Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Wed Sep 5, 2012, 10:27 AM Sep 2012

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point [View all]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/organic-food-isnt-more-nutritious-but-that-isnt-the-point/261929/



Of all the food-related countercultural buzzwords that have gone mainstream in recent years, organic ranks among the most confusing. Like its cousins (cf. local, free-range, or worst of all, natural), the term's promotion by grocery stores everywhere has caused it to escape the strict definitions laid out by the USDA . But from Stanford University comes new research suggesting what we should have known all along: organic food isn't actually more nutritious than traditionally-farmed goods.

In a widely publicized and discussed analysis of more than 200 studies comparing organic to regular food products, researchers have found that organics don't have more vitamins or minerals (with the lone exception of phosphorus, which we all get in sufficient amounts anyway). Nor do they have an appreciable effect when it comes to heading off food-borne illness, although the germs found in conventional meat do have a higher chance of being drug-resistant (more on that in a bit).

That we needed a study to understand how nutritionally similar organic foods are to non-organics is a perfect example of the way we've lost sight of what the term really means. It's worth keeping in mind that organic refers only to a particular method of production; while switching to organic foods can be good for you insofar as doing so helps you avoid nasty things like chemicals and additives, there's nothing in the organic foods themselves that gives them an inherent nutritional advantage over non-organics. In other words, it's not wrong to say organic food is "healthier" than non-organics. It's just unrealistic to think that your organic diet is slowly turning you into Clark Kent.

(You laugh, but according to a Nielsen study cited by USA Today, a ton of people believe just that, or something close to it. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they bought organic food because they thought it was more nutritious.)


*** why i want 'organic'.
i got turned on to "organic" through 3 different but sort of related avenues.

1 -- was a hippie -- i wanted to do things the heal both the earth and people.

2 -- i started reading MFK Fisher -- her experiences with produce in france -- that a tomato tasted different there -- it tasted like a tomato

3 -- our wonderful national treasure -- alice waters. -- cooking is an act of love -- and you want to serve the best -- most flavorful things that you can to your loved ones.

i don't think the the individual cells of my body can tell much difference between an organic tomato -- or a grass fed, humanely raised beef -- but i'm failing those 3 venues that i learned when i don't do them.

cooking at the end has become the most important reason of all -- i want 'the best' both for my self and those i love -- i deserve it -- and so do they.
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
this other article and thread rips the Stanford press release / study even harder KurtNYC Sep 2012 #1
Except many people have claimed organic is more nutritious over the years 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #11
Pesticides are the driver for organic purchasers -- NOT nutrition KurtNYC Sep 2012 #13
True/false 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #14
This would seem to be logical. hifiguy Sep 2012 #21
10 pounds of organic wheat weighs the same as 10 pounds of non-organic wheat jberryhill Sep 2012 #2
+1 lol nt Live and Learn Sep 2012 #3
Bottled water may be wetter than tap water jberryhill Sep 2012 #4
In this case organic producers *have* argued 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #17
And Wonder Bread grows healthy bodies twelve ways jberryhill Sep 2012 #22
Do you count a majority as "widespread"? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #23
I guess it depends on what their understanding of "nutritious" is jberryhill Sep 2012 #26
And the goalposts are moved again 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #27
That is a false statement of where we've been jberryhill Sep 2012 #28
What we know so far: 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #29
What do you think you are arguing about? jberryhill Sep 2012 #30
Your comment clearly implied this study was a strawman 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #31
My comment was a joke jberryhill Sep 2012 #32
Organic farrming is good for the soil; traditional farming is more like mining in the sense of top byeya Sep 2012 #5
+1 (nt) enough Sep 2012 #8
Labor issues as well as nutrition issues central scrutinizer Sep 2012 #6
+1 xchrom Sep 2012 #7
I've argued on here for higher pay 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #10
I'd shudder to think of working in any environment consistently sprayed with herbicides LanternWaste Sep 2012 #24
Organic is a fad for rich 1st worlders or something forced on poor third worlders 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #9
Organic was the ONLY method of agriculture for thousands of years KurtNYC Sep 2012 #15
Polio was the norm for thousands of years 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #16
Your mind reading abilities are no more reliable than your ability KurtNYC Sep 2012 #19
Wow, really? How do you not get this? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #20
Okay, I think I may have finally realized your point siligut Sep 2012 #38
Except many people, as I have cited 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #39
The point of this article is that those who CANNOT afford organic Zoeisright Sep 2012 #12
I began purchasing organic three years ago due to its lack of unnecessary chemical treatments. LanternWaste Sep 2012 #18
It's proposition 37 in California requiring labling of GMO food... hunter Sep 2012 #25
The Stanford Organic Food Study..... DeSwiss Sep 2012 #33
I can't disagree w/ you. xchrom Sep 2012 #34
I never assumed organics were more nutritious Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #35
I have never read an article claiming organic food to be more nutritious. Maybe they're out there. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #36
k/r marmar Sep 2012 #37
K & R !!! WillyT Sep 2012 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Organic Food Isn't More N...