Organic or not?

[eridanus]

A metastudy on organic v. conventional food nutrients:

Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought?... [Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2003] - PubMed result

"Although there is little evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in respect to the concentrations of the various micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and trace elements), there seems to be a slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown leafy vegetables and potatoes. There is also a trend towards lower protein concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops."

"Several important directions can be highlighted for future research; it seems, however, that despite any differences, a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin."

 

[BigNick]

I would love to see those "scientific" studies that attempt to measure something as subjective as taste.

They don't attempt to measure it. They just ask people who don't know which is organic and which isn't, to say which tastes better. The results are consistently the same: nobody does better than chance would predict.

You can see this effect yourself even more easily: give someone two strawberries from the same box, organic or not. Tell them that one is organic and the other isn't, and see how many of them say "actually, I can't detect any difference".

That shouldn't surprise anyone, though. We know that people who are experts on the subject can't tell the difference between red and white wine if they don't have the huge visual cue of seeing the colour in the glass.

We delude ourselves, all the time, about a large number of subjects, and there are people who know this, and have found ways to make money off of us as a result. Organic food ticks all the boxes: worries about health, wanting to get back to traditions, help the environment, etc. And of course, the biggest winners from it are the supermarkets. They only pay the supplier 15 cents a pound more for his organic zucchini, but they can stick a couple of bucks on the price in the store for Mr. Health-Conscious Consumer; after all, what's a couple of bucks when it will stop me getting cancer and reduce global warming ?

 

[Khan]

I buy some organic stuff (canned frozen) because it's the only stuff without added sugar and salt.

 

[ERD50]

Bruce Ames' conclusions are not altogether accepted by the scientific community.

Ames, pesticides, and cancer revisited. [Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002 Jan-Mar] - PubMed result

Thanks, I'll take a look later. I hadn't seen anyone counter his work, so this will hopefully be an interesting read.

I would love to see those "scientific" studies that attempt to measure something as subjective as taste.

I'll add to what BigNick said - it is actually quite easy to test this scientifically. You can perform a "triple test" (similar to the A-BX tests used in the audio field).

You give someone three samples. Two are identical, one is different. All randomized, all blind. Now, if people cannot statistically pick out which one is different, then it's game over. There's isn't anything subjective about that, it isn't about like or dislike, but simply is it different enough to identify.

Secondly, of the ones that did pick out the different one, did they assign it some common attribute? This is getting into subjective territory, but if half said it was more bitter, and half said t was less bitter, you have to wonder about that. You would expect something to stand out.

BigNick - they could not tell red from white wine blind? Wow, that is hard to believe, but this would make an interesting do-it-at-home test. I hope I would pass that, but now you have me worried!

-ERD50

 

[BigNick]

I buy some organic stuff (canned frozen) because it's the only stuff without added sugar and salt.

Ah, now that's a whole nother issue. Organic is associated with "high end" and "old style" preparations, again because if you're prepared to pay $6 a pound instead of $4 a pound, maybe you're prepared to pay $7.50 a pound. It doesn't surprise me at all that for some processed foods, the "healthier" version also includes organic ingredients, since the overlap in the demographics is likely to be very high. That still doesn't tell us anything about organic produce, though.

 

[eridanus]

Organic berries and corn contain more polyphenolics.

UC Davis News & Information :: Organic and Sustainable Foods Have More Polyphenolics Linked to Health Benefits

Organic milk is healthier, though '"In an ideal world it would be better, but logistically I don't think there would be enough," she said.'

Organic milk is healthier, says study - Telegraph


Edit: This is a meta-study of organics v. conventionals.

http://mitchell.ucdavis.edu/Is Organic Better.pdf


There's also this one about organic grapes,

http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/pdf/attachment/128 phenolics in organic and conventional juices.pdf

 

[M Paquette]

I dunno.

I figure my coffin will have a little sticker on the side:

SODIUM BENZOATE & BHA & BHT ADDED TO HELP PRESERVE FRESHNESS

 

[ERD50]

Organic milk is healthier, though '"In an ideal world it would be better, but logistically I don't think there would be enough," she said.'

Organic milk is healthier, says study - Telegraph

Thanks for posting the links. I have not got through all of them yet, but this one about 'organic' milk is interesting:

The researchers believe that letting cows graze on fresh grass boosts the nutritional value of their milk...

So this isn't really a study of 'organic' versus "all those nasty chemicals", it is about whether the cows were allowed to graze on fresh grass versus other feeds. It is well known that food sources can change the milk (the yellow color of butter is feed dependent). So it isn't surprising that other effects could be attributed to the feed.

I hope to get through the other links soon.


-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

That shouldn't surprise anyone, though. We know that people who are experts on the subject can't tell the difference between red and white wine if they don't have the huge visual cue of seeing the colour in the glass.

We delude ourselves, all the time, about a large number of subjects, and there are people who know this, and have found ways to make money off of us as a result.

BigNick - they could not tell red from white wine blind? Wow, that is hard to believe, but this would make an interesting do-it-at-home test. I hope I would pass that, but now you have me worried!

Wow! In the test that BigNick provided a link to, they fooled wine experts by giving them white wine with red food coloring. That's mean!

Recently, I was a bit alarmed when I read about a connoisseur report on a bottle of Cognac. This Cognac originally cost $15K, but has been found listed in the after-market for as high as $100K. I was wondering that in the event that I should win the PowerBall grand prize (of course I need to buy the lottery ticket first), if my palate and taste would be sophisticated enough to enjoy this Cognac the same way this expert did.

The entire experience of tasting <this Cognac> like a trip into history itself. There are up to 250 flavors throughout the century-old eau-de-vie, each flavor tasting unique through each progressive sip. I started with a note of fleur de tabac. And then tasted wild mushrooms, a promenade in an Autumnal forest full of wood fruits, prunes and scents of vanilla. Next came beeswax and gingerbread, and then a surprising afternote of fresh mint. It was an all-encompassing trip of tastes back and forward through the ages, a pure testament to the unpredictability of nature and the astounding talent of Trichet. To taste <this Cognac> is to experience a richness beyond anything you'd expect to find in a glass, as Trichet describes it, "as if experiencing the soul of Louis XIII himself." ​

Reading such flowery description, I am afraid I would never be worthy of such a magnificent drink, even if I could afford it.

 

[bright eyed]

Interesting approach; makes it difficult to verify or dispute your [-]credibility[/-] sources on this topic.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours (degrees and IQ) just kidding...

 

[bright eyed]

I don't doubt that 'organic' tastes better in your opinion. Not at all.

I'm not trying to get into an argument, but I am just trying to shine some light on this. In your post, you are actually confusing 'organic' with "fresh", "bred for taste versus shipping". I addressed these earlier.

The qualities you mention are a product of the variety, the genetics of the seed. What I'm saying is, if you take a bunch of those seeds that are bred for flavor, and you grow half 'organically' and half with commercial fertilizers and pesticides, and you taste them side by side, picked fresh at the their peak, I do not think that you could tell the difference in taste in a blind testing.

I do believe you can tell the taste between varieties grown for good shipping qualities and those grown for taste - I know I can!


-ERD50

Ah, yes - but the genetically modified seeds go hand in hand with the extensive petro fertilizer/pesticide - they're like a combo package. Once they breed for certain qualities - the overall package of the plant is changed/altered - the plant can become more weak and vulnerable to other natural pests - so they often require near sanitized conditions where most natural things are killed out of its environment, then that requires selecting for other features and on and on. Soil is not a sanitized situation - heck natural fertilzer - we know where that comes from!

Certified organic farmers at least, can't use modified seeds - they are supposed to use naturally occuring/ non-modified seeds...Of course there is the ancient tradition of selection that farmers have done for thousands of years, but that is not what the monsanto's of the world are doing!

 

[donheff]

Big Nick is ruining my wine drinking. At least I focus on bargain priced wines but should I really just switch to Gallo Hearty Burgundy and store it in nice decanters?

 

[BigNick]

Organic milk is healthier, though '"In an ideal world it would be better, but logistically I don't think there would be enough," she said.'

Organic milk is healthier, says study - Telegraph

According to that article, organic milk involved the cows eating 80% grass and non-organic milk, 37%. So the animals are being fed on different things. I have no problem believing that that would affect the quality of the milk. Indeed, one of the challenges for organic farming of animals is to show that the allegedly "organic" input is in fact there. In the case of the cows, you'd need to compare milk from cows fed 80% on unfertilized grass with that from cows eating grass whose growth had been promoted with chemical fertilizers. (My understanding is that to be called "organic", pig meat must come from pigs which have been fed with organically-grown feed.)

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 ...

I'm not trying to get into an argument, but I am just trying to shine some light on this. In your post, you are actually confusing 'organic' with "fresh", "bred for taste versus shipping".

The qualities you mention are a product of the variety, the genetics of the seed. What I'm saying is, if you take a bunch of those seeds that are bred for flavor, and you grow half 'organically' and half with commercial fertilizers and pesticides, and you taste them side by side, picked fresh at the their peak, I do not think that you could tell the difference in taste in a blind testing. ...-ERD50

Ah, yes - but the genetically modified seeds go hand in hand with the extensive petro fertilizer/pesticide - they're like a combo package. Once they breed for certain qualities - the overall package of the plant is changed/altered - the plant can become more weak and vulnerable to other natural pests - so they often require near sanitized conditions where most natural things are killed out of its environment, then that requires selecting for other features and on and on. Soil is not a sanitized situation - heck natural fertilzer - we know where that comes from!

Certified organic farmers at least, can't use modified seeds - they are supposed to use naturally occuring/ non-modified seeds...Of course there is the ancient tradition of selection that farmers have done for thousands of years, but that is not what the monsanto's of the world are doing!

Bright-eyed, the above is an example of the problem with you wanting to continue this discussion, and simultaneously saying you aren't going to be bothered to provide any evidence.

Genetically modified food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are almost no GMO fruits/vegetables on your dinner plate - no matter where you buy your food. Only Hawaiian Papaya (83% of the crop), and Zucchini (13% of the crop) are GMO products in the US.

So to quote an inspired observer of life: "What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis?".

Of course there is the ancient tradition of selection that farmers have done for thousands of years, but that is not what the monsanto's of the world are doing!

Really? What are these products from Monsanto?:

Monsanto ~ Seminis
Monsanto ~ De Ruiter Seeds

So, a farmer selectively breeds and uses 'chemicals' (there are 'chemicals' that 'organic' farmers can apply - how did they determine that these were 'safe' versus others? Evidence?) and those are deemed 'good', but a corporation does it and it must be 'bad'. OK.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... if my palate and taste would be sophisticated enough to enjoy this Cognac the same way this expert did.

.... It was an all-encompassing trip of tastes back and forward through the ages, a pure testament to the unpredictability of nature and the astounding talent of Trichet. To taste <this Cognac> is to experience a richness beyond anything you'd expect to find in a glass, as Trichet describes it, "as if experiencing the soul of Louis XIII himself." ​

Reading such flowery description, I am afraid I would never be worthy of such a magnificent drink, even if I could afford it.

I see similar types of vague flowery descriptions in the high end audio market. It's all marketing and journalistic hype, IMO.

A journalist isn't going to get review samples or have a job writing for a magazine dedicated to the "cult" of high end audio writing that " this $126,374 pre-amp sounded the same as a decent $499 unit we have as a reference". No, he has to say that it 'exhibited an etheral sense of pace and timing, bringing out the soul of Mozart like no other pre-amp I've experienced before, yet this same dedication to accurate pacing seemed to tame some of my favorite jazz recordings, somewhat de-emphasizing the hi-hats on the third beat of the measure'... What hog-wash!

-ERD50

 

[BigNick]

There are almost no GMO fruits/vegetables on your dinner plate - no matter where you buy your food. Only Hawaiian Papaya (83% of the crop), and Zucchini (13% of the crop) are GMO products in the US.

Well, it's true that there aren't many GMOs in the produce section, but given the percentage of GM soya and corn, there's probably GM stuff in almost every boxed food produce on the supermarket shelf.

I have no objection to that - I have a bigger objection to the way in which US processed food, in particular, is so /a/ horrible and /b/ devoid of nutritional content - but the fact is that all Americans and most Europeans consume "Teh Evul GM" daily, and there's no evidence that we're all keeling over because of it.

 

[ERD50]

Well, it's true that there aren't many GMOs in the produce section, but given the percentage of GM soya and corn, there's probably GM stuff in almost every boxed food produce on the supermarket shelf.

True, but Bright-Eyed wasn't talking about the taste of boxed foods. And we could apply the taste test to that as well, if we wanted. I'm sure the zealots could identify one polenta from another where the only variable was the 'organic' pesticides and fertilizers.

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

I'm too lazy to cite the evidence ...I actually did study this in college

I'll show you mine if you show me yours (degrees and IQ)

You just did.

 

[M Paquette]

Only Hawaiian Papaya (83% of the crop), and Zucchini (13% of the crop) are GMO products in the US.

GMO zucchini?

What on earth did they need to change? Maybe it's been modified to not take over the yard with giant pods?

 

[bright eyed]

Bright-eyed, the above is an example of the problem with you wanting to continue this discussion, and simultaneously saying you aren't going to be bothered to provide any evidence.

Genetically modified food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are almost no GMO fruits/vegetables on your dinner plate - no matter where you buy your food. Only Hawaiian Papaya (83% of the crop), and Zucchini (13% of the crop) are GMO products in the US.

So to quote an inspired observer of life: "What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis?".



Really? What are these products from Monsanto?:

Monsanto ~ Seminis
Monsanto ~ De Ruiter Seeds

So, a farmer selectively breeds and uses 'chemicals' (there are 'chemicals' that 'organic' farmers can apply - how did they determine that these were 'safe' versus others? Evidence?) and those are deemed 'good', but a corporation does it and it must be 'bad'. OK.

-ERD50

GMO is the most extreme on the spectrum - but many seeds have been tinkered with, as you mention to favor certain traits. And modern commercial farming has overly relied on petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides to boost the size, preserve appearance and yield of their crops. And yes, I was generalizing so apologies for mixing soybeans (heavily modified) with strawberries (heavily sprayed)!

More on breeding here:
Plant breeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


from above link <<A study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in 2004, entitled Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999, compared nutritional analysis of vegetables done in 1950 and in 1999, and found substantial decreases in six of 13 nutrients measured, including 6% of protein and 38% of riboflavin. Reductions in calcium, phosphorus, iron and ascorbic acid were also found. The study, conducted at the Biochemical Institute, University of Texas at Austin, concluded in summary: "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.[2]">>


More on agriculture here:
Agriculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting website set up by EU tracking genetically modified foods (includes references to additives and other products) available in EU.

GMO Labelling: These Products Must Be Labelled

More on Monsanto's seminis here:
Monsanto buys Seminis

<<The company’s F1 hybrid genetics are considered excellent in many areas, including overwintering brassicas, disease resistance in cucurbits, packing qualities in green beans, and flavor in tomatoes.>>

Which supports those who are disgruntled with organic becoming increasingly commercial and not true to its original values...

 

[bright eyed]

You just did.

You forgot to add "neener neener neener"...

 

[ERD50]

You forgot to add "neener neener neener"...

bright eyed, you keep shifting the discussion. You started with "organic tastes better" (stated as fact), and I've explained several times, and each time you shift to other factors, sometimes actually agreeing with me while you say you disagree.

I'm done.

-ERD50

 

[bright eyed]

bright eyed, you keep shifting the discussion. You started with "organic tastes better" (stated as fact), and I've explained several times, and each time you shift to other factors, sometimes actually agreeing with me while you say you disagree.

I'm done.

-ERD50

I'm sorry you are upset with me or the discussion, that wasn't my aim in any of this - in fact I never wanted to get into this debate at all! And my reply you quoted is not at all intended for you - but to westernskies who I think just wants to piss on me when he sees an opportunity...

We started out discussing produce and that I felt organic tasted better.

You said this:

<<I'm not trying to get into an argument, but I am just trying to shine some light on this. In your post, you are actually confusing 'organic' with "fresh", "bred for taste versus shipping". I addressed these earlier.

The qualities you mention are a product of the variety, the genetics of the seed. What I'm saying is, if you take a bunch of those seeds that are bred for flavor, and you grow half 'organically' and half with commercial fertilizers and pesticides, and you taste them side by side, picked fresh at the their peak, I do not think that you could tell the difference in taste in a blind testing.

I do believe you can tell the taste between varieties grown for good shipping qualities and those grown for taste - I know I can!>>

So I replied discussing GMO's - which prob got us off track - I should have just referred more generally to broader modern agriculture practices, which does include plant breed selection and modifications that are not as far down the spectrum as GMO but do in fact affect the plant in more ways than one. But generally the over-use of ferts and pesticides I do think is bad for nature and my own (and kids) health - but overall does also affect taste. So we prob both agree fresh tastes better - but I diverge if you think the fresh produce that was sprayed tastes better - maybe we can try a blind test! but if anything, knowing it was grown one way over another gives me peace of mind and perhaps some placebo affect.

I think the issue is very very complicated so it's not easy to detangle seed tinkering with pesticides and fertilizers, local grown, big agribus etc...

I just tried to give some idea of where I was coming from and some background that led me down my own path...my path is prob not as linear as yours...

 

[BigNick]

But generally the over-use of ferts and pesticides I do think is bad for nature and my own (and kids) health - but overall does also affect taste.

So far, pretty much all you've told us is what you think. That's fine for most subjects - a lot of this forum is about banter. But you can't "just think stuff is better" and try convince us otherwise without evidence. Telling us that you think that organic tastes better or is better for the planet, is no different from if you'd revealed that you prefer the Yankees over the Mets, or Catholicism over Methodism, or Hillary over Newt.

By the way, do you think that Monsanto and Bayer executives have secret gardens where they grow only old-fashioned varieties using manure as fertilizer? Or do you think that they take reckless risks with their kids' health too?

I think the issue is very very complicated so it's not easy to detangle seed tinkering with pesticides and fertilizers, local grown, big agribus etc...

Actually, the issues are very straightforward. Either GM is inherently bad, or it's somewhere between mediocre and good. Either pesticides cause cancer, etc, or they don't. Either chemical fertilizer is bad for the environment, or it isn't. For science, these are three entirely separate issues. They only need "detangling" if people who want everything to be "nice and simple and natural" insist on entangling them.

 

[GregLee]

I'm interested in the issue of whether organic-labeled foods taste better, just because I'd really like to know if there's a way to get better tasting food. I got some mildly interesting hits googling on "taste test organic", one of which is a Time video Organic vs. conventional foods taste test | MNN - Mother Nature Network which is quite informal, however -- nothing like a blind tasting. If there is any credible evidence on the web that gives an edge in taste to food products labeled "organic", I'm not seeing it yet.