| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: Organic has no health benefits |
 |
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm
| Quote: |
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice". |
Another platitude bites the dust? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to this bastion of wisdom, organic food and stuff is like, good, and we can like, sell it in our stores, and things, and the unions and stuff, and Obama is a saviour, y'know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5oVzbwYWpg
*Mod Edit* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgentM
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sure it's better for the environment to grow organic foods. However, it appears that health benefits shouldn't be among the reasons that you by organic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thoreau
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Never believe one research study especially if you did not read the actual article. New agencies are notorious for misrepresenting the actual conclusions of a study.
Also, it often takes 6 months or longer to find out if a study's authors have some conflict of interest.
Looking at the current study, they are reporting on the 'quality' of nutrients, that is to say, is the Vitamin A from an organic carrot better than the Vitamin A from a non-organically grown carrot.
They ARE NOT reporting on the effects of chemicals and pesticides of non-organically grown food. I believe that future research that includes this component will show there is a trade-off between organic and non-organic food. If the effect on the environment is also included, the difference will probably be clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thoreau wrote: |
Never believe one research study especially if you did not read the actual article. New agencies are notorious for misrepresenting the actual conclusions of a study.
|
From the article:
| Quote: |
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour. |
That is, it wasn't a study but a meta-study.
Like the other platitudes gia-worshipers have replaced God with, I don't think anything will shake their faith. So enjoy your 2$ tomato that is exactly identical in every meaningful way (except that yours required much more land to grow, because of the lack of pesticides) to my .30cent tomato. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc_ido
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Like the other platitudes gia-worshipers have replaced God with, I don't think anything will shake their faith. So enjoy your 2$ tomato that is exactly identical in every meaningful way (except that yours required much more land to grow, because of the lack of pesticides) to my .30cent tomato. |
Sounds like you're trying to silence a dissenting view there by marginalising it, mises. Don't fall into the groupthink trap.
As other posters have pointed out, the health benefits that people ascribe to organic food are more to do with the lack of chemical pesticides and fertilisers than any fundamental difference in the food itself (unless you're talking about GM crops, which weren't covered by the study).
It's also worth noting that the study did not cover any effects due to pesticides, nor the wider environmental effects of organic vs. intensive farming (in fact, very few studies try to quantify effects such as increased biodiversity). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sounds like you're trying to silence a dissenting view there by marginalising it, mises. Don't fall into the groupthink trap. |
Ah, I suppose I am. I don't think the 'organic' type is able to accept industrial farming for ideological reasons. Have you ever been to a Whole Foods and looked at the prices? That markup, without evidence of meaningful benefit, is stunning. Like the lotto being a tax on people who are unable to grasp statistics, Whole Foods and others extract excess value from customers who put ideals before all else.
| Quote: |
| As other posters have pointed out, the health benefits that people ascribe to organic food are more to do with the lack of chemical pesticides and fertilisers than any fundamental difference in the food itself (unless you're talking about GM crops, which weren't covered by the study). |
Pesticides used in industrial farming are of very low health risk. They exit the body very quickly and tend not to make it down the supply chain anyways.
| Quote: |
| It's also worth noting that the study did not cover any effects due to pesticides, nor the wider environmental effects of organic vs. intensive farming (in fact, very few studies try to quantify effects such as increased biodiversity). |
Industrial farming is the only way to feed humanity (unless we ditch meat). The organic farm has lower yields for higher inputs. It only makes sense if the farm is extremely close to an affluent, urban area.
A few months back I overheard some homeless guys at Starbucks talking about how they only ate organic this and that, in between swigs from their flask and pulls on previously discarded ciggies. When a platitude goes meta like that, my reflex is to pull away. Though I'm a fan of Michael Pollan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thoreau
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| thoreau wrote: |
Never believe one research study especially if you did not read the actual article. New agencies are notorious for misrepresenting the actual conclusions of a study.
|
From the article:
| Quote: |
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour. |
That is, it wasn't a study but a meta-study. |
And meta-studies should be looked at with even a more critical eye because they tend to cherry pick the studies they consider on topic.
| Quote: |
Results: From a total of 52,471 articles, we identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products); 55 were of satisfactory quality. In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies.... |
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pesticides used in industrial farming are of very low health risk. They exit the body very quickly and tend not to make it down the supply chain anyways. |
A wee smattering of the smorgasborg out there, let us count the ways--I've picked water supply--(it's not just the food you eat), and bodies:
http://www.waterbornediseases.org/FactSheets/pesticide.htm
http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/
http://ohioline.osu.edu/b745/b745_4.html
I could be arsed to link to the rest of them. You'd probably be surprised by a low sperm count.
Don't be.
You must work for Monsanto, and glow in the dark the rest of the time.
Last edited by canuckistan on Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.waterbornediseases.org/FactSheets/pesticide.htm
That doesn't provide data of the quantity of pesticides consumed during various activities or the point in which they become toxic to humans. It isn't the case that .00001ppm touches your lips and you grow a new arm.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/b745/b745_4.html
Nor does this. But yes, if you stick your hand in a barrel of industrial, non-diluted chemical, you're probably gonna become ill. Farmers have to take all kinds of courses and such to handle them.
| Quote: |
| You must work for Monsanto, and glow in the dark the rest of the time. |
Must be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure that mises understands the narrow conclusion of the study, and seems to have extrapolated it to mean that there is no difference to the the planet when we deviate from industrialised pesticide dependent farming. But he is also one of these posters in denial about climate change etcecera etcetera and I tend to just leave him to play in his smug "I'm not one of these vegan lefty types who kisses muslim babies!" games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Climate change denial. Yeah. No matter how many scientists dissent. No matter how many studies showing opposite conclusions. I'm the one in denial.
6.5 billion + humans on earth. Organic isn't going to do the trick. Sorry. Maybe you can convince your muslim baby kissing sensitive friends to go without meat but give that a try in China, Brazil or Texas. It isn't going to happen. Industrial farming with pesticides is with us permanently.
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure that mises understands the narrow conclusion of the study |
Of course. Though, it was quite clear:
| Quote: |
| There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found. |
One would assume that not being poisoned via pesticides would show up as a health benefit. There would be some measurable difference, no? Or do you think they controlled for that? Ah, maybe the neo-cons/neo-libs/bigoil etc are behind it.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34820.html
| Quote: |
| As the Cambridge chemist John Emsley recently concluded, "The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to 'organic farming'--an estimated 2 billion people would perish." |
I guess you're an organic alchemy denier. Tisk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've suspected for awhile that organic vegetables and grains were a crock: overpriced, and what's worse, less efficient in terms of land usage.
However, I imagine organic meat might be a different issue.
| Quote: |
| I'm sure it's better for the environment to grow organic foods. |
I'm not so certain.
Neither is Slate.
Last edited by Kuros on Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:29 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
According to this bastion of wisdom, organic food and stuff is like, good, and we can like, sell it in our stores, and things, and the unions and bacasper and stuff, and Obama is a saviour, y'know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5oVzbwYWpg |
Guys, lay off bacasper, will ya?
Thanks... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
