Limited Time: Grab your FREE Box of Dark Chocolate Almond Bars Get Yours>>Close
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: organic food is dead

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    organic food is dead

    Shop Now
    so npr had a special on thismorning on how oragnic food has little effect on your health comapard to conventionaly grown foods, but the longest studies have only been two years. is this long enough and has anyone seen the studies they are talking about?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Wet Coast of Canada
    I haven't seen the studies, but looking at organic overall, it is still better, since it has less resistant-bacteria and less pesticides. I thought the titles of the articles were misleading.

    Also, for some things it makes sense to buy organic (where it's difficult wash off any residues), and other times it doesn't make sense - like almonds.
    Female, age 51, 5' 9"
    SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

    Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
    2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Easton, PA
    If you listened to the whole interview, you know it was only 17 studies in the meta-analysis, and the longest one was only two years (as you mentioned.) Hardly long enough to state that over the the generations, organic isn't better. I'm sticking with our evolutionary health vs. our modern day health. I just had someone complain on FB that no one's ever proved that eating convernational foods will kill you. I commented that he should take a look around at our disease and illness rates, not to mention our food intolerances and gut issues.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Our local news talked about this in the past couple of days.

    They kind of twisted it in saying that people believe that it is nutritionally better to eat organics over conventional produce. I've always felt that pesticide exposure aside, organics are not intended to be "healthier" in the sense that an organic banana has more vitamins, minerals, etc. than a conventional one. Do I choose organics? Yes, but not because I think my kale has more vitamins; I do so because I don't want the risks that come with eating conventionally-grown produce. That's all.

    Maybe the NPR thing was twisting it differently than my local news.
    >> Current Stats: 90% Primal / 143 lbs / ~25% BF
    >> Goal (by 1 Jan 2014): 90% Primal / 135-ish pounds / 20-22% BF

    >> Upcoming Fitness Feats: Tough Mudder, June 2013
    >> Check out my super-exciting journal by clicking these words.

    Weight does NOT equal health -- ditch the scale, don't be a slave to it!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Santa Barbara
    I suppose if you think human beings are little bubbles walking around that aren't affected by what kinds of things are released into the surrounding environment, then yeah, maybe there is no nutritional difference. But ask the kids who go to schools next to fields where they release methyl bromide how they feel about it (or ask their parents). Or ask the farm workers. Or hell, ask the birds and beneficial insects, if there are any.
    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    I don't think there is that much of a difference nutritionally, and don't care much about the chemicals since I breathe in so much more in a day than I will eat...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    If you think of the pesticides etc. as antinutrients, then in a sense pesticide (etc.)-free products might deliver more effective nutrition.

    However I think the larger problem is defining "organic". I noticed at Costco the other day that they are selling "organic" ground beef. Well, I don't give a rat's ass about the "organic" label on beef -- "organic" chicken often proudly proclaims their birds are stuffed full of vegan soy or whatever, and for all I know the government labels beef "organic" only if the cows eat USDA approved grain all day long.

    This would be a big concern for me in interpreting any study. Once you move it up a level to a study of studies, that's just going to be compounding the various definitional criteria differing across the studies, until any correlations are essentially artifacts of the model construction, not measuring real phenomena.
    "If man made it, don't eat it." ..Jack LaLanne
    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.
    If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." ..Richard Feynman

    beachrat's new primal journal

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    LBC, California
    UGH my roomie linked an article about this on facebook as well, and it really got me fired up. i don't know anyone (myself included) who eats organic produce because they somehow believe it has more vitamins or whatever. i eat it because i want to eat less pesticides and other chem cocktail shenanigans.

    but the article made my roomie go very smug CW, i could practically feel him smirking like he does when he asks me about my "wacky diet." *rolleyes*

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by kiran trivedi View Post
    so npr had a special on thismorning on how oragnic food has little effect on your health comapard to conventionaly grown foods, but the longest studies have only been two years. is this long enough and has anyone seen the studies they are talking about?
    They love this kind of thing! What they're probably doing is reporting on a study that stays within a rather limited (and carefully chosen) framework and is funded by ... well, by whom? That's a question worth asking.

    For example, there might be roughly comparable quantities of a handful of (carefully chosen) nutrients -- such and such vitamins or so and so minerals -- in an organic pear and in a non-organic pear. But what if you looked at the level of some mineral they chose not to measure?

    And what if you checked pesticide residues? Do you wish to consume those? Because I certainly don't -- although I don't always buy organic, because you can't always get it, and, in any case, some foods are worse than others: - The "Dirty Dozen"

    Then there's the question of what intensive farming methods do to the soil and of how sustainable they are.

    What do you feed the plants on, if you don't use animal dung, compost, etc.?

    The answer to that one is petrochemical-based fertilizers? How long can we keep doing that? As long as the oil lasts. Oh, and in the meantime, it transfers money from the West to the Middle East -- not the most stable and politically mature region of the globe. You're also talking about fertilizers that provide a narrow spectrum of nutrients -- nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium mainly -- that promote rapid plant-growth, but that don't produce plants that are going to have a full spectrum of minerals in them and that in the long run actually damage soil structure.

    Here is why organic farming is important:

    Soil Association : Organic principles

    I don't for my own part know what the point of the media is if all its going to do is spit out what's fed to it by interested parties and not dig a little deeper.

    For a really deep and interesting look at what intensive farming has done to one landscape have look at this book: The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer (9780963810960): Joel Salatin: Books

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Shop Now
    Hello all,
    Organic food is better where i am know, It is best for health and helps to grown the body.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts