Organic: Is it worth it? The study says...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out — and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children — but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

"I was absolutely surprised," said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch.

"There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods," from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, "there isn't much difference."

READ FULL ARTICLE

 

How many months un till another study will come out saying the opposite.
Hate to sound so synical, but it gets rather funny seeing so many changes in whats beleived to be "the right thing" when it comes to nutrition.

Not only nutrition this applies to a lot of things

Raz

 

This study just confirms what was found out in an exhaustive study done in the UK by the FSA, so it is highly unlikely it will be disproven as things stand

 

I don't care, me and my family only eat organic food if possible. Even if the ammount of pesticides is nearly equal to non-organic food (what I don't believe) for me it also is about supporting the organic food industry.
It costs me a lot of money, but neither do I want to eat rubbish, nor do I want my children to do so.

btw
*go vegan!*
=)

 

But thats the whole point - there is NO difference so you are NOT eating rubbish.

Most pesticides in non-organic use are in many respects safer than those used in organic farming, so that too is a non argument

Vegan is more a personal moral choice - and not for me

 

You do realize that "Organic" as it is used with foods is a marketing term. If you look up the definition of organic you will find.


organic
adjective /ôrˈganik/ 

Of, relating to, or derived from living matter
- organic soils

Of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin

(of food or farming methods) Produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents

Of or relating to a bodily organ or organs

(of a disease) Affecting the structure of an organ

Denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole
- the organic unity of the integral work of art

I really doubt that you will find any food that does not contain biological components or contains carbon, with the exception of salt and certain other chemicals needed by cells. Chemicals are chemicals whether they are from natural sources or man made. Organic fertilizers and pesticides contain chemicals or they wouldn't work.

And just because something is natural doesn't make it good. I think I'll pass on the all natural, organic Ebola or Syphilis.

 

So... you didnt READ the article then? Hannibal is right. You're paying A LOT more for food thats essentially the same. Ask yourself this. How much "better" can one protein molecule be over another? Do you really think giving a chicken better food makes its molecular break down improved? Not so much. Granted, if you want to run around eating chicken livers as snacks, then yep, I agree. Watch what they eat.

You must make a LOT more money than I do because, in another thread, I calcuated the following:

When studies are proving the difference between the two to be negligable, how can you rationalize spending that much more? I'd rather that money go to a college fund, retirement fund, and to handle immediate needs than waste it on something that doesnt scientifically give me a pronouncably better end result.

 

Why would you want to do that?

You're talking about an industry that deliberately obstructs progress in food production, making the whole process less efficient, driving up prices, and making it harder to provide food for those who need it.

There are 'organic' campaigns running world-wide - including in many countries where people die of famine every day.

Why would you want to support this industry?

Stuff which isn't grown to 'organic' standards is far from rubbish. Any differences (aside from pure efficiency) are negligible and serve only for purposes of moral high ground and elitism.

No, I like a natural diet thank you.

I'd just rather eat than starve, to be honest.

 

I prefer Arcturian.

 

Do you have any reference for that apart from what is mentioned above?
I'm pretty sure there are dozens of contrary studies out there, but right now I really don't have the time to do some research.
I somehow believe in the european standarts considering organic and non organic food.

 

You seemed to have missed my 'go vegan' statement, I don't care what animals are fed with because I dont eat them.

 

I really mean no offense but this is incredibly stupid. Are you trying to tell me that companies that produce non-organic food don't act like that?
And this 'driving up the prices' is even more uneducated! Do you know what drives up the prices? Burning dead cows which have been fed with soy or whatever and water because it's cheaper to produce more but the price needs to be kept on a certain level so they may not come to stores.

I don't care what you eat, but stop telling me buying local organic product (which, as I clearly pointed out, excludes meat, fish, dairy, eggs and the likes) is worse for the global economy than buying cheaply produced stuff from a huge enterprise.

But unlike you I live in an area where enough food is provided for everyone, so I can have my personal preferences without the danger of starving.

 

Apart from the single most exhaustive study ever conducted? No

Do you have anything to base your position on other than fluffy sentiment and neo hippy esque mindset?

 

Well, if ORGANIC food companies are acting this way then their claim to moral high ground is... what exactly again?

Got any sources on that? Sounds like A-grade conspiracy theory to me...

Wait, wait, wait... there is a big difference between buying stuff off a local farmer/butcher/whathaveyou and buying "organic" in a supermarket. The former is actually affordable; the latter will bankrupt most people in short order.

Wow. Lovely, lovely attitude you've got there. Bet you're a hoot at parties.

 

This thread needs more bacon.

 

That's putting me off bacon if anything.

 

I would prefer to eat organic food if I could, but supermarket prices are ridiculous, borderline on the insane.

Organic is really only worth it if you can grow it out in your backyard or purchase it from a nearby local farmers market (if the prices are reasonable).

 

Okay, the important thing that one should consider when buying fruits and vegetables is freshness. I sometimes drive up to nearby orchards and buy fruits veggies straight from the farmer (sometimes I get to pick them myself), and they taste incredibly better than store bought ones. They're also cheaper.

Now this particular orchard is actually a state wide provider, so it's pretty much the same fruit you buy from the store, just much more fresher.

The thing is with organic food is that due to how expensive it can get, it stays on the shelf much longer than the regular fruits and vegetables. That lessens their nutritional value.

Do you want to know what tastes better between organic and non-organic food?

There's no difference! Ta Da!

 

I don't buy organic food myself because of the price as much as anything else, so I can only speculate on why people would prefer to eat organic rather than non-organic.

I assume that a big part of it is what I call the Ronseal Factor: i.e. "it does exactly what it says on the tin". You don't have to worry about whether there are to many pesticides, or the wrong ones have been used, or whatever, because... there aren't any!

I know there are rules governing these things, but the rules didn't stop the British food industry from giving the world the joys of Mad Cow Disease. And of course we get regular outbreaks of things like salmonella and e-coli, which may have no direct bearing on the issue of organic food, but which contribute to a general distrust of our food industry.

The keyword here is 'trust'. I suspect that most people who choose organic food feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are getting something which is guarenteed to be wholesome and uncontaminated, and they no longer have that same degree of confidence in non-organic food.

Of course another major factor making people choose organic food is concern over the environment. In this area I think it's a bit more clear cut, since the harm that pesticides can cause is well-documented.

 

One good thing to come out of the organic/non organic debate is that I think food producers are now being held more responsible for what they produce (across the board).
That's what we need.
Organic is neither here nor there really but I think there's a strong demand for ethically produced food. Food that's had some thought behind it beyond just getting as much profit as possible. Food that wasn't produced by feeding sheeps brains to cows (as Johnno mentioned).
So I think different paradigms of food production serve to prod the more mainstream food producers to buck their ideas up.