Organic food

[cannibal.horse]

On another forum weightlifting gets blurred with organic food.

These guys hate tap water, non-organic food and pasteurized milk, and can quote a lot of studies to back these things up.

Whilst I get a lol everytime I look up these 'nutritionists' and find they're of the new world order conspiracy kind is there any validity in their argument?

Is organic food better for you? y/n?

[LimieJosh]

In short, no.

10-15 years ago going organic neccessitated buying locally grown, farmers market style produce. Therefore many of the arguments made for the latter were conflated into the arguement for organic per se. Today organic is big business with something like 75% of organic produce sold in the US coming from one of 3 big suppliers. Therefore, organic food is no better for the local community, has the has the same carbon footprint required to transport it from the farm to the consumer, and therefore suffers in taste vs non-organicly but locally grown produce. Essentially, many of the arguments made for organic would be better focused on seasonal, locally grown regardless of whether or not it is organic. As an aside the best produce I have ever had in my life was when I took a sabatical and went and lived on the beach in Southern Mexico for two months. You haven't had coffee unless it's made from beans brought down from the moutain that morning.

That only leaves the health issue and there is very little (i hesitate to use the word "no", but it's not far from the truth) evidence to support this.

[Sami]

Buying from local farmer will be better than anything from a supermarket.

But these are probably small details in the grand scheme. If everything else is in order, I suppose this would be the next step.

Taste wise, fresher will be better. Health wise, maybe fresh organic, a bit, but you can take some multi-vits if you're worried. Maybe the biggest issue with cheap stuff is chemicals?

[OldMike]

Just my opinion, but "organic" means "marketing ploy."

If it is, or was, alive, it's organic.

[Sami]

Yeah, I really don't buy into mass supermarket organic stuff tbh. They probably just take the regular stuff, rub a little dirt on it and call it organic and charge 30% more.

Get local farm stuff if you can.

[MazdaMatt]

Just my opinion, but "organic" means "marketing ploy."

If it is, or was, alive, it's organic.

Yes, this is exactly what my thought was when the "organic explosion" happened. I have realized they specifically mean "lacking non-organic matter" such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides... ya know, the stuff that you see guys in white full-body suits and gas masks spraying over crops in the spring.

IMO I have noticed a trend that better food comes from the organic section, BUT this does not imply to me that organic is better! This just means that along with the "organic" tag the producers can jack the price, but that price jacking does two things:
It makes the customers want a better product
It allows the producers to spend more on creating a better product

If they tagged non-organics at the same price, then I'm sure they'd be pretty awesome products, too. To me, this is just a simple matter of premium price for premium goods.

I don't buy anything organic on purpose. Kashi makes a good organic cereal and that's probably my only regular product.

[rdp]

Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food claims that food grown without pesticides has to have its own defenses against pests, which results in a better food due to the presence of more phytochemicals, etc. He says there is considerable research that food grown with industrial fertilizers is nutritionally inferior to food grown in "organic" soils. He also says modern crops, which have been bred for yield, are generally inferior to older varieties.

If organic means traditional food grown in a traditional manner, maybe better. If it means modern industrial food with an "organic" label, most probably not. As mentioned, locally grown food has a better chance than modern organic food of having the claimed benefits.

[LimieJosh]

He says there is considerable research that food grown with industrial fertilizers is nutritionally inferior to food grown in "organic" soils.

This is the crux of the issue, but, from what I have read, this is not correct.

[ColoWayno]

Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food claims that food grown without pesticides has to have its own defenses against pests, which results in a better food due to the presence of more phytochemicals, etc.
It's all very confusing... because other experts say it's the self-defense mechanism in grains that make them bad for us.

[MazdaMatt]

I don't believe the "buy local" shit anyway... cuz even the imported stuff is local to somebody! If I don't buy it locally, they put it on a truck and it goes to a supermarket somewhere. If some californian doesn't buy their food locally, it goes on a truck to here or somewhere else. (I mean market forces, not actually individual people, important distinction).

Someone can grow crappy food around the corner from your house just as easily as they can grow crappy food 1000mi away.

"But the local stuff is ripened in the field longer"

I don't buy it. 5-day turnaround from california field to ontario supermarket. 5 days. Then it sits on the shelf for 5 more right beside the local one... no difference.

The key is to just buy food that doesn't suck. Don't buy the cheapest peppers in a 100mi radius - buy the best ones.

[sergeant_81]

I've been subsisting off cheap-ass, pesticide-sprayed, chemical-laden, steroid-ridden, homogenized-and-pasteurized crap food for the better part of 29 years. I seem to be doing just fucking dandy, thank you very much.

[MazdaMatt]

That is also a good argument. So has most of the world (or at least N.A.).

BUT many people could say the same about smoking, driving without a seatbelt on a cell phone, etc... "risk" does not mean "absolute killer", it just means risk. You MAY be doing better and stay better in the future if you stuck to quality home-grown veggies and free-range meats... but then, i'm just playing devil's advocate here cuz I am in the same boat as you.

[LimieJosh]

I don't believe the "buy local" shit anyway... cuz even the imported stuff is local to somebody! If I don't buy it locally, they put it on a truck and it goes to a supermarket somewhere. If some californian doesn't buy their food locally, it goes on a truck to here or somewhere else.

What a silly argument.

[MazdaMatt]

Explain how Cali or Carolina food is not as good as the food at my local gigantic grower, please.

[foosion]

He says there is considerable research that food grown with industrial fertilizers is nutritionally inferior to food grown in "organic" soils.This is the crux of the issue, but, from what I have read, this is not correct.
What have you read that show this is not correct?

BTW, Pollan has a rather broad critique of much of nutrition science. One critique is that it tends to study specific nutrients in isolation rather than foods, entire diet, etc. and does not do proper controls to make sure there aren't confounding influences. Another is that many long term population studies are based on questionnaires which are notoriously unreliable.

I don't really have a view on who's correct. Pollan sounds plausible, but an individual view on common sense is not always the best guide.


It's all very confusing... because other experts say it's the self-defense mechanism in grains that make them bad for us.
Source for this?

[foosion]

Explain how Cali or Carolina food is not as good as the food at my local gigantic grower, please.

The issue is traditional farming v. industrial farming. Distance to market is less of an issue, except that traditional may not travel as well. As a random expample, compare tomatoes bred for shipping to traditional tomatoes.

[foosion]

I've been subsisting off cheap-ass, pesticide-sprayed, chemical-laden, steroid-ridden, homogenized-and-pasteurized crap food for the better part of 29 years. I seem to be doing just fucking dandy, thank you very much.
Which tells us nothing about how you'll be doing in another 30 years, how you'd be doing under another diet, how most people would do under either diet, etc.

[rdp]

BTW, Pollan has a rather broad critique of much of nutrition science. One critique is that it tends to study specific nutrients in isolation rather than foods, entire diet, etc. and does not do proper controls to make sure there aren't confounding influences. Another is that many long term population studies are based on questionnaires which are notoriously unreliable.
Pollan is fun to read. He cites a lot of studies for someone who doesn't trust studies.

[Patrick]

This is a super-complicated issue that has turned into a political one recently and so now it's dominated by bumper sticker phrases rather than serious weighing of pros and cons.

Organic foods: To the question of whether an organic tomato is better for you than a non-organic tomato, it seems there are only two honest answers at this point. One is "we don't know yet" and the other is "so far it doesn't seem like it." As simplistic as it sounds, the vast majority of an organic tomatoes characteristics derive from it's tomato-ness rather than it's organic-ness. Increasing phytochemicals or whatever else is futzing about the margin as best as anyone can tell. One fact in the discussion of organic farming that remains entirely incontrovertible is that organic is better for the land and the surrounding soil, water, and wildlife. However, there's a wrinkle even in this argument, which I'll hit soon.

Buying local: Local farming is an interesting debate. There are several obvious up-sides to local farming. It adds diversity to the food supply (think "too big to fail" when you think ConAgra), allows for more environment-sparing farming practices due to scaling, reduces the consumption of fuel in the transport of food, and it helps keep small farmers in business. That last one is more of a value-laden proposition; I think it's good but others might not.

The problem is that huge factory farms are so fucking efficient due to size that they leave local, non-factory farms in the dust. The economy of scale allows more people to get more food for less money, cause it's cheaper to produce. They do require the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides simply because anhydrous ammonia is more compact and cheaper than humus and fish emulsion. On the other hand, it's far easier to aim remediation efforts at large point sources than to have them blanket every inch of the globe, so long as politicians have the balls to pass laws governing big agri-business firms and their emissions. And, ultimately, it is agriculture -- particularly meat farming -- that consumes the most fossil fuel of any sector of the American economy... probably true worldwide but I'm not certain of that fact. In any event, if you can improve the efficiency of oil consumption on the production side it will probably all wash out on the distribution side.

There's a whole lot of "that's the way it ought to be" and not a lot of reasons why in the discussion of farming practices these days. I live in a city and I'm as far divorced from that world as I think anyone can be, except for what I read. But it seems to me that if pollution and fossil fuel consumption are major issues -- they seem to be -- then we might want to abandon provincial sentimentalism and the "not in my backyard" mentality that makes dealing with global problems a lot more of a hassle.

[LimieJosh]

What have you read that show this is not correct?

The science is generally considered of quite poor quality, so regardless of which way the results lean it would be wrong to describe the extent of the literature as being "considerable". What conslusions have been drawn have been drawn tentatively based on poor science, but with rare exception organic fails to show an advantage.

This is a decent review. Granted it is old(ish), but I am not aware of anything newer that significantly changes the direction of the discussion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12907407



Explain how Cali or Carolina food is not as good as the food at my local gigantic grower, please.

That is blatently not the point.

[sergeant_81]

Which tells us nothing about how you'll be doing in another 30 years, how you'd be doing under another diet, how most people would do under either diet, etc.

Understood, and maybe I would be doing better on another diet, and maybe in 30 years I'll be a cancerous old leper. Who knows? Maybe I'll walk out my door tomorrow and get railed by an out-of-control big rig plowing through my front yard. That'd be a neat way to go. Hope somebody gets it on video.

My post was more of a rant against the skinny emo vegetarian types who tell me the milk I'm drinking is going to kill me, or that the apple I bought for 99 cents is contributing to the decline of human civilization and I should buy the five-dollar organic apple instead.

[MazdaMatt]

That is blatently not the point.

So what's your point?


As for the "tomatoes bred for shipping vs not"... The local farm that I go to for Corn doesn't sell all of its corn here, it ships all over the place. So what's the diff if I buy it at their farm stand, or if i drive 5 hour away and buy it from a supermarket? They don't have two fields labelled "shipping corn" and "local corn".

[ColoWayno]

Source for this?
RE: Grains bad for you
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/23/the-argument-against-cereal-grains.html

Someone posted a link to this in Rips forum.
It's part of the whole Paleo thing.

The reasoning went something like this: Access to a lot of grain is a recent development and we aren't adapted well to consume it in large quantities.

To me these kind of arguments are interesting and thought provoking but shouldn't be turned into a religion.

Edit: I screwed this post up at first
Related link:
http://robbwolf.com/
I listened to a bunch of podcasts or whatever they are on that site.

... to be honest it's hard to keep track :)

[strengthstarter]

This debate can easily go into holy war territory pretty fast. I personally believe that "organic" and "local' food tends to be higher quality than what is found in the supermarket. The only evidence I personally have to back this up is that it many times tastes better.

Now, here are some reasons why these foods might be better:

1. The diets of locally raised livestock are probably different. Most small farms feed their cows grass or a variety of vegetables instead of shipping in large quantities of corn. Feeding a cow corn is not good for them, and causes them to more frequently get sick. It also affects the profile of fats. Specifically, they tend to be fatter, and a higher percentage of that fat will be omega-6 fat instead of omega-3 fat. That said, tracking down "the right stuff" can be hard, and I am not convinced that the "organic" or "locally grown" label at the supermarket really means anything. Having standards for "organic" is a good idea, but the fact is that as "organic" becomes big business, the formulation of these standards are influenced by people who want to bring efficncies of scale to bear on the "organic" brand, and don't really care about actually delivering a healthier product.

2. Local vegetables are picked when they are ripe. Tomatoes are a common-cited example of this, but it is true of many out-of-season vegetables shipped in from around the world. They pick these vegetables before they are ripe, and let them ripen in the box on the airplane ride to your store. Chemicals are used to chemically ripen the products. The focus is always to produce something that looks good on the shelf (so you buy it) and for it to hopefully resemble whatever vegetable it is in terms of flavor. Sourcing locally-grown in season vegetables you have a much better chance getting something that was ripened on the vine that is a higher quality product.

3. Farm raised vs. wild fish. Farm raised fish are fed what basically amounts to cat food. Which is made of, you guessed it, corn. Higher omega-6, less omega-3. Not as good for you. Might actually be better for the environment though, depending on details. Also, wild fish may have problems with mercury, so it is good to be careful on that front as well. Monterey Bay Aquarium makes a good "fish card" to let people know which fish are best to eat for that year.

I personally don't worry about eating 100% local and researching every ounce of food I put into my body. But I do enjoy visiting a legitimate farmer's market and picking up some good stuff when it is available. Here in DC, I've seen farmer's markets that are both superb and very sub-par, as compared to what can be found in a supermarket. YMMV.

Overall, I think the best bet is to shop locally when you can, and ask questions about the food. Visit a farm and learn about their practices. Join their CSA and buy their meats if they pass muster. Unfortunately, this kind of involvement in one's food is necessary if you want to reap the so-called benefits of "organic" or "local" foods, because the industry isn't going to do this stuff for you.

And, at the end of the day, if you just buy food at the supermarket, rinse your vegetables, eat a reasonable diet, and eat your fish oil, you'll probably be fine. For most people, there are bigger fish to fry that being choosy about where they get their vegetables. Like the twinkies they shove down daily at 2pm at work when they think they need an energy boost. Of course that's all good as long as they wash it down with an organic chai soy latte.

[ColoWayno]

Plant your own vegetable garden. It's fun!

I do it (when I'm home) even in the short Colorado Springs growing season.

[gzt]

The only thing about organic vs non-organic, to my mind, is the pesticides. Washing your vegetables does not get rid of the pesticides. It really doesn't. Especially not the pansy methods of washing you're using. Cooking doesn't, either, for most methods of cooking. I really don't know how bad the pesticide residues really are for you in the quantities you consume, but they're not good. Not as bad as smoking, but not good.

[gzt]

Okay, and animals that eat like real animals do taste a lot better than animals that are force-fed crap by humans.

Also, American industrial farm chicken sucks compared to the real thing.

[foosion]

The science is generally considered of quite poor quality, so regardless of which way the results lean it would be wrong to describe the extent of the literature as being "considerable". What conslusions have been drawn have been drawn tentatively based on poor science, but with rare exception organic fails to show an advantage.

One claim of "organic" food fans is that there are things about foods that are helpful for human health that have not yet been specifically identified, including helpful nutrients and helpful synergies among nutrients.

A study which looks at concentrations of idenfied nutrients does not address this issue.

From the abstract:

Although there is little evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in respect to the concentrations of the various micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and trace elements), there seems to be a slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown leafy vegetables and potatoes. There is also a trend towards lower protein concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops. With respect to the rest of the nutrients and the other food groups, existing evidence is inadequate to allow for valid conclusions.


This would be more to the point:

Finally, animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed. A similar finding has not yet been identified in humans.

I'd imagine paleo fans would prefer traditional foods, because humans did not evolve with contemporary "conventional" foods grown with artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

[LimieJosh]

Right, so its belief and borderline religious for those people

[foosion]

RE: Grains bad for you
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/23/the-argument-against-cereal-grains.html
The argument seems to be that some foods have developed defenses and that humans haven't adapted to those defenses. To the grain, a human is as much of a pest as an insect.

[foosion]

Right, so its belief and borderline religious for those people
It seems to border of religious for everyone who has a strong view on either side.

[foosion]

I'd imagine the "unprocessed food in moderation" v. "modern diet" debate is more important than the "traditional organic" v. "mass factory farm" debate.

[LimieJosh]

I'd imagine the "unprocessed food in moderation" v. "modern diet" debate is more important than the "traditional organic" v. "mass factory farm" debate.
I would agree with that, and as I said, my major contention with the Organic debate is that for many people the arguments being made in support are not actually arguments in support of what organic food is today.

And I would not say that an attitude that is sceptical of benefits in light of being there being scant evidence in support is that close to sportin an opinion that can not be tested.

[foosion]

My post was more of a rant against the skinny emo vegetarian types who tell me the milk I'm drinking is going to kill me, or that the apple I bought for 99 cents is contributing to the decline of human civilization and I should buy the five-dollar organic apple instead.
You certainly have my blessing to drink milk and eat 99 cent apples. :D

[MazdaMatt]

I'm still not getting the "buy local" thing. Everything about it seems to confuse "Good quality and responsibly raised" with "local". I'm sure there are some farms around here where the products are good, but there's a constant smell of harsh pestisides in the air on my drive to work in the spring. It seems to me that all of the locals here use pestisides, herbicides, fungicides and synthetic fertilizers. So what's better about it than food that was grown the same way and spent 2 days on a truck coming from North Carolina?

And again, there's no point in comparing "standard organics" to "standard non-organics" because the standard organics fetch a hgiher price and are therefore taken care of as well as "premium non-organics". This is important to remember when comparison studies come up. Ie, the cows eating organic foods - were they compared to cows eating equal quality non-organics? Or was it mass-production stock feed vs premium organic food?

[foosion]

I would agree with that, and as I said, my major contention with the Organic debate is that for many people the arguments being made in support are not actually arguments in support of what organic food is today.
Agreed, although in part because "organic" seems to have lost all useful meaning. I'd use organic as shorthand for traditional food grown in a traditional manner, which is not really what is being marketed as organic today.

EDIT: I'm not sure I can parse this:

And I would not say that an attitude that is sceptical of benefits in light of being there being scant evidence in support is that close to sportin an opinion that can not be tested.

[LimieJosh]

If you dont notice a difference in the produce, then fair enough, but the buying seasonal local thing is about more than simply that. What do you think the environmental cost is to keep Canada supplied with Carribean bananas 12 months of the year? As has been mentioned, the beef industry is far more important than produce for this sort of thing though, and as most of us here are probably big beef eaters maybe that is a moot point...like the fat chick buying a diet coke to supplement her two half pound burgers, super sized fries and ice cream

[foosion]

I'm still not getting the "buy local" thing.
It's a proxy for "traditional food grown in a traditional manner" but not a very good proxy.

Throw in the impact of transportation and the general dislike for large corporations which are not environmentally friendly and have lots of political power to command subsidies, etc.

[LimieJosh]

EDIT: I'm not sure I can parse this:

Cant type on my laptop keyboard to save my life.

Try #2:
One side tends to be people who are ambivalent due to a lack of evidence
One side tends to be people who accept their belief can not be tested yet still hold to it very strongly.

I dont see much similar about the attitudes between the Pro-Organic people and those who dont fall into that category.

[MazdaMatt]

Okay, I see now that the buy local thing is about not buying from super-corps and saving the environment.

Well, my father owns a trucking company, so I'd be a fool to try to limit truck traffic and not all foods that go on a truck are from a super-corp with an evil 90's small man in a business suit tenting his fingers at a large desk made a elephant ivory. So I'm pretty much indifferent.

Also, I think that most beef sold here comes from Alberta, which is about as far away as the carolinas.

So since I"m not willing to religiously pick a side:
Organics or you'll die
Organics are worthless
Organics are yet unproven, but I believe ____

...then I'll just bow out of this conversation.

One more point before I leave - This year I have set up a fully organic garden in my back yard and I have refused to spray my lawn with chemicals since I bought my house.

[foosion]

One side tends to be people who are ambivalent due to a lack of evidence
One side tends to be people who accept their belief can not be tested yet still hold to it very strongly.
Traditional v. modern food can be tested, although not easily.

What do you think of drug regulation which generally requires something to be proven safe and effective before it can be marketed? Who has the burden of proof?

This is not an issue I care alot about, as I regard it as much less important than the problems with eating too much junk or not enough vegetable and fruits.

[LimieJosh]

Well, my father owns a trucking company, so I'd be a fool to try to limit truck traffic and not all foods that go on a truck are from a super-corp with an evil 90's small man in a business suit tenting his fingers at a large desk made a elephant ivory.

its about more than that though. I live in Orange County with areas named after the man who revolutionised the OJ business. Yet at our super markets California oranges are overwhelmingly more common than Florida ones. My choices are to buy these from the supermarket and contriibute to the numerous costs of delivering oranges from elsehwere to the Orange capital of the US or I can walk to the farmers market on Sunday and buy local ones from the sexy guatamalan lady with the great arse.

The moral of the story is that great arses are good for the environment and they should be supported by their local communities.

[LimieJosh]

Traditional v. modern food can be tested, although not easily.

Not if the hypothesised advantages of "traditional" or "organic" or whatever term is to be used are not defined, as was suggested in the post I responded to with that comment.



What do you think of drug regulation which generally requires something to be proven safe and effective before it can be marketed? Who has the burden of proof?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance, but my take on this is that the regulations are strict. the burden of proof is certainly with the pharm companies, but evidence suggests, that just like every other interaction between big business and givernment, that obstacles to making money can be circumvented in ways that are not beneficial to us.



This is not an issue I care alot about, as I regard it as much less important than the problems with eating too much junk or not enough vegetable and fruits.

Agreed.

[foosion]

Not if the hypothesised advantages of "traditional" or "organic" or whatever term is to be used are not defined, as was suggested in the post I responded to with that comment.
The claimed advantages are usually decreased morbidity, increased lifespan, decreased obesity. I have little doubt a fan could come up with a testable proposition.


I'm not sure I understand the relevance, but my take on this is that the regulations are strict. the burden of proof is certainly with the pharm companies, but evidence suggests, that just like every other interaction between big business and givernment, that obstacles to making money can be circumvented in ways that are not beneficial to us.
The relevance would be to draw an analogy between new drugs and engineered food, and to suggest that modern engineered food is being manufactured to make money while providing something that is either not beneficial to us or not as beneficial as might be imagined.

As we've discussed, this entire issue is a side show to more important nutritional debates.

[LimieJosh]

The claimed advantages are usually decreased morbidity, increased lifespan, decreased obesity. I have little doubt a fan could come up with a testable proposition.

But according to your previous comment "One claim of "organic" food fans is that there are things about foods that are helpful for human health that have not yet been specifically identified, including helpful nutrients and helpful synergies among nutrients..." those hypothesised benefits are due to things that can not be tested.


I think your analogy with pharm is way off, but for the sake of clarity of my point I dont really have much interest in having this change tack into a discussion of enginered food

[foosion]

But according to your previous comment "One claim of "organic" food fans is that there are things about foods that are helpful for human health that have not yet been specifically identified, including helpful nutrients and helpful synergies among nutrients..." those hypothesised benefits are due to things that can not be tested.
The claim is that food or diet X is good because it leads to better health (however defined) even though we can't identify the mechanism (e.g., it's better because it has more or nutrient A or less of nutrient B).

We can test the claim by directly checking for better health in those who eat the right food or diet compared to those who don't.

[Sami]

Guys, calm the fuck down... Dave Tate's GOT THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YmQyoUW3y0

[jacob cloud]

Without getting into the silly debates going on here, I thought I'd toss this in since I didn't see it, and it should generally be accepted as common sense:

Top 12 fruits/veggies to buy organic: http://gourmetfood.about.com/od/slowfoodorganiclocal/a/organicproduce_2.htm

Top 12 that probably don't matter as much (I disagree with the corn, but whatever, it was the first google hit and most of these lists are very similar): http://gourmetfood.about.com/od/slowfoodorganiclocal/a/organicproduce_3.htm

Basically, I try and avoid buying non-organic stuff that doesn't have a thick skin on it, because the chemicals/pesticides used in the megalofarms are completely out of control, and not something I wish to injest OR support.

I absolutely try to avoid genetically modified foods - which means finding corn on the cob to grill can be a real bitch, and it's never as pretty as what you see in a standard store.

The term "organic" is tossed around so much that it's nearly worthless, as is "natural." Hell, even "grassfed" is a misnomer unless you verify that your meat is grass finished. Be an alert and aware consumer; you'll be better for the effort.

[forgeforth]

Based on the studies I've looked at, organic food has absolutely no health benefits superior to that of non-organic food.

The superiority of organic food appears to be more hippy bullshit. I reckon the same people who spend the extra money to buy organic also drink vitamin water.

I guess you can eat organic if you have philosophical issues against the way in which we produce food, but that's just gay.

[Dastardly]

Based on the studies I've looked at, organic food has absolutely no health benefits superior to that of non-organic food.



I thought we accepted the facts at the beginning of the thread?

The main reasons to choose organic food is for:

a)environmental reasons.
b)organic vegetables taste a lot better than non-organic.

[tertius]

Eating organic reduces your exposure to pesticides and other such modern industrial agriculture residues. There have been a fair number of studies about this. This one is about kids, since there's concern about the fact that many pesticides may act as endocrine disruptors in humans.

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8418

[Dastardly]

Why not worry about the endocrine disruptors in your household furnishings, like in the pillow you probably rest your head on at night?

Why not worry about the carcinogens in vehicle emissions?