Discussion on:

Organic food isn't actually any better for you, and it's way more expensive

Firstly, we'd need to know more about the trials Stanford studied. Trials which don't support their funders hypotheses are less likely to be published, so there might be a bias in the information available.
Secondly, public health isnt the only issue behind organic farming. Environmental and sustainability issues are also important.

I agree. As soon as I saw the headline, I had to wonder who funded the study. Unfortunately, most of the research funding once financed by the bugaboo of "big government" is now funded by corporations with a stake in the outcome - from medical to agricultural. It mostly all has to be tainted.

Many large industrial organic farms are energy-intensive operations using large amounts of fossil fuel--not the bucholic pasture-based model most people think of. However, the organic food movement is viable not just because of the pesticide-free food. It's also about taking a stand against the chemically-intensive highly-processed GMO corn and soybean-based industrial food system that produces almost all of our food today. If I have my choice between eating beef produced by a CAFO (confined animal feeding opertion) where cattle stand knee-deep in their own waste and are fed a steady diet of GMO corn, or one that has eaten only grass and not been pumped full of antibiotics (cleverly described as "nutritional supplements"), I'll take the one grown on grass.

Furthermore, I've not been eating organic because of the superior nutritional qualities. I eat it because there are so many toxins in the environment, I'm simply trying to tip the scales in my favor when it comes to staying healthy. For in the end, none of us really know why we get certain diseases like MS, Parkinsons, and cancer.

I choose organic primarily for the reduction of chemicals used in the growing cycle. I choose my vegan diet for the health benefits. My carbon footprint is 20% of the normal animal protein based diet. And with the vegan diet the costs of organic are balanced by the replacement of animal proteins.

You are right to point out that organic farms are just as mechanized as non-organic farms.

But GMO products are just as prevalent on store shelves as they are in the feedlot. And as the Stanford study points out, they can't find any major nutritional differences between organic and non-organic products in the supermarket. Thus your assertion of the "chemically-intensive highly-processed GMO corn and soybean-based industrial food system" is just emotional hype without merit. Most cattle that wind up in feedlots actually spend the first two years of their lives (the majority) on the range eating grass.

However, if you find value in organic food you should be able to purchase it if you're willing to pay the premium. Unfortunately, most people in the world are not nearly as affluent as you and could never afford organic. What they get instead with modern agricultural methods is a chance at a balanced diet that allows their bodies and minds to grow to their full potential.

High soybean intake has been linked to men's health issues (including increased estrogen levels); this is not merely an emotional link without merit.

The biggest estrogen problems first come from diet choices (too many simple carbs) unrelated to soy. If you are obese (increased fat levels produce higher estrogen levels - in men and women) you might be wiser to first lose weight and then think about your soy consumption - either organic or regular.

@zackers. do you by any chance work for the government? if not, you seem to be very trusting. Your cavalier dismissal of any worries about GMO foods may be reassuring to some, but just because they may be plentiful on supermarket shelves, doesn't automatically make them acceptable for consumption. You seem to display a sneering attitude towards someone who is 'affluent enough' to afford organic.
Presumably you are happy to eat anything that Big Food throws at you. Perhaps you're even happy to eat pink slime, if it is still available.
It may seem strange to you, but a lot of people are not happy eating pesticide sprayed food or antibiotic injected meat (probably the same people who are, in your eyes, affluent enough)
I'm not sure that synthetic chemicals allow bodies and minds to grow to their full potential.

The significant reduction of pesticides, herbicides and industrial fertilizer into the environment is reason enough to support Organic. My brother is a Organic Farmer, he follows strict guidelines including recycling/reusing water, no pesticides or herbicides..which does increase energy usage, but the alternative is putting toxins in the ground, that eventually end up in aquafers and rivers, which eventually end up in the ocean. I'll take a little more energy usages over that.

The rules for what qualifies as organic are inconsistent with the perception and enforcement is so lax that local news stations have made headlines this summer by doing pesticide testing on organic labeled foods. And find it.

So called organic pesticides, such as a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture, can be toxic. At recommended application levels it takes 7 applications to equal the toxicity of a single application of synthetic pesticides. Because of their perceived/real reduced effectiveness compared to synthetic pesticides they are often improperly mixed or excessively applied by farmers. Both of which quickly closes the gap on synthetics.

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

Natural pesticides like rotenone and pyrethrin break down rapidly. That's why they have to be applied frequently. Makes them safer as well, since they don't have long-term toxicity. Good organic farmers use a variety of pest control strategies other than spraying pesticides, such as interplanting different crops to confuse or repel pests, creating conditions that encourage predators, or releasing predators.

I suspect the study you link to was funded by agribusiness interests.

I use natural fly predators to reduce the deer flies and nematodes in standing water for mosquito control. Both are much safer to use around grazing horses.

One big thing many people do not think of with organic vegetables is you still need to wash them because of pathogens that can get on the food. Somehow organic means CLEAN to them. Animal/bird droppings, etc. still happen on organic farms.

Even indoor grown hydroponic food items should still be washed because of pathogens transmitted from handling.

The weak link in this chain is the way in which "below dangerous levels" is defined. Whenever government gets involved in defining such terms there is a breakdown in communications. The board that decides what is "organic" and what is not consists of seven appointed "individuals" . I use quotes because 5 of them are actually corporations that engage in mega-farming. The two that are supposed to represent consumers are not exactly independent either.

At least 2 dozen artificial chemicals are allowed to be added to "organic foods" up to 2%, by weight, and still be labeled organic! More are on the way.

Pesticides, herbicides and some petrochemical fertilizers can be harmful at below the legal levels as well. No wonder "There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food."

Another way organic is misleading is that the water used to irrigate the crops is not regulated and could (and does) contain contaminates such as lead and mercury that are actually accumulated and increased in such crops as "organic baby greens" to levels higher than was in the water. Sometimes as much as 10 or 15 times higher!

Government, get out of our food. And stop letting big corporations define the terms and safety of the crops they sell.

The only way to be sure is to have a victory garden in your own back yard (or apartment patio). We are what we eat, but it is getting harder to know what that is.

You can't say, "Government, get out of our food" and then in the next sentence say "stop letting big corporations define the terms and safety of the crops they sell." You have to pick one or the other. For all its weaknesses and flaws, I'll pick government to protect me rather than big corporations.

It's the large Food companies (aka Big Food) that are asking to add more synthetic chemicals, not the Government. We need the Government to oversee and reduce the corruption of the USDA Organic system. They are the only entity with enough power to protect smaller independent farmers from being overrun.

"There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years."

Revisit this study in 25 years and I guarantee you that will be a mountain of evidence to support the organic diet over the chemical-friendly one. Come on, you can't make sweeping conclusions like this after "two days to two years". This study is a joke.

Like the previous contributor said,
"Firstly, we'd need to know more about the trials Stanford studied. Trials which don't support their funders hypotheses are less likely to be published, so there might be a bias in the information available.

"There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years."



Exactly, asbestos, cigarettes, coal dust, etc. don't cause harm in two years! Get real. It IS the long term exposure that needs to be studied. This study is worthless!

With 30% less Cancer from switching from preserved cold meat to whole meats, which is well documented this report falls short of its responsibility as being a complete picture.

The real issue is the traits introduced to the non-organic foods whose transgenic properties have been shown to be spreading throughout the biosphere. These traits in humans are beginning to manifest some serious pathological and genetic issues. The issue skirted by this "expose" is Food Purity, which IS a major issue as these traits move through the genetics of non-GMO plants ever more readily. Add that to the issues expressed in the comments above, then the the fact Monsanto just spent $29.3M to develop RNA interruption technology to create a whole new system of Pesticides and Herbicides, and of course the resistance traits for all their seed and plant products. I've yet to see any definitive independent research about what happens when these new traits are ingested by the Animals and Us. This Video refutes this "Study": http://naturalsociety.com/ridiculous-study-claims-organic-same-as-conventional/
there's additional facts and links here: http://www.naturalnews.com/037065_organic_foods_mainstream_media_psyop.html

There is so much information not included in the reporting of this study to make this article virtually worthless.

And I quote: "There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years."

Very disappointed with the author for the misleading headline.

I second the sentiment of No Excuse! Other's have covered the scientific irrelevance and folly of this "study", but I have to add my outrage at the writer of this article for Smart Planet . I think we could legitimately expect more savvy and critical thinking on this platform, if the name is justified. At the best case, this article is a let-down for its laziness, but it actually seems to celebrate the foolish conclusions of the "study". No excuse!

This is one of a long series of studies that have shown basically the same thing, there is no difference nutritionally or toxicologically , at least large enough between organic foods and traditional agriculture food productions to warrant spending the money on them. In fact, some studies have shown your chances of coming down with bacterial investions like E. coli and or Salmonella are actually much higher when choosing organic foods because of their association with manures.

Organic technically and economically is a major marketing ploy. Worse, if the entire world went to organic food production a large percentage of the world population would starve to death. If you really want universal organic food production, you need to understand that you are also for dramatic human population reduction - down to about 2 billion. That's the last population level that organic production methods actually supported. Sorry to bother you with those facts.

Bill Gates thinks reducing the human population is a good idea. He also supports genetically engineered food production.
In other words you reduce the population by feeding it GM foods...

We buy organic food to avoid the pesticides that evil giants like Monsanto try to foist on us, not because we think they offer better nutrition.

Much like taste, if nutrition is lacking in a fruit or vegetable, regardless of how it's grown, you can likely trace the cause to genetics.

When they started breeding tomatoes that could be picked green and survive cross country transit, that's when we started sacrificing taste and nutrition in the favor of saleability. Now that everyone is using those types of seeds, a vine ripened locally grown tomato no longer tastes as good as the "Jersey Tomatos" I recall from my childhood.

The title of this post is obviously overstating the findings.

And besides...
"There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food."

"The results show that the pesticides were within health regulations and below dangerous levels". Says who! What is exceptable and who sets the limits. It used to be a cholesteral levels of 200 was good,but in the last 20 years or so it has dropped to about 120. That should be worth mega trillions to the pharma industry! Exceptable radiation levels were recently raised in the US because Fukushima has contaminated the ocean and air. Maybe they just want a few extra to die so we can depopulate the US! All I can say is follow the money and you will usually find the source. Terrible article Rose!

Nothing mentioned about GMO's in the article. That IS one of the main reasons these days to buy organic.

Then the article says, "While the study did find higher levels of pesticides on non-orgnanic goodies, they were always within health regulations, and below dangerous levels."

Who is gauging what is below dangerous levels?

And why support Monsanto by buying food made this way?

Monsanto is US Govt-subsidized, and that makes for cheaper food.

And if GMO foods are so great, why doesn't Monsanto label their products as such?

Here's a very informative article: http://procinctu.info/food/monsanto/

I think studies of studies are not research and any findings are vague at best. People don't do research anymore, they do studies of studies of studies. The farther away you get from the original data the more off-base the results. Anyone who has ever written a term paper on a scientific subject knows that.

I buy organic foods because 'USDA certified organic' means no 'genetically modified organisms' - no plant genes combined with insect genes or animal genes and sold to me without informing me. An organic tomato is a tomato not a lab experiment passed off as food. I buy organic because organic produce has less pesticides and it has to be handled and processed in specific ways to keep it's certification.

I buy organic because I saw substantive improvements in our family health after a few weeks of organic foods. So significantly fewer pesticides, and no GMO's translates into fewer illnesses and better health in our household.

To buy unadulterated food with the lowest amounts of pesticides, processing chemicals and unwanted food additives or colorings, you have to buy organic. It's a shame that we have to pay a premium for what a hundred years ago would have just been called 'food', but that seems to be the price of progress. If you don't feel you can afford organic, then at least buy fresh unprocessed produce. Buy real food, not chemical-laden lab experiments in a box or can.

Food grown in a healthy way really is healthier for you, and the planet, too. And you don't need a study of a study to confirm that. You can prove it to yourself.

5 Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short:

In reality, though, the study in some places makes a strong case for organicthough you'd barely know it from the language the authors use. And in places where it finds organic wanting, key information gets left out. To assess the state of science on organic food and its health benefits, the authors performed what's known among academics as a "meta-analysis"they gathered all the research papers they could find on the topic dating back decades, eliminated ones that didn't meet their criteria for scientific rigor, and summarized the results. To read more and explore the Research Links, the entire Article by Tom is here (Good work, Tom!):
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-food

Numerous studies like the one reviewed have already pointed out the the lack of superior nutrition, and even the decreased safety from "organic" food choices due to higher bacterial loads from "organic" manuring. Sure traditional NPK food production has had instances where chemicals were not used well. However, and just a clue, "organic E. coli can be just as fatal as traditionally produced E. coli and much more likely to be found on "organic foods" where anti-bacterial washes aren't used.

The vast majority of the people who buy "organic" do so because they think it is a blanket solution to good nutrition and good health and unfortunately it isn't that simple. In reality they either don't have the technical background, or simply can't take the time to be better informed. Where as if they improved their knowledge of food production science and nutrition they could be far healthier whether they used "organic" or not. If they never had heard the term "organic foods", but if they selected their foods better - avoided simple carbs, consumed more Omega-3s and less Omega-6s, had under 2 oz. of alcohol intake/day - red wine preferably, kept their weight proportional to their build (forget the height to wt. BMI - total medical fraud measurement) and got regular moderate exercise they would be far healthier than the most religiously "organic food consumer" - and far ahead economically both in food costs and medical bills. All you have to do is read the "pro-organic" comments here to understand that the "pro-organic" following is based on more cult/religion than well based nutrition and scientific analysis.

"There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years."

In other word, the study isn't worth anything. People die because of decades of abuse.

"While the study did find higher levels of pesticides on non-orgnanic goodies, they were always within health regulations, and below dangerous levels."

If it's dangerous, and not just "small amounts are good, but too much is really, really bad, like copper, iron,etc." dangerous, but "all-bad and no good" dangerous, I really don't care what some government agent tells me is "OK." Sheesh...these are the same people that experiment on our soldiers.

Exactly what the level of exposure to pesticides is safe is still controversial, and may vary form individual to individual.

Further, organic products are not allowed to contain Genetically Modified ingredients, where novel proteins of dubious safety will be present.

Very shoddy reporting - not worthy of your publication.

Stanford research gets multi-million dollar grants from Bill Gates who is a major stockholder of Monsanto and Cargill.

No wonder they found "facts" - rather published lies - about organic food - it's all about the money stupid and greed ala Gates Monsanto et al.

Actually, it's quite simple.

Organic Food = Natural Food (sustainable, environmentally friendly, non-toxic)

Non-Organic Food = Unnatural Food (genetically modified, irradiated, carcinogenic)

And we all know which is actually better for you. Wouldn't even Rose Eveleth choose natural over unnatural?

It's rather obvious who paid her to write this article.

This is important to note because no matter what type of consumer you rely on, you will want to target them with sales promotions. Your specific promotions can be directed at clients, employees, customers, sales people, wholesalers, other businesses and companies, or retailers.Sales promotion

The actual term refers to the way through which agricultural products are processed and grown, meeting specific requirements. Organic crops need to have no modifications, grow in safe soil, and remain separate from any other conventional products. http://wholefoodsconnection.com/organic-food.html

Okay its not scientific but when ever someone starts telling me about how organic food is not better and that I could be saving money by eating food produced using chemical (safe?) production methods I just tell them to try an Organic Green tea from Eco Market here http://www.ecomarket.com/discover/organic-food/natural-drink/tea/organic-green-tea/ and compare the taste with non naturally grown and its so obvious the effect that these chemicals have on reducing the flavours in food and drink.