Return to the Organic Gardening Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study fin

Posted by henry_kuska z5 OH (kuska@neo.rr.com) on
Sat, Jul 12, 14 at 10:29

"Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study finds
Research is first to find wide-ranging differences between organic and conventional fruits, vegetables and cereals"

See:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/organic-food-more-antioxidants-study

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

Has anyone compared this study with the other 2 meta-analyses that came to different conclusions? Which ones were more robust in their methods?

Actually read the study, not just the news about the study and it's way less interesting.

This study focuses primarily on antioxidant levels yet the reporting I've seen seems to neglect that you don't really need that much in the way of antioxidants. To make a claim that organic crops are better because they have higher antioxidant levels is claiming, indirectly that we need antioxidants yet fail to correlate any significant levels needed vs what I'd being produced by the plants?

The introduction starts out with many claims about how organic farming methods are safer and better for the environment. There are some citations for these claims, but not all of them are covered. Furthermore, some of their citations are dubious, ranging from books to other studies by the authors. I also see no study anywhere testing the safety, efficacy, and yield rates of organic - it's just assumed that organic is safer and better for the environment.

The conclusion that organic produce is higher in ANY nutrients, including antioxidants, is also tenuous. Are the studies being cited comparing apples to apples, so to speak? For instance, are they comparing organic beef tomatoes to conventional beef tomatoes? If so, are all other things equal, including soil type, irrigation methods, slope aspect, etc? Probably not.

=======

Here's a critical point ... given the astoundingly higher price of organic foods in most areas, which gives you more fruits and vegetables for $25 ???

Organic or conventional?


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

It makes me wonder what would make organic higher in nutrients. Probably on the average the organic farms have higher organic matter. that is good and tends to make the micro herd more active in breaking down food ready for the plant...besides just NPK and some other major nutrients.

Some organic enterprizes may raise more of the older varieties that tend to produce less poundage and therefore more density per pound.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

"It makes me wonder what would make organic higher in nutrients. "

You are assuming they are, and other studies (lots of them) have not shown that.

Unless you are growing the same varieties, in the same conditions, with the ONLY variable being the organic/versus conventional ... you can't say anything about the differences.

I haven't seen the data yet, but if you are looking at a bunch of variables, like the "nutrients", it's soooooooooo easy to find the points where you can show superiority of YOUR side. And skip showing those points where yours is inferior.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

Look into Rodale Institute if you are interested in the benefits.

Many times studies look at something very specific such as more sugar or more of this one antioxidant compound, rather than the whole picture. For someone that knows their way around a garden or farm and has some understanding of biology it is obvious that certain methods are superior to others. It also depends on what the goals are.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

You are correct about the price but considering that most of us aren't exactly going hungry and what many Americans eat, I think the price of organic vs. conventional produce may be a bit misguided. Then it becomes more about economics and politics.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

I could see where there could be less pesticide residue.

Smaller organic farms likely baby their soil more. I do and likely do have healthier crops. Even on non-organic farms there is going to be a difference between well tended crops and 'mined' soils....little added and just using up previous fertility.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

I consistently find that OG produce tests higher on the brix scale than non-OG. That to me tends to support the contention that certified organic farms produce crops with higher nutrient value pound-to-pound, or bite-for-bite, even if not dollar-for-dollar.

IMO, it's not logical to try to save a few dollars a week when the result is less nourishment.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

The following was stated earlier in this thread: "This study focuses primarily on antioxidant levels yet the reporting I've seen seems to neglect that you don't really need that much in the way of antioxidants. To make a claim that organic crops are better because they have higher antioxidant levels is claiming, indirectly that we need antioxidants yet fail to correlate any significant levels needed vs what I'd being produced by the plants? "

H.Kuska comment. The abstract conclusion is: " In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons." Please note that I, and I assume many others, would be interested in organic foods even if just the lower Cd and pesticide residue parts of the article were significant.

Now concerning the above point about not going into detail about: "To make a claim that organic crops are better because they have higher antioxidant levels is claiming, indirectly that we need antioxidants yet fail to correlate any significant levels needed vs what I'd being produced by the plants? "

A research paper normally has size restrictions. I would expect that the authors, reviewers, and Editor assume that the scientific readers can go to the scientific literature and become familiar with what is known about the role of antioxidants from plants and human health. For example:

"Polyphenols in Fruits and Vegetables and Its Effect on Human Health"

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=46941

The full paper is available to the public free. (click on "open access") Of particular interest is that too much of some/many/ most things can be harmful: "Moreover, higher doses, flavonoids may act as mutagens, pro-oxidants that generate free radicals, and as inhibitors of key enzymes involved in hormone metabolism. Thus, in high doses, the adverse effects of flavonoids may outweigh their beneficial ones, and caution should be exercised in ingesting them at levels above that which would be obtained from a typical vegetarian diet [139]."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

I'm not quite sure what is the point of this thread.

In this one meta analysis, they reviewed 343 previous studies done, examining and measuring nutritional content of organic vs non organic vegetables. Is that right? Yet, after 343 studies done, they still find very little difference in the nutritional value of both groups. No difference that would actually support recommending one over the other for nutritional content. After 343 studies. That to me is a very large waste of time and money to do that many studies when the first 50 probably told you all you needed to know. I also have to wonder, who was paying for these studies? Is some organization trying to gain support for their point of view with 'scientific studies show…'?

At any rate, I haven't expected that organic produce has significantly higher amounts of nutrition over non organic produce. I simply understand that pesticides and fungicides actually are designed to kill bugs and fungus. Why would I want to eat foods that were sprayed with any kind of agent that can kill, even if it is just a small bug? And had them repeatedly applied? And that the soil that they are growing in has had years and years of them being applied?

The other reason I choose organic gardening, is because an ecological system clearly exists. Why ignore that rather than try to understand it and work with the system rather than against it?

None of these studies address either of those reasons why I choose organic.


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

The following was stated: "None of these studies address either of those reasons why I choose organic."

H.Kuska comment: I do not understand the above comment. I just stated in the post above this one that: "The abstract conclusion is: " In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons." Please note that I, and I assume many others, would be interested in organic foods even if just the lower Cd and pesticide residue parts of the article were significant. "


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

I am not fully organic, but believe in many organic principles, and I believe I have very healthy soil. Here is a link of 'food for thought'.

Here is a link that might be useful: Organic vs Other


 o
RE: Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study

There is a lot of information on the benefits of organic farming in this book by N. A. Krasil'nikov'.

Soil Microorganisms and Higher Plants


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Organic Gardening Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here