Stanford smashes the organic food myth - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford smashes the organic food myth (/thread-3733.html)

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - unclechuck - 09-04-2012

An interesting and worthwhile study. Glad they pointed out that no external funding was used. Here's the Stanford release if you don't want to register with NYTImes:

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

Mostly confirmatory; folks will see what they choose to see from this.

Season 1, episode 1 of Portlandia (free range chicken) all the more amusing.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - fullmetal - 09-04-2012

But then a study like this comes out: "There's troubling new evidence that common pesticides persisting on foods are undermining physical and mental health. The surprising part is that problems occur at doses everyone thought were safe."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201208/stealth-attack

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - unclechuck - 09-04-2012

(09-04-2012, 06:04 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:But then a study like this comes out: "There's troubling new evidence that common pesticides persisting on foods are undermining physical and mental health. The surprising part is that problems occur at doses everyone thought were safe."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201208/stealth-attack

FM - studies like these, as blithely interpreted and extrapolated upon as they are in non peer reviewed journals magazines like Psychology Today, are why it's valuable to have studies like the Stanford one. You might recall as a cautionary tale all the buzz in the 90s-2000s about pesticides and/or xenoestrogens being the cause of global amphibian die offs that turned out to be caused by an aquatic fungus.

Some folks want to write the next Silent Spring as badly as others want to write the next All the Presidents Men, hence, my comment above Re folks choosing to see what they want to see.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - washingtonismoney - 09-04-2012

I think organic food often tastes better than the mass-produced stuff, so unless there's a study for that...

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - unclechuck - 09-04-2012

(09-04-2012, 08:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I think organic food often tastes better than the mass-produced stuff, so unless there's a study for that...

The Stanford study author concurs:

As for what the findings mean for consumers, the researchers said their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. “If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional,” noted Bravata. She listed taste preferences and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons people choose organic products.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - jayasena - 09-04-2012

Why would anyone expect organic produce to be more nutritious? Intuitively (and having no background in agriculture), I expected the opposite -- I thought the fertilizer used in non-organic farming should result in a more nutrient-rich environment for the plants and therefore more nutritious produce. But I suppose the extra nutrients are used to increase quantity only.

The main reason I end up buying a lot of organic produce is that I prefer fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables. And the places that sell those seem to also carry mostly organic stuff. I also end up with organic meats because I prefer producers with a good animal welfare record. Most of those also seem to be organic.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - fullmetal - 09-04-2012

The only rationale for organic produce imho would be the decreased pesticide/antibiotic/hormone levels.  It seems worthwhile to err on the side of caution where those are concerned w.r.t. child development.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - flake - 09-05-2012

I don't know about the science of course, and I do distrust hormones especially in milk, but one thing I am very clear on, is that organic milk promotes a much healthier life for cows.

I was speaking with an old farmer in Vermont a few years ago bemoaning how most of the farms were no longer leaving the cows graze in the field, because it was too expensive. Instead they just kept them in all of the time, which of course made caused a lot of more sickness, for which they would have to inject the cows with a lot of stuff.

My friend was not an organic farmer, but did sell his milk to Ben and Jerry's which had lots of hormone rules, and so had to keep his cows out the fields even though it was more expensive, because it is of course healthier ( also, the life on a diary cow on a small farm is pretty darn nice... if you don't think about what happens when they stop producing or are male ).

I see organic farming in that way. The fact that they are organic, means they have to be more careful with how they raise their food, and I appreciate that.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - OutsiderFan - 09-05-2012

It is relatively easy to grow vegetables organically.  It's an entirely different story for fruit, particularly in the northeast where it can get quite humid and buggy. 

As with many things in life, consumers say they want pesticide-free produce, but then when they see what it looks like, they don't want to buy it because it doesn't look pretty.  As someone who has a friend with a family fruit farm, I can tell you it's the truth.  If they sell a peach or apple that has a funny looking color on it, people won't buy it.  My choice is to eat local, to support local farmers, and to get produced that has been harvested within the last couple days.  It tastes infinitely better than anything you get in the grocery store, especially peaches and nectarines.  Apples, plums, and berries tend to store and travel better.

It seems the bigger issue might be GM food.  There is going to be a ballot initiative on the ballot in California this November that would require labeling of all products made with GM food.  The Monsantos of the world are going to spend a fortune trying to defeat it, and they will scare people into thinking all it does is raise food prices. 

They don't want people to know that corn, for example, is genetically engineered to produce a pesticide.  Consumers don't care, but GM food, produced from manufactured seed, is like incest.  The same genes mixing weaken a species.  Diversity makes stronger life forms.  And so it is with corn and other crops, like strawberries and now this ridiculous genetically engineered apple designed not to turn brown when exposed to air.  You want that, buy a Cortland apple that exists naturally.

I refuse to buy feedlot beef because cows fed corn get sores in their bodies and are given antibiotics to fend them off.  They are passed through the meat and into humans, who then are so exposed to antibiotics that they can become immune to antibiotics to fight off bacterial infections.  Free range chickens have a little bit tougher meat because when the chickens are allowed to run around, they get more muscle.  But because when they do, they eat bugs, they are more nourished and as a result actually taste better than caged chickens.

So organic may not be the "cat's meow" and may have limited nutritional benefits, but the organic mindset (trying to eat naturally produced food as much as possible, and more locally produced food), is definitely more beneficial to humans and animals. 

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - washingtonismoney - 09-05-2012

The antibiotics stuff is a serious problem and well worth addressing. The number of totally-antibiotic-resistant diseases is on the rise, and overuse in agricultural contexts is a big reason why. It's also not entirely clear that the preemptive use of antibiotics is all that helpful, as Denmark makes clear.

(See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-in-depth
and
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=our-big-pig-problem)

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - FarmBoy - 09-05-2012

For me, it's mostly about flavor and environmental protection. We've done blind taste tests in my household and typically organic milk and fruit comes out on top. But it's also a "better safe than sorry" approach. We (modern Americans) spend so little of our income on food, that paying an extra 25% on high risk items is pretty negligible cost if the EPA/FDA guidelines on pesticide truly aren't rigorous enough. When flavor doesn't matter, focus on buying the "Dirty Dozen" (12 products with most pesticide residue, http://www.organic.org/articles/showarticle/article-214) for  organic purchasing.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - GoodGrief - 09-05-2012

(09-05-2012, 10:19 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:For me, it's mostly about flavor and environmental protection. We've done blind taste tests in my household and typically organic milk and fruit comes out on top. But it's also a "better safe than sorry" approach. We (modern Americans) spend so little of our income on food, that paying an extra 25% on high risk items is pretty negligible cost if the EPA/FDA guidelines on pesticide truly aren't rigorous enough. When flavor doesn't matter, focus on buying the "Dirty Dozen" (12 products with most pesticide residue, http://www.organic.org/articles/showarticle/article-214) for  organic purchasing.

Or as a general rule of thumb, if it's got a peel that you're not going to eat, you're probably okay with non-organic stuff. Nonetheless, I go for organic when I can because, as has been said, the stuff TASTES better. They found that conventional store-bought tomatoes suck because genetic breeding to create an even color also turned off the production of sugar. I want my sugar. Cherries are so disappointing when they look so dark and large and luscious and taste like nothing.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - jacketree - 09-05-2012

I'm waiting for them to smash the organic chemistry food myth.  That is, the theory that without human intervention, scrumptious treats are not really possible.  I know Little Debbie used to have many snacks for me.



I dropped sodas and processed sugar junk food cold turkey about two years ago.  I miss the pinwheels, chocotacos, Swiss Rolls, moon pies, coca cola, and stuffing Arby's in my face pretty much whenever I felt like it.  I really don't miss those extra 30 lbs. too much though.

---

Re: Stanford smashes the organic food myth - CowboyIndian - 09-05-2012

You may wait a while for my offerings on this. I am out here:

---