Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Say Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that although organic fruits and vegetables, grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizer, comprise a $29 billion industry that is still growing, a new analysis of 200 peer-reviewed studies that examined differences between organic and conventional food finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods. 'When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,' says Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford's Center for Health Policy and co-author of the study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 'I think we were definitely surprised.' Some previous studies have looked at specific organic foods and found that they contain higher levels of important nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals. For example, researchers found in one study that tomatoes raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain antioxidant compounds. But this is one study of one vegetable in one field; when the Stanford researchers looked at their broad array of studies, which included lots of different crops in different situations, they found no such broad pattern. Here's the basic reason: When it comes to their nutritional quality, vegetables vary enormously, and that's true whether they are organic or conventional. One carrot in the grocery store, for instance, may have two or three times more beta carotene than its neighbor. But that's due to all kinds of things: differences in the genetic makeup of different varieties, the ripeness of the produce when it was picked, even the weather. Variables like ripeness have a greater influence on nutrient content, so a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one."
Is anyone actually surprised by this?
There's been no biochemical model that I know of that supported the organic is better assertion. Anyone know of one?
with which my ancestors did not co-evolve, not because I think they're more nutritious. Who said they were more nutritious anyway? Did I miss another memo?
I'm curious to know who funded this study? My guess is on the non-organic industry did.. Academic research is four times more likely to be favorable to who paid for for the study.
Yes, but the non-organic foods were probably enhanced with pesticides, which are common endocrine disruptors in humans. Even if non-organic and organic foods are similar in nutrient values, I'll pass on the pesticides. Just sayin'.
There's a big difference between healthy foods and nutritious foods. People don't buy organic for nutrition. That's what people buy vitamins for. People buy organic food for what it *doesn't* have, namely pesticides (and hormones for meat and dairy).
This study looks like one that is clearly designed to support industrial farming by distracting consumers. "Hey, you were buying organics for reason A, but it makes no sense to buy organics for reason B, so you should stop."
To me and everyone I know, we buy organic not because we think it enhances the nutritional value of the produce, but because we want to eat less (maybe a lot less) pesticides with our produce. Why they would study the vitamin content is beyond me. It's never been a concern, claim, or issue.
I've always thought that people who eat organic food for health reasons do so to avoid ingesting pesticide residue, not because they think organic food is more nutritious. Yet every study of this type seems to look at micronutrient content and ignore the health effects of consuming pesticides in food.
Is there a health benefit to eating produce that doesn't contain pesticide residues? (Or at least, contains vastly smaller residues?)
There's this problem of comparing unripe apples and ripe oranges. What the fuck, dudes?
First of, there's this stupid comparison of ripe X versus unripe Y. Then, I'd take a less nutritive organic peach over a pesticide-filled ripe peach any day. Sure, might take me two over one in terms of nutrition, but at least those two are not sprinkled with shit.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
"Scientists" may be using poor analysis methods; journal may suffer various biases including membership and advertising income sources. The paper sounds more like oranges, apples and orangutans were compared for a new agenda driven Rorschach test.
OK, I've worked on cooperatives, and generally hung out with the "hippie" crowd quite a bit, but never once did I hear any of them claim that organic food contained more nutrients etc. It is, and always was, about keeping the pesticides off our food. So you say that organic isn't more nutritious? Well NSS.
Because if they'd linked to the Stanford site, they would have had to admit that this isn't actually what the study says. Yes, vegetables grown similarly with or without pesticides have similar nutritional content. Hardly shocking. But also, vegetables grown without pesticides don't have pesticide residue!!! Which is why people buy organic food. If you're buying organic because you want more vitamins, sure, switch back to your pesticide-laden foods instead.
Don't forget that organic food isn't just about increased nutritional content( and that is assuming this study is telling the truth, for example, Stanford has ties to Monsanto).
Organic farming is also about food security. Having food at all. Conventional farming uses fertilizer made from oil. A finite resource that is running out. Making artificial fertilizer has been polluting and destroying our environment........including farm land and drinkable water.
Organic food is also about human health in terms of pesticide use. When you buy organic food you aren't consuming the pesticide that is used on other crops. You are also aren't contributing to the manufacture and disposal of pesticides which is getting into your soil, your water and effecting your health indirectly.
The people who buy them in the grocery store. They're almost never ripe.
I haven't tried eating inorganic food - whats it taste like without proteins, sugars and other carbon chain based compounds..
So, no point in switching to electric cars, right?
You could be right about who funded it. But then you don't point out who did so I'm guessing you just made an assumption because you disagreed with it. I think organic is great for those who want to pay twice the price for the same fruit and vegetables. I bet you don't know for sure if those "organic" fruit and vegetables are really organic though, do ya? I've grown fruit without pesticides and it's a hell of a job. Try it sometime. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problems with people who want to eat only organic. It's the ones that try to ban pesticides for the rest of us that don't want to double or triple our food budget that annoy me.
No, not at all. Whatever could you mean? It's a lush peach, right? Nom! Who cares if it's full of poison? What matters is the nutritional content, not whether eating it will kill you! Let's all sing the "accentuate the positive" song.
If those things concern you, just remember to support GM foods.
It's also worse for the environment because it takes a /lot/ more land for the same yield.
Organic yields are substantially lower than conventional yields and the only way to obtain additional farmland it to take wildlands. According to Dr. Steve Savage who did the first comprehensive study of organic farming for the USDA in 2008 simply converting the United States alone to organic standards would require substantial additional cropland.
a switch to organic agriculture would require a 43 percent increase over current U.S. cropland, according to Savage. As he puts it, "On a land-area basis, this additional area would be 97% the physical size of Spain or 71% the size of Texas
Taking additional farmland (not necessarily explicitly for organic but the principal applies) is the leading cause of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. I don't think I need to cite the significant loss in biodiversity and carbon offsets from the loss of wildlands for conversion to croplands. The trade off in pesticide use is more than offset by other ecological costs.
The first comprehensive studies of organic farming came back saying that the health benefits are anecdotal and the loss of yield substantial. I'm inclined to say organic farming should be help in contempt and exposed as simple green washing. I think in years to come it will be looked at no differently than ethanol from corn.
If you go to the Annals of Internal Medicine web page, they advertise the paper with this headline: "Are Organic Foods Healthier? There is little evidence that organic food is more nutritious but it may have fewer pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
This seems like a much fairer evaluation of the results than the NPR or Slashdot headline.
You make the same distinction I do - Nutrition is a part of how 'Healthy' a food is, but not all of it.
Still, there's problems organic foods, in that farmers are still free to use fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. They just have to be 'organic'* ones, and some of those are nastier than the artificial chemical ones. Also, there's the question of food safety, as organic certification is separate from safety certification. Fecal matter, E-Coli, Salmonella, etc are all natural and organic, after all. I've read reports that *SOME* organic products have higher levels of contamination than their non-organic counterparts. Given how widespread the field is and how stuff constantly changes, I have no advice beyond 'pay attention to your food source, no matter whether it's organic or not'. For example, I don't worry about organic vegetarian** eggs, but I do worry whether the farm vaccinates the hens against Salmonella.
*Scare-quoted primarily because the distinction on what's organic and not varies by location and certifying authority(if any). ;)
**WTH? I want eggs from omnivores - chickens that get sufficient insect protein produce better eggs!
I don't read AC A human right
Let's see ... I can eat vegetables grown using synthetically derived pesticides and herbicides that contain measurable, but infinitesimally small amounts, of chemicals shown to be dangerous at enormously higher concentrations ... or ... vegetables grown using manure (feces), compost (rotted organic debris), and biologically derived pesticide and herbicide chemicals (organic DOES NOT mean pesticide or herbicide free) that are just as dangerous at high concentrations as the synthetically made chemicals I'm trying to avoid, while paying twice as much for my food which was grown by a method that can't possibly feed the world's population. So I choose organic ... but a deer wanders through the field and poops on the organic lettuce that eventually ends up in my organic salad and I die from Salmonella or E. coli ... but by God my corpse never encountered round up ready corn! Mother Nature FTW!
Amazingly, I watched this video, linked from Google News, about 3 minutes before reading your question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vq8Klio60s
Alan Watt covered this on his show and we have covered it on DeathRattleSports.com. Stanfords 'Anti-Organic' study does not address the real concerns of non-organic plants, which of course include GMO.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
4) And those methods often produce tastier food.
Debatable. While my own experience is hardly data, I've tried all sorts of organic and non-organic food and frankly I cannot tell the difference most of the time and I've never met anyone else who can either without seeing the label on the product. I defy anyone to take a blind taste test on eggs from your local mega-mart and tell me they can tell the difference between organic and non-organic. Same with produce or most other foods. It is true that with more careful farming techniques you can get better quality and tastier food but that is true whether or not you are using organic farming. Organic farming theoretically makes sense but in practice I'm not so sure the benefits are as significant as claimed.
The other facets of organic vs. non organic?
Non-organic farming relies on fossil-fuel based fertilizers and pesticides in humongous quantities.
Why, to support soil depleting and disease susceptible monocultures. Without proper rotation of crops, this leaves the soil barren of nutrients unless you pump fertilizers into it, and when farming is done, contributes to soil erosion.
With a monoculture, one fungus or insect can destroy an entire crop, necessitating the use of pesticides and other harsh chemicals.
Even of organic does not offer much greater health benefits, it robs Monsanto, Cargill, Dow, and Chevron of a constant revenue stream.
It also reduced reliance on fossil fuels, reduces carbon emissions (both from the production and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides), creates (at least anecdotally) safer food, and makes for a cleaner environment.
What is NOT desirable about that? Oh, profit for the megacorps, I forgot.
Silence is a state of mime.
but it also has lots of pesticides in it.
Who ever said 'organic' had more or less nutrients. It's always been about the growth environment ie. lack of pesticides, artificial growth supplements, etc. What's more frightening is that these were scientists. The comment about the variability of nutrients between plants is common knowledge which, you would think, would have rendered the need for the study kind of doubtful.
More useful would have been a study on:
a) the non-nutrient compound differences ie. besides nutrients, what compounds are present and how do they differ between organic and non-organic?
b) what of the non-nutrient compounds are good/bad for consumers and to what degree?
c) how have the levels of non-nutrient compounds changed over the years ie. have non-organic foods seen a rise or decrease in non-nutrient compounds and how does that affect consumers?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
We assume that di-hydrogen monoxide is not a chemical the AC and his/her ancestors either did not grow up or did not evolve with. So you are changing the subject.
We are also pretty sure that non-dangerous levels of H2O are used in the production of organic foods, and non-dangerous levels are contained in them, as well.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
If you don't use chemical pesticide, you have to do something else to prevent the pest eating up/ruining all your crop. What do they use and how does it compare to "chemical" (seriously, what isn't "chemical"?) pesticide?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Haven't dug through the details to figure out who's more believable, but here are some criticisms of the study.
They are effectively comparing one source of factory food against another source. The real issue is soil management, pesticides are only part of the problem. If the soil is depleted of copper, iodine and zinc no amount of nitrogen fertilizer will add those back, they are elements! Often they don't even suppliment iron and it's basic to plant health let alone human health. I guarantee 90% of all supermarket food is factory food whether it's organic or not and with most chains it's a 100%. Unless you actively restore the micronutrients then they are depleted. You can't keep taking them out of the soil and expect them to be there after a 100 years. Modern fertilizer is focused on nitrogen to make plants grow bigger. Factory farms make money off volume not mineral content. Also you only have to let a field go fallow for 3 years to call it organic. Most of the pesticide is still in the soil. That's why they still get moderate levels in organic foods. Also the farm up the hill may still use pesticides so it runs down onto the organic fields. I want a REAL test between managed soil and factory farms. It's like doing a chemistry test and leaving out half the chemicals. Why would you expect to get a good result??? This is purely about proving food raised on pesticides, sand and nitrogen is just as good as organic food that is raised on sand and nitrogen. It isn't even science it's common sense! Add in rock dust, kelp or worm castings then see what they tests show. Those things don't have a lobby so they aren't considered important. This isn't about feeding the world it's about making food more profitable.
try supporting local growers, the 3-5 that still survive.
This.
No sig today...
We grow lots of our own food. We do "blind taste tests" from time the time and it is fucking easy to work out which is the home-grown stuff.
Home grown is not the same thing and not what is being discussed. I have a garden too and our tomatoes (organically grown for what it is worth) taste better than anything I can get from the grocery store if for no other reason than I can actually pick them when they are ripe. But that's a different issue. I'm merely talking about food in the grocery store with the label organic on it. Quite simply I've never seen any persuasive evidence that organic food from the grocery store is tastier or more nutritious than non-organic food and I've never met anyone who could tell the difference just by taste or appearance.
So, supermarket organic stuff which is "organic" in the sense of merely sticking to some list of requirements (e.g. "no pesticide") may not be tastier. You are buying for the farming method.
Sort of. Unfortunately seeing organic on a label doesn't mean nearly as much as people think it does. It's a pretty narrowly defined term with loopholes you can drive a tanker truck through.
While the food may not contain more (or less) nutrients than non-organically grown food, the things that organically grown food does NOT contain may still make them healthier. Things missing, such as insecticides, herbicides and antibiotics do not find their way into our food chain when grown organically. Only time will tell whether this is a true benefit or not as this study only evaluated the nutritional value of organic and non-organically grown food. In other words, it tells us squat.
Why are there so many studies on nutritional content when that's not why most people eat organic?
People eat organic because they perceive it is healthier or more nutritious or tastier (or all of the above) or because it is fashionable to do so. The problem is that there is limited evidence that it actually has the benefits that are typically claimed. The theory of organic farming seems to make sense - keeping the nasty industrial chemicals and pesticides out seems like it should result in a healthier product. I'll freely admit that, in theory, organic farming seems to make sense. Problem is that just because this seems to make sense doesn't mean it actually results in a product with the benefits claimed. The jury is still out but so far the evidence is very poor that organic food is measurably superior in ways that affect health or taste for most people. There's nothing wrong with eating organic food but by doing so one is accepting a theory that so far is unproven by science. A leap of faith if you will.
I think the fashion aspect of organic food is actually the strongest reason a lot of people eat organic or specialty foods. While not exactly the same thing, go into a Whole Foods store and look a the amount of gluten free foods. Genuine gluten allergies are quite rare but people claiming to have a problem with gluten is quite fashionable lately for reasons that I don't really understand. There is far more gluten free food than would be justified by the actual number of people who have diagnosable health problems with gluten. It's a placebo effect to be sure. I think organic food is similarly fashionable. People perceive a benefit (real or not) based on what others are saying/doing and so they think it might be worth doing too. Remember that the strongest marketing message ever is "everyone else is doing it".
The flavor of a tomato depends 99% on when it was picked, nothing more.
Not entirely true. It also depends on the genetics of the plant you grow. Tomatoes that you can get today have been bred for their appearance and durability and not for taste at all. Farmers have selected for traits other than taste because that is what they are paid for. I haven't had a genuinely good peach in over 20 years. Acceptable ones yes, but not actually good tasting even when I've picked them myself right off the tree. Same with strawberries - you just cannot get a genuinely good one. They are grown for traits other than taste. I haven't seen the sorts of strawberries I grew up with in a long time because they were relatively fragile and didn't ship too well. Produce is sold by the pound, not for taste and we get a product that reflects those incentives.
Yes. Organic food is not sprayed with pesticides. Hence, it contains no pesticide residue. That is why people buy organic food. That is the biochemical model.
That's a theory, not a model. HUGE difference between the two. A theory posits an idea. A model makes predictions of future results based on a theory. The theory of organic food seemingly makes sense but the scientific models to support that theory have been very slow in coming. You have to prove that organic food contains less pesticides (not terribly hard) as well as prove that the pesticides have actual measurable health effects (harder but still possible) and that organic food consumption reduces those health effects (extremely difficult and expensive). A model of the health effects of eating organic foods should be able to make predictions based on the accumulated evidence and there so far doesn't appear to be much in the way of models of the health effects of organic foods. I'm sure people are working on it but there isn't much out there yet.
There is a very good reason to buy organic food : sustainability. It causes less pollution and uses less synthetic additives (which are often derived from fossil resources).
And your evidence for this is what? Nice theory but you seem to have so far merely asserted that your claim is true. Organic food actually requires more work to farm per unit of food. Even proponents will not dispute that crop yields are significantly lower. Just because you use less fertilizer or pesticides does not automatically mean that less resources or pollution were generated during its production. It still has to be planted, irrigated, harvested, transported and tended - all of which use vast amounts of energy and cause pollution. With non-organic methods you can produce more food using less space and with less of certain resources so at some level there appears to be a trade off. You might be actually right but it's not merely a simple or obvious assertion that organic is somehow more sustainable than non-organic. You need actual evidence to determine that.
But that's all short term, and those regulations are focused on short term toxicity. We don't know whether, for example, people who consume organic food have reduced rates of cancer over forty years. We do know that organic food tends to be higher in antioxidants, and we do know that antioxidants play some beneficial role in preventing cancer, but we're really just beginning to probe the various correlations and causations involved. So, while we can't say yet that organic food is better for you, it's certainly premature to say it's definitely not better.
Non-organic farming relies on fossil-fuel based fertilizers and pesticides in humongous quantities.
Granted. The upside is that they get higher crop yields for the same expenditure of gasoline and labor. It's a tradeoff. Hard to say right now which is the better outcome. Hopefully we'll get some good science done that will better establish the nature of the tradeoff we are making.
It also reduced reliance on fossil fuels, reduces carbon emissions (both from the production and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides), creates (at least anecdotally) safer food, and makes for a cleaner environment.
You use less fossil fuels for the fertilizers and pesticides but you'll use more in the planting, irrigation, harvesting, labor and processing per unit of food produced because of lower crop yields which require more land to be farmed or more careful tending of land. Organic yields are lower so you're going to have to put more energy resources into the process to get the same amount of food at the end of the day. Might be worth the tradeoff but there is no obvious advantage for organic foods just because they use less pesticides or fertilizer.
As far as safer goes you're going to have to back that up with more than anecdotes. There is no credible study that I am aware of (point me at one if you know of it) that clearly establishes that organic food is safer. I will happily concede that in theory organic food should be safer but that is a LONG way from actually proving that theory.
Organic milk definitely tastes different, and for some reason it lasts 3x longer than regular milk. I don't know if it's technically healthier or not, but it without a doubt tastes very different.
That's because of how it is usually pasteurized. Look at most organic milk and you'll notice that it typically uses ultra high temperature pasteurization. Products that undergo this process last much longer and it does affect taste. I've had non-organic milk that undergoes the same process and the end product tastes very similar.
"In a new study Pepsi Co explains how it's product is more healthy than its competitors products"
It is total nonsense that most organic food doesn't contain pesticides (read http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html). They are simply necessary to maintain a large crop field. In fact, the chemicals they use have an increased risk to be harmful for YOU because they are not modified by humans. Our modications have made pestidices more specific to certain organisms, which means they impose less of a risk to other organisms. See this excellent Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode about organic food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jq4DGEn9Is
I f I where to switch to organic food only, it would not be on the basis of it having more or less nutrients - but on the basis of it having freaking less pesticides! T.F.A. does not seem to cover teh health issues on long term consuming food with traces of chemicals engineered to terminate life. That is what the whole thing about "organic being healthier" should be.
As is, , T.F.A. is a perfect Troll!
-><- no
Where are you at? The well-known organic providers around here clearly select cultivars for taste and pick at the right time.
Heart of the midwest US in farm country. You are right that there is a very real difference between grocery stores in the quality of the foods they offer. But I think that has a lot less to do with the organic thing that it does the level of affluence of the customers at that store and the amount of local competition. People who shop at a Whole Foods or similar store tend to be rather well to do. We have some local chains that offer similar quality (taste and appearance) non-organic food to what you get at Whole Foods. The caveat is that these stores are invariably in relatively wealthy neighborhoods where usually there is competition. They buyers for these stores know they have to offer a better product. In my town we only have one conveniently located grocery store an the quality of the food they sell is relatively bad. They know they don't have to offer better and thus more expensive products because people have no where else to go unless they want to go way out of their way.
Preposterous conclusions. This is the exact kind of "junk science" meant to incur bias that has become the hallmark of those "just asking questions" about organic farming, emerging medicine, sustainable energy, and anything that cannot be patented, owned exclusively, or controlled by a handful of corporate entities.
The study has a horrid, arbitrary definition of "healthier", attempting to say "conventional products can have the same amount of antioxidants, vitamins etc.. as an organic one, there's more too it than that" , is the sole arbiter of "healthful" is ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Its not much different than say It discounts data where it wishes and glosses over all of the many benefits, even where they do appear - "Oh, yes organic meat doesn't have nearly as many samples of antibiotic resistant bacteria...but oh well, you know its all killed in cooking any way so why does that matter? (Not like people are capable of imperfect kitchen hygiene, cook improperly or just prefer rarer meats, or any of the other circumstances where this could be important) It has demonstratively better phosphorous levels, omega-3 levels and tons of other stuff, but yeah... sorry, that doesn't matter. ". It also fails to take into consideration a huge amount of other aspects of health, from the beneficial effects from organic farming in terms of over all soil quality and thus future health benefits across a wide range of metrics from the produce there, the absence of current GMOs which have been shown to cause health problems such as destruction of gut flora, proper recognition of lower pesticide exposure, the absence of a huge amount of deleterious additives that are not permitted in certified organic foodstuffs, and many, many other traits that have been investigated and verified over the years that show the benefits of organic farming and ranching.
Showing "these randomly selected nutrients can be equal in both conventional and organic foods" and then asserting this is a debunking of organic benefits is intellectually dishonest. It is akin to how certain elements have attempted to frame the dialog for such issues as cellular phone and artificial sweetener safety. For instance, many studies were shown on how GSM non-ionizing radiation was safe because it could not be correlated with brain tumors (many of these, funded by telecom industries through both overt and back channels). Guidelines were made on these findings and those that disagreed that this proved safety were accused of being "anti-science kooks". However, there are many other possible threats not related to cancer, such as blood-brain barrier permeability (proven to be heightened with non-ionizing radio wave exposure in studies like - http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6039 ), but those studying have been met with adversity and lack of funding because of the social engineering effects of the previous studies cause many to think "the book is closed on mobile phone safety - they're safe" because of the dishonest framing of the "safety" studies of the past. The very same thing has happened with modern artificial sweeteners like aspartame, AceK, and sucralose - those who wanted them declared safe, picked proving that "They don't cause cancer" was, as intended, enough to quell public fears and frame the discourse, while ignoring their effects on everything from excitotoxic nerve damage, to endocrine disruption and more. There is a huge financial impetus for certain entities to ensure that such nuisances as "health risks" and "having all the information, with the fewest bias possible" don't get in the way of profit, and this methodology is how these entities control information and perception within the medical and scientific community; its very similar to the ways they manipulate political discourse within its venues.
I am pleased to note there have already been an assortment of criticisms and outright refutations for the Stanford
The point of organic food is reducing the use of pesticides, herbicides and salt based fertilizers
in agriculture.
Who pays for any particular study is just as interesting as what the study asks or finds.
I am wondering how much corporations like Monsanto, Dow and Cargill pay into studies like this
to make sure the wrong questions are asked.
First, there is no question that a plant grown using organic methods will be any different
in biochemistry. Which would tend to indicate that the level of ripeness will always trump
any small developmental change. This means that an unripened tomato shipped from an
'organic' greenhouse will be just as worthless as food as an unripe fruit from a non-organic
operation.
However, it has been shown that components of herbicides and pesticides used gobally
are involved in the reproductive decline and illness of many species, including human beings.
Reducing the environmental loading of pesticides and herbicides must be starting
to erode the profits of the agrochemical industry.
If they sponsor a studies that ask the wrong questions. Just as in big tobacco.
ie: Don't ask, "Will mothers smoking harm babies during pregnancy?"
Instead ask, "Will mothers smoking relax mothers during pregnancy?"
The question we all want answered is, "Have the gobal poisoners at Monsanto and Cargill stopped beating thier wives yet?"
As usual, my radar is alerting me to a financial reason for this surprising result. ("Follow the money", etc.)
I often buy "organic" but I can't ever recall doing that because "organically-grown" vegetables and fruits taste better -- I doubt my taste buds would be able to distinguish which one was organic -- or have a slightly higher nutritional content. It's the other nasty stuff on -- or more importantly in and can't be washed off -- the produce that I'm looking to avoid.
Given the choice between two pieces of produce that were grown by an organic farming method and another that was sprayed with the normal chemical bath that most agribusinesses rely on, I'll choose the one that doesn't contain the chemicals that could be (and in some cases shown to be) causing cancers.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
You don't eat organic to get more vitamins, but less pesticides, and herbicides.
I've never bought organic for the taste or nutrition, I'm more concerned with pesticide and "buddnip" use on non-organic produce. The best place to get your veggies (aside from your own garden) is a local farm/farmers market (although for the latter be careful to find out where vendors are getting their produce from...)
I print, therefore I am.
Most of the worlds food scarcity issues are political not supply based.
People starve because other people want them to starve
and the onlookers who have no stake in the situation allow it to happen.
Science can also be subtley biased to provide a desired answer:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3104195&cid=41279911
What about the other factors that go for and against organic and gmo food?
I know the one where Monsanto sues farmers because seed that those farmers didn't want blew onto their fields is easy.
However the claim that organic is better for the environment is the next big question.
Also did I misinterpret this article or did they say that they were about even and not conventional is better then organic?
This study was quite limited in scope, and it very well could be that there is some benefit to Organic farming. It's equally as likely that there could be no benefit to it, or even that it could turn out to be harmful somehow. We don't know unless we ask those questions! But you'd just rather have faith that organic food is somehow better! Well having faith might be fine for churchgoers, but it's not how we advance as a species!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There's a difference between the original motivations of organic food production
and the USDA definition of 'organic' . The USDA is driven by market and industry
lobbies.
The problem is use of the term 'Organic' which has been easily co-opted by
the agrobusiness industry.
A better name for the original expectations of organic patrons would probably be
'Agro-Chemical-Free-Certified'. But now we also have GMO to contend with
which can build the pesticide into the genes of the plant.
ie: Texas cattle killed by dry GMO grass , and migrating monarch butterflies
killed by GMO corn.
Thalidomide was a great chemical miracle too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html
When in doubt I guess I'd side with not eating the stuff, just to be sure.
This was also passed by the FDA.
So was this .
If you think about what you eat, evaluate what you eat, and finally draw conclusions what to change to live healthier, then you have healthier food. The organic stuff has, depending on how organic the production is, various advantages beside direct healthiness of itself:
* First, there are no antibiotics or pesticides in it (beside those transferred by the wind or other sources of contamination. Actually they do not use these "ingredients" in production). This could be healthier (in a direct manner), but is definitely healthier in the long perspective, by reducing the risk of making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. This factor was not included in the study, because it is hard to measure.
* Second, organic food production does not consume that much oil and gas in production, therefor it is more sustainable.
* Third, when combined with local production/local use, it reduces transport cost and even keeps jobs local (when the processing is not outsourced to somewhere else, which would render the whole idea of organic food production useless)
* Fourth, when I look at the food sold in the supermarket (non organic stuff) with the stuff sold on the market (organic and/or regional stuff) then I will always choose the marketplace. So from my personal experience the product quality in the supermarket varies more than that on the market (in the sense of it can be much worse in the supermarket up to equal quality).
* Fifth, supermarkets throw away more food, the standardized food in supermarkets result in throwing away food before it hit the supermarket, which also increases the waste/food ratio. While on the market an apple, hit by a hailstone can be sold, an small apple can be sold, in a supermarket this is not possible.
So you can see there are plenty of reasons to go for organic food (if it is real organic food). Beside that, it is important that you inform yourself about how your food is produced and react on it in a way to improve the food you eat.
Variables like ripeness have a greater influence on nutrient content, so a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one.
I don't look to organic produce for more vitamins. I get all the vitamins I need and more from just eating a reasonable and balanced diet. I buy organic when I do because I hope they contain somewhat fewer pesticide/herbicide/fungicide residues, of which I need to get less.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
take the money out of the studies and you'll get a different story
Natural News Organic Foods Mainstream Media Psyop
I regularly consume inorganic stuff. I consume quite a lot of an inorganic substance made of hydrogen and oxygen, usually known as water. Actually I drink water which contains some other inorganic stuff, commonly known as minerals. Also I like my food to contain moderate amounts of the inorganic chemical substance sodium chloride, better known as salt.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That's not true. See Wilson & Schooler (1991): "Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions". It is clear that blind taste tests are in accordance with what experts believe is tasty when participants do not introspect on their choices.
Gee... and to reduce this to absurdum -- I be a mouthful of dirt is less tasty then ice-cream, blind taste test or not.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The NPR article and the study that it reports upon starts with the wrong premise. Taste is not the only consideration. Here are some other issues that should be considered when purchasing food:
Localvore:
-Was the food grown locally, benefitting local farmers, or does the apple sauce come from China, and blueberries from Chile?
-Does the food grown distantly consume more fuel to bring it to market?
-Do you mind eating frozen foods that are out of season locally?
-Does supporting local farmers create a more vibrant local economy?
Contamination:
-Do environmental conditions and industrial food processing allow the food to be contaminated?
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Metals/ucm280223.htm
Fertilizers:
-Does your purchase support farming that pollutes rivers, creates brown tides in estuaries, and dead zones in the ocean?
-Is the fertilizer derived from petroleum, and does that process cause pollution of it's own?
-Is the fertilizer biologically contaminated? (For instance, E-coli)
Pesticides:
-Does the method of farming reduce beneficial insects, such as bees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
-Are their traces of pesticides left in or on food items?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide
Biodiversity:
-Do you want to support a system of monoculture which eliminates varieties of plants and animals because they are not commercially profitable?
-Does the increasing lack of diversity contribute to disease blights which wipe out crops such as potatos and bananas?
-Does growing invasive species create a risk for local wildlife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_carp
Sustainability:
-Is the farming method water neutral?
-Does the farming method create dust bowls?
-Can the farming method be sustained in the long term?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_%28agriculture%29
Processing:
-Does industrial processing, mechanical separation, and handling contribute to contaminiation? (For example, salmonella)
-Is the jar of peanut butter filled with corn syrup (non-seperating), more healthy to eat than the one that contains only peanuts (oli seperates)?
-Does the processing of the food kill off beneficial bacteria flora?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
GMO's:
-Do the tomatos on the store shelf have fish genes spliced into their DNA?
http://thegreendivas.com/2011/06/10/waiter-theres-a-fish-in-my-tomato-a-gmo-story/
-Are foods that create their own pesticides safe to eat?
-Have GMO plants and animals proven themselves to be historically safe, with minimal unforseen consequences?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee
Political:
Do you want to support ADM and Monsanto who manipulate the FDA and sue farmers who choose not to use their products?
Do you want to support banana companies, and coffee companies that mistreat and neglect workers?
Is it rational for countries such as Ethiopia to grow crops for corporations to export while starving local populations recieve international food aid?
The answers to these questions cause me to support local, organic, sustainable products wherever I find them.
"Organic" is a label created by Marketing.
They found conventional produce 30% more likely to have organo-phosphates (by compound count rather than amount, which is a moronic measure) then went on to say "but it is below FDA allowed limits, so its safe." FUCK that. FDA limits are the max. They also pointed out that other factors dominate vitamin content in produce while glossing over results from constituent studies (that's right... it's another questionable meta study) that show higher average nutrient content in organic foods.
I'm all for doubting conventional wisdom, but this study is USDA choice bullshit.
Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences.
(emph mine)
/. story is appalling.
The thing is, current analytical techniques are so incredibly sensitive that they can accurately measure mindbogglingly small concentrations. Of course someone consuming vegetables that were grown without pesticides will have lower pesticide concentrations in their urine - duh! The question to be asked is: are these pesticide concentrations in a range that is harmful to humans? I'd argue that nothing is harmful as long as the dos is low enough (just as everything is harmful if the dose is high enough). In the odd case that hormesis is a generalizable, it might even be beneficial. (Fun tip: the smarter end of the homeopathy crowd attributes its alleged beneficial effects to Hormesis. It's always a blast to argue with these people that they should stop eating organic so that they can reap the beneficial effects of the small pesticide concentrations.)
Disclaimer: nothing in my post provides evidence that the pesticide concentrations are not harmful, so I do sympathize with those who buy organic vegetables on the ground of the precautionary principle. I just don't consider the case against conventionally grown vegetables strong enough to warrant doing it myself. For meat and dairy, however, it's an entirely different story: I don't agree with the FDA's criteria for harmful levels of growth hormones (and neither does its European counterpart, the EFSA). As for the antibiotics, they may not be harmful to human health as such, but they promote the development of a natural reserve of resistance genes. Finally, it happens to be easier to find meat that was grown with a minimal respect for animal welfare (again, I'm siding with the EU on this one) in stores that stock organic food. Anyhow, the title of this
s/Organic Food/Organic Vegetables/
It's an important distinction!
After Monsanto and Novartis have managed to infect, contaminate and corrupt most agriculture in North America, and probably elsewhere, with their GMOs crapola, it stands to reason they'd be pushing such nonsense as this.
When I saw this article the first thing I thought is that people who eat organic food are often doing it in order to avoid pesticides.
About 25 years ago I actually had responsibility for running a farm that was being used for experimental studies in various applications of biotechnology, some of which involved what would today be called GMOs.
None of the products ever reached market as the company I worked for eventually to stop working in this area.
One area of study was into the area of natural pesticides. The idea is simply that plants under stress produce natural pesticides to discourage insect attack. The idea was to exploit and enhance these mechanisms in GMOs.
One of the things that I've always thought likely is that without artificial pesticides, these natural pesticides were likely to be present in higher quantities. It is also quite clear that synthetic pesticides are carefully tested and regulated, but natural ones are not.
So it's not clear to me at all that food grown today in organic farms is any less toxic that that grown by conventional methods.
I'd be interested in any real science based opinions on this idea (no it's chemical therefore it's poison nonsense please).
This is old news. The point about organic is that:
1. It is better for the soil (no citation to hand)
2. Less pesticide seepage in groundwater (you may know it better as drinking water)
3. They are supposed to enforce better standards of care for their animals (supposed to, there is the problem with restricting use of antibiotics)
That is why you should buy it.
On the other hand home grown stuff (veg and animals) is much better (tastier etc) than shop bought so grow or raise your own where possible.
Personally I get it because:
1. It is local (money spent locally stays in the community and there is less travel so it is likely to be fresher and cause less pollution from transport)
2. Better for soil/environment
3.If you buy at the local market you actually meet the producers
'Course others may buy it for different reasons
J.
"DDT won't harm the environment!"
"Agent Orange won't fuck you up!"
"Aspartame is perfectly safe!"
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
The place where I buy most of my vegetables/cereals/fruits/meat :
* produces locally
* produces seasonally
* only has organic food
* has happy cows, pigs and chickens that you can actually see before eating
* seems to have happy workers, mostly because of decent pay and job stability
* has 15 cats to catch rodents
* has 20 ducks to catch snails/slugs
Yes, it might be more expensive than the usual food at the supermarket, but it tastes 10x better and it just feels right for all of the above reasons.
Don't get me started on double-blind tests about taste.
Who the fuck cannot see or taste the difference between :
* a tomato that feels like a water balloon, that you can eat all year long, that doesn't have any taste and that has been sprayed to death by illegal immigrants in Almeria
* and a weirdly shaped red tomato, that you only eat during summer and is filled with 90% flesh?
The point of organic food isn't to get more nutrients; the point is to eat fewer poisons. Agree with the earlier posters who are appalled that scientists agreed to do this study on a specious premise.
There was a book that shows historical examples of the effect of industrial
involvement in science and government policy. It's nothing new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
The question is, "which side is FUD?", or are both sides misguided?
I thought people chose organic primarily because they did not want to consume pesticides, herbicides, Roundup, Budnip, etc.
Everything else is secondary.
Sure the government says that stuff is not bad for you, but why take their word for it?
My personal issue is not with the health of the food item but rather the long term concerns with the chemicals used. I am not looking towards an organic peach to be better, just not to be coated in a chain of chemicals that will interact in ways I can't even begin to predict the long term results of...
I generally buy fruit and vegetables at the farmers' market because of price and ripeness, and the fact that my money stays local with a farmer instead of into a multinational's bottomless pockets.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
If you want to lower the amount of pesticides in your vegetables, wash them before eating/cooking.
You're bending over backward to defend their scientific credibility without any particular merit, simply because you dislike what I have to say. You should be just as vehemently opposed to bad science as I am if you were so impassioned for the betterment of the species, but instead you just try to frame my discussion as a purely ideological one, completely devoid of scientific reason despite the information provided. If there was another Stanford study that announced "Microwaves safe for unlimited human exposure" on the basis that "since we can't see them doing any damage to the surface layer of the skin, it appears they're safe", it would be equally as flawed scientifically, because of choosing such a limited and frankly ridiculous metric for "safe". Putting somewhere in the study, "Oh yeah, we noticed some internal temperature changes, but that really isn't important" doesn't make it viable or rigorous; much less announcing to the world in such a way that "debunks" all those previous studies showing the dangers of standing unprotected in front of a microwave emitter.
I've listed some resources identifying why this particular study is flawed and further data on the benefit of organics that have been found thus far. Take a look at them if you like, but by such a response I'm guessing you're laboring far more under issues of "faith" than I am.
Is the the study that I just read about a couple of days ago, funded by Monsanto? Somehow that would not surprise me. What I know is this: 1. GM fruits and vegetables that are sold on shelves in the US have significantly less taste. Significant is probably an understatement. Grow a garden and plant organic seeds and try it. The difference is night and day. 2. 9x% of GE seeds are modified to be sterile. Yes this protects the GM versions from mixing with nature (although this is unproven to be 100% effective). And more importantly this creates an eternal need for farmers to buy your seeds, and allows for what some would call price fixing.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
True, food grown without pesticides are free from pesticide residue. However NO ONE grows food without pesticides.
Organic foods are free from SYNTHETIC pesticides. Farmers are free to use organic pesticides, which can range from minor irritants to deadly. Some organic pesticides are banned for use on food -- do a quick search and you'll find out tons of info...
From the article found here: http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html Over the last several days, the mainstream media has fallen for an elaborate scientific hoax that sought to destroy the credibility of organic foods by claiming they are "no healthier" than conventional foods (grown with pesticides and GMOs). NaturalNews has learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
People do in fact grow food without the use of any sort of pesticides, but typically only on very small scales for obvious reasons. You're right that organic definitely does not mean free of pesticides, but there are different standards and certifications for it too. I've been meaning to look into the differences in these certifications, but I haven't managed to get around to it yet. This is an area where we definitely need to raise the bar so we can figure out what really matters.
Earn Cash and Prizes, and get free stuff!
Nope! I listened to the interview on NPR! She seemed quite reasonable. You know they can't look at every single aspect of something they're investigating at once! Too many variables! The worst possible outcome of this for organic food is "Needs more investigation!" Someone should look at whether it leaves the soil better off than an operation that used pesticides and chemical fertilizer! Certainly it'd be easy enough to feed a population of lab rats organic food for their entire life, and another population similar food from non-organic sources! And maybe even one with just GM food! A lot more research is required to really make a call one way or another, but judging from the response to this one, findings of "No difference" will always just be dismissed by the organic food cult anyway. Unless I see some scientific findings to show there's some difference, I'm going to stick with my GM 6 winged chicken, for the chicken wing party pack from a single bird. Thank you very much!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Slashdot is run by dummies and corporate shills. There is no other explanation for finding this article posted today, including only the most stale information, and somehow overlooking the revelations which have come to light in the last week.
People, like me, who buy organic foods are not under any misimpression that organic foods contain more vitamins. That is stupid. We are trying to avoid the pesticides and insecticides, which are not safe in any quantity.
That said, why is Slashdot running this article? It came out over a week ago. Since then, we have learned that Monsanto and Cargill funded the research group at Stanford. That is why the study's conclusion is disingenuous and makes no sense. The study discredits an idea that people never should have held -- that organic foods contain more vitamins by weight. This is the first volley in an attempt to attack the USDA labelling regulations around the word "organic."
Think about this for a minute: Which would you expect to have more vitamins? An organic strawberry fertilized with cow manure, or an inorganic strawberry fertilized with chemicals optimized for that purpose. Obviously, the inorganic strawberry. Anybody can figure this out. That's why the study has nothing to do with the actual reasons people choose organic.
Anybody who follows reddit already knows this study is a corporate shill. The "news standards" at slashdot are ridiculous. The right-wing bent of the editors is glaring. Soulskill, in particular, you are a dork.
Lately I have seen a huge number of articles showing up on slashdot days after they made the headlines on reddit. Slashdot is no longer a source of information. Reddit has replaced slashdot.
I get so tired of hearing this argument: "You see, conventional produce is just as nutritious as organic, because it contains the same nutrient levels."
I wish people could get this through their heads: Conventional produce contains pesticides, either externally due to spraying, or internally due to absorption. These chemicals are toxic. Their toxicity varies, and the levels you ingest may seem relatively small, but over time, the effects build up in the body. Many of them are not water soluble, and therefore cannot be easily washed off a fruit or vegetable. Worse, some are taken up from the soil through the root system, so there would be no chance of washing these away. Ingestion of these man-made chemicals causes any number of ailments over the lifespan of an average human.
The entire argument that "healthiness" of a product is strictly a function of nutrition levels is patently moronic. This is just a straw man argument pushed out into the common meme by manufacturers of these chemicals, in the hope of diverting public attention from the real goal of organic foods: to give customers a choice that does not contain toxic chemicals or pesticides.
I am not worried about the more or less vitamins. I am worried about the added chemicals (pesticides) in the vegetables and fruits. Just because science is deficient in determining that there is a difference does not mean that there is not. We tend to think that science has come a long way through history. The only way to actually tell that it has is to have a crystal ball to see what the future holds. Looking at current science is not a predictor of the future and its discoveries. Snapping your fingers to keep the lions away works for both parties on either side of the argument. The only way to see the truth is to continue to try and gather evidence. Understanding the statistics of how people feel when they don't eat the GMO's/Pesticide risen/cross bread food is to understand the population. My money is on the people who eat organic. I see who is more health looking and what they eat. Economics plays a part. The variables associated with what makes one population more healthy than another is not easily seen by analysis of just the fruits and vegetables. A holistic viewpoint of lifestyle is the only way to understand the population and the greater health of people who eat organic.
The global honeybee population demise is linked to a single pesticide not to mention the links to human disease
What's more, when you buy Organic, you are (in most cases) supporting a local farmer in your area rather than Del Monte or Dole or some other mega-corp grower. Indirectly, buying Organic means you are also not supporting the pesticide companies such as Monsanto who are out to destroy family farming.
Buy organic. TFA is a shill.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The main stream media/Slashdot coverage seems to neglect a few items in the study
The Stanford study also said:
- Conventional produce has a 30 percent higher risk for pesticide contamination than organic produce.
- Conventional chicken and pork have a 33 percent higher risk for contamination with bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics
than organic products do.
- Cited higher levels of total beneficial phenols in organic produce, omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken, and vaccenic acid in organic chicken.
Somewhat interesting that this study was released prior to November's vote on California's GMO labeling proposition (Prop 37).
War is peace, peace is war, up is down and down is up. Monsanto is our friend, see? The Annals of Internal Medicine said so.
The biggest argument in favor of organic foods has been -- has always been -- that government-allowed levels of pesticides and other chemical additives are high enough to increase risk of adverse health effects. Seriously, how often have there been claims that organic apples have fewer spots (cf "Big Yellow Taxi" -- sorry, couldn't resist) or that organic tomatoes have more vitamin C? Why are we reading about studies investigating the latter and not the former? But wait -- apparently, this study did investigate this issue. The conclusary statement that resulted: "As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations." MOve on, there's nothing here...
I eat almost exclusively organic food. I have never thought it was more nutritious and I have never met anyone else who thinks it is more nutritious.
I think I am eating less pesticides. End of story.
I'll bet this 'research' or at least the press being generated by it are being paid for by some "big food" corporation.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Here in the real world, there is no evidence that this study is funded by corporate interests
Oh, really? What is the "Food Security Institute," and who funds it? Doesn't it have a nice, Orwellian, name? The answer is: FSI employs the shills^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hscientists who wrote this propaganda piece, and it is funded by Cargill, Monsanto, and many other villains who have an interest in spreading this disinformation.
You're right. This is science. Science does not factor into the equation, otherwise you'd be asking why you should beleive that a natural pesticide is somehow better than a synthetic one.
Because evolution, dummy. If natural pesticides were harmful to us, they would taste bad to us. Fifty years of synthetic pesticide is not enough time for us to evolve a negative reaction to their taste.
You are a dummy and a sheepie. But at least you are a smug, anonymous, sheepie. Say "Baaaa!" sheepie.
I have no problem with a "Needs more research" conclusion or "Here are a list of X of compounds that are no different between organic and conventional food", but that isn't the conclusion reached nor the headline proffered - they're choosing to dictate that those collection of compounds are a metric for a viable metric for health/nutrition, and suggesting that the study concludes that there is no difference in the healthful or nutritional value between organics and conventional - both intellectually dishonest There have already been studies as you've spoken of already, if you're interested in looking for them. Plenty of studies show the danger of many current GM crops; health problems and spontaneous abortions skyrocket when fed to livestock, for instance. Look to those cited by Dr. Don M. Huber (Col Ret, USArmy) - a former military bioweapons study chief at Fort Detrick. Organic diets have been shown to be more healthful and easily so - many of the cheap but harmful additives, preservatives, and other adulterants are not permitted in certified organic food products (ie no hydrogenated oils, no added nitrates in preservation of meat, no artificial sweeteners, etc..). There have also been studies targeting specific foodstuffs and comparing the two, showing the organic to result in fewer health problems in laboratory studies. The Organic Consumers Association is a good place to start, chase a few links here and there and you'll make it to multiple studies, should you be open to them,
Is paid for by Cargill.
It's quite the scam to claim nobody funded this non-study study.
People make all sorts of excuses for "science" to be manipulated by big industry concerns, but failure to properly disclose funding is a pretty basic issue when it comes to the integrity of any study.
Big Ag has an interest in maligning organics as much as possible, because it takes away from their GMO based product line. A product line that the consumer is not interested in buying int he first place, but gets forced on them because of our ridiculous labeling laws in the US.
The cold hard reality is that if you knew WHAT was being dumped into the food we buy, we wouldn't buy these products. The option to choose what we put into our bodies has been taken from us by these large businesses that do monoculture. They don't want you to buy local grown foods, to support local economies. This kind of unsustainable monoculture and corruption and deception is part of the American Way for large corporations, and they'll do anything to secure their profits; crush local business, destroy ecological diversity, deceive intentionally misinform the public, and take away your basic right to know what their "food" products contain.