Organic food 'not any healthier'

There are many reasons to promote organic farming; regeneration of the soil, and limiting the use of pesticides are two...

However, this study seems to show that "more nutritious, richer in nutrients" food is not one of them.

Organic food 'not any healthier'

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.

FredInChina said:

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.

Would you define exposure to pesticides as unhealthy?

GOT YOUR PESTICIDES?

Warning: Eating organic food may decrease your exposure to pesticides. Before making dietary changes, always consult your physician to see if decreasing your intake of pesticides is right for you.

Poliquin shared his opinion of the study here: http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Articles ... anic_F.asp

kyle said:

Poliquin shared his opinion of the study here: http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Articles ... anic_F.asp

Poliquin is awesome on subjects like this. Couldn't say it any better if I spent a week trying.

Few months before I read about organic chocolates that were listed to be very beneficial for health conscious people. The are made through fine quality of materials and are tested thoroughly before sending them to market. Now what, organic foods would be very beneficial for sensitive minds that think about clean foods, so even organic foods would not make us health they would give us many other benefits through their high quality and purity.

Glen222 said:

Few months before I read about organic chocolates that were listed to be very beneficial for health conscious people. The are made through fine quality of materials and are tested thoroughly before sending them to market. Now what, organic foods would be very beneficial for sensitive minds that think about clean foods, so even organic foods would not make us health they would give us many other benefits through their high quality and purity.

So essentially you're saying that people who are neurotic about their food will have better mental health by eating organic foods?

I started eating only organic because it made sense to avoid pesticides. But there are a few side effects of eating organic food that I have noticed which have kept me eating organic food:

1) Organic food is more expensive. But since it is more expensive, I eat everything I buy. I never have left over groceries that spoil. Everything gets consumed. This actually saves me money because I notice with some other people I know who do not eat organic food, that they are constantly throwing things away. I never have that problem.

2) Some organic fruits, like lemons have more fruit inside of them, more juice than non-organic lemons. Probably because of genetic modification or something like that. Non-organic foods have thick puffy skin, and not a lot of food inside.

This whole news debacle has just made me so frustrated with people. Come on. Organically grown food is better for you (or at least less of a risk) then food dowsed in a bunch of chemical pesticides. Plain and simple.

Cannister said:

This whole news debacle has just made me so frustrated with people. Come on. Organically grown food is better for you (or at least less of a risk) then food dowsed in a bunch of chemical pesticides. Plain and simple.

This is exactly what frustrates me a lot in people, because intuitions like this do not always work. Saying that something "is because it is", is circular reasoning and doesn't provide a good argument for anything, really.

Rik de Kort said:

This is exactly what frustrates me a lot in people, because intuitions like this do not always work. Saying that something "is because it is", is circular reasoning and doesn't provide a good argument for anything, really.

its about the greater vibrancy ...felt the difference between polluted air in urban city versus fresh air on top of mountain? i know what you are trying to say but its the body that does the magic , not the air, food or sleep. Without a doubt organic food(higher nutrient profile and lack of harmful substances) is 'better' for you but its counterpart non-organic is certainly 'good'...pesticides degrades the soil like no tomorrow(its the truth whether we like to believe or not,there are studies ) and soil is the original feeder.

But the Soil Association said the study was flawed. "Studies that treat crop trials as if they were clinical trials of medicines, like this one, exaggerate the variation between studies, and drown out the real differences.

you see just because something doesn't ruin the body completely , doesn't mean its beneficial.

like the saying goes: when it doubt , follow the money ..find out who funded that Stanford study , and you will see the truth.

why was the research given to medicine department in first place, they are uni directional thinkers and wants to shove pills down your throat for almost anything .

archerengelo said:

its about the greater vibrancy ...felt the difference between polluted air in urban city versus fresh air on top of mountain? i know what you are trying to say but its the body that does the magic , not the air, food or sleep. Without a doubt organic food(higher nutrient profile and lack of harmful substances) is 'better' for you but its counterpart non-organic is certainly 'good'...pesticides degrades the soil like no tomorrow(its the truth whether we like to believe or not,there are studies ) and soil is the original feeder.

This is handwaving, and as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't prove anything. It can provide a good clue of where to look next, but it doesn't suffice as an argument to make broad generalized statements.

What I am saying here is that unless there are well-performed studies shedding light on this matter, I will not take a definitive viewpoint. I prefer to eat organic, but I don't subscribe to the idea that 'organic food must be healthier', not yet at least.

This is handwaving, and as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't prove anything. It can provide a good clue of where to look next, but it doesn't suffice as an argument to make broad generalized statements.

It may look like i make generalized statements, but its not the case. I just don't have time and energy to link all collaborative research that is in favor of organic food over conventional food. Search for different independent studies and connect the dots.. that's where analytic AND holistic thinker comes in.

I will not take a definitive viewpoint. I prefer to eat organic, but I don't subscribe to the idea that 'organic food must be healthier', not yet at least.

Food is only one spoke of a health wheel. There are countless variations to health. Even then everybody has different perception of what health is. It's all relative. I can't argue your point, as it is valid.

I'm surprised at the responses people are posting.

I'm currently studying Molecular Genetics, and this topic has been discussed in class.

Most of you may want to reconsider what you think you know.

Edit:

Summary of the video:

Organic foods contain more mutagens than pesticide treated foods.

Pesticides are tested to be very mild mutagens, which are negligibly dangerous to humans.

"In genetics, a mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increases the frequency of mutations above the natural background level. As many mutations cause cancer, mutagens are therefore also likely to be carcinogens. Not all mutations are caused by mutagens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test

archerengelo said:

It may look like i make generalized statements, but its not the case. I just don't have time and energy to link all collaborative research that is in favor of organic food over conventional food. Search for different independent studies and connect the dots.. that's where analytic AND holistic thinker comes in.

 

Do some research. Learn something instead of just saying things.

You know, mutagen and carginogen are not the same thing. I know you mentioned this, but let me explain what I mean.

A carcinogen causes mutations that specifically lead to cancer, and while it is true that most RANDOM mutations are harmful and end up leading to increased mortality, often from cancer, but it is too much to say that these foods with more mutagens must cause cancer. Chemical mutagens often act in a site specific manner, though there are plenty that do not as well. However, we are dealing with large molecules and they are more likely to react in a site-specific manner, because of all the stereochemical requirements of molecular interaction, than something like lead or benzene that basically acts through electronics alone.

To say that these chemicals, though clearly mutagenic, are significantly more carcinogenic in humans or mammals, we'd need to feed the whole food to mammals that live a long time, and see what the relative cancer rates are.

The other problem with this is that all of the pesticides are also estrogenic in nature, and some forms of estrogen are very potent carcinogens in and of themselves. The estrogenic activity of these compounds, particularly given how MANY there are and how they keep becoming more concentrated in our products and soils, may be causing some sort of synergy that we are simply not aware of. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the potential effects of synergy in this scenario.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10_may26_03/index.html Has a full breakdown of the basics in this area.

We also know that there are quite a lot of antioxidants in plants, and that much of the plant mutagen is not potent enough to matter in real terms. Since the majority of organic crops require symbiotic insect populations to control crop damage, it is simply not accurate to say that all, or even most, organic, natural plants are actually more dangerous than the chemical-soaked versions. There may not even be much of a difference, due to the antioxidants and weak mutagenic nature of the pesticides used. The major difference may simply be estrogenic activity.

Furthermore, just as the man in the video claims that humans have managed to produce pesticides that kill bugs but not humans, the pesticides produced by plants via natural selection of those plants who protect themselves better are assumed to be more harmful to humans than artificial pesticides, even though no empirical data supports this notion. Common sense is often a poor guide in science, but it does say that plants would be better off killing bugs but not mammals.

Mutagenic activity does not necessarily correlate directly with carcinogenic activity, and in a situation where it is in a plant's best interest to kill bugs but not the animals that spread its seed it is certainly possible that these mutagens may not be carcinogenic enough to matter in a mammal. It is also possible that these carcinogens are broken down in our systems, or that the antioxidant content of the entire fruit/vegetable is sufficient to render the carcinogen harmless in vivo when referring to humans and fruit-eating mammals. In addition, there is the site-specific nature of most large chemicals to consider, and there are quite a lot of chemicals produced by plants that only kill specific classes of creatures.

Apples naturally produce anti-microbial chemicals when the flesh is exposed to oxygen, for example, yet these chemicals don't seem to be killing us. It could simply be the ratio of natural carcinogen to natural anti-oxidant.

Since chemical mutagenic carcinogens seem to often require oxidative stress to function properly, antioxidant load is an important co-factor to consider, and is something that the researcher who is afraid of coffee did not seem to consider. Coffee has quite a lot of powerful antioxidants, and these may be enough to completely counter-act whatever carcinogenic mutagens are created during roasting of the beans.

I am not presenting all of this as fact, since that would require research, but there is quite a bit of research to support the ideas I am stating here. I tried to keep it organized, but that is sometimes difficult with such a small pane to view text in.

I understand the distinction between mutagen and carcinogen. (not to be rude)

The high mutagen content in organic foods is still something to be wary of. The Ames test simulates mammalian metabolism with the rat liver extract. Obviously, rat metabolism isn’t exactly the same as human metabolism, but it still does a decent job.

More things to consider:

You are not avoiding pesticides if you eat organic foods.

“Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.

So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.â€

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

It is impossible to live in modern society without being exposed to carcinogens. Example: the sun (UV radiation).

The effect of eating organic vs. non-organic on your health is probably negligible in comparison to your overall diet. Obesity, diabetes, vitamin deficiency, and not getting enough exercise are far more pertinent issues to worry about.

It’s significantly more difficult to go outside and get “healthy†than to spend 20% more and buy an “organic†product and call it a day.

You are absolutely right. 

I didn't mean to be rude, I hope I didn't come off that way. I tried to make sure I said that I realize you probably know this since you're studying, but I guess I forgot to type that out. Sorry!

Organic foods that are certified organic by the higher standard organizations (Not USFDA) have significantly lower pesticide loads, so there is that. The levels can vary wildly for sure.

The funny thing to me, because so much soil has been used as conventional cropland for so long, is that the levels INSIDE the fruit probably aren't much different. For the outside... just wash the apples or whatever with dish soap. It works.

That Ames test is pretty awesome.

IE 9 isn't working well here. 

Protein supplements haven't been proven to be better than food but people still use them.  

Some people swear by them.

Some people swear by Organic as well. Ross Exxxxxx of Ross training for example.

The science is irrelevant really, especially rat science. We can cure rat diseases

that we can't cure in humans. There's a huge difference. If people find something that they feel

helps them, and they feel good about using - it won't matter what science says.  And 

science says so many contradictory things anyway.

I feel we all pretty much hate bugs and weeds so much that we'd risk poisoning ourselves to eradicate

the little monsters.  It's us vs them, and may the better species win!

It rings true to say that food that has either had a mother or grown out of the ground is the BEST thing you can eat!...we are the only life form on earth that designs and manufactures it's own food. I mean think about it, it's simple! Natural food is what your body was originally intended for...man made food is a NOOO! The only way to makesure that you really know what your eating is to do what nature intended and put your caveman suit on, grab a weapon and kill it, bring it home so your lady can gut it and chuck it on the fire!!..that is the only way to REALLY be sure you know what your eating. as far as shopping in a supermarket goes, Of course organic food is the best out there. But i mean lets get real here........my grandad didn't have a healthy diet at all!!....he never had fruit or many vegie's....hid diet was meat and potatoe and lots of tea and biscuits! and he lived to be 98 years old with hardly any medical problems and was still very much with it and active.