"Organic not healthier" rebuttal

Appalachia · #1 04/07/13, 03:03 PM

Pediatrician Dr. Alan Greene rebuts some points made by the Harvard study claiming organic food is not healthier than conventional.

Link to Dr. Greene's blog:
http://www.drgreene.com/is-organic-f...lly-different/

Link to news story about Harvard study:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8820M920120903

tinknal · #2 04/07/13, 04:34 PM

Oh boy, here we go again....................

romysbaskets · #3 04/07/13, 04:59 PM

Here is a joke but true to lighten things up....

Our Navy Son in Law, raised on junk food, boxed and prepared foods from the store, never saw home canned goods til he came to my home.

My daughter buys organic fruit and vegetables where she lives. Her Dad was visiting her one time about a year ago... As they are about to eat dinner, her hubby, Jeff, tells my daughter in a low southern drawl, "I don't want no organic foods!" My husband holds up a vegetable and asked Jeff, "If I now spray this with pesticides, will you eat it?" My Son in Law looked at him in complete surprise, as a lightbulb goes on.. then he says "no sir!" This began his journey into the discovery that you can choose what you eat. Those that use pesticides feel the risk is worth the reward, those of us that don't are happy with our choice. The debate on this is like the beating of a dead horse...we have all been down this road before....except for that poor horse....

Bearfootfarm · #4 04/07/13, 05:22 PM

LOL
Yeah, one Dr's opinion means far more than a Harvard study

Is it merely coincidental he's making the rounds of talk shows and heavily blogging AND he's got a new BOOK to SELL on the market?

No agendas there, I'm sure

PrettyPaisley · #5 04/07/13, 05:25 PM

Of course we ALL know that PESTICED and SEED COMPANIES with PATENTS have NO *AGENDA*.

I_don't_know · #6 04/07/13, 05:31 PM

I read a study a while back;

it came to the conclusion that if you followed all their rules, you would live an extra 10 years. If you eat the food they dictate, follow all their exercise rituals instead of dying at 70 you can get to live to be 80!!

You will be miserable all your life, but you can live an extra 10 years.

Pops2 · #7 04/07/13, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyPaisley

Of course we ALL know that PESTICED and SEED COMPANIES with PATENTS have NO *AGENDA*.

Of course they do, making money. But they aren't the ones trying to refute a peer reviewed study from a "respected university."
No rational person will argue that chemicals & pesticides on your food is better for you than pesticide free food. Nor does anyone dispute that organics, which are more often heirloom & allowed to fully ripen, are much better tasting. All that is being said is that the nutritional content: carbs, proteins, fats, vitamins & minerals, are identical.

Appalachia · #8 04/07/13, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

LOL
Yeah, one Dr's opinion means far more than a Harvard study

Is it merely coincidental he's making the rounds of talk shows and heavily blogging AND he's got a new BOOK to SELL on the market?

No agendas there, I'm sure

I'm sure he has his own agenda just like anyone else. However, he is a respected doctor and raises some good critiques of the study IMO.

mnn2501 · #9 04/07/13, 05:40 PM

The title of the article (Harvard study)tells me a lot

Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content (but what about pesticide, etc content not to mention taste?)

tinknal · #10 04/07/13, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appalachia

I'm sure he has his own agenda just like anyone else. However, he is a respected doctor and raises some good critiques of the study IMO.

Actually he claims a number of studies back up his position but he does not cite a single one of them. Junk science at it's worst.

Appalachia · #11 04/07/13, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops2

. All that is being said is that the nutritional content: carbs, proteins, fats, vitamins & minerals, are identical.

Macronutrients were comparable, but the conventional food had higher levels of pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Pops2 · #12 04/07/13, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnn2501

The title of the article (Harvard study)tells me a lot

Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content (but what about pesticide, etc content not to mention taste?)

Again no one is disputing that. However organics have their issues as well, for example feral hogs in CA crapping all over spinach and lettuces causing E Coli outbreaks. The real issue is that organic is more expensive & difficult to do on the industrial scale that allows the US to feed most of the world.

Pops2 · #13 04/07/13, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appalachia

Macronutrients were comparable, but the conventional food had higher levels of pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

And no one is disputing the pesticide issue. As for antibiotic resistant bacteria that is a medical issue related to over use of antibiotics, not a farming methodology issue. Bacterial contamination of food can come ANYWHERE in the supply chain from farm to truck to distributor to store to the customer that picked it up and put it back. The attempt to blame farming methodology for that is theatricslain & simple.

arabian knight · #14 04/07/13, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops2

All that is being said is that the nutritional content: carbs, proteins, fats, vitamins & minerals, are identical.

Yes they Are The Same. Period. No more no less but the same and that is all that needs to be said on the matter.

Appalachia · #15 04/07/13, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

Actually he claims a number of studies back up his position but he does not cite a single one of them. Junk science at it's worst.

I don't spend a lot of time on blogs, but I would think people typically don't cite everything on a blog like a scientific paper.

Appalachia · #16 04/07/13, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops2

And no one is disputing the pesticide issue. As for antibiotic resistant bacteria that is a medical issue related to over use of antibiotics, not a farming methodology issue.

It is very much a farming methodology issue. Not on the produce side, but on the animal side.

Appalachia · #17 04/07/13, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops2

However organics have their issues as well, for example feral hogs in CA crapping all over spinach and lettuces causing E Coli outbreaks.

How does organic vs conventional pertain to this? Seems that they would be evenly affected.

Pops2 · #18 04/07/13, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appalachia

How does organic vs conventional pertain to this? Seems that they would be evenly affected.

You're right except that pesticide covered unwashed produce is going to taste worse and suffer less predation. The difference however is probably marginal.
The point is that organic isn't a 100% garantee of safety.

Appalachia · #19 04/07/13, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops2

You're right except that pesticide covered unwashed produce is going to taste worse and suffer less predation. The difference however is probably marginal.
The point is that organic isn't a 100% garantee of safety.

Gotcha. I agree.

farmerDale · #20 04/07/13, 07:05 PM

I would guarantee that my neighbors who farm "organically" produce food far less nutritionally dense than mine. My grain is fed the proper amount of nutrients to make it grow optimally. Their crops and fields rely on mining the soil nutrients, tillage, and a nutrient deficient crop in no way could be more healthy nutritionally than one grown and fed properly.

As well, at least in the grain production world, the crop is generally sprayed once for weeds at the 2 to 4 leaf stage, 60 or 80 days before harvest. By the time harvest comes, I wonder how much of the quarter cup an acre of herbicide,(from 1/100th of a pound to maybe a tenth of a pound of active ingredient) spread over an 80 bushel an acre ( that is 4800 lbs an acre of grain), is left. In many, actually most cases, it is not measurable at all. The reason, is that the herbicide is synthesized by the plants, soil microbes, etc., and broken down into benign and simple compounds, which are no longer a herbicide.

What non farmers often fail to capture in their research, is that this miniscule application rate, the herbicide timing, the fact the plants break the herbicide down, and the fact that crops are not "doused" or "drowned" in herbicides, like some of the knee jerkers would have you believe. It is not even fair to say that a crop like say, oh, barley, gets a light mist of herbicide once a year if needed, of a herbicide at a very tiny rate.

What happens next is also never mentioned. after spraying, the weeds that could otherwise steal nutrients from the crop, are negated, leaving the soil nutrients and water to be taken up by the crop to maximize its health and nutrition.

Buy what you wish, just know the rates, the facts, and the real numbers.

Cheers.