• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Organic food is no healthier, study finds

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ripclawe

Banned
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE56S3ZJ20090729

Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:29pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.

The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year
 
I thought it was because of the chemicals used in non organic foods? People actually thought organic food itself was more nutritional?
 
People love to cherry-pick which science they choose to believe and which they don't. This will be largely ignored.
 
I don't think that the idea of a higher nutritional value is the reason people go organic.

They do it because it's advertised as having less chemicals and preservatives.
 
nyong said:
People love to cherry-pick which science they choose to believe and which they don't. This will be largely ignored.
Couldn't that also be said about people who'd believe this study over studies that advocate organic food? I'm not saying either is right, but this is only one study.
 
The thread title is fucking retarded.

Organic foods are healthier for you because they don't contain half the garbage non-organic does.

So they are healthier. They just don't provide any more or less nutritional value.

They also taste better.
 
I eat organic for the taste, not the nutritional value. Of course it isn't any more nutritious. You just can't beat the taste of pure money
 
Wii said:
Well organic food tastes better
I'm no organic nut or anything, but that's something I have to agree with you on, especially bananas.

By the way, your avatar makes everything you say sound like a joke.
 
I'm confused. They cite no substantial delta in nutrients, but I was never under the impression that was why people go organic.

Isn’t it due to a proposed lack of other (unwanted) chemicals from non-organic fertilizers, pesticides, etc? That isn’t addressed at all, making the argument - organic not worth it - completely baseless? It's a faulty premise?
 
I didn't read that thoroughly, but did they examine the health effects of pesticides? All I see in the OP is nutrient content, which doesn't surprise me.

Regardless, I don't buy everything organic. With certain fruits and vegetables, I do taste a difference (Strawberries especially).
 
Onix said:
I'm confused. They cite no substantial delta in nutrients, but I was never under the impression that was why people go Organic.

Isn’t it due to a proposed lack of other (unwanted) chemicals from non-organic fertilizers, etc? That isn’t addressed at all, making the argument - organic not worth it - completely baseless? It's a faulty premise?

Exactly. This study is useless.
 
Trax416 said:
The thread title is fucking retarded.

Organic foods are healthier for you because they don't contain half the garbage non-organic does.

So they are healthier. They just don't provide any more or less nutritional value.

They also taste better.

Placebo effect.

You expect it to taste better, so it does taste better (i.e. you percieve it to taste better; where as in a blind test, there's no difference).

Also, I maintain that organic food is no more healthier for you that non-organic food, at least when properly washed and prepared.
 
Trax416 said:
The thread title is fucking retarded.

Organic foods are healthier for you because they don't contain half the garbage non-organic does.

So they are healthier. They just don't provide any more or less nutritional value.

They also taste better.

This is lies, I reckon. I eat organic foods, but not so much for the taste. I think that's in your head. Some organic foods taste better, some do not. Unless you can say that a particular organic vs. non-organic was grown in the same lot, by the same grower, and same cultivar, how can you say that it is the 'organic' that makes them better? Chances are, it's simply the smaller harvest, perhaps more care, and higher cultivar that makes them better.

I eat organic when I feel I can, and mostly because it can't be a bad thing to either me or the environment to support less chemicals.
 
Uh yeah, I don't think people eat organic food because they think it has a higher nutritional content. It's always been about taste and lack of pesticides/chemicals.

Retarded study is retarded.
 
Price Dalton said:
Exactly. This study is useless.

Which begs the question - how the hell do people get funding to research things with an obviously faulty premise? Who the hell is giving them this money?
 
This was a much needed study! Now we know that: apple = apple :) Who would've guessed?
I am surely surprised :)
I am being sarcastic
 
Zaptruder said:
Placebo effect.

You expect it to taste better, so it does taste better (i.e. you percieve it to taste better; where as in a blind test, there's no difference).

Also, I maintain that organic food is no more healthier for you that non-organic food, at least when properly washed and prepared.

You can easily tell if it's organic or not by tasting it. It has nothing to do with placebo effect. :lol

If you don't taste the difference, with your eyes closed, you have the pallet of an ashtray and probably eat enough Fast Food to make Humpty Dumpty blush.
 
Nutritional value is one thing. Chemicals and hormones are another. I don't know if you can make a short-term study on the latter. Ingesting various substances is something that has a pile-on effect over a span of many years.
 
Zaptruder said:
Placebo effect.

You expect it to taste better, so it does taste better (i.e. you percieve it to taste better; where as in a blind test, there's no difference).

Also, I maintain that organic food is no more healthier for you that non-organic food, at least when properly washed and prepared.

this is untrue. My wife does 90% of the grocery shopping. She's been getting the same brand strawberries every week from either ACME or Wholefoods. Wholefoods carries organics. But I don't know which is which.

After about 6 weeks of me saying "these taste great" or "these aren't as good as last week" my wife finally said "i'm only getting these from Wholefoods from now on. You always complain about the ACME ones". That's when we figured out that ACME doesn't sell the organic ones.
 
As said before. Chemicals, are the reason people should go organic.
 
mrkgoo said:
This is lies, I reckon. I eat organic foods, but not so much for the taste. I think that's in your head. Some organic foods taste better, some do not. Unless you can say that a particular organic vs. non-organic was grown in the same lot, by the same grower, and same cultivar, how can you say that it is the 'organic' that makes them better? Chances are, it's simply the smaller harvest, perhaps more care, and higher cultivar that makes them better.

I eat organic when I feel I can, and mostly because it can't be a bad thing to either me or the environment to support less chemicals.

The flipside of organic food is that it takes more energy and resources to create organic food per calorie than normal foods.
 
Jibril said:
As said before. Chemicals, are the reason people should go organic.

I remember watching something on MSNBC where they got two families, one who was overly health conscious and ate nothing but organic, and another who was like the typical American family and didn't give a fuck. They all went to a doctor to some form of chemical testand it turns out they were both basically the same, family A testing higher for some and Family B testing higher in others, overall they were pretty much identical.
 
theBishop said:
this is untrue. My wife does 90% of the grocery shopping. She's been getting the same brand strawberries every week from either ACME or Wholefoods. Wholefoods carries organics. But I don't know which is which.

After about 6 weeks of me saying "these taste great" or "these aren't as good as last week" my wife finally said "i'm only getting these from Wholefoods from now on. You always complain about the ACME ones". That's when we figured out that ACME doesn't sell the organic ones.

Anecdotal sample.

Different suppliers, different strawberries is all that says to me.

If someone told me the same story but with organic and non organic reversed, then I'd say the same thing.

And even if you produce a large number of anecdotal samples, I'd simply reply; Hit bias.

People are more likely to recognize and report things that they're looking for.

I.e. People that look organic are more concious of the whole organic/non organic dichotomy and will look to reinforce their beliefs when hits occur. When the opposite is true (samples where people say non-organic tastes better than organic), then they're more ready to dismiss it as a freak occurrence.
 
Zaptruder said:
Placebo effect.

You expect it to taste better, so it does taste better (i.e. you percieve it to taste better; where as in a blind test, there's no difference).

Also, I maintain that organic food is no more healthier for you that non-organic food, at least when properly washed and prepared.

Organic meat is generally tougher and isn't pumped full of water to increase it's weight, so it tastes better.

I agree that vegetables don't taste much better (with the exception of organic carrots which are absolutely amazing) as well as fruit (apples being the exception here).

I switched to only eating organic meat 3-4 months ago; no way I'm going back to regular meat any time soon.
 
Ceres said:
I thought it was because of the chemicals used in non organic foods? People actually thought organic food itself was more nutritional?

Yes, people thought that something being "all natural" is much better than anything else. Though really, posting "organic" or "natural" on something is more of a selling point now-a-days.

Truthfully neither one is better than the other(unless you're talkin' 'bout difference in taste).
 
in fruits and veggies, there isn't any difference (just wash them properly). however, there's a big difference in organic eggs vs non-organic. organic eggs are far more nutritional and taste much better too.
 
twofold said:
Organic meat is generally tougher and isn't pumped full of water to increase it's weight, so it tastes better.

I agree that vegetables don't taste much better (with the exception of organic carrots which are absolutely amazing) as well as fruit (apples being the exception here).

I switched to only eating organic meat 3-4 months ago; no way I'm going back to regular meat any time soon.

Do you know you're eating organic meat?

Placebo effect.


Don't misunderstand the placebo effect - it's not that it does nothing. It literally changes the brain's signal of the perception; your brain is literally telling you that you're eating something better, that it tastes better, and that you're happier for it. But it's just the actual perception is independent of the actual quality of food itself.

So if you want to cook for guests on the cheap but do so well, just tell them they're eating organic food.
 
ViperVisor said:
Organic label in America means nothing.

That too. Do you guys know the kind of shit that producers do to qualify for these labels?

Suffice to say, our perception of the labels do not quite match up with the reality required to produce these foods.
 
Zaptruder said:
Anecdotal sample.

Different suppliers, different strawberries is all that says to me.

If someone told me the same story but with organic and non organic reversed, then I'd say the same thing.

And even if you produce a large number of anecdotal samples, I'd simply reply; Hit bias.

People are more likely to recognize and report things that they're looking for.

I.e. People that look organic are more concious of the whole organic/non organic dichotomy and will look to reinforce their beliefs when hits occur. When the opposite is true (samples where people say non-organic tastes better than organic), then they're more ready to dismiss it as a freak occurrence.

How can all good Chef's that work at decent restaurants easily tell the difference between a meal made with Organic and non-organic foods?

Why do Chef's taste the food they get from their Purveyors as it's being unloaded from the trucks to see if they have been ripped off or not?

The fact is, you can easily tell the difference if you don't have damaged tastembuds.

Most people in America eat to much Sodium, drink garbage like soda, smoke, and do various other things that completely damage their taste buds. So of course everything tastes the same to them.

When you actually eat healthy, drink water and don't have damaged taste buds you can taste the difference on all foods. Not just Organic Vs non Organic.

This isn't placebo effect, so you need to stop convincing yourself it is. Blindfold me, and give me an organic piece of meat, and a non organic piece of meat. I can easily tell the difference.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
Nutritional value is one thing. Chemicals and hormones are another. I don't know if you can make a short-term study on the latter. Ingesting various substances is something that has a pile-on effect over a span of many years.
CHILDREN OF MEN, HERE WE COME!

ViperVisor said:
Organic label in America means nothing.
Yep, wouldn't be surprised if it's like that in a few other countries as well.
 
I can't afford to buy most of my food organic. But when I do buy organic, it's not for vitamins and minerals. It's so I don't fucking have farmworkers' children being born with too many toes and shit in Honduras. It's so maybe one day the Mississippi River will have an ecosystem again. It's so maybe one day the Colorado can get all the way to the ocean, year-round.

Three basic rules:

-Don't eat meat every day
-Buy local (cheaper, tastier, less gas wasted; what do I have to lose?)
-Try real hard to buy Organic Fair Trade on coffee, chocolate, bananas.

One day I'll buy organic cotton. The yuppie market is making this more and more affordable. I had some of Maggie's Organic socks back in the day. Those were good socks.

Anyway, none of this shit is for my health. Anyone buying organic broccoli because they think it has more minerals... eh... headdesk.
 
I think that growing organically is also better for the farm land and the environment as a whole.

I think its funny that they would spend so much time doing a study like this. Seems like they are just trying to mislead people with the study. Smart people will realize that they are just talking about nutritional value, but the masses will just see it as "organic is no better than regular." It would be interesting to know who funded these studies...
 
needlesmcgirk said:
I think that growing organically is also better for the farm land and the environment as a whole.

I think its funny that they would spend so much time doing a study like this. Seems like they are just trying to mislead people with the study. Smart people will realize that they are just talking about nutritional value, but the masses will just see it as "organic is no better than regular." It would be interesting to know who funded these studies...
Prolly Monsato
 
The main reason organic food tastes better isn't even neccesarily that it is chemical free, its that organic produce tends to be grown in smaller more controlled batches by people who actually give a fuck about what they are doing. Placebo effect has nothing to do with this.
 
Zaptruder said:
Do you know you're eating organic meat?

Placebo effect.


Don't misunderstand the placebo effect - it's not that it does nothing. It literally changes the brain's signal of the perception; your brain is literally telling you that you're eating something better, that it tastes better, and that you're happier for it. But it's just the actual perception is independent of the actual quality of food itself.

So if you want to cook for guests on the cheap but do so well, just tell them they're eating organic food.

Err.. No.

There is a clear difference between the two. The feel of the meat, the taste. I could easily pick out organic from non-organic meat in a double blind test.

Regardless, I buy organic meat primarily for the performance and health benefits. You only have one body - why fill it with chemicals and hormones and the like just to save a meagre amount of cash?
 
I thought people bought organic to reduce the amount of chemicals used to grow food, not for the health benefits. Taste was another reason, if I recall correctly.
 
Ela Hadrun said:
-Don't eat meat every day

Why?

I think there are pros and cons to the organic movement. You need to understand though that the big grocery stores, and places like Whole Foods are now getting their "organic" stuff as cheap as they can and jacking up the prices. Make sure you look at where this stuff comes from. You will be surprised.

Also I would like to see a scientific study that actually shows eating food from animals that are given hormones having any affect on people.
 
Trax416 said:
How can all good Chef's that work at decent restaurants easily tell the difference between a meal made with Organic and non-organic foods?

Why do Chef's taste the food they get from their Purveyors as it's being unloaded from the trucks to see if they have been ripped off or not?

The fact is, you can easily tell the difference if you don't have damaged tastembuds.

Most people in America eat to much Sodium, drink garbage like soda, smoke, and do various other things that completely damage their taste buds. So of course everything tastes the same to them.

When you actually eat healthy, drink water and don't have damaged taste buds you can taste the difference on all foods. Not just Organic Vs non Organic.

And what I'm saying is that the brain is far more complicated than just whether or not your tastebuds are damaged or not.

It's like with audiophiles and their vinyls. Some will swear up and down until they're blue in the face about their superiority, ignoring the quality degradation of the vinyl.

At some point, it becomes less about the actual taste (i.e. the electro-chemical signals that your palette sends to your brain) and more about the perception of taste (what your brain does with those signals after they've been recieved from the palette).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom