Humanure

[MikeH]

Maybe you don't know how a systematic review works.

[Ecofarm]

They excluded any results that were not statistically significant (>5% difference). They excluded pesticides.

They proved that with a high enough threshold of evidence for "better", and by cherry-picking articles (using not even a third of those available)... that there is no significant (>5%) evidence for nutritional claims.

That's the last time I am explaining it. Either you see it for what it is or not. I tried.


Just curious...

Do you deny the ecologic impacts?


Lastly, I will stand by my assessment. Anyone who reads that study and concludes that there is no difference between organic and conventional production on nutrition is ****.

[MikeH]

Explain how something having pesticides on its skin means it has lower nutrients? That is a different subject that I've made no statement about. You can, of course, not use pesticides and still not be organic certified.

The ecological impacts of conventional farming? They can be horrendous of course. Depends very much on the farmer and what he's doing. We have some really excellent farmers in the UK who aren't certified organic but who are still very ecologically responsible. There can be less ecological impact buying something in season from a responsible local farmer than flying in something organic grown in a big industrial organic farm in Africa. The "Organic" badge, especially with stuff in the big supermarkets, doesn't always necessarily mean "Great for the environment!".

Do you think I'm saying Organic is bad? All I'm saying is that if you say "OMG this organic tomato is so much better for me!" You're a ****. You'd like me to concede that it's possible it might be statistically insignificantly better for you. Ok. I think just the organic/not organic isn't enough. You have to know where it was grown, what variety, how it was grown.

Here's a question, is it possible I could get a non-organic tomato grown locally, outside (not in a poly tunnel) from a variety selected for flavour at a responsible non-organic farm and it be nutritionally better for me than one grown from a variety selected for yield and certified organic that I buy at my supermarket that's been flown in from north africa? If so, is it retarded to select purely on the organic logo? I say - yes and yes.

[Ecofarm]

Of course there are many issues "beyond organic". Things like local production and eco farming.


But denying that there are differences in nutrition based upon production method is tarded. The differences might be slight in most cases and the benefit dependant on an individual's complications, but it exists. When it comes to animal products, the personal/nutritional benefits of organic production become significant quickly.


So, we have established...

1. There is SOME nutritional differences that might be of benefit in some circumstances.

2. There are TREMENDOUS differences in ecological impact.


Thus, rejecting the whole thing as a scam is monumentally ignorant.

[Ben Kenobi]

You worked at a grocery store.

Yes, and?

They sold only certified 'organic' produce.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course the plots were treated differently. WTF would be the point if they were not. God damn. What kind of scientific method do they teach in Canada?

Proper scientific protocol would have the people who tend to the plots blind as to whether or not they were organic. It's too easy to provide a little extra TLC to the organic plots.

[Ecofarm]

See the post before your last 2.

[Dinner]

The article specifically said there may be environmental benefits to organic farming but the specific topic is the claim of better nutrition made by organic farmers. This has been conclusively proven to be a false claim.

The problem with your "but they might have a statistically insignificant amount of more nutrients!" claim is that it doesn't matter, health wise, if the human body gets 100% of a vitamin or 100.0000000001%. The body takes only what it needs and then literally ****s out the rest which is what happens with most expensive vitamin supplements people spend thousands of dollars a year on.

[Drake Tungsten]

The body takes only what it needs and then literally ****s out the rest which is what happens with most expensive vitamin supplements people spend thousands of dollars a year on.

Wrong, as usual. Fat-soluble vitamins accumulate in the body and water-soluble vitamins are pissed out, not **** out.

[Dinner]

OK, not including fat soluble vitamins which dissolve into body fat. Drake, you're a pedant.

[Ecofarm]

The article specifically said there may be environmental benefits to organic farming but the specific topic is the claim of better nutrition made by organic farmers. This has been conclusively proven to be a false claim.

You're an idiot.

You don't even know how to read.

In fact, taking such a "conclusion" from the article is beyond idiot. It is willfully moronic.

[Drake Tungsten]

OK, not including fat soluble vitamins which dissolve into body fat. Drake, you're a pedant.

No, you're just always wrong. I let the minor errors slide because it's all I can do to keep up with the major ones.

[Dinner]

What ever, dude.

[Dinner]

You're an idiot.

You don't even know how to read.

In fact, taking such a "conclusion" from the article is beyond idiot. It is willfully moronic.

You're the one who can't read:

Organic 'has no health benefits'

Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency, which commissioned the report, said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".

But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

“ Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review ”
Peter Melchett, Soil Association

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.

Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.

The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.

Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.

"This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food.

"What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."

She added that the FSA was neither pro- nor anti-organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.

“ Organic food is just another scam to grab more money from us ”
Ishkandar, London

Dr Dangour, said: "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."

He added that better quality studies were needed.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.

"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.

"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.

"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added.
Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8174482.stm

We've been discussing this article since the first page. Are you still unclear that organic doesn't produce health benefits and does not have statistically more nutritional value? Who is the idiot again?

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how they can say "doesn't produce health benefits" and yet not include pesticides in their analysis.

JM