exposed to pesticides (and other petrochemicals) in much greater concentrations than consumers....
According to the abstact of the study, which the BBC do not link, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1
the objective was "We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." and it was "restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients". The word 'nutrient' according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient does not cover pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth hormones and all the other medicines and chemicals excluded by organic farmers.
The study, according to the link above, did not conclude that 'Organic has no health benefits'.
The study, according to the link above, did not conclude that 'Organic has no health benefits'.
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.
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.
There are a motif reasons for the better taste. Often organic produce doesn't get shipped as far, which means growers can pick varieties bread for something other than shelf-life and durability.
Also, organic farmers manage the soil differently. Intensive industrial farming depletes soils and relies on extensive use of refined fertilizers to make up forthe deficit. The soil at organic farms is often richer and plants can pick up more minerals, which can have a real impact on flavor.
Also, organic farmers manage the soil differently. Intensive industrial farming depletes soils and relies on extensive use of refined fertilizers to make up forthe deficit. The soil at organic farms is often richer and plants can pick up more minerals, which can have a real impact on flavor.
Actually, some organic products get shipped further - when there is no local production. Milk is a good example of this. Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk - it is pasteurized at higher temperatures, has lower levels of Vitamin D as a result, because it has to last longer during shipping in a larger distribution network.
Organic milk has other ancillary benefits you won't find in "plain" milk: The land and animals are treated much better. If you have ever seen a "normal" dairy farm, and watch the amount of antibiotics used to prevent the cow's udders from become infected, it becomes clear that life (for a cow at least) on a organic dairy farm is much a much nicer existence (and thus one I personally want to encourage). Also - the grains that are fed to organic dairy cows must be organic, which means more acres of organic grain production. Many organic dairy farms also do not milk cows that are in the later stages of pregnancy, which reduces the amount of estrogen in the milk fat (high levels of estrogen in the diet are linked to cancer).
And all of that is less important from a health perspective than a reduction in Vitamin D. Its a net loss.
[deleted]
So why not use other foods to compensate for the Vitamin D loss? A single serving of tuna naturally contains double(5 microgram) the amount of vitamin D present in a glass of fortified milk(2.5 microgram for fortified, 1microgram for non-fortified).
Why would I want to lower the quality of one food and replace it with another? I was on the organic milk bandwagon, but its simply inferior.
Organic milk is literally inferior to plain milk
I'm not sure about that when you factor in that in the US (and Canada?) antibiotics and recombinant bovine growth hormone are commonly given to cattle. The side effects of rGBH include puss in the milk.
I'm not sure about that when you factor in that in the US (and Canada?) antibiotics and recombinant bovine growth hormone are commonly given to cattle. The side effects of rGBH include puss in the milk.
And yet we actually have incredibly clean, great milk without any significant levels of these things.
Agreed. I bought a bundle of organic cilantro a little while back and it was stinking up the place (in a good way) that normal cilantro simply doesn't. Much or the organic stuff just tastes better.
This goes doubly for eggs - organic & free-range eggs are just a world apart from regular farm eggs.
This goes doubly for eggs - organic & free-range eggs are just a world apart from regular farm eggs.
That it tastes better may just be in my head, but I can definitely tell them apart just by taste.
It would be interesting to do a blind taste-test between organic and non-organic produce ... Pepsi Challenge style.
It would be interesting to do a blind taste-test between organic and non-organic produce ... Pepsi Challenge style.
Interestingly enough that has been done with rats: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/dining/03curi.html
And the rats preferred organic.
And the rats preferred organic.
Thanks for this very interesting link, by an author whose writings I like a lot. (He is a chemist who writes about food, a good background to have for this thread.)
It is a puzzler that he mentions one small sample of rats
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
that doesn't show the same result (indifference to whether or not food is "organic") shown in many human studies he mentions in his article. This kind of study needs a bigger sample size and a great deal more replication.
Here's another problem: how do we know that either human beings or rats prefer what is best for them? Preferences for smells and tastes may have evolutionary origins that are then exploited by adaptations of food organisms in ways that are not beneficial to the eater.
It is a puzzler that he mentions one small sample of rats
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
that doesn't show the same result (indifference to whether or not food is "organic") shown in many human studies he mentions in his article. This kind of study needs a bigger sample size and a great deal more replication.
Here's another problem: how do we know that either human beings or rats prefer what is best for them? Preferences for smells and tastes may have evolutionary origins that are then exploited by adaptations of food organisms in ways that are not beneficial to the eater.
Very interesting, thanks.
Weird that they chose rats and haven't (that we know of) done a study with humans. After all, it's not as if such a study has any inherent danger.
Weird that they chose rats and haven't (that we know of) done a study with humans. After all, it's not as if such a study has any inherent danger.
Actually, we have tried this with my mother in law (not that I want to pick on her) who was convinced that organic bananas tasted better. We made her taste the bananas blindfolded and she couldn't tell the organic and non-organic bananas apart.
We were however capable of telling the difference between organic and non-organic chicken tough.
We were however capable of telling the difference between organic and non-organic chicken tough.
Some food is grown for visual appeal as well as more realistic goals as increased shelf life or disease resistance. The huge beautiful, yet almost flavorless Golden Delicious being a classic example.
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...
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...
You are right. Actually, I shouldn't have said Canada, I should have said Quebec.
The meaning of "organic" is getting watered down:
http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=6010024200...
For example, "products labeled 'Made With Organic Ingredients', which contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, but can contain up to 30 percent non-organic ingredients"
http://www.manyhands.com/articles/story.cfm?id_no=6010024200...
For example, "products labeled 'Made With Organic Ingredients', which contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients, but can contain up to 30 percent non-organic ingredients"
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...
"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...
Right. Who actually thought organic foods had more vitamins?
To be fair, I've met more than one pro-organic person who thinks organic foods are more nutritious. These are often the same people who worry about vague things like "toxins" from eating meat.
Vague? So high cholesterol, hormones, high saturated fat, and heterocyclic amines are essential nutrients and not toxic to our bodies?
Pop science doesn't vindicate textbook science which still discourages high amounts of saturated fat.
And the Massai (and Inuit) referred to in your link are hardly good examples. They have short lifespans (as low as in the 40s), suffer from atherosclerosis and thickening of the arteries. The Inuit are also not long lived and have a high rate of osteoporosis. These groups' "adaptation" to a high protein meat diet is hardly desirable. They are forced to eat a high meat diet out of circumstances, not as a chosen optimal way of life.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26
American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 95, No. 1: 26-37
ATHEROSCLEROSIS IN THE MASAI
And the Massai (and Inuit) referred to in your link are hardly good examples. They have short lifespans (as low as in the 40s), suffer from atherosclerosis and thickening of the arteries. The Inuit are also not long lived and have a high rate of osteoporosis. These groups' "adaptation" to a high protein meat diet is hardly desirable. They are forced to eat a high meat diet out of circumstances, not as a chosen optimal way of life.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26
American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 95, No. 1: 26-37
ATHEROSCLEROSIS IN THE MASAI
Thanks for providing a more interesting response than GP.
In the absence of 'textbook' science citations, I'm going to have to rely on 'pop' science that does provide citations to respected scientists at accredited institutions who have performed actual studies.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/ provides another copious set of links to refutations (based on citations, not appeals) of traditional saturated fat studies and other indications of its overly maligned status.
I'll also note the penultimate sentence of the abstract you link: "The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease."
Exercise or not, it's worth noting that the study does not draw any strong correlation between saturated fat and a decreased health.
In the absence of 'textbook' science citations, I'm going to have to rely on 'pop' science that does provide citations to respected scientists at accredited institutions who have performed actual studies.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/ provides another copious set of links to refutations (based on citations, not appeals) of traditional saturated fat studies and other indications of its overly maligned status.
I'll also note the penultimate sentence of the abstract you link: "The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease."
Exercise or not, it's worth noting that the study does not draw any strong correlation between saturated fat and a decreased health.
It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious.
Exercise, exercise, exercise.
Exercise, exercise, exercise.
I'd prefer to not need to be "protected" from a preventable condition in the first place, and fully enjoy the benefits of exercise as well.
Yes, saturated fats are the molecular basis of many hormones including testosterone and estrogen. You may need very little of them but you do need some.
Did you notice the link and decide to respond with a non sequitur, or just miss the link?
I noticed it was a link to men's health and my latent homophobia prevented me from rtfa. (I am only half joking.)
Before 'monocultures' - agricultural output was terrible. Is that not important at all?
What's the problem with GMOs?
I was thinking about this the other day, a couple things that came to mind were -
Is it not due to genetic diversity that we see the great complexity of species that have evolved on this planet, and the resiliency of the biosphere?
It would seem that the introduction of species that are in many ways genetically identical would lead to similar problems that are found in the monoculture crop production of industrial farming, i.e. greater susceptibility to pests and disease.
I also get the feeling that potential risks are not properly accounted for in the current system where wealth is often seen as arbitrary fiat capital and not as the health of our environment, the real wealth as it allows human beings to flourish and fuels the wealth of our ideas and actions.
Say there were detrimental effects of gmo food consumption how long would it take the public to become informed? There is still widespread use of plastics and chemicals with documented scientifically evidenced deleterious health effects. I suspect more people are 'marketed to' than read scientific reports.
There are the classic 'case study accomplishments' of gmo like the modified rice that provided vitamin A to a malnourished population. Counterpoint to this is that we live on an abundantly productive planet and the obstacles to proper nourishment of the members of our species are typically political.
We don't see large percentages of other species that are under-nourished, we also don't see other species that have developed lopsided and convoluted systems as ours have.
Regarding Monsanto et al. -
" Big Biotech with Monsanto leading the pack wants to replace those millions of years with seeds like the Terminator (named for the action hero governor of California) which goes sterile after one growing cycle and obligates farmers (they sign binding contracts with Monsanto) to buy more, a process Mexican investigator Silvia Ribiero tags "bio-slavery". " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross02142007.html
" Farmers are forced to sign contracts, agreeing to buy GMO seed at a company-fixed price. Monsanto's super-duper "Terminator" seed, named after California's action hero governor, goes sterile after one growing cycle and the campesinos are obligated to buy more. By getting hooked on Monsanto, Mexican farmers, once seed savers and repositories themselves of the knowledge of their inner workings, become consumers of seed, an arrangement that augurs poorly for the survival of Mexico's many native corns. "
If the number of corn species declines what happens if something like Panama disease that affects bananas were to strike corn crops? Ever more genetic modification, beholden to just a few large corporations for the solution?
A cynic might point out a certain degree of environmental havoc might work to the benefit of gmo companies as far as the short-sighted goals of a fiat currency profit are concerned.
" Moreover, as farmers from other climes who have resisted Monsanto and refused to buy into the GMO blitz, have learned only too traumatically, pollen blowing off contaminated fields will spread to non-GMO crops. Even more egregiously, Monsanto will then send "inspectors" (often off-duty cops) to your farm and detect their patented strains in your fields and charge you with stealing the corporation's property. "
" Mexican corn is, of course, not the only native crop that is being disappeared by global capitalism. Native seeds are under siege from pole to pole. In Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together to form the birthplace of agriculture, one of the very first acts of George Bush's neo-colonial satrap L. Paul Brenner was to issue the notorious Order 81 criminalizing the possession of native seeds. The U.S. military spread out throughout the land distributing little packets of GMO seeds, the euphemistically dubbed Operation "Amber Waves." To make sure that Iraq would no longer have a native agriculture, the national seed bank, located at Abu Ghraib, was looted and set afire. " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross11212007.html
To see a company attempting to become an arbiter of food supply by claiming property rights over plants that have evolved to the benefit of all the species on this planet naturally raises some questions and opposition.
It would seem that the introduction of species that are in many ways genetically identical would lead to similar problems that are found in the monoculture crop production of industrial farming, i.e. greater susceptibility to pests and disease.
I also get the feeling that potential risks are not properly accounted for in the current system where wealth is often seen as arbitrary fiat capital and not as the health of our environment, the real wealth as it allows human beings to flourish and fuels the wealth of our ideas and actions.
Say there were detrimental effects of gmo food consumption how long would it take the public to become informed? There is still widespread use of plastics and chemicals with documented scientifically evidenced deleterious health effects. I suspect more people are 'marketed to' than read scientific reports.
There are the classic 'case study accomplishments' of gmo like the modified rice that provided vitamin A to a malnourished population. Counterpoint to this is that we live on an abundantly productive planet and the obstacles to proper nourishment of the members of our species are typically political.
We don't see large percentages of other species that are under-nourished, we also don't see other species that have developed lopsided and convoluted systems as ours have.
Regarding Monsanto et al. -
" Big Biotech with Monsanto leading the pack wants to replace those millions of years with seeds like the Terminator (named for the action hero governor of California) which goes sterile after one growing cycle and obligates farmers (they sign binding contracts with Monsanto) to buy more, a process Mexican investigator Silvia Ribiero tags "bio-slavery". " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross02142007.html
" Farmers are forced to sign contracts, agreeing to buy GMO seed at a company-fixed price. Monsanto's super-duper "Terminator" seed, named after California's action hero governor, goes sterile after one growing cycle and the campesinos are obligated to buy more. By getting hooked on Monsanto, Mexican farmers, once seed savers and repositories themselves of the knowledge of their inner workings, become consumers of seed, an arrangement that augurs poorly for the survival of Mexico's many native corns. "
If the number of corn species declines what happens if something like Panama disease that affects bananas were to strike corn crops? Ever more genetic modification, beholden to just a few large corporations for the solution?
A cynic might point out a certain degree of environmental havoc might work to the benefit of gmo companies as far as the short-sighted goals of a fiat currency profit are concerned.
" Moreover, as farmers from other climes who have resisted Monsanto and refused to buy into the GMO blitz, have learned only too traumatically, pollen blowing off contaminated fields will spread to non-GMO crops. Even more egregiously, Monsanto will then send "inspectors" (often off-duty cops) to your farm and detect their patented strains in your fields and charge you with stealing the corporation's property. "
" Mexican corn is, of course, not the only native crop that is being disappeared by global capitalism. Native seeds are under siege from pole to pole. In Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together to form the birthplace of agriculture, one of the very first acts of George Bush's neo-colonial satrap L. Paul Brenner was to issue the notorious Order 81 criminalizing the possession of native seeds. The U.S. military spread out throughout the land distributing little packets of GMO seeds, the euphemistically dubbed Operation "Amber Waves." To make sure that Iraq would no longer have a native agriculture, the national seed bank, located at Abu Ghraib, was looted and set afire. " - http://www.counterpunch.org/ross11212007.html
To see a company attempting to become an arbiter of food supply by claiming property rights over plants that have evolved to the benefit of all the species on this planet naturally raises some questions and opposition.
Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me.
I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects.
Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties...
Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures.
Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto.
And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it.
All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.
I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects.
Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties...
Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures.
Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto.
And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it.
All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.
Thats all fine, Monstanto is not nice.
Again: whats wrong with GMO food?
Again: whats wrong with GMO food?
I am sorry I rambled without answering that...
I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!)
Having a food factory produce vast quantities of recent experiments that overwhelm other sources of non-experiment strains gives me pause for concern. I understand from general consensus that we were told DDT was perfectly safe, and I vaguely remember seeing a promotional video showing children being sprayed with it, to show how "safe it was." I now understand that it is not safe at all.
I guess it again circles around to whom do I trust? And is the information I am receiving accurate?
I guess I am being a bit of a food Luddite...
I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!)
Having a food factory produce vast quantities of recent experiments that overwhelm other sources of non-experiment strains gives me pause for concern. I understand from general consensus that we were told DDT was perfectly safe, and I vaguely remember seeing a promotional video showing children being sprayed with it, to show how "safe it was." I now understand that it is not safe at all.
I guess it again circles around to whom do I trust? And is the information I am receiving accurate?
I guess I am being a bit of a food Luddite...
This year I lost every single one of my potatoes to scab. Imagine I planted those just after a civil war in central Africa. I need as much food - now, as I can get, right? Potato scab could seriously fuck me up. Therefore GMO potatoes sure seem like a great idea to me - if they're immune to scab.
Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food.
Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have.
Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know.
1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it?
2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it?
The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.
Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food.
Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have.
Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know.
1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it?
2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it?
The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.
Gosh, you really want to grow some crops, I see. Well, I've got these seeds that are completely resistant to disease, only they cost 10x more than regular seeds and they're engineered so that you don't get any more seeds from the results. But you'll get a huge yield, we promise, more than enough to keep coming back to us and buying.
...One year later...
Oh, you say your crop failed? We didn't mention they needed twice as much water? That maybe they weren't as resistant to disease as we said? That there's another disease we hadn't engineered against? That the pesticides they were engineered to work in conjunction with will ruin your soil for everything else? Now you have no money left? Hmm, well... that sucks for you. Thank your government for our lucrative subsidies, though. When you commit suicide, I'm sure we'll be able to find a large corporate farming operation to come in and take over.
GMO isn't the problem (that we know of). Abuse of GMO, for the purpose of locking farmers in, that's the problem.
...One year later...
Oh, you say your crop failed? We didn't mention they needed twice as much water? That maybe they weren't as resistant to disease as we said? That there's another disease we hadn't engineered against? That the pesticides they were engineered to work in conjunction with will ruin your soil for everything else? Now you have no money left? Hmm, well... that sucks for you. Thank your government for our lucrative subsidies, though. When you commit suicide, I'm sure we'll be able to find a large corporate farming operation to come in and take over.
GMO isn't the problem (that we know of). Abuse of GMO, for the purpose of locking farmers in, that's the problem.
From your hypothetical, you don't sound like you know a single farmer, but I'll agree with you: GMO patents are wrong and should not be allowed.
GMO For the People.
GMO For the People.
I don't personally know any farmers in impoverished parts of rural India, where this scenario isn't hypothetical at all, no.
As to what I sound like, my uncle is a successful independent farmer in North Dakota. He's not organic, but he strongly opposes GMOs in their current form strictly because of the lock-in issue.
As to what I sound like, my uncle is a successful independent farmer in North Dakota. He's not organic, but he strongly opposes GMOs in their current form strictly because of the lock-in issue.
Maybe I have been misinformed. I had it in mind that monocultures were only good for the first couple of years, then they failed miserably due to too much soil depletion for that specific crop, insect over-predation as insects exploited an abundant food source and overpopulated, and too disease prone, as there is less diversity to keep unwanted organisms out of the system...
I have been taking the easy (read lazy) way out with my two acres: I have been telling my neighbors that having many types of ground cover keeps my ground cover healthier by promoting a healthy ecosystem of insects (and birds), in addition to the plants themselves. While the neighbors keep the RoundUp nearby for the "undesirables"and reach for Scotts TurfBuilder every year, I just mow once in awhile... :)
Come to think of it, I water a whole lot less then they do, as well.
And as to the last sentence in your previous paragraph, I have the distinct feeling that the FDA (we are talking the USA's Food and Drug Administration, right?) might have been helpful in its early years, but it is now not only a hindrance but an outright danger. Similar to the human tendency to assume the existence of traffic lights means they do not have to examine a road intersection for themselves, the idea that the FDA is a good watchdog seems to me to be luring people into yet another false sense of security about their food and drugs.
I seem to recall (pun intended) increasing news stories about how little I can trust our current food system in providing safe items for my table if I am not mimicking a Consumer Reports-style monitoring of FDA alerts about bad food in the delivery system. Oops, that was shipped how many months ago? What alert color are we at now for spinach, orange? :)
Maybe I am assuming too much, but isn't the FDA overwhelmed with the job it is currently doing, and only spot sampling at that? Aren't we suffering from too many companies taking advantage of low to no oversight and shipping whatever they need to keep their bottom line healthy?
Charles Murray had an interesting idea about allowing a second market to arise that was caveat emptor, in return for lower costs to introduce food and drugs into the marketplace. Of course, it requires more responsibility on the part of the consumer, so we leave the existing FDA market in place beside it for those who desire their safety "government approved"...
I have been taking the easy (read lazy) way out with my two acres: I have been telling my neighbors that having many types of ground cover keeps my ground cover healthier by promoting a healthy ecosystem of insects (and birds), in addition to the plants themselves. While the neighbors keep the RoundUp nearby for the "undesirables"and reach for Scotts TurfBuilder every year, I just mow once in awhile... :)
Come to think of it, I water a whole lot less then they do, as well.
And as to the last sentence in your previous paragraph, I have the distinct feeling that the FDA (we are talking the USA's Food and Drug Administration, right?) might have been helpful in its early years, but it is now not only a hindrance but an outright danger. Similar to the human tendency to assume the existence of traffic lights means they do not have to examine a road intersection for themselves, the idea that the FDA is a good watchdog seems to me to be luring people into yet another false sense of security about their food and drugs.
I seem to recall (pun intended) increasing news stories about how little I can trust our current food system in providing safe items for my table if I am not mimicking a Consumer Reports-style monitoring of FDA alerts about bad food in the delivery system. Oops, that was shipped how many months ago? What alert color are we at now for spinach, orange? :)
Maybe I am assuming too much, but isn't the FDA overwhelmed with the job it is currently doing, and only spot sampling at that? Aren't we suffering from too many companies taking advantage of low to no oversight and shipping whatever they need to keep their bottom line healthy?
Charles Murray had an interesting idea about allowing a second market to arise that was caveat emptor, in return for lower costs to introduce food and drugs into the marketplace. Of course, it requires more responsibility on the part of the consumer, so we leave the existing FDA market in place beside it for those who desire their safety "government approved"...
Most of the food alerts come from two sources:
1) Imported food where raw animal and human waste are used outside of FDA guidelines (i.e. no uncomposted manures used in fields within 120 days of harvest if the vegetable touches the ground, 90 days if it doesn't).
Look at #1. Its actually totally consistent with organic practice, other than the safety violation ;)
2) Rat and other animal feces in processing facilities - a la peanuts.
The FDA is not overwhelmed at testing GMO foods. They're overwhelmed in testing imports, and inspecting production facilities. Think of the scope of those two problems. The FDA sits at a chokepoint of GMO, and not at imports.
1) Imported food where raw animal and human waste are used outside of FDA guidelines (i.e. no uncomposted manures used in fields within 120 days of harvest if the vegetable touches the ground, 90 days if it doesn't).
Look at #1. Its actually totally consistent with organic practice, other than the safety violation ;)
2) Rat and other animal feces in processing facilities - a la peanuts.
The FDA is not overwhelmed at testing GMO foods. They're overwhelmed in testing imports, and inspecting production facilities. Think of the scope of those two problems. The FDA sits at a chokepoint of GMO, and not at imports.
BTW - regarding monocultures you DEFINITELY have it wrong. They were responsible for a many times multiplication of agricultural output. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
There's nothing wrong with GMO.
The current applications of it are however completely uninteresting to me. They center around higher yields. That's achieved through pesticide resistance and pest resistance. There's also some for other properties like shipability.
None of those features interest me. And despite the fact that the risk from them is arbitrarily close to zero, I chose not consume them, simply because again I don't see anything I care about.
Lower prices don't tempt me because I can easily afford food. Additionally I am quite upset about agricultural subsidies and protectionism and would like to see those go away. Thus price reductions not related to the elimination of farm subsidies only serve to remind me of my anger at this policy.
The current applications of it are however completely uninteresting to me. They center around higher yields. That's achieved through pesticide resistance and pest resistance. There's also some for other properties like shipability.
None of those features interest me. And despite the fact that the risk from them is arbitrarily close to zero, I chose not consume them, simply because again I don't see anything I care about.
Lower prices don't tempt me because I can easily afford food. Additionally I am quite upset about agricultural subsidies and protectionism and would like to see those go away. Thus price reductions not related to the elimination of farm subsidies only serve to remind me of my anger at this policy.
It's a risk/benefit problem. If things go wrong, we're talking about serious and permanent damage. What if roundup-ready plants end up messing with the bee population (or whatever)? What will happen to species down the food chain? What affects will arise after a while from bio-magnification? Point is, nobody yet knows. GMOs are fine, but you had better be 100% sure of what the consequences are.
GMOs significantly increase crop yields and are helping feed a growing world population. I think most of the world is willing to take the risk of a few genes getting loose for the benefit of keeping the world fed.
Actually, the two biggest benefits of GMOs should lead to their support by environmentalists; the fact that most environmentalists oppose GMOs, without knowing anything about the science in my experience, show their opposition is religious rather than rational. The two benefits are 1) because of their higher yields, less land need be cultivated, letting much go "back to nature", and 2) GMOs mostly need less cultivation, which means less fuels for tractors and less transportation for fertilizers, and less requirements for many pesticides.
That's all perfectly true until something wipes out your monoculture, then it is a bit of a problem.
Too many eggs in a single basket is always a dangerous strategy, it will work perfectly for a long time and then one day you lose all your eggs. That's only a matter of time.
Too many eggs in a single basket is always a dangerous strategy, it will work perfectly for a long time and then one day you lose all your eggs. That's only a matter of time.
Could you please point out examples where GMO crops have been wiped out because of monoculture? I have yet to see any examples and yet people continue to use that argument. (Serious question, I would love to see more info on this issue!)
That is exactly the problem, this will work until it fails. Score to date: 0.
But we do have examples of such crop failures due to monocultures in 'regular' agriculture. All we have with regards to a GMO problem is speculation and a hope that it will never happen.
The only instance that I'm familiar with that shows a little bit of what the risks are is a south african incident where farmers lost up to 80% of their GMO corn crops.
But we do have examples of such crop failures due to monocultures in 'regular' agriculture. All we have with regards to a GMO problem is speculation and a hope that it will never happen.
The only instance that I'm familiar with that shows a little bit of what the risks are is a south african incident where farmers lost up to 80% of their GMO corn crops.
Except when they don't.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/Th...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/Th...
More sources needed. I don't trust the word of a single sensationlist gossip rag.
Here's a whole list:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_sui...
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_sui...
Hem... maybe I am mistaken but most gmos are not to increase yield, better taste or better nutritional qualities.
Usually, if we look only at the ones who are actually available on the market, is to enable the use of mass herbicide or resists specific pests. A lot of them look more motivated by marketing factors to create vendor lock-in.
I see GMOs in food as a temporary escape for monocultures. Ultimately I think we'll need to abandon this practice.
Usually, if we look only at the ones who are actually available on the market, is to enable the use of mass herbicide or resists specific pests. A lot of them look more motivated by marketing factors to create vendor lock-in.
I see GMOs in food as a temporary escape for monocultures. Ultimately I think we'll need to abandon this practice.
But has there been any evidence ever that the pesticides used on foods are harmful? Or is it all just fear?
It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception.
The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly.
The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly.
"There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found."
To add to your point, "no evidence of any extra health benefits" is different from "evidence that there are no extra health benefits".
To add to your point, "no evidence of any extra health benefits" is different from "evidence that there are no extra health benefits".
Not only that: it showed that there is little or no difference in nutrition for the specific nutrients studied - despite the fact that nutrition does not reduce to a few vitamins and minerals.
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
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
A PCB laced hamburger and one with no such contamination are going to have the same nutritional content.
Really though, part of the point of organic food is that it dumps less crap in the environment. Even if the direct impact on human health is non existent, less fertilizer runoff means fewer low oxygen deadzones at the mouth of major rivers, which means more fish, etc.
Really though, part of the point of organic food is that it dumps less crap in the environment. Even if the direct impact on human health is non existent, less fertilizer runoff means fewer low oxygen deadzones at the mouth of major rivers, which means more fish, etc.
The article only seemed to be talking about the levels of nutrients found in organic vs non-organic foods. I would certainly suspect that the levels of pesticides and other such chemicals could also have a huge impact on health.
Got any proof? If not, enjoy your placebos.
I'd suppose I could drink a bottle of pesticide and tell you how I feel, but I would feel rather stupid proving the obvious.
Dosage matters. You eat plants that include chemicals that would be harmful in large doses every time you eat plants, but you don't give up eating just because of that risk.
Just because your prejudices fit the biases of the day that doesn't make them scientific.
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?
• 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...
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...
Out of curiosity, what would be the point of making a fruit toxic to animals? I thought that animals eating a ripe fruit was the entire reason for the fruit (to distribute seeds).
Capsaicin in peppers is one example of a fruit with a powerful toxin (irritant) for one class of animals. Mammals in general can't eat chili peppers without severe irritation of the digestive tract. Birds can eat chili peppers without harm--capsaicin is specific to biochemical properties of mammals. Birds don't have teeth, and don't grind up seeds as they eat fruit. Mammals as a class have very effective grinding teeth, and thus would destroy the seeds as they eat the fruit. The plant's adaptation allows it to have seeds spread by one class of animals while it is avoided by another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin
It's ironic that most peppers are now sown because of their irritant properties.
'Verifiable' is the tough part. That is not my job.
But if I were to give it a shot, I might investigate the effects of pesticide runoff on the farming environment, and those who live around it. Or animal farms' antibiotic carpet-bombing's effect on drug-resistance of pathogens. Or the effects of farming chemical production on those who live near the factories.
But if I were to give it a shot, I might investigate the effects of pesticide runoff on the farming environment, and those who live around it. Or animal farms' antibiotic carpet-bombing's effect on drug-resistance of pathogens. Or the effects of farming chemical production on those who live near the factories.
Are you suggesting that we should do anything unless we can prove it's a bad idea? I'm all for science, but it is not wild superstition to think that the effects of eating trace amounts of pesticides in all our food over the course of decades might be bad for our health. Now certainly this should be studied, but how long will it take to achieve results, and how possible is it really to isolate the variables? In the meantime should we just assume superfarming methods are all a-okay?
Yes it is wild superstition. There is no evidence that most modern insecticides harm humans at all (some do but they are less commonly used, mostly only for specific classes of pest). DDT for example had no deleterious effect on human health, until the environmentalist idiots got it banned and malaria started killing millions again in tropical regions. The most dangerous insecticides were phased out long ago, first the arsenicals, then nicotine sulfate, both of which were very dangerous to people.
ETA: DDT was dusted directly on people for flea and lice control and typhus prevention and was primarily sprayed indoors for malaria prevention so there was a lot more direct human contact than even production plant workers have with insecticides currently.
ETA: DDT was dusted directly on people for flea and lice control and typhus prevention and was primarily sprayed indoors for malaria prevention so there was a lot more direct human contact than even production plant workers have with insecticides currently.
Wrong. There is plenty of evidence. Now clearly an argument can be made that the consequences of malaria are far worse, but to say "there is no evidence" reveals that you have some sort of idealogical bone to pick with environmentalists and you are not 1/10th as objective you'd like to think.
There is plenty of evidence.
Where is the evidence of direct DDT harm to human beings? I don't recall that ever being mentioned when DDT was banned in the United States (within my lifetime, so I remember the contemporary news reports on the issue). If there is a harm, how does it compare to the harm of insect-borne diseases?
Where is the evidence of direct DDT harm to human beings? I don't recall that ever being mentioned when DDT was banned in the United States (within my lifetime, so I remember the contemporary news reports on the issue). If there is a harm, how does it compare to the harm of insect-borne diseases?
Generally the most industrialized countries with the most modernized agriculture have people living the longest lives with least morbidity, so we have to wonder about the effect sizes of some of the issues we are worrying about here. As I mentioned in another post in this thread, plants "naturally" have toxins to prevent their being eaten, and human beings have had to develop cooking and selective breeding over time (and some agricultural practices that reduce production of those phytotoxins) to increase the safety of what they eat.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/wrangham/wrangham_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/wrangham/wrangham_index.html
Well obviously the immediate effects of being poor and living in a third world country are going to dominate any long term effects of chemical buildup, all the more so in polluted areas where the individual may be exposed to much higher levels of toxic chemicals in general.
The rest of your comment seems irrelevant. I'm not disputing in any way that plants have toxins or that we had to develop various practices to make us safer. I don't dispute that many man-made chemicals are safe and useful. I don't even dispute that pesticides could conceivably improve safety from a hypothetical insect-born contagion.
However genetically modified mono-crops sprayed with heavy loads of pesticides simply to increase yields does not strike me as something that goes towards food safety at all. It goes towards short-term profit, and you can bet the cost of any long term health effects is simply ignored until 30-40 years down the line when the soil is depleted and the effects of various pesticides have time to show up in the human population. At that point the industry will throw its hands up in the air and say "how could we have known?" while pushing the new and improved fertilizers and pesticides with a new batch of as-of-yet-unknown problems.
That's why I think it's a good idea to eat more traditionally raised food. It's not because I'm some hippie idealogue or because I don't believe in science or progress, it just strikes me as a safer bet given the severe holes in nutrition science, and in many ways, the intractability of solving the health "equation".
The rest of your comment seems irrelevant. I'm not disputing in any way that plants have toxins or that we had to develop various practices to make us safer. I don't dispute that many man-made chemicals are safe and useful. I don't even dispute that pesticides could conceivably improve safety from a hypothetical insect-born contagion.
However genetically modified mono-crops sprayed with heavy loads of pesticides simply to increase yields does not strike me as something that goes towards food safety at all. It goes towards short-term profit, and you can bet the cost of any long term health effects is simply ignored until 30-40 years down the line when the soil is depleted and the effects of various pesticides have time to show up in the human population. At that point the industry will throw its hands up in the air and say "how could we have known?" while pushing the new and improved fertilizers and pesticides with a new batch of as-of-yet-unknown problems.
That's why I think it's a good idea to eat more traditionally raised food. It's not because I'm some hippie idealogue or because I don't believe in science or progress, it just strikes me as a safer bet given the severe holes in nutrition science, and in many ways, the intractability of solving the health "equation".
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nutritional science is broken. Boiling (pun intended) fruits and vegetables down to their individual nutrients is the only way we know how to measure their supposed benefits -- but nutrients don't act alone in foods, they act in combination with everything else in the food. But since we still can't measure that, we don't.
Also, reductionist nutritional science makes it possible for Lucky Charms to tout health benefits on the front of their box by listing individual nutrients. This is profitable for the food industry.
For more I'd recommend "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.
Also, reductionist nutritional science makes it possible for Lucky Charms to tout health benefits on the front of their box by listing individual nutrients. This is profitable for the food industry.
For more I'd recommend "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.
Excellent counter.
In Omnivore's Dilemma, he notes that there exists evidence that the old idea about nutrition being reduceable to just three basic components is likely to be wrong.
If you don't know where to look for evidence, it is quite likely you aren't going to find it.
In Omnivore's Dilemma, he notes that there exists evidence that the old idea about nutrition being reduceable to just three basic components is likely to be wrong.
If you don't know where to look for evidence, it is quite likely you aren't going to find it.
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 stuff is awful for your health.
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 stuff is awful for your health.
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. :/
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.
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.
Be careful with this. You can get the "USDA Organic" logo with less than 100% organic ingredients. So it's possible that your frozen dinner has preservatives and other crap in it that you are trying to avoid by "going organic". Read the ingredients to be sure. If it's something you can't buy and add to your food yourself, it's probably in there for the seller's benefit; not for yours. (Less spoilage == higher profit margin.)
Umm, not legally. The USDA regulations specifically forbid artificial preservatives. (Natural ones like citric acid are fine.)
They can and sometimes do cheat, even though the fines are enormous, but reading labels won't help with that.
They can and sometimes do cheat, even though the fines are enormous, but reading labels won't help with that.
An alternative is to buy locally produced food, which often is also organic. It may have a shorter shelf life, but it's sitting on your shelf most of that time, not on the shelf at the grocers waiting to be bought.
Local produce is almost never organic. Locally produced prepared foods also almost always have preservatives and flavor enhancers as well.
Locavorism also saves so little in shipping energy and cost that it's almost worthless in any health or environmental sense.
Locavorism also saves so little in shipping energy and cost that it's almost worthless in any health or environmental sense.
I guess it depends on where you live, but at my local farmers market there is a sizable percentage of the vendors that either meet the FDA organic standards or meet a fraction of them (no pesticides or no antibiotics). With respect to preservatives and flavor enhancers, I have no specific knowledge, but I would imagine that whatever are applied to local produce would necessarily be less than or equal to whatever is normally applied when something has to be shipped from across the world, absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Finally, with respect to your energy/environmental argument: I am not advocating buying local as a way to save on energy costs; I am advocating buying local as a way to get significantly fresher produce. With that said, even if buying local saves a single cent per pound of produce (not unreasonable [1] at current gas prices) that could be savings of upwards of $5.4B per year if every american shopped local ($0.01/lb * ~300 million amercians * ~1800 lbs of food consumed/american/year).
1. http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/04/buy-local-vs-shop-l...
Finally, with respect to your energy/environmental argument: I am not advocating buying local as a way to save on energy costs; I am advocating buying local as a way to get significantly fresher produce. With that said, even if buying local saves a single cent per pound of produce (not unreasonable [1] at current gas prices) that could be savings of upwards of $5.4B per year if every american shopped local ($0.01/lb * ~300 million amercians * ~1800 lbs of food consumed/american/year).
1. http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/04/buy-local-vs-shop-l...
If you want bruised, overpriced fruit and vegetables, head on down to the local organic market!
Spend 10 minutes to sort through a basket of tomatoes at the hippie organic market on Maui (the only store in the village) to find the four or five that aren't bruised to hell and back, then pay double price for the privilege.
And then there's the sustainability and economic problems. Can the farms near NYC produce enough organic produce to supply the whole city? How much will a head of lettuce cost if everyone is buying organic? Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?
Apparently it's already too expensive for low-income people to get fresh food--at least, we hear so every couple weeks on slow news days. Increase the popularity of organic food; it's going to get even harder for these people to get fruit and veg.
Posting this on a Silicon Valley site... thank god for the -8 point limit, because I sense many a "downvote for disagreement" coming.
Spend 10 minutes to sort through a basket of tomatoes at the hippie organic market on Maui (the only store in the village) to find the four or five that aren't bruised to hell and back, then pay double price for the privilege.
And then there's the sustainability and economic problems. Can the farms near NYC produce enough organic produce to supply the whole city? How much will a head of lettuce cost if everyone is buying organic? Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?
Apparently it's already too expensive for low-income people to get fresh food--at least, we hear so every couple weeks on slow news days. Increase the popularity of organic food; it's going to get even harder for these people to get fruit and veg.
Posting this on a Silicon Valley site... thank god for the -8 point limit, because I sense many a "downvote for disagreement" coming.
Norman Borlaug is an agronomist whose work has been credited for saving a billion lives from starvation. His work transformed formerly-starving nations like India into net exporters of food. His take on organic farming:
That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.
At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.
If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html
I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called “organic” methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot.
--30th Anniversary Lecture, The Norwegian Nobel Institute, Oslo, September 8, 2000
That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.
At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.
If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html
I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called “organic” methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot.
--30th Anniversary Lecture, The Norwegian Nobel Institute, Oslo, September 8, 2000
The problem is that our current farming practices are not sustainable. They are dangerous for the farmers. Farms produce an incredible amount of toxic waste (poisoning anything in the rivers their fields drain to), and consume an amazing amount of petroleum. (Fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides don't grow on trees. They require a large amount of energy to produce.)
So, if you are willing to poison our planet to make high-fructose corn syrup slightly more profitable, conventional farming is great. If you want your kids' kids to have strawberries, though... maybe not so good.
(Remember, commercial farms in the US don't grow fruits and vegetables; they grow corn. The government pays them extra for that.)
But anyway, if people not having enough healthy food is a problem, the government should subsidize healthy food instead of corn. I would rather my tax money help a poor family eat well (balanced, nutrient-rich, sustainable whole foods) than to pay someone to dump toxins in our rivers so that we can have soda that's one cent cheaper per liter. Unfortunately, I am not a congressperson, and there's a lot of money to be made selling sugar (erm, corn) water to kids.
The deeper problem is that businesses and industries tend to only analyze their direct costs. They would be fined if they, as a single entity, killed off all the fish in a river. So they don't do that. They let just enough toxic waste run off their fields to not be doing anything illegal. The problem is that when all their neighbors do that, they end up killing off all the fish. But it's not anyone's fault, so they keep doing the same thing. Externalities are either going to be the death of capitalism, or the death of human life on earth. I am betting on the second one.
So, if you are willing to poison our planet to make high-fructose corn syrup slightly more profitable, conventional farming is great. If you want your kids' kids to have strawberries, though... maybe not so good.
(Remember, commercial farms in the US don't grow fruits and vegetables; they grow corn. The government pays them extra for that.)
But anyway, if people not having enough healthy food is a problem, the government should subsidize healthy food instead of corn. I would rather my tax money help a poor family eat well (balanced, nutrient-rich, sustainable whole foods) than to pay someone to dump toxins in our rivers so that we can have soda that's one cent cheaper per liter. Unfortunately, I am not a congressperson, and there's a lot of money to be made selling sugar (erm, corn) water to kids.
The deeper problem is that businesses and industries tend to only analyze their direct costs. They would be fined if they, as a single entity, killed off all the fish in a river. So they don't do that. They let just enough toxic waste run off their fields to not be doing anything illegal. The problem is that when all their neighbors do that, they end up killing off all the fish. But it's not anyone's fault, so they keep doing the same thing. Externalities are either going to be the death of capitalism, or the death of human life on earth. I am betting on the second one.
"Given the lower efficiency of organic farming, how much more land do we need to convert to farmland?"
Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses? I remember a time when large parts of Los Angeles were fruit trees, and are now strip malls and parking lots.
Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses? I remember a time when large parts of Los Angeles were fruit trees, and are now strip malls and parking lots.
Maybe a better question is why have we let so much farmland get repurposed for other, arguably trivial uses?
Easy, money and risk. Building a high-rise building with 200 units takes about as much land as two or three single-family homes. But it is much riskier to build the high-rise; it costs more, and all 200 units might not sell. So it's easier to just build the single-family homes; now you only have two things to sell instead of 200. Very inefficient use of space, but efficient use of space is not rewarded in any way. The fact that there is no longer any place to grow crops is Someone Else's Problem. You have money to make!
Easy, money and risk. Building a high-rise building with 200 units takes about as much land as two or three single-family homes. But it is much riskier to build the high-rise; it costs more, and all 200 units might not sell. So it's easier to just build the single-family homes; now you only have two things to sell instead of 200. Very inefficient use of space, but efficient use of space is not rewarded in any way. The fact that there is no longer any place to grow crops is Someone Else's Problem. You have money to make!
Because to LA residents, milk and apples come from the store, not from cows and trees. I jest... partly.
You're absolutely right. It's amazing how many people have jumped on the organic bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of GMO crops and efficient farming. It's like climbing up a ladder and then kicking it away once you're at the top.
I don't understand your point. What are the supposed benefits of GMO grops that makes it easier for me to eat organic? Are you talking about global food supply? If so, there are many other issues we can bring up, one being that most food grown in the US goes either to animal feed or to plants that make HFCS and a slew of other things that don't really count as "food" to me.
I interesting benefit of GMO is (or rather will be), setting a benchmark. Better example then GMO is artificially fertilisers & pesticides.
An organic farming technique is always compared to one using those artificial methods. Once the benchmark is there and there is a market for organic, it's a good recipe for improving organic farming technology.
An organic farming technique is always compared to one using those artificial methods. Once the benchmark is there and there is a market for organic, it's a good recipe for improving organic farming technology.
If we all ate organic, a third of the world population would have to starve to death from sheer shortage of food.
Don't talk about animal feed, either--we'd have to raise more cattle just for the manure if we didn't use chemical fertilizers.
Don't talk about animal feed, either--we'd have to raise more cattle just for the manure if we didn't use chemical fertilizers.
That's a mighty strong statement of fact to throw out without any kind of citation. Care to share a couple?
I've attributed these claims to statements by Norman Borlaug elsewhere in the thread. Here specifically: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=730793
I don't think that's a valid argument. It's perfectly okay to notice that what you're benefiting from is not something you want to support. I can replace words in your argument thus: "It's amazing how many people have jumped on the safe work conditions bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of horrible work conditions in third world countries."
You're comparing apples and oranges there.
Are you referring to GMO crops and safe working conditions as the apples and oranges? Rest assured that I am not comparing them, I am simply reshaping your statement to support my statement that "It's perfectly okay to notice that what you're benefiting from is not something you want to support."
Yes, but efficient farming is having a negative impact on the biosphere. Like with most issues, the question is "Where do we draw the line?"
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity_an...
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/modern_agriculture.htm...
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity_an...
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/modern_agriculture.htm...
Those list just a few studies and it looks like they are conflicting? I can't discuss this issue properly because I don't know enough about it.
I would prefer whichever method is both efficient and environmentally-safe. I'm just annoyed by the currently fashionable knee-jerk reaction of people that assume organic farming is better.
I would prefer whichever method is both efficient and environmentally-safe. I'm just annoyed by the currently fashionable knee-jerk reaction of people that assume organic farming is better.
If you don't know enough about the issue to discuss the it properly, then on what are you basing the assumption that people's claims to the superiority of organic farming is knee-jerk?
GMO crops have only been around since, at the very earliest, 1986, so it's pretty hard to say that people at the top of the ladder are there because of them. Lumping "efficient farming" in with GMOs to make that argument is wholly disingenuous - efficient farming could have nothing to do at all with GMO crops (see: Polyface Farm).
My conventional grocer ships the kale to Wisconsin from Georgia, and by the time it gets here it is yellow and wilted. Compared to the farmers market, where the kale I find is dark green and crisp. Same story for most other produce. The winters drive me crazy, because kale grows great in January in Wisconsin, yet the grocers insist on shipping it from Georgia, so I go without.
Efficiency compared to what? Stripping of minerals? Loss of topsoil? Petroleum dependence? Water contamination? Yeah, it's true, conventional farming is more efficient at all those.
You're concerned about needing more farm land with "organic" practices, but in truth, "conventional" farming is destroying arable land at an alarming rate.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/09/soil/mann-te...
Efficiency compared to what? Stripping of minerals? Loss of topsoil? Petroleum dependence? Water contamination? Yeah, it's true, conventional farming is more efficient at all those.
You're concerned about needing more farm land with "organic" practices, but in truth, "conventional" farming is destroying arable land at an alarming rate.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/09/soil/mann-te...
I don't know, what's a consumer to do? I read this, and then the side panel has links to three previous BBC News articles:
- Organic produce 'better for you': £12m study shows organic food contains more antioxidants and less fatty acids.
- Organic food 'better' for heart: 10 year study shows tomatoes contain more antioxidants.
- Organic veg given health boost: research shows soup made from organic veg contains six times more aspirin (?!)
Many of these kinds of stories seem to have the grubby handprints of PR companies all over them. Are antioxidants good or bad? I don't even know any more...
Until I know any better, I'll be sticking to my trusty two criteria:
1. Does it taste good?
2. Is the price in line with the taste?
- Organic produce 'better for you': £12m study shows organic food contains more antioxidants and less fatty acids.
- Organic food 'better' for heart: 10 year study shows tomatoes contain more antioxidants.
- Organic veg given health boost: research shows soup made from organic veg contains six times more aspirin (?!)
Many of these kinds of stories seem to have the grubby handprints of PR companies all over them. Are antioxidants good or bad? I don't even know any more...
Until I know any better, I'll be sticking to my trusty two criteria:
1. Does it taste good?
2. Is the price in line with the taste?
Is the price in line with the taste?
Most of us reading HN are consumers in industrialized countries with thriving, free-market economies. For eaters in poor countries, every gain in efficiency in agriculture is a reduction in price of food for eaters who devote most of their income to food. There have to be seriously inexpensive ways to produce food in some countries for some people to eat at all.
Most of us reading HN are consumers in industrialized countries with thriving, free-market economies. For eaters in poor countries, every gain in efficiency in agriculture is a reduction in price of food for eaters who devote most of their income to food. There have to be seriously inexpensive ways to produce food in some countries for some people to eat at all.
Or they might be permitted some land of their own where they can grow their own food, or be given access to commons to where they and their animals can forrage.
You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving. People are perfectly capable of providing their own food given some land some seeds and some sun, and some water. The amount of land required isn't even all that high.
Indeed, it is probably their ability to produce a surplus that lead to markets in the first place and those markets made it possible to justify cutting people off from the ability to feed themselves. At this point, there are plenty of cities in the US where it isn't legal to store rain water that falls on your own land.
You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving. People are perfectly capable of providing their own food given some land some seeds and some sun, and some water. The amount of land required isn't even all that high.
Indeed, it is probably their ability to produce a surplus that lead to markets in the first place and those markets made it possible to justify cutting people off from the ability to feed themselves. At this point, there are plenty of cities in the US where it isn't legal to store rain water that falls on your own land.
You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving.
You need to take that up with the historians of economics. The last few major famines in my lifetime were all in countries that have adequate capacity to produce food, but had governments at those times that tried to impose Marxist socialism on their populations.
More to the point of this thread, will you allow the smallholders you mention to use whatever means they find economical or convenient to grow food on their own land, or will you insist that they grow only "organic" crops?
You need to take that up with the historians of economics. The last few major famines in my lifetime were all in countries that have adequate capacity to produce food, but had governments at those times that tried to impose Marxist socialism on their populations.
More to the point of this thread, will you allow the smallholders you mention to use whatever means they find economical or convenient to grow food on their own land, or will you insist that they grow only "organic" crops?
"...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.
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.
As is typical for science reporting, the headline makes a broader claim than the article itself: "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority." (emphasis mine)
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?
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?
The assertion of the study, "Organic foods are not more nutritious" is a function of the metrics used to measure "nutritious".
Did they check trace mineral content? Did they check phyto-nutrient levels?
No, in fact, they checked nothing at all. This was not a study. It was a meta-study. Meta-analysis is a very poor tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Weaknesses
Note in particular the File Drawer Problem.
As other posters note: Organic food tastes better. Now, why is that? Is the only difference between the two really a matter of trace-pesticide use?
Did they check trace mineral content? Did they check phyto-nutrient levels?
No, in fact, they checked nothing at all. This was not a study. It was a meta-study. Meta-analysis is a very poor tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Weaknesses
Note in particular the File Drawer Problem.
As other posters note: Organic food tastes better. Now, why is that? Is the only difference between the two really a matter of trace-pesticide use?
Organic food doesn't taste better. In fact, it can taste worse. There is an enormous amount of variation in taste of any given food each season, each harvest, each field, etc. You're just telling yourself what you want to believe.
The study was done in the UK. Conventional produce there may be very close to organic. However in the US this study would likely have very different results.