Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Organic market: does this change anything


HelperGuy

Recommended Posts

Admittedly this latest report will set off a firestorm of controversy, but I'm intrigued to see what repercussions there may be for those who shop organically here:

"Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce" The lead: (Scientists) concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note there is some disagreement on this stuff on whether

there were significant differences. I think the study should be repeated

and the data looked at by another scientist. For food without skin less

pesticides is a very good thing. Maybe a banana doesn't matter but

an Apple does. Lots of ways to look at this and we are not done with

this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all -

There are wide variations in what is called organic - it all depends on the regulations and requirements related to organic status. In some areas, not only must the food be grown organically, but the neighboring farmers must also be willing to abstain from certain activities or the organic status will be violated. It can also take several years for a farm to reach organic status in order for the soil to become pure enough to be organic. Someone who just grows without pesticides in not necesarily organic. I don't think yesterday's report took much of this into consideration. Also, keep in mind that in the US one of the largest organic milk producers is also one of the largest non-organic milk producers. I have not researched the details, but unless the regulations are pretty specific, it could just be cows locked in a stall for their lifespan and fed organic feed instead of non-organic feed. Makes one wonder. I don't usualy buy organic because growers so overprice their products and you don't really know what they are doing. But I do grow most of my own fruits and vegetables without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and feel that is it most beneficial to not have those chemicals in my body. I am in the US right now but plan on being back in the Chapala area in the next couple of months and would be interested in meeting with anyone who would be interested in some type of home-style organic growing program. Please PM me if you would be interested - probably sometime in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth - the article you're referring to is junk science, full of holes and not even worth discussing. Whether or not you think it's worth YOUR while to avoid genetically modified foods or vegetables soaked in pesticides by buying organic produce is your business, but don't base your decision on such articles as the one you're citing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regularly produces"? You know I didn't say that, that's a spurious comment. Here's my reply to help you see the holes that are, umm, invisible to you at present. Holes are always invisible by the way, you have to look at what's around them.

You would think Stanford could do better, wouldn't you? But you make a mistake if you think that all universities with good names only produce top notch studies by top notch scientists, or top notch students for that matter. One of the densest students I ever met was from Harvard - in truth, 2 were dense, a third was an arrogant twit, but I digress.

Paraphrasing many comments about this study: first, it was a meta-analysis, a study of studies looking for commonalities - so it didn't take into account differences in methodology in the original studies, including differences in geography, farming methods, soils. This in itself is a flawed methodology, i.e. cherry-picking your studies and ignoring how they themselves were determined.

There are several misleading conclusions, important omissions and the second part was simply misrepresented (in the media, as usual). For instance, they didn't find "robust" differences in nutritional content between organic and conventionally grown food - but they did find that organic produce has 30% less pesticide residue and that the risk of ingesting antibiotic-resistent bacteria is 33% higher in conventional chicken and pork than organic. Since pesticides are cumulative, that is significant.

They didn't even mention that organic crops cannot contain GMOs. Since there is lots of evidence that GMOs do indeed cause health problems, this is a glaring omission that they ought to have addressed and it puts their study into doubt.

There are many studies showing that organic produce, fruits etc. are significantly higher in antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. This is another glaring omission that comes of cherry-picking your studies. The Environmental Working group has pointed out that this study contradicts the findings of a UK group (Dr. Kirsten Brandt, Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle University), which is considered the most definitive analysis to date of nutrient content in food showing that organic crops have about 12-16% more nutrients than conventional crops.

These are only some of the more obvious points - there's more of course. Does this go any way toward addressing your feeling that junk science cannot be produced at otherwise reputable institutions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my non-scientist opinion........food that is freshly harvested TASTES better, besides being free of a pesticide jacket. Eggs that have recently been under a chicken rather than in cold storage for months taste so much better that there's no comparison.

There is question in my mind: could it possibly be profitable to Big Agra for a study to come out saying all that modified, twerked and pesticide covered food is just as nutritious.....you know, as in "Follow the Money"?? After all, it seems to take a while for Big Pharma's "Good for you" drugs to be exposed as just the opposite, or having no benefits. Forgive my cynicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regularly produces"? You know I didn't say that, that's a spurious comment.

No, it's not spurious. What's spurious is your comment "For what it's worth - the article you're referring to is junk science, full of holes and not even worth discussing." ... with nothing to back up your inferrance that any report out of Stanford is unreliable. Thus my comment... otherwise which ones would you have us accept and which would you have us refuse? The article was very clear in its methodology, its stated purpose, and its findings. It was not trying to be a definitive study and it never claimed to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say the article was not "clear" in its methodology, I said its methodology is flawed. Whether or not it was attempting to be definitive is not at issue, indeed irrelevant.

I clarified my initial comment about why it is junk science. If you google the researchers and check a little further, you will find that many reputable scientists from other equally reputable institutions take exception to the article for the same and further reasons.

Moreover, I decidedly did NOT imply that "any report out of Stanford is unreliable." Nobody would be so stupid, would they, to make such a blanket statement when we're speaking of a single (flawed) study? I indicated that one should not assume that every report out of any academic or research institution is necessarily reliable because of the institution's general reputation. A great deal of research goes on everywhere that ends up in the waste bin; some of it gets fed to the press but doesn't stand up to analysis. Please read, and don't misquote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My preference has been - and will continue to be for organic produce. Pesticides are not something I want to deliberately have for lunch - .

Editorial

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Conventional strawberries in Watsonville, California. Researchers say organic foods are no more nutritious and no less likely to be contaminated.

By KENNETH CHANG

Published: September 3, 2012

A new study by Stanford researchers has added fuel to a debate about the differences between organic and conventionally grown foods. Kenneth Chang, New York Times reporter, is responding to your questions about organic eating.

Stanford University scientists have weighed in on the “maybe not” side of the debate after an extensive examination of four decades of research comparing organic and conventional foods.

They concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli.

The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats.

Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans.

“When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. “I think we were definitely surprised.”

The conclusions will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people into overpaying. The production of organic food is governed by a raft of regulations that generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, hormones and additives.

The organic produce market in the United States has grown quickly, up 12 percent last year, to $12.4 billion, compared with 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association. Organic meat has a smaller share of the American market, at $538 million last year, the trade group said.

The findings seem unlikely to sway many fans of organic food. Advocates for organic farming said the Stanford researchers failed to appreciate the differences they did find between the two types of food — differences that validated the reasons people usually cite for buying organic. Organic produce, as expected, was much less likely to retain traces of pesticides.

Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

“Those are the big motivators for the organic consumer,” said Christine Bushway, the executive director of the trade association.

The study also found that organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.

“We feel organic food is living up to its promise,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, which publishes lists highlighting the fruits and vegetables with the lowest and highest amounts of pesticide residues.

The Stanford researchers said that by providing an objective review of the current science of organic foods, their goal was to allow people to make informed choices.

In the study — known as a meta-analysis, in which previous findings are aggregated but no new laboratory work is conducted — researchers combined data from 237 studies, examining a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and meats. For four years, they performed statistical analyses looking for signs of health benefits from adding organic foods to the diet.

The researchers did not use any outside financing for their research. “I really wanted us to have no perception of bias,” Dr. Bravata said.

One finding of the study was that organic produce, over all, contained higher levels of phosphorus than conventional produce. But because almost everyone gets adequate phosphorus from a wide variety of foods, they said, the higher levels in the organic produce are unlikely to confer any health benefit.

The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. While the difference was statistically significant, the size of the difference varied widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. “I interpret that result with caution,” Dr. Bravata said.

Other variables, like ripeness, had a greater influence on nutrient content. Thus, a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one.

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

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

Similarly, organic meat contained considerably lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than conventionally raised animals did, but bacteria, antibiotic-resistant or otherwise, would be killed during cooking.

Dr. Bravata agreed that people bought organic food for a variety of reasons — concerns about the effects of pesticides on young children, the environmental impact of large-scale conventional farming and the potential public health threat if antibiotic-resistant bacterial genes jumped to human pathogens. “Those are perfectly valid,” she said.

The analysis also did not take factors like taste into account.

But if the choice were based mainly on the hope that organic foods would provide more nutrients, “I would say there is not robust evidence to choose one or the other,” Dr. Bravata said.

The argument that organic produce is more nutritious “has never been major driver” in why people choose to pay more, said Ms. Lunder, the Environmental Working Group analyst.

Rather, the motivation is to reduce exposure to pesticides, especially for pregnant women and their young children. Organic food advocates point to, for example, three studies published last year, by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. The studies identified pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of pesticides known as organophosphates and then followed their children for years. In elementary school, those children had, on average, I.Q.’s several points lower than those of their peers.

Critics of the Stanford study also argue that lumping all organic foods into one analysis misses the greater benefits of certain foods. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University did find that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones.

Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, another member of the Stanford team, said that the strawberry study was erroneously left out but that she doubted it would have changed the conclusions when combined with 31 other studies that also measured vitamin C.

A version of this article appeared in print on September 4, 2012, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say the article was not "clear" in its methodology, I said its methodology is flawed. Whether or not it was attempting to be definitive is not at issue, indeed irrelevant.

I clarified my initial comment about why it is junk science. If you google the researchers and check a little further, you will find that many reputable scientists from other equally reputable institutions take exception to the article for the same and further reasons.

Moreover, I decidedly did NOT imply that "any report out of Stanford is unreliable." Nobody would be so stupid, would they, to make such a blanket statement when we're speaking of a single (flawed) study? I indicated that one should not assume that every report out of any academic or research institution is necessarily reliable because of the institution's general reputation. A great deal of research goes on everywhere that ends up in the waste bin; some of it gets fed to the press but doesn't stand up to analysis. Please read, and don't misquote.

I read carefully, and I never misquote. I stand by my comments. You just like to argue with me. Always have.

But, to carry on with the original topic, I predicted there would be a firestorm, and there sure is. I don't even like the way the word is defined these days. I'm organic, and I eat inorganic all the time. My dog is organic, too. People just really want to believe in organic food. I, for one, refuse to pay the prices. And that, as they say, is my choice, right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting quote: "...turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HelperGuy: Interesting enough article, though journalistic (in spite of her claims to peer-reviewed articles I couldn't find them, unless she was referring to blogger "peers"). Fortunately for the world, USDA standards don't apply everywhere and there are still small-scale farmers everywhere with standards. Sad that they will be a dying breed without support from the communities they serve.

Rotenone is indeed a good example of an organic compound that is environmentally dangerous - to fish, bees and humans and an example of why even homeopathy and naturopathy are not without serious issues - just because it comes from a plant doesn't mean it's good for you. The writer is so correct though that factory farming (which is mainly what he's focussed on) is factory farming, whether organic or no. He cites a UK study that is, once again, another meta-analysis whose selection criteria are not made clear. A very large and well-respected UK study found otherwise, regarding the nutritional content of organic foods. It's really impossible to discuss these articles, the science (or lack of it) behind them or the issues involved in a forum like this, just as the author of the article you cite makes no pretence of being comprehensive. You may not have noticed, in addition, that varieties of edible plants - tomatoes and potatoes in particular - are diminishing. History has shown us that that is never a good thing in the long run for the food supply.

Neither the Stanford study, nor the one you cite here addresses the issue of genetically-engineered/modified foods and their effects on humans and animals and future "ownership" of the food supply. Whatever might be amiss in the way some organic food is produced, by definition it cannot be genetically modified. That's why many of us believe that small local farmers are the best bet anywhere, especially if they are known to be organic by their neighbours. They are not multimillion-dollar corporations with mega budgets for advertising or expensive chemicals and spreaders to apply them. Most of us will still prefer local pesticide-free produce that costs a bit more, because it's labour intensive, to Monsanto's GMO frankenfood and the huge, greedy producers, organic or conventional, whose only interest is the bottom line. But, life is one long caveat emptor. Critical thinking helps.

I'm pretty sure I don't like to argue with you. I don't even know you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole area of genetically modified food, though, is really out of the realm of this story. The whole Monsanto story should really be fodder for government legislation and punishment, IMO, but that's another topic

Even around here, I'm quite curious to find out why our every-increasing supply of locally-grown berries is becoming more and more perfect... the blueberries, for example: we never used to get them, and now they are coming in bountifully... and tasteless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has only been a few years since they started growing them here; the high bush commercial type, which are pretty but, as you said, tasteless. Blueberries picked from the wild low bush scrub pine areas of coastal New England are what we remembr. Nothing else is a 'real blueberry'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. I was always able to pick wild blueberries in the bushes outside of Halifax, N.S. They were plentiful enough that enterprising locals would send their kids out to pick and then sell along the roadways. And they were full of taste. I would say they are organic, following the definition of "no insecticides", but the scrub is close enough to farmland, and gets acid rain like everything else, so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I read it, and apart from one salient point he links to about the other study, it's all just complaining. Reading the link does not reveal "a serious mistake" as he put it, either. It shows only that the original study was limited in scope... which was stated in the original study, and openly discussed later by the authors (as pointed out in the refuting article).

And rightly or wrongly, I'm glad the study received "way too much play". We're constantly being buffaloed by the big grocery companies about what's good for us and what's not, and the federal regulations covering these things are way behind. We need to better informed. So companies like Kashi, touting their "healthy" products, but owned by Kellogg's, can't pretend to be better than anybody else just because of their slick tree-hugging commercials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...