I find this to be an interesting debate. Not that I find the organic vs. non-organic that interesting but more so how people react to the debate and form their opinions and preferences on the topic.

I find the original study flawed only because it can be misrepresented in so many ways. Nutritional value is only one variable but it seems it's the variable many people are either concerned about or that it's the main reason why people had switched to organic.

There have been many points above that cite a preference for taste, local, organic, sustainable, fresh, pretty, etc. It's a complicated process to put labels on these things, then categorize them and finally stand on one side vs. another.

For me, my eyes were opened when I started growing my own vegetables. I had to decide on the growing medium (dirt/soil/potting mix), the seeds (hybrid/heirloom), fertilizers, pest control, and water. Seems simple enough but it really wasn't. I thought that if I was going to grow something, I will do it organically - that way, I know exactly what I'm eating. My potting mix was organic (not always easy to find), the seeds mostly heirloom except when I needed something specific for my environment like growing Diva cucumbers because I don't attract pollinators on my roof. My fertilizer is organic (also hard to find a balanced one). I don't use chemical pesticides because I can't imagine spraying my food with them, then turning around and eating it. And my water gets to my garden via a white RV hose that is approved for potable water (why would I want chemicals leaching from my hose going into my food?).

Obviously, my vegetables taste great, mainly because I chose the varieties well and I get to pick it the same day/hour I eat it - not because it's purely organic. I don't think my yields are as high as they could be if I chose a hybrid seed, sprayed pesticides, and used petrochemical based fertilizers but I'm not a farmer looking to earn a living off of my garden.

And that's the rub. If you have to buy your vegetables or food, you don't typically have a choice as to how it was grown and remember, it's a business - so if you don't like it put your money where your mouth is and pay the farmer what they need to survive and make it worth their while (reserve a side of beef/pig, join a CSA, buy your eggs from them).

So my answer to it all is: organic or not - try to know your sources and if they are "responsible" growers, understand the differences in how your food is grown/raised/picked/processed and the elements involved in each. Don't take any research as face value - remember that the people that are in charge of keeping our food safe (FDA/USDA) are typically ex-executives of large multinational chemical and food corporations. And finally, share your knowledge and ask your questions on excellent, mindful forums like this one. Thanks.

Matt wrote:LTH discussion of McWilliam's pork op-ed here.

And here too.

tyrus wrote:I find this to be an interesting debate. Not that I find the organic vs. non-organic that interesting but more so how people react to the debate and form their opinions and preferences on the topic.

I find the original study flawed only because it can be misrepresented in so many ways. Nutritional value is only one variable but it seems it's the variable many people are either concerned about or that it's the main reason why people had switched to organic.

What's especially interesting in this case, is that McWilliams, of all people, in the Slate.com piece pointed out several of the problems with the recently released British study. He was NOT, in fact saying what a lot of the people up-thread think he was saying about organics v. conventional. For more details on the flaws in the British study read Paula at Civileats.com

tyrus wrote:So my answer to it all is: organic or not - try to know your sources and if they are "responsible" growers, understand the differences in how your food is grown/raised/picked/processed and the elements involved in each. Don't take any research as face value - remember that the people that are in charge of keeping our food safe (FDA/USDA) are typically ex-executives of large multinational chemical and food corporations. And finally, share your knowledge and ask your questions on excellent, mindful forums like this one. Thanks.

Sound advise!

I find the original study flawed only because it can be misrepresented in so many ways. Nutritional value is only one variable but it seems it's the variable many people are either concerned about or that it's the main reason why people had switched to organic.

If we're talking about the same study, then the study was done to evaluate all scientific studies on the nutrition of organic versus conventional which is, as you say, one of the major selling points of organic. Only a small handful had the scientific chops to make the cut and those provided no support for the organic claim. The studies that many in the organic movement have pointed to as "proof" that organic is nutritionally superior to conventional were revealed as bad science.

Keeping it strictly to the subject of nutrition, which is what the study is about, how is the study flawed?

auxen1 wrote:

I find the original study flawed only because it can be misrepresented in so many ways. Nutritional value is only one variable but it seems it's the variable many people are either concerned about or that it's the main reason why people had switched to organic.

If we're talking about the same study, then the study was done to evaluate all scientific studies on the nutrition of organic versus conventional which is, as you say, one of the major selling points of organic. Only a small handful had the scientific chops to make the cut and those provided no support for the organic claim. The studies that many in the organic movement have pointed to as "proof" that organic is nutritionally superior to conventional were revealed as bad science.

Keeping it strictly to the subject of nutrition, which is what the study is about, how is the study flawed?

Didn't you quote tyrus's answer to the very question you then asked him at the end of your post?

I may be thick (no, I am thick).

But was Tyrus's point that the "discussion" of the study is flawed....or that the study itself is flawed.

If it's the former, I wholeheartedly agree. If it's the latter I'd like to understand on what basis it's flawed.

Not too clear to me.

This is an interesting issue. As a long-time gardener, and serious (back in the day: professional) grape-grower, it seems to me that the crucial variables leading to great taste have already been identified: a cultivar carefully chosen for its match to your terroir and taste requirements, harvested in a timely fashion, will always win at the table, no matter its organicity or non-organicity.

My worries in fact are not about my own individual risks associated with industrial, large-scale agriculture (after all, I can wash many/most of the pesticides from my store-bought fruits; and most of them won't harm me (much) anyway).

What troubles me about current agriculture is its wide-spread deleterious environmental effects. Much of that stuff sprayed, drizzled, or poured on our crops (including animal husbandry 'crops') ends up in, e.g, Lake Michigan or Chesapeake Bay, where it degrades the ecosystem significantly.

Large-scale organic agriculture isn't significantly better in this regard for many crops, fruit, for example. Barring the development (and consumer acceptance, which is a *huge* stumbling block) of fugus-resistant grapes, the organic grape-grower is required to spray elemental sulfur in huge amounts just to keep a crop on the vine. The sulfur ends up downstream, of course.

Animal husbandry on an industrial scale—at least the way we currently practice it—has flooded the environment with things that shouldn't be there, e.g., growth hormones and medicines. Darwin tells us nicely and neatly what then happens in the pest populations.

Organic vs. non-organic is bogus because it's way too broad an opposition to be meaningful. It really is a question of details here.

Geo

auxen1 wrote:I may be thick (no, I am thick).

But was Tyrus's point that the "discussion" of the study is flawed....or that the study itself is flawed.

If it's the former, I wholeheartedly agree. If it's the latter I'd like to understand on what basis it's flawed.

Not too clear to me.

I cannot speak fully for Tyrus, but as I pointed out above, it seemed that the discussion on this board was a bit flawed. That's the irony I thought he pointed out, and one I appreciated. This thread was prompted by an article on Slate.com in reaction to the a newly released study on organics v. conventional food. The newly released study purported to show that organics were no better, nutritionally, than conventional foods. That is the conclusion leaped on by most people in this thread. Yet, if you read McWilliams in Slate, he is not necessarily endorsing that conclusion at all.

As soon as I saw the study in question, I said, how could you necessarily "average out" 50 years of research, it seemed pretty useless. As I pointed out Paula at Civil Eats goes into a bit more detail on the flaws in the British study.

Anyways, the bigger thing I see is how people want to run to a safe position without reading through.

Thanks for your reply Vital.

A quick read of Civil Eats response looks like its from one of the two attack camps and not a scientific response to a scientific finding.

I'm taking baby steps here....but it looks like the intent of the study was to verify a food claim that a product manufacturer (in this case organic produce manufacturers) was making. The study didn't undertake any new science, it seems to have looked for proof of the claim and found none.

Civil Eats threw the house and the garage at the study but I don't see that they've discredited it.

Is it really necessary for Paula Crossfield to suggest that the study was somehow dishonest because of perceived linkages to industry (many of whom have a major stakes in organic products)? While simultaneously citing studies commissioned by Organic associations.

auxen,

Do you really believe it is good science to take 55 independently constructed studies, each with their own designs, and try to come up with some sort of average that tells you what the body of evidence says?

Kennyz

As with the food miles debates, I do not believe you need to be a scientist to see some of the flaws in critical thinking presented.

Paula is no scientist, but she brings up some very good points (and I'm paraphrasing 'cause I should be finishing a report) with just a bit of diggng.

- It is difficult to compare studies of lore to studies of today because of new knowledge of food chemistry and how foods affect us

- It is difficult to compare today's conventional and organic foods to yesterday's conventional foods (I mean when were GMO's invented?)

More daming, she lays out details on which studies where and were not included in the analysis. The studies included or not included surely slant the purported conclusions.

Paula also argues that th health affects of pesticides are not taken into account. I agree that that's an important issue, but I can see how that's not totally germane to this particuliar study.

auxen1 wrote:

I find the original study flawed only because it can be misrepresented in so many ways. Nutritional value is only one variable but it seems it's the variable many people are either concerned about or that it's the main reason why people had switched to organic.

If we're talking about the same study, then the study was done to evaluate all scientific studies on the nutrition of organic versus conventional which is, as you say, one of the major selling points of organic. Only a small handful had the scientific chops to make the cut and those provided no support for the organic claim. The studies that many in the organic movement have pointed to as "proof" that organic is nutritionally superior to conventional were revealed as bad science.

Keeping it strictly to the subject of nutrition, which is what the study is about, how is the study flawed?

I should have chosen my words more appropriately, especially as someone who studied experimental sciences in college. I was mainly referring to the reaction to the article and not so much the study directly. I would guess that the study itself is not "flawed" but could argue that it only addresses one sector of the overall organic v non-organic decision that consumers are constantly trying to make.

There is a huge difference in questioning the validity or the reliability in the data that was used in that particular study and I'm not qualified to go down that path. Thanks for pointing that out auxen1, as it needed to be more clear.

These studies that are funded either by interest groups or governmental groups that have a particular interest in mind need to be carefully addressed. These seem to get a lot of press and therefore can influence the casual observer. I tend to be more skeptical about these studies as they never seem to tell the whole story, only provide data to back a particular interest group. Cheers.

Kenny,

If the 55 studies were determined to be based on good science then they might provide a good data source.

To answer the "averaging data" question a whole bushel of other questions would need to be asked and answered.

I'm now working on an issue with the feds related to them bolting together a whole bunch of different studies. Not transparent and not necessarily great science. But I could envision where a bunch of similar studies has scientific value. So it could be good science.

Another (and more comprehensive) response from the organic side:

http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=157

So far, the biggest flaw in the British study appears to be the exclusion of a series of studies since February 2008 that have been favorable to organics, and the inclusion of studies from many years ago when conventional food may have been different.

Neither McWilliams nor anyone else is the chain of refs I backtracked along mentioned the methodology of the review. There are two basic types, systematic review and narrative review. The latter is usually a review of the most important literature done by one or a small number of experts. The article abstract, available from the PI's pub page speaks about a "systematic review", which is a relatively well-accepted methodology to "pool data", i.e., put together disparate studies. However, from what I could see, no meta-analysis—which is the gold standard (such as it is) for data pooling—was performed. Moreover, it isn't clear to me (altho' it probably would be to others) exactly *what* in the pool was subjected to quantitive measures.

While it is necessary in a systematic review to declare the selection criteria prior to the literature review, one wonders how religiously this is done. In other words, it would be necessary in this case to see precisely what are the criteria which eliminated all but 55 studies from the pool.

Geo

- It is difficult to compare studies of lore to studies of today because of new knowledge of food chemistry and how foods affect us

- It is difficult to compare today's conventional and organic foods to yesterday's conventional foods (I mean when were GMO's invented?)

We're talking about substantial equivalence studies performed after 1958. Pretty straightforward to evaluate.

GMO's have always been illegal in the UK so not really relevant. And there just haven't been many new chemicals invented for crop protection. Over the period of the study, use of fertilizers and chemistry on a per acre basis has been substantially reduce.

More daming, she lays out details on which studies where and were not included in the analysis. The studies included or not included surely slant the purported conclusions.

Paula also argues that th health affects of pesticides are not taken into account. I agree that that's an important issue, but I can see how that's not totally germane to this particuliar study.[/

I didn't find her details damning. Found them pretty typical of the rhetorical strategy which I don't find constructive.

Pesticides are an important topic but I agree to you that they aren't germane to this study.

The point is that unsubstantiated claims were being made. And in the food world, you've got to prove what you say. There's not a warmer, more supportive environment for organics than the UK. But labeling laws are labeling laws.

Geo, good comments and additions.

You guys have fun, if possible; I see where this is going and I am outa here.

Wanted to apologize for my messy post above. The middle portion of the quotes are mine.

Katie, have a good weekend.

Geo, your post compels me to alter a comment. "Labeling laws are labeling laws" indicates that I buy into the study results. Want to be clear that I don't know with any certainty the quality of the study. My "opinion" that its' accurate is mostly based on my belief that it makes complete sense that there would be no difference in the nutritional profile as a result of the two production methods. But I don't know jack about the study.

Jonah, wish that you had sourced anyone other than Charlie Benbrook.

Tyrus, thanks for your clarification. I am in agreement with your analysis.

Kenny, looking back at my response it reads like a deflection. Not my intent. Really goes to the quality of the work.

I thought it over and decided to come back. (Woo-hoo! Did you miss me?)

This feels like homework to me, but I would like to understand this subject better, so I am going to make a renewed effort to read the previous and subsequent posts carefully and try to understand the perspectives. I personally have no informed opinions or strong views on the topic.

I do get a bit turned off (guess I showed that) when a substantive topic looks like its getting lost in a thicket of discussion on proper vs improper data analysis and inference. But if that was my impression from skimming and not reading carefully, I apologize and will start reading over again from the beginning.

Carry on, then ... should we bother to buy organic?

Katie wrote:Carry on, then ... should we bother to buy organic?

I think the consensus pretty much is, that's not a very meaningful question.

When the choice is between conventional and organic bananas at Jewel, I'm not sure there's much difference. I'll buy conventional on price.

When the choice is between Driscoll's strawberries or Washington state apples at Jewel and Nichols Farm strawberries or apples at the farmer's market...I'll go with Nichols. Not only do they taste better, they seem righter.

Katie wrote:Carry on, then ... should we bother to buy organic?

I can cite no data whatsoever but my strong hunch is that you will ultimately ingest fewer pesticides and chemicals by eating organic. I could be completely wrong, though.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote: you will ultimately ingest fewer pesticides and chemicals.

=R=

mmm.. some of us call those things flavor..

jimswside wrote:mmm.. some of us call those things flavor..

Heh-heh, how right you are jimswside! There is growing evidence that many of the substances in cruciforms—your broccoli and your cabbage, for instance—that we call "flavor", insects call "death". In other words, some of these substances apparently are either insecticidal or ones the insects find repugnant.

Weird but true science!

Geo

Aaron Deacon wrote:

Katie wrote:Carry on, then ... should we bother to buy organic?

I think the consensus pretty much is, that's not a very meaningful question.

When the choice is between conventional and organic bananas at Jewel, I'm not sure there's much difference. I'll buy conventional on price.

When the choice is between Driscoll's strawberries or Washington state apples at Jewel and Nichols Farm strawberries or apples at the farmer's market...I'll go with Nichols. Not only do they taste better, they seem righter.

Whoa, Aaron

I really do not believe that Katie's question is pithy, nor do I feel that there is a consensus on whether it is not a meaningful question.

We have a few things going on in this thread. First, we have a British study that purported to show that, nutritionally, organics are no different than conventional foods. That conclusion, however, has already been challenged. So, it is not rather clear whether nutritionally, organic foods are better or the same.

Then, we have this whole notion as to the meantingfulness of the organic label. I am quite sympathetic to this issue, and believe that corporate organic can be of poor quality.

Still, we have other issues rather untouched. Regardless of nutitionaly value, there are many reasons to eat food that is organically grown. Track dowbn Terra Brockman one day and ask her to see some of her slides. Her book comes out soon if you can wait. For a lot of people, there are important reasons for how their food was raised, and it does mean soemthing if the food was raised organically.

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Katie wrote:Carry on, then ... should we bother to buy organic?

I can cite no data whatsoever but my strong hunch is that you will ultimately ingest fewer pesticides and chemicals by eating organic. I could be completely wrong, though.

=R=

The FDA/EPA/USDA all have plenty of data that confirm this.

If you're going to choose organic for only a few things, start with The Dirty Dozen:

http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Dirty_Dozen_Organic_Foods

The original FDA data report is here.

From my extremely cursory look at the relevant appendix, it wasn't clear whether or not organic commodities were included in the dataset.

Geo

I just started watching the "Sky Full of Bacon" video podcasts, and in the first episode ("How Local Can You Go?"), the store owner being interviewed says that "often times, the nutrients that you get in organic food, the percentage is so much higher than in conventional, that you don't need to eat as much, and you get more nutrients, so it [presumably she means the cost] kinda balances out ..."

Why wouldn't it be logical that things grown hyperintensively would have fewer nutrients than things grown a little more naturally in equivalent soil? I have no idea whether it's the case or not, but I could certainly see a situation whereby the higher the yield, the less you get of certain things in the final result.

Of course, the above is not synonymous with organic per se, but again, I'm less concerned about capital-O organic stamped by the USDA than just buying from farmers I feel good about and whose stuff looks good. So given a choice between a huge Driscoll strawberry with a starchy white center and a farmer's market one that's small and ruby red and screaming flavor, would you really be amazed to learn there was more good stuff in a cup of the latter? Would you really have a hard time imagining how that could possibly be (whether it is or not in reality, ultimately?)

Mike G wrote:Why wouldn't it be logical that things grown hyperintensively would have fewer nutrients than things grown a little more naturally in equivalent soil? I have no idea whether it's the case or not, but I could certainly see a situation whereby the higher the yield, the less you get of certain things in the final result.

Of course, the above is not synonymous with organic per se, but again, I'm less concerned about capital-O organic stamped by the USDA than just buying from farmers I feel good about and whose stuff looks good. So given a choice between a huge Driscoll strawberry with a starchy white center and a farmer's market one that's small and ruby red and screaming flavor, would you really be amazed to learn there was more good stuff in a cup of the latter? Would you really have a hard time imagining how that could possibly be (whether it is or not in reality, ultimately?)

Not at all but as you state, it really has nothing to do with whether something is "organic" or not, which is the attribute on which the study focused.

I think there are many factors that ultimately determine the nutrtional value of grown food. But from my vantage point, it just doesn't seem that whether it's organic or not is a very significant one. This is mainly because I track a lot of nutritional data at my job (my company sells fruit products) and the differences between the values for organic and conventional products are consistently insignificant. I'm primarily talking about calories, protein, fat, carbohydrates, sodium and fiber. But it's is also true for many of the micronutrients we track, too. If claims of organic's nutritional superiority could be verified (or even legtimately fudged), I think we'd be seeing a lot more of those claims in the marketplace. But we're not.

=R=