Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious(seedmagazine.com) |
Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious(seedmagazine.com) |
Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion.
How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?
I for one down-modded you for obnoxiously whining about being down-modded, something which I'm quite sick of.
But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 100% organic? Malaria. And there's little more artificial than the chemical-soaked neon bednets saving millions of lives across Africa.
There was a study done that highlighted that some of the pesticides used in conventional produce can have a carcinogenic effect even in 1 part per trillion.
It's funny how the author can exaggerate the studies findings like this while showing such disdain for others who respond to his exaggerated conclusion rather than address the studies findings directly. The study has some good information but I'd prefer to hear it from an author that wasn't so partisan to a particular view.
> "The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific."
true, but the SA's response is an excellent marketing response. ple think what they're told, and if no one outright makes the claim about the environmental impact, then people will conclude, oh, it's already to eat non-organic.
(Admittedly the American food system is getting close to this. Corn is soooo good for you(r wallet), after all.)
Here here! The notion that we pretty much understand what's going on with food, digestion, and metabolism is as widespread as it is harmful. We have only scratched the surface.
I remember seeing a diagram of human metabolism during a talk. It was huge and messy! Spaghetti-coded-Rube-Goldberg-intertwined-messy! And it's only a diagram of what we do understand -- there's even more in there! Biology at the cellular and molecular level was not "designed" to be understood by a human intelligence.
The only convincing argument I have seen in favor of organic food is the environmental argument. I have to balance that against my belief that for every acre of organic crop grown, somebody somewhere is going to sleep hungry.
I realize, however, that any scientific or quantitative argument for or against organic food is irrelevant. Organic food tells a story that many people want to be a part of, and it will continue to grow in popularity.
A sign of the dark ages, and the death of the enlightenment. No, I don't imagine we'll burn witches at the stake, but my wife and daughter can't eat half their favorite foods when we visit some relatives' homes (for fear of really upsetting people), precisely because of nutritional dogma.
Fresh, ripe, varietal, easily-spoiled produce grown in non-industrial settings at a small scale on non-exhausted land by small groups of opinionated people does taste better.
It used to be that produce sold as 'Organic' was largely correlated with the above, but now 'Organic' is a huge profit center for big agribusiness. Being grown without pesticides doesn't make the standard shitty produce any better tasting, nor is it really much better for the environment. It just has bigger profit margins.
It's interesting, and telling, that several hundred smart people have viewed this comment, but not one of them has decided to offer a link to any sort of evidence.
Relax, man! He's just talking about the realities of marketing.
For many, it's not so much Organic/Natural vs. big-bad industry/science. A lot of the organic and/or local stuff is fresher and tastes better. Not all of it will be, though. But if someone can make some money convincing people that it is, then someone will. That's just the market.
Actually, I think people should go by taste. We have only a partial understanding of food and our metabolism, but we've probably evolved very keen ways of determining what food is good for us. The only conscious attention we probably need has to do with moderation. (Otherwise, I'd eat a box of ice cream sandwiches every day!)
You could distribute Big Macs to the starving masses and credit McDonalds with saving millions of lives, but that wouldn't make it recommended eating for those of us with access to alternatives.
For a more concrete argument, let me point you to The China Study [1], which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food". If people really cared about their health, they'd be vegetarian.
Organic food has a lot more to do with identity marketing (like BMW and A&F) than it does real nutrition.
> the burden of proof that a BigMac would be healthier if it were made from "all natural" ingredients.
Why should the burden of proof fall one way or the other on this proposition? This is the classic technique of those who see themselves as guardians of scientific orthodoxy.
> which gives more evidence for vegetarianism being related to good health than the "organic" lobby could ever dream of for "organic food"
That doesn't mean that knowing the value of organic food also wouldn't be useful.
As for hybrid rice, yes, it saved lots of lives. But many argue that there were negative side effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Here's a story that predates the Green Revolution. I think it might be illuminating.
A long time ago in China, there was a public official named Confucius. (Yes, that Confucius.) For the betterment of his nation, he engaged in a huge campaign to popularize the eating of polished (white) rice. He did this because white rice is much easier to store for longer periods, and more conducive to warehousing and other logistical activities. Thus did Confucius greatly reduce the incidence of famine in his country. However, in the following years, there was an epidemic of beri-beri in China.
Human beings didn't discover vitamin B1 until the late 1800s.
> Why not claim that USDA approved organic food is the "white rice" of our times?
Why not indeed. It could be true. How does one work out the a priori likelihood of this being true to know whether it is worth looking into further? Metaphors might be one valid method. I can see an argument that some pesticides actually enhance human health. An analogue here would be the decline in iodine levels in milk when farmers stopped using iodophors.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_06_200306/letters_20...
I'm not saying I think the proposition is likely to be true but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand and I wouldn't assume you are being unscientific for proposing it without proof.
Because that would be a gross oversimplification of "food" and "bodies". Many drugs have a narrow therapeutic index, meaning the difference between "save your life" and "kill you" is a small matter of dosage. How do you explain that using "what going into your body must be [good|evil]".