Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think there is any nutritional advantage to eating organic foods to justify the higher cost?
JustRobby1
Posts: 674 Member
Or is it mainly just marketing and advertising?
1
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
I like to grow what I can in our garden then I know what there is on it. Organic foods do not use the most highly toxic chemicals general agriculture does and use what they do more sparingly. As someone recovering from autoimmune problems I want to know there is minimal contamination of my foods and general environment.5
-
I like to grow what I can in our garden then I know what there is on it. Organic foods do not use the most highly toxic chemicals general agriculture does and use what they do more sparingly. As someone recovering from autoimmune problems I want to know there is minimal contamination of my foods and general environment.
So to summarize, non-organic foods are contaminated with toxic chemicals and can cause medical complications to those who have auto-immune disorders?
In that case I think you need to contact the FDA and the NIH, as they seem to doubt the veracity of your claims.7 -
Health:
“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.
A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.
Safety:
Nutrients.
Studies have shown small to moderate increases in some nutrients in organic produce. The best evidence of a significant increase is in certain types of flavonoids, which have antioxidant properties.
Omega-3 fatty acids.
The feeding requirements for organic livestock farming, such as the primary use of grass and alfalfa for cattle, result in generally higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a kind of fat that is more heart healthy than other fats. These higher omega-3 fatty acids are found in organic meats, dairy and eggs.
Toxic metal.
Cadmium is a toxic chemical naturally found in soils and absorbed by plants. Studies have shown significantly lower cadmium levels in organic grains, but not fruits and vegetables, when compared with conventionally grown crops. The lower cadmium levels in organic grains may be related to the ban on synthetic fertilizers in organic farming.
Pesticide residue.
Compared with conventionally grown produce, organically grown produce has lower detectable levels of pesticide residue. Organic produce may have residue because of pesticides approved for organic farming or because of airborne pesticides from conventional farms. The difference in health outcomes is unclear because of safety regulations for maximum levels of residue allowed on conventional produce.
Bacteria.
Meats produced conventionally may have a higher occurrence of bacteria resistant to antibiotic treatment. The overall risk of bacterial contamination of organic foods is the same as conventional foods.
5 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »Or is it mainly just marketing and advertising?
It may be worth reflecting that the industries are somewhat different in the US cf Europe, I'm unsure on the situation in Australia.
In the UK much of the benefit of organic farming is an inherent systemic sustainability, rather than marginal improvements in nutritional value highlighted above. I don't think the price difference is quite as stark as in the US though. For me, getting an organic delivery once a week is probably about 10% more expensive than going to the supermarket, although that'll be offset by the time saving.
Again, a function of industry structure, much of the produce is reasonably local, so has fewer food miles and I can be confident about where my money is going. Fwiw the packing centre is about a mile from home and much of what is delivered travels less than about 70 miles.
I'd also observe that I can taste a difference in some products between what I have delivered and what I might buy in a supermarket when I travel.5 -
In the US the choice being local/small farm and organic are two different things. You can focus on small farm and local and get all conventional produce and you can get everything in the grocery store from far, far away and get all organic.
I get local and in-season and small agriculture when possible (this is in part about taste, in part about supporting small farms, in part about animal treatment/knowing my farmer for meat/eggs/cheese, in part just because I enjoy it). My main sources tend to be organic farms (I think a lot of smaller farms tend to know they have a niche market where they can do better if they can appeal to those who want organic), but I don't care about that bit. I do find that local and in-season tastes different, and better (it's the only way I buy strawberries, other than frozen, tomatoes, other than canned, corn at all, quite a lot of fruit). When I buy in the grocery store, however, which is not an insignificant part of the year as I'm in Chicago (a northern climate) so local produce would often leave me with little, I don't care a whit about organic and don't think it's worth the extra cost.3 -
those with autoimmune conditions often are less able to eliminate toxins than you regular mortals. It is my choice to consume foods which do not increase my toxic load. Chemical sensitivity, histamine intolerance as well as salicylate intolerance are among my personal issues. (Salicylate is produced by many plants to protect themselves from moulds and mildews many of the preparations will have similar structures) Autoimmune conditions are many and complicated. One of the UK's eminent Professors in Immunology has said my symptoms are at the edge of present scientific understanding. To see the tolerance distribution of chemicals as a bell curve, most of you will be within the deeper portion, myself and others similarly placed will be at the flatter ends making us outside the normal range. Those of you who do not have issues similar to mine are more than welcome to consume what you wish.
It is a consequence of my auto immunity that I and others like me lack the quantity or ability to make the enzymes or to host many microbes required for normal absorption and elimination of much the populous call normal.
I fear the international closer integration of seed and chemical companies for whom the bottom line is pure profit not the sustainability of common people to feed themselves, those in poorer communities than ours. Thankfully I live in the UK for our food choices but not for the available treatments of autoimmunity.6 -
Grow your own, if your worried about chemicals use companion planting, it works. If you are tight on space you can do a lot in planter boxes just pick what you grow wisely, i.e. pick as it grows stuff.
I have a 1000m2 veg plot that sometimes extends to my main garden ( I have broccoli I let flower in flower garden) I don't spray for bugs, I grow the right things next to each other, it works.
I used to have a 10m2 garden, grew a lot less but still had plenty of veg which meant not buying.
You can grow corn, have beans grow up the corn, pumpkins below the corn. Three veg in one space.7 -
those with autoimmune conditions often are less able to eliminate toxins than you regular mortals. It is my choice to consume foods which do not increase my toxic load. Chemical sensitivity, histamine intolerance as well as salicylate intolerance are among my personal issues. (Salicylate is produced by many plants to protect themselves from moulds and mildews many of the preparations will have similar structures) Autoimmune conditions are many and complicated. One of the UK's eminent Professors in Immunology has said my symptoms are at the edge of present scientific understanding. To see the tolerance distribution of chemicals as a bell curve, most of you will be within the deeper portion, myself and others similarly placed will be at the flatter ends making us outside the normal range. Those of you who do not have issues similar to mine are more than welcome to consume what you wish.
It is a consequence of my auto immunity that I and others like me lack the quantity or ability to make the enzymes or to host many microbes required for normal absorption and elimination of much the populous call normal.
I fear the international closer integration of seed and chemical companies for whom the bottom line is pure profit not the sustainability of common people to feed themselves, those in poorer communities than ours. Thankfully I live in the UK for our food choices but not for the available treatments of autoimmunity.
I do have autoimmune diseases (two of them) and I do live in the UK... and I still think you're spouting woo. Organic foods really aren't grown with any less 'chemicals'. The only difference is that organic pesticides, fertilisers etc have been 'certified organic'. Which really means... nothing. They're still made in labs. It's not difficult to get something like that organic certified. I live in Lincolnshire where a lot of the country's home-grown food is made (including 95% of the country's brussel sprouts!) - both organic and non-organic. I know several farmers. Organic farmers are laughing all the way to the bank because they can charge more and change almost nothing.
One of the (many) reasons I doubt the validity of what you're saying is that you said you have 'chemical sensitivity'. Uh. Everything is made of chemicals. You are made of chemicals. Water is made of chemicals. People are just scared by big words. Oh no, not dihydrogen monoxide! Except dihydrogen monoxide is just water. You are going to have to be more specific unless you want scientists to think you're sensitive to literally everything.
I'm also confused by your sudden speech on sustainability? Organic farming is the LEAST SUSTAINABLE form of farming. You get statistically less yield for the same size growing area. If you forced people in Africa to grow organic, there'd be widespread famine. If you're really worried about sustainability, GMOs are the best solution. Not only can they be grown in harsh environments such as those found in poor areas of the world, but they use far less herbicides, pesticides, fertiliser etc. Their genes mean they are naturally immune to insects and weeds and the like. You won't get more 'organic' than that.15 -
I live in the UK and the regulations governing organic vs. Conventional are very close. There is not the huge difference that you see in the US. This also means there isn't much of a price difference. In fact, there are several items I buy which are organic AND cheaper than the conventional choice. I don't buy all organic because the UK regulations are so good. When I lived in the US, I did buy organic. The meats because of the higher animal welfare standards and veg/fruit because organic is more environmentally sustainable than conventional. It's not true that organic us the least sustainable form of farming, it is actually the most sustainable. Only ONE study was able to show it as equally sustainable to conventional IF you add land use as a criteria for environmental impact and also split out farm animals into subcategories...of course it will use more land because the animals are free ranging and not cooped up in cages wallowing in feces their entire lives. ALL other studies have shown that organic is more sustainable than conventional.
As for GMOs, they are not sustainable in and of themselves. Sustainability refers to farming practices and methods not how you made the seed. It us technically ( although not legally) possible to organically farm with GMOs. So to say GMOs are "sustainable" is marketing woo pretty much because it's not been studied or used long term. By long term I mean at least a century because sustainability is all about working with the ecosystem such that we can be assured of continued food production for centuries to come.4 -
Freshness or how quickly food is preserved has more to do with better nutrition than organic vs. non-organic.
Organic farming typically is done for reasons other than nutrition.5 -
"When I lived in the US, I did buy organic. The meats because of the higher animal welfare standards..."
I think in the UK that's a thing. In the US, it's not really. There are separate labels that relate to animal welfare (some of which are misleading and don't mean much -- and you have to decide what you trust, which is why I personally would trust more a local farm I knew something about, conventional or not, vs. organic).
These things do often overlap, but not always, and buying meat labeled "organic" in a US supermarket doesn't tell you anything about welfare.
Here's a proposal that would change that (at least somewhat), but as you can see it's not currently in effect.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-09/ag-dept-delays-animal-welfare-standards-for-organic-meats1 -
I have a friend who goes to a Chiropractor that preaches eating organic, grass fed animals, etc. He basically told her if it's Organic, it's healthy. He's helped her leaps and bounds (58 years old, back surgery in 2015, and just completed a 100 mile bike race and lost 30lbs). She still eats processed foods, if they are labelled organic. She feels that's her "safety zone" and when I told her I recently lost 10lbs just by reducing how much I ate, she frowned on the fact that it wasn't done "right" because I don't believe Organic food is worth it. We will always argue this...but one thing is for sure, it's helped her (even if it's a combo of doing healthy things, not just the food part).0
-
JustRobby1 wrote: »I like to grow what I can in our garden then I know what there is on it. Organic foods do not use the most highly toxic chemicals general agriculture does and use what they do more sparingly. As someone recovering from autoimmune problems I want to know there is minimal contamination of my foods and general environment.
So to summarize, non-organic foods are contaminated with toxic chemicals and can cause medical complications to those who have auto-immune disorders?
In that case I think you need to contact the FDA and the NIH, as they seem to doubt the veracity of your claims.
Did you ask the question so you could bash answers you don't like?11 -
Heather4448 wrote: »Omega-3 fatty acids.
The feeding requirements for organic livestock farming, such as the primary use of grass and alfalfa for cattle, result in generally higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a kind of fat that is more heart healthy than other fats. These higher omega-3 fatty acids are found in organic meats, dairy and eggs.
Eggs don't have to be organic to be high in omega-3 fatty acids. Including flax seed in the chickens feed will increase the omega-3 content of eggs regardless of organics.1 -
It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.11 -
Thank you for posting this. Yes, you bring up a good point. The organic label by itself isn't a marker of higher welfare standards in the US...I know I also looked for "free range" labels and bought from researched farms/sources. The two did often happen to overlap...so your article is a good add because I did not realise the animal welfare standards I found were purely voluntary and had (wrongly) thought some of it was due to the organic rules. I didn't know it was so bad until I read the article you posted lemurcat. I hope the law gets finalised.lemurcat12 wrote: »"When I lived in the US, I did buy organic. The meats because of the higher animal welfare standards..."
I think in the UK that's a thing. In the US, it's not really. There are separate labels that relate to animal welfare (some of which are misleading and don't mean much -- and you have to decide what you trust, which is why I personally would trust more a local farm I knew something about, conventional or not, vs. organic).
These things do often overlap, but not always, and buying meat labeled "organic" in a US supermarket doesn't tell you anything about welfare.
Here's a proposal that would change that (at least somewhat), but as you can see it's not currently in effect.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-09/ag-dept-delays-animal-welfare-standards-for-organic-meats
0 -
It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
Are we going to hear a GMO conspiracy theory now? Let me grab some popcorn.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
No - that's what "I'm not a doctor, but play one on TV" personalities said about cigarettes.
Don't conflate science with marketing and advertising.7 -
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
0 -
I buy organic where I can tell a difference in quality. Eggs, some cheese, some produce. I use to only buy organic milk because it blows regular milk out of the water, but I've since discovered Fairlife which isn't technically organic, but is phenomenal.
Anti-GMO nonsense is the same bucket as anti-vaccine and climate change denial nonsense. Anti-science hokem peddled for marketing purposes or to force false ideologies.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
No - that's what "I'm not a doctor, but play one on TV" personalities said about cigarettes.
Don't conflate science with marketing and advertising.
Actually it's what the tobacco industry told us and the courts. Don't conflate history with dogma.5 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
Are we going to hear a GMO conspiracy theory now? Let me grab some popcorn.
You're the one who can read the future, apparently. You tell me. Share the popcorn, but not too much butter on mine please.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's all marketing and advertising, but fear is the greatest salesman known to man.
No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO, but that doesn't stop those peddling this from making a fortune off of the ignorant. Fools and their money are soon parted.
That's what they said about cigarettes.
No - that's what "I'm not a doctor, but play one on TV" personalities said about cigarettes.
Don't conflate science with marketing and advertising.
Actually it's what the tobacco industry told us and the courts. Don't conflate history with dogma.
Riiight - tobacco industry (this would be the marketing and advertising guys). Using the same basic tactics as the organic movement. No objective evidence, but making a great deal of money off of an ignorant population.
6 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
No evidence showing increase in nutritional value in organic foods. However their is a great deal of evidence showing decreased yield and increase risk using organic processes.
True - organic & anti-GMO are different topics, but the anti-science foundation is much the same.4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
No evidence showing increase in nutritional value in organic foods.
So the observations made upthread in more depthHowever their is a great deal of evidence showing decreased yield...
Indeed, although I'd observe that in the UK there is a significant degree of food waste, so we already grow far more than we need....and increase risk using organic processes.
And again, what do you mean by that? I'm conscious we're talking somewhat different industries as food quality standards are somewhat different here in Europe cf the US. As far as I'm concerned there is no increased risk from that perspective, but the business risk is somewhat higher than heavily industrialised farming. The observation upthread around Lincolnshire is valid, farming around there is very monocultural and pretty stable, whereas much of the organic industry here is based around co-operatives and generally smaller farms that may be quite specialised so a bit more vulnerable to either supply chain or demand market disruption.
2 -
Some people in this these are really keen on arguing in bad faith.
5 -
Not really, but I think certain things taste better. I do most of my shopping at Costco and they have a lot of organic stuff that is also cheaper than the regular stuff at the regular grocery store.3
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »No scientific evidence behind organic/anti-GMO.
Two points, what outcomes do you refer to when you say there's no scientific evidence? Again in the UK context whilst nutritional differences are marginal the organic system encompasses quit a lot more.
And organic <> anti-GMO. Each have a place in the market.
No evidence showing increase in nutritional value in organic foods.
So the observations made upthread in more depthHowever their is a great deal of evidence showing decreased yield...
Indeed, although I'd observe that in the UK there is a significant degree of food waste, so we already grow far more than we need....and increase risk using organic processes.
And again, what do you mean by that? I'm conscious we're talking somewhat different industries as food quality standards are somewhat different here in Europe cf the US. As far as I'm concerned there is no increased risk from that perspective, but the business risk is somewhat higher than heavily industrialised farming. The observation upthread around Lincolnshire is valid, farming around there is very monocultural and pretty stable, whereas much of the organic industry here is based around co-operatives and generally smaller farms that may be quite specialised so a bit more vulnerable to either supply chain or demand market disruption.
I saw the post. There is no measurable difference in organic vs non-organic. No statistically significant results exist.
Possibly - this is more an issue of storage and logistics. Your perception on waste/abundance is going to depend on your scope. Those concerning on world wide supply are not going to share the same concerns as those concerned with local supply.
I'm primarily concerned with risk to yield. There are multiple issues involved, but allowing the individual farmer the necessary latitude to manage risk is critical to success, particularly when evidence to support regulatory measures is lacking.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions