No evidence that organic foods are safer? Are you silly stupid? Toxins are toxins. They may be “safe”, but they are never truely SAFE.
Are Organic Foods More Nutritious Than Conventional Foods?
August 22 2009
There is a widespread belief that organic automatically means more healthy or nutritious. So what do you really mean by organic food and is it really nutritious than conventional food?
What are organic foods?
Type of Production: Organic refers to the way of production which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and antibiotics.It relies mainly on crop rotations, natural fertilizers, biological pest control, and better animal husbandry.
USDA Approval: In order to bear an organic label, the USDA (United States Dept. of Agriculture) has set some strict government guidelines based on how foods are grown, handled and processed.
Process Label: Organic is not a “label” of safety or health or being natural It is just a process label.
Are organic foods more nutritious?
Not More Nutritious:A recent (2009) systematic review – the biggest and most complete review even undertaken in this subject- looked over this issue and found no truth to the claim that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional foods.
And concluded that the differences that were detected in crops (nitrate & phosphorus) were biologically plausible and are unlikely to be of public health relevance.
Are organic foods more safer?
Lack of Evidence: The study above looked at only the nutritional side of the issues. But there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest that organic foods are safer because it contains less pesticides and insecticides.
A review which looked at safety aspect of organic foods conclude,” At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.”
Conclusions
- If you are willing to paying more for organic foods because you think they are more “nutritious” than conventional foods, save the money.
- Contrary to the claims, there is no evidence to suggest that organic foods are safer and more healthier than conventional foods.
- If you are buying organic foods because you think they are kinder to the environment and taste better, you do have a point.
Related
Related Articles
Anoop | Wed January 13, 2010
Hi Balle,
It is not as simple as you try to make out of it with your one-liner. Like it or not, that’s not how science works.
Read the second reference pls.
Anoop | Wed January 13, 2010
Hi Balle,
It is not as simple as you try to make out of it with your one-liner. Like it or not, that’s not how science works.
Read the second reference pls.
“With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements.”
My ass is preventing me from generalized statements too.
Organic food = no man-made pesticides
Non-organic food = man made pesticides
“The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.” -Wiki
Nothing is ever SAFE, but some things are SAFER than others. With regards to toxins, such as man-made pesticides, organic food is ALLWAYS SAFER. You don’t need science to tell you that.
Anoop | Thu January 14, 2010
After years of testing, we know that pesticide residue is pretty negligible once they reach the market. It becomes even less once you wash your food and cook it. It is pretty much known that he residue levels in food is well below the tolerance levels.
And I agree about problems with pesticides in developing countries. In these countries there is a clear lack of legislation and regulation like developed countries have on pesticide use. But that’s not we are discussing.
And send that last paragraph to EPA, they might change our pesticide guidelines and everyone will go organic. I am sure it will be an eye-opener for them.
Negligible? Please. In some foods that is true, in most it is not. Some pesticides have a long half-life and they accumalate in fatty tissue. There is no telling how much a person can accumalate certain pesticides over time, that’s why it’s so fucking unethical.
A new Norgewian study just showed us that a mothers breast milk contains dangerously high levels of enviormental-toxins and pesticides for a baby to ingest. Great, huh!?
In some countries like Italy, the goverment decided that the food a child get served at school, can only be organic. I guess they made that decision because they are so un-scientific, huh!?
Go and enjoy a big red pesticide-full apple and have a long, painfull death. 
Correction; The Norwegian study showed that that a mothers breast milk contains dangerously high levels of enviormental-toxins and pesticides for an ADULT person to ingest, according to WHO standards.
You know, i guess one can feel safe and intelligent allways following the consensus of the scientific community, but have you ever tried thinking for yourself for a change?
Anoop | Sun January 17, 2010
Keep in mind, pesticides is just one class of food contaminant . There are pollutants from industrial & environmental like heavy metals, toxins from processesing and food storage, package derived, and so forth. The main culprits are the massive industrial waste in the form of heavy metals left behind from our industrial revolution .
You have to understand that we use pesticides because don’t have a choice. Thanks to pesticides, the green revolution was possible and we are still here to bad mouth pesticides. So your point of unethical makes no sense here.
And organic farming is not THE solution to the pesticide use. There are other avenues like Integrated pest management, using genetically engineered crops, using bio pestcides like organic farming, and controlled use of pesticides which are being devoloped. Organic farming is very labor intensive and expensive and natural pest control methods they use cannot sustain large farms.
As you said, It is true that there are some pesticide residue which can still stay within the food and may cause harm in the long run. And it is also true that there is also toxin residues in the air you breathe, the water you drink , and soil you grow organic foods, and even the electromagnetic waves from your cell phones , heavy metals in your cloth’s artificial color that may cause harm in the long run. Do you worry abut all those too? That is why scientific studies uses variables like dose and frequency of exposure to determine which environmental hazard is worth worrying about. So it is not as simple as you think or trying so hard to make it. And ever heard about concepts called “parts per million” ( like a drop in an ocean and so on)
We have a long history of people hyping health risks and creating unnecessary fear and anxiety among the public. A few examples , the DDT and breast cancer scare, Radon and cancer scare, power lines & tumor and so on.
And stop going back and forth to science and then your “logic” whenever you lack arguments. Stick with one.
Anoop | Sun May 30, 2010
Here is another article which questions the health benifits of organic food: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5328
Anyway,more research is definitely needed here.
This article makes me smile, especially since there is also an article about ‘all natural body builders’ on the site.
So it is OK and cool to eat conventional foods that are obviously bad for the environment and admittedly bad for the people in other countries, but when it comes to the sport of body building, they have to be ‘natural’ about it and not use the obvious enhancements available to them through science.
I think I am missing something here ... or ... maybe this site is missing something.
Anoop | Thu June 16, 2011
Hi Rabber,
Thanks for writing the comment.
Three things:
1. There is nothing ‘bad’ about conventional foods.
2. Organic foods still hasn’t shown that it is more nutritious than conventional foods nor it is more safer. It is double the price though. It is good for environment agreed.
3. Steroids are patently bad for your health.
I think a more sensible comparison is organic bodybuilding vs natural bodybuilding.
Rabber
| Thu June 16, 2011
I don’t agree with your reductionist approach.
What is bad about conventional foods is not the consumption but the production of them and the ag business associated with them. It is not about price, quantity and quality of end product. In that sense, conventional reigns supreme.
Steroids, properly used, can be beneficial in many applications. I know, I have used them against poison ivy and have patients that have used them to reduce pain.
The error in this post is that it is all about price. In this globalized world, there are more factors than just price in decision making.
That is why your stance with natural bodybuilding makes me smile. If I simply judge by appearance and strength, bodybuilding with steroids is the way to go. But you want to bring in the health of the individual. Maybe I don’t care about the health of the individual, maybe I just care about looks and strength. Why should I care about some person pumping iron in a gym? Seriously, how does his life or existence affect me. It doesn’t. It is quicker and easier with steroids. That is a scientific fact. That is why they are used, or should I say abused. You can’t argue with just that little bit of fact presented in that context. But we both know that is bad reasoning. Steroids are bad for the individual and society as a whole. We make that statement because of all the evidence, not just a little.
The same is true with food. It is quicker and easier with conventional ag practices. It is priced well too. But then I look at the ramifications of the production and the cheap food available. All the sudden I see the effects to people and environment (Obesity, Type II diabetes, toxins in the cord blood of newborns, Colony Collapse Disorder). The list is becoming endless with the more research done. That is when I change my behavior and look for a healthier choice. One that is better for the whole, not just me.
So please, don’t be so simple in your presentation. Otherwise, do the same to what you care about and be honest that steroids are quicker and easier way to build muscle, period. Focus only on certain facts, not all of the related facts. Be consistent in your posts.
Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, said, “Science is the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another.”
I can’t think of any statement that sums up the organic movement better. It is not just about price and final product. It is about one fact upon another, from start to finish. In that context, conventional foods and mono-culture ag is unhealthy and organic is healthy for the long term of our planet. Does this present challenges. Will food be more expensive? Of course. But we are not just focusing on price, we are looking at the planet and civilization as a whole.
Anoop | Fri June 17, 2011
You are just comparing apples to oranges. And the whole article is about if it is nutritious or not. The environmental problems are beyond the scope of the article.
The evils of conventional foods as you say” All the sudden I see the effects to people and environment (Obesity, Type II diabetes, toxins in the cord blood of newborns, Colony Collapse Disorder). The list is becoming endless with the more research done.”
If the above is the reason why you changed to organic, you may need better reading resources. It is pretty clear that there is no scientific evidence out there showing organic food is more SAFER than conventional foods. Of course organic foods have lower pesticides, hormones and such, but both these products have levels of these lower than the EPA guidelines. Will there be long term health consequences? Maybe, but that can be said about organic foods too. For example, the recent E coli infections in Germany was from a local organic farm.
Basically, you are just comparing conventional foods to ‘banned substances’ and hence we shouldn’t eat conventional foods.I thin it is one good example of how not to use an analogy.
