Organic produce more nutritionally "dense"?

sciguy · 17th May 2006, 03:37 PM

Ok, I was driving into work this morning, and heard an ad for a grocery store extolling their virtues for carrying organic (and locally grown) produce.

Then there was the bit that wiggled my balony detector (above and beyond the usual ad-speak). This is paraphrased from memory, so I may be off: "Organically grown produce is 20% denser in nutrients than mass-farmed produced."

C'mon, no matter how it's grown, an onion is an onion, right?

Well, maybe not (remove space between "www" and ".sfgate" since even unchecking "automatically parse links" won't get me past the 15 post restriction on URLs):
www .sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/HOG3BHSDPG1.DTL

Basically, the hypothesis seems to be that commercially farmed produce may be getting "pushed" (from chemical fertilizers and use of high-yield hybrids) so fast that they produce fewer nutrients than plants grown more "naturally".

Unfortuantely, that was the only "woo-free" site I was able to come across with google. That article referenced studies done by organic-center.com, so it's possible that there's some bias. Is this concept familiar to anyone else?

tkingdoll · 17th May 2006, 03:54 PM

The closest the Soil Association will get to a statement is:

Quote:

Some scientific studies have shown that there are more nutrients in organically produced food.

But they don't say which studies.

They further state:

Quote:

The UK Food Standards Agency has stated there is no difference between non-organic and organic food.
However the Agency may have overlooked a study which reviewed 150 research projects comparing organic and non-organic food.3 This study confirmed that, despite varied research methods, there is a trend towards fewer undesirable components or contaminants, and higher desirable components (such as vitamins) in organic food compared with non-organic food.

Dogdoctor · 17th May 2006, 04:00 PM

I did not see if they were comparing the fruit by dry matter basis or as is. If you remove the water what is the difference? In addition they did not show what is the cost per "X amount" of nutrient for fruit grown various ways. Those would be more meaningful data.

jimlintott · 17th May 2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

C'mon, no matter how it's grown, an onion is an onion, right?

I'm not so sure.

Have you had any of those genetically engineered monstrosities they call Strawberries, lately. You know, they are the size of bowling balls and taste like parsnips.

Number Six · 17th May 2006, 04:27 PM

I don't know whether it's true or not. I'm skeptical of it but you never know.

But it seems like this shouldn't be too hard to test. You get two different groups of fruit and you test them. (I'm assuming there are relatively simple lab tests to determine the amount of various constituents.) I'm going to try to think of problems with this approach just out for fun.

First of all, someone may say "That kind of fodd isn't really organic." In other words, you have to pick your standard for "organic." I know that now the Feds have an official definition so that would be one easy one to use.

Another problem might be that even if it's certified "organic," someone might claim it wasn't really that becaue pesticides from the non-organic field next door drifted over or whatever. I'm not sure this holds up though. I mean, if "real" organic food can't even be grown without great difficulty then it seems that whether it is healthier is a moot point.

Another problme might be, where do you get the food? Could you just go to the supermarket and get it? If you did this and used the Fed definition then the whole thing seems so easy. You go to the local supermarket, buy some organic food and similar non-organic food and take them to a lab and test them. What am I missing? Because that seems soooo simple that people would be doing it left and right and we'd know the answer now for sure.

Those are the only problems I can think of although I'm guessing there are other biases that would have to be guarded against.

Ririon · 17th May 2006, 04:38 PM

I used some nutrition tables at a previous job. It was claimed that the vitamin content was adjusted from time to time. Apparently all kinds of fruit and vegetables have a lower vitamin content than they used to 10 or 20 years ago. If that is true, that would probably support this claim.

sciguy · 17th May 2006, 04:55 PM

Dogdoctor, in the pdf file linked in the "references" at the end of the article, it did appear they were comparing by dry weight. And the cost thing was something I hadn't thought about. Maybe people would be better off (from a pure price perspective) buying cheaper produce plus a bottle of multivitamins.

Number Six, I've been thinking through things like that too. Testing methods might vary depending on what the root cause is thought to be.

1) If it's solely the chemical vs. organic field processing (fertilizers, chemical ripening agents, maybe herbicides, etc), then you should be able to take the same seed line, grow them with the two different methodologies, and compare the resulting food. How long does it take from sowing to harvest? What differences are there in the yield per acre? What differences (if any) are there in the nutritional content of the results?

2) It might be a difference in the stock used to seed the fields. Commercial growers may be using hybrids / seed lines that were chosen solely to maximize yield per acre, while the organic growers use less "bred" strains, which (coincidentally or deliberately) provide more vitamins. So any benefit from organic produce is just due to which sub-strain of broccoli they grow.

Just to be clear, I certainly don't have anything against organically grown vegetables. It's just that anything "organic" seems to attract some of the more fringe claims (IME, most with little or no evidence), and I was wondering if the nutrition factor was one of them.

Dogdoctor · 17th May 2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by sciguy

Dogdoctor, in the pdf file linked in the "references" at the end of the article, it did appear they were comparing by dry weight. And the cost thing was something I hadn't thought about. Maybe people would be better off (from a pure price perspective) buying cheaper produce plus a bottle of multivitamins.

The point I was getting at is if you spend $X for a given amount of vitamins raised the usual way and spend $X+y for the same amount of vitamins grown organically then why bother? You can just eat a little more fruit.

Anders W. Bonde · 17th May 2006, 05:49 PM

'tsfunny - around these parts, "organic" produce is usually smaller, wrinkeled and full of spots and what appears to be fungus attack. And always a lot more expensive. If I compare a tall, well-built human with a nice complexion with a small, pale, hunchbacked zit-faced ditto, I'd assume off-hand that the former had better living conditions - and I'd assume the same applies to analogous vegetables etc. And I'm sure that someone in the food chain eating humans would go for the yummy looking one, too.

She who must be obeyed is very much an "organic" produce fanatic - I've asked her numerous times for evidence that "organic" is more nutritious, but neither of us have found any. Having said that, it makes sense to me that pesticide residue probably ain't good for human consumption - but is it worse than fungus and rot?

Me, I buy "organic" if I find it tastes better - otherwise I want to see scientific evidence that "organic" is superior, as it had better be due to the much higher cost.

[/rant]

Flange Desire · 17th May 2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by jimlintott

I'm not so sure.

Have you had any of those genetically engineered monstrosities they call Strawberries, lately. You know, they are the size of bowling balls and taste like parsnips.

Just by the way (you probably already know this) ....

All the food crops we grow have been genetically engineered.
It used to be called selective breeding,
and farmers have been doing it for millenia.

I do agree that some of the lager strawberries are fairly tasteless.

clarsct · 18th May 2006, 12:09 AM

Ok..

Explain what is meant by 'nutritionally dense'.

I'm afraid it just doesn't seem to make a damned bit of sense. More nutrients per pound? Well, that could be measured.

Let's see the studies. Give me numbers, not drivel.

jimtron · 18th May 2006, 12:33 AM

One potential problem here is the meaning of "organic". If I'm not mistaken, there's not a consensus on precisely what the term means.

Geckko · 18th May 2006, 04:58 AM

The "nutrients" are simply the chemical composition of the substance in question.

Unless they are comparing different strains or varieties i can't see how putting cow dung on something rather than a "non-organic" fertiliser will do that.

Also, as per earlier comment, if measurement are made by weight, a less hydrated substance will have higher "nutrient"/weight ratio.

Also, also, this appears to be a meta-analysis - famously unreliable. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but it needs to be treated with great care.

Also, also, also, regarding the comment someone made about measured vitamin content of certain produce falling over time. I could imagine that is possible because we are in fact growing different things - varieties that give high yields and grow faster. SO we aren't comparing like wit hlike.

Mojo · 18th May 2006, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by jimtron

One potential problem here is the meaning of "organic". If I'm not mistaken, there's not a consensus on precisely what the term means.

"Organic" generally just relates to the types of fertilisers and insecticides allowed to be used (in the case of meat, also the types of medicatiion allowed to be used on the animals). It's just another variation of the old "chemicals are bad, but anything natural doesn't contain them" fallacy.

Ironically, there was a health scare in the UK recently (within the last couple of years, I think) relating to one of the pesticides that is allowed in most organic farming regimes.

Mojo · 18th May 2006, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ririon

Apparently all kinds of fruit and vegetables have a lower vitamin content than they used to 10 or 20 years ago.

I've seen this claim made in respect of minerals (specifically iron in spinach) but not vitamins. I couldn't find any reliable source for the claim about minerals, or the claim behind it which was that intensive farming has leached minerals out of the soil.

Darat · 18th May 2006, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ririon

I used some nutrition tables at a previous job. It was claimed that the vitamin content was adjusted from time to time. Apparently all kinds of fruit and vegetables have a lower vitamin content than they used to 10 or 20 years ago. If that is true, that would probably support this claim.

I heard a radio show talking about this but they were talking about "micro-nutrients" such as say zinc being lower in more intensively farmed crops not so much a difference between organic and the other-organic produce.

Darat · 18th May 2006, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

"Organic" generally just relates to the types of fertilisers and insecticides allowed to be used (in the case of meat, also the types of medicatiion allowed to be used on the animals). It's just another variation of the old "chemicals are bad, but anything natural doesn't contain them" fallacy.

Ironically, there was a health scare in the UK recently (within the last couple of years, I think) relating to one of the pesticides that is allowed in most organic farming regimes.

Yep I mean organic farmers wouldn't want to use any nasty chemicals on their organic crops like say Pyrethrum^WP or Rotenone^WP would they?

Stitch · 18th May 2006, 06:16 AM

I recommend you read panic nation - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184...Fencoding=UTF8

It has a very good section on organic food. In short, organic and non-organic put the same chemicals on the produce, it's just that in the case of Organic it's in the form of dung etc that has to rot down to release the nutrients compared with them being delivered directly in non-organic. Oh and you don't have all the bacteria etc associated with dung when you go with non-organic.

Hardenbergh · 18th May 2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Root vegetables like carrots and potatoes are known to soak up pesticides from the soil. Organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides. Only eat organic root vegetables.

http://angeles.sierraclub.org/news/S...07/organic.asp

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/overview.htm
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/flaxoil.htm
Kevin Trudeau would be proud.

Mojo · 18th May 2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Root vegetables like carrots and potatoes are known to soak up pesticides from the soil. Organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides. Only eat organic root vegetables.

But don't buy them from organic farmers!

Ririon · 18th May 2006, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Geckko

...
Also, also, also, regarding the comment someone made about measured vitamin content of certain produce falling over time. I could imagine that is possible because we are in fact growing different things - varieties that give high yields and grow faster. SO we aren't comparing like wit hlike.

That is most likely the most important explanation. But say an organic farmer chooses a low-yield variety on purpose. If he for instance wants to grow a variety of vegetable that has traditionally only been grown in the same little French mountain valley (insert your favourite idyllic farm setting). Then what?

What I am trying to say is, organic products can potentially have a higher nutrient value than a high yield product produced on an industrial scale. But there are no guarantees. I'm sure you could also find cases where a product that has been kept healthy using pesticides and has been given the scientifically perfect amount of fertilizer is better in most respects than the organic competition.

Mojo · 18th May 2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Ririon

That is most likely the most important explanation. But say an organic farmer chooses a low-yield variety on purpose. If he for instance wants to grow a variety of vegetable that has traditionally only been grown in the same little French mountain valley (insert your favourite idyllic farm setting). Then what?

If this is the reason for the organic farmer's vegetables being higher in nutrients, then his vegetables are higher in nutrients because they are low-yield varieties, not because they're organically grown.

Jorghnassen · 18th May 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Stitch

It has a very good section on organic food. In short, organic and non-organic put the same chemicals on the produce, it's just that in the case of Organic it's in the form of dung etc that has to rot down to release the nutrients compared with them being delivered directly in non-organic. Oh and you don't have all the bacteria etc associated with dung when you go with non-organic.

I do believe regular farming also uses composted manure as a fertilizer. In fact, industrial farming is not limited to the use of synthetic chemicals for fertilizers and pesticides (that is, they use plenty of "natural" stuff, it's just not "certified organic", Bt being a classic example...). What else are you going to do with all the crap cows, pigs and sheep produce anyway?

That is just to warn about all those false dichotomies between "organic" and "not organic" farming. There's quite a lot of overlap any way you look at it, and plenty of room for criticism (and some for praises) on both sides.

EDIT: Just wanted to add: has anybody read this book? Now I know the author of that book recommends buying organic but he does state that what's more important is buying from local (and small) producers, whether organic or not. I just want opinions as I've only read an interview with the guy and not the book itself.

Ririon · 18th May 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

If this is the reason for the organic farmer's vegetables being higher in nutrients, then his vegetables are higher in nutrients because they are low-yield varieties, not because they're organically grown.

Yes. You could stretch the argument a little and say that a ye olde organic approach to things could give you more nutritious vegetables. This is all hypothetical, of course. But if I was to become an organic farmer, I would try to do something like this. (Which would be cool. River Cottage, anyone?) If you just stop using pesticides and start selling bad fruit and vegetables... "That don't impress me much."

Dogdoctor · 18th May 2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Root vegetables like carrots and potatoes are known to soak up pesticides from the soil. Organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides. Only eat organic root vegetables.

What? Since when? Any science behind this or is this just more woo woo?

Hardenbergh · 18th May 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

What? Since when? Any science behind this or is this just more woo woo?

The first time I heard it was from a health food store owner. This might just be sales talk and it's also the reason why I started drinking organic carrot juice.

Dogdoctor · 18th May 2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Hardenbergh

The first time I heard it was from a health food store owner. This might just be sales talk and it's also the reason why I started drinking organic carrot juice.

Ahh well we can trust health food store owners because they are experts in .......umm experts in...........umm making a profit selling health food?

luchog · 18th May 2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Anders W. Bonde

'tsfunny - around these parts, "organic" produce is usually smaller, wrinkeled and full of spots and what appears to be fungus attack. And always a lot more expensive.

Spots and blemishes are not always indicative of rot or fungus. The vast majority of the time, that's just cosmetic and inconsequential. But Americans have been conditioned by decades of fruit and vegetables developed and grown for regularity, ease of handling, and cosmetic perfection; rather than nutrition or flavour.

I tend to buy organic, and grow my own when I have the capacity to do so, simply because it tastes better than the bland factory-farmed stuff.

joe87 · 18th May 2006, 07:01 PM

Most apple blemishes on oganic apples are caused by apple scab, which is a fungus. It is difficult to control without spraying fungicides. I have a few apple trees and if they aren't sprayed several times a year, there is a very poor crop.

Mojo · 19th May 2006, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Hardenbergh

This might just be sales talk and it's also the reason why I started drinking organic carrot juice.

You started drinking organic carrot juice because root vegetables soak up pesticides and organic farmers use them to clean the soil of pesticides?

Anders W. Bonde · 19th May 2006, 03:28 AM

If apple scab is harmless for humans, then why bother with fungicides/pesticides?

Still, in the overall picture, I'd prefer local "non-organic" produced in accordance with current applicable legislation and regulations to maybe-not-so-controlled imported "organic" flown in on a thirsty, smoking old B707 cargo conversion, or driven up through Europe in huge trucks on congested motorways.

And if the "organic" tastes better I'll buy it - not just because it's "organic". "Organic" is not in and of itself a seal ofsuperior quality.

jon · 19th May 2006, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Ahh well we can trust health food store owners because they are experts in .......umm experts in...........umm making a profit selling health food?

A juicer I bought came with a manual telling me that juicing conventionally farmed fruit was a good way to avoid pesticide residues...written by an expert in selling juicers, no doubt

Jorghnassen · 19th May 2006, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by Anders W. Bonde

And if the "organic" tastes better I'll buy it - not just because it's "organic". "Organic" is not in and of itself a seal ofsuperior quality.

Amen to that. If it's tasty, non toxic and reasonably priced, I say buy it. Scaremongers on either side be damned.

meg · 19th May 2006, 10:10 AM

I am an organic grower. We've managed our small farm organically for the last 5 years. We raise goats, a few pigs, chickens, garden vegetables and some fruit for sale at farmer's market. Actually, we're even beyond organic. We have a philosophy here of "if you can't eat it, you can't spray it." So I don't even use organically approved stuff like pyrethrum. Here's my take on the whole thing.

I think there's a huge amount of woo in the organic movement, however, I don't think it's all woo. I think most of the woo comes from organic consumer devotees rather than actual growers. I think they tend to read a piece of information or a study, then make illogical leaps based on the information. Then these mythical assumptions get passed around like gossip and are believed to be true. This "organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides" smacks of this "myth phenomenon" to me. I know of no organic farmers that do that. They grow carrots because they are in an agricultural area that can grow good carrots, they have good deep topsoil, and because they have a market for them. Period. Good quality carrots are actually somewhat difficult to grow, so no one would do it for a non-profitable reason.

It is true that root crops tend to have more soil persistent pesticide residues in them than above ground crops. DDT and chlordane, both of which have been banned for decades are still being found in trace amounts on root vegetables, even organic ones.

http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...6a17245d830100

There are many good sound practices espoused by organic growers that are being carried over into "traditional" farming recommendations. As well as being a farmer, I am an active Master Gardener, so I spend a good deal of my time at the county extension office dispensing advice and information to local residents. If you look through most of the recommendation publications coming out of extension offices now vs 5 years ago, you will see a definite trend of advising less chemical control of various problems and more cultural control. The basic science behind organic methods is indeed there, in many cases.

Here's my opinion about the whole "nutritionally dense" thing. Freshly picked vegetables have more nutrients in them than less fresh vegetables. Sugars start breaking down into starches, and vitamins, particularly vitamin C, are lost the longer the produce stays on shelf. It's not a whole lot, though. This link says it's around 10%, normally. http://www.mydna.com/wellness/nutrit...egetables.html

So, I think it would be relatively easy to "prove" that organic veggies were more "nutritionally dense" than typical supermarket veggies, if the researchers purchased the organic produce directly from the farm, or from say at a farmer's market, and got their conventionally grown produce from the average supermarket. What they would actually be proving, though, is that fresher produce has more vitamins in it than older produce.

Even choosing between organic and conventional foods from the same supermarket, the organic veggies are probably fresher. Conventional produce can be sprayed with antibacterial agents and stronger cleaners than organic processors are permitted to use, so conventional produce, in general lasts longer on the shelves than organic does. So, in general, the organic produce at the store has more frequent deliveries and a shorter farm to market time than the conventional.

If the research were between freshly picked produce of both types of farming methods, of the exact same variety of vegetable, in similar growing conditions, my personal bet is that there would be very little, if any, measureable nutritional difference between the two.

Just my two cents
Meg

Dogdoctor · 19th May 2006, 11:03 AM

One issue that is woo woo is the idea that root crops absorb chemicals. It is likely the chemical are entirely in the skin of the root crops and can be removed by vigorous washing or peeling.

meg · 19th May 2006, 11:47 AM

Dogdoctor wrote:

Quote:

One issue that is woo woo is the idea that root crops absorb chemicals. It is likely the chemical are entirely in the skin of the root crops and can be removed by vigorous washing or peeling.

It is woowoo to say that root crops absorb chemicals. That infers some special thing that root crops do that other crops don't do.

It is not woowoo, however, to say that the roots of plants absorb more soil persistent pesticide residues than other parts of the plants, because of their constant contact with the soil. So if you wish to eat the root of a plant, there is (potentially) a higher amount of soil persistent pesticide residue on that edible root than there would be on the leafy tops.

While washing and peeling a carrot will remove much of the residue, it will not remove it entirely.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051126/food.asp

Meg

Hardenbergh · 19th May 2006, 01:48 PM

I buy organic eggs from local farms. I've come across a website that sells pullet eggs among others (Petaluma Farms). I haven't tried pullet eggs because they're not readily available but I do prefer smaller (medium and large rather than extra large and jumbo). The yolks seem more yellow and I think they taste better.

Quote:

Pullet Eggs are Best
During the first 13 weeks of its egg-laying life and until it reaches 31 weeks of age, pullet hens produce their best quality eggs. After that, quality begins to drop off. Because the hens are still quite small, their eggs are generally small, but can be graded into pee wee, small, medium and large sizes. According to Moses, these are the only eggs to buy. He promotes the benefits of pullet eggs to anyone who stops by his stand at the market long enough to listen:

"Soufflés will rise higher!"

"Ice cream will be more luscious!"

"Omelets will have a lighter texture!"

He also readily points out that many chefs around the Bay Area see a noticeable difference in recipe performance when they use pullet eggs. He's so passionate about promoting pullet eggs that he teaches an egg appreciation class to budding chefs at the California Culinary Academy.

Consumers have been conditioned to think that "bigger is better" so they go for the large and extra large sizes in the supermarkets. These eggs are likely to be from older, adult hens and will be lower in quality than the smaller eggs from the adolescent pullet hens.

http://www.saturdaymarket.com/eggs1.htm

meg · 19th May 2006, 02:21 PM

This pullet egg marketing sounds to me like a guy who figured out a way to get people to buy the slightly strange eggs that are typical to a young layer.

I've never noticed any difference flavorwise or cookingwise between our pullet eggs and a more mature hen's eggs, other than the new layers sometimes have kind of weird eggs for the first few weeks of laying. Small, differently colored, oddly shaped, two-yolkers, thicker shells and the like.

Hardenbergh · 19th May 2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by meg

This pullet egg marketing sounds to me like a guy who figured out a way to get people to buy the slightly strange eggs that are typical to a young layer.

I've never noticed any difference flavorwise or cookingwise between our pullet eggs and a more mature hen's eggs, other than the new layers sometimes have kind of weird eggs for the first few weeks of laying. Small, differently colored, oddly shaped, two-yolkers, thicker shells and the like.

They have a chicken of the month.

http://www.methownet.com/chickenomonth.html
http://www.methownet.com/chickengallery.html

jon · 19th May 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by meg

This pullet egg marketing sounds to me like a guy who figured out a way to get people to buy the slightly strange eggs that are typical to a young layer.

I've never noticed any difference flavorwise or cookingwise between our pullet eggs and a more mature hen's eggs, other than the new layers sometimes have kind of weird eggs for the first few weeks of laying. Small, differently colored, oddly shaped, two-yolkers, thicker shells and the like.

It's clever marketing, though, selling them as a premium product

Butcher I use just sells them for a bit less than the bigger 'normal' small eggs...again never noticed much difference aside from the fact they're smaller.

I'd think that yolk colour depends more on diet, and to an extent hen breed, than whether the eggs or hens are big or small... If you want really rich, orange yolks and rich omellettes, though, nice fatty duck eggs are definitely the way to go

17th May 2006, 03:37 PM	#1
sciguy New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 13	Organic produce more nutritionally "dense"? Ok, I was driving into work this morning, and heard an ad for a grocery store extolling their virtues for carrying organic (and locally grown) produce. Then there was the bit that wiggled my balony detector (above and beyond the usual ad-speak). This is paraphrased from memory, so I may be off: "Organically grown produce is 20% denser in nutrients than mass-farmed produced." C'mon, no matter how it's grown, an onion is an onion, right? Well, maybe not (remove space between "www" and ".sfgate" since even unchecking "automatically parse links" won't get me past the 15 post restriction on URLs): www .sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/HOG3BHSDPG1.DTL Basically, the hypothesis seems to be that commercially farmed produce may be getting "pushed" (from chemical fertilizers and use of high-yield hybrids) so fast that they produce fewer nutrients than plants grown more "naturally". Unfortuantely, that was the only "woo-free" site I was able to come across with google. That article referenced studies done by organic-center.com, so it's possible that there's some bias. Is this concept familiar to anyone else?

17th May 2006, 03:54 PM	#2
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,450	The closest the Soil Association will get to a statement is: Quote: Some scientific studies have shown that there are more nutrients in organically produced food. But they don't say which studies. They further state: Quote: The UK Food Standards Agency has stated there is no difference between non-organic and organic food. However the Agency may have overlooked a study which reviewed 150 research projects comparing organic and non-organic food.3 This study confirmed that, despite varied research methods, there is a trend towards fewer undesirable components or contaminants, and higher desirable components (such as vitamins) in organic food compared with non-organic food.
	__________________ TAM London Oct 3rd and 4th 2009 www.tamlondon.org www.spoonscience.com The World Record Spoon Bend from TAM6 - for all benders, pushers and dealers

17th May 2006, 04:00 PM	#3
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 12,083	I did not see if they were comparing the fruit by dry matter basis or as is. If you remove the water what is the difference? In addition they did not show what is the cost per "X amount" of nutrient for fruit grown various ways. Those would be more meaningful data.
	__________________

17th May 2006, 04:07 PM	#4
jimlintott Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 2,894	Quote: C'mon, no matter how it's grown, an onion is an onion, right? I'm not so sure. Have you had any of those genetically engineered monstrosities they call Strawberries, lately. You know, they are the size of bowling balls and taste like parsnips.
	__________________ If you are going to throw caution to the wind, make sure you are standing upwind.

17th May 2006, 04:27 PM	#5
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 3,238	I don't know whether it's true or not. I'm skeptical of it but you never know. But it seems like this shouldn't be too hard to test. You get two different groups of fruit and you test them. (I'm assuming there are relatively simple lab tests to determine the amount of various constituents.) I'm going to try to think of problems with this approach just out for fun. First of all, someone may say "That kind of fodd isn't really organic." In other words, you have to pick your standard for "organic." I know that now the Feds have an official definition so that would be one easy one to use. Another problem might be that even if it's certified "organic," someone might claim it wasn't really that becaue pesticides from the non-organic field next door drifted over or whatever. I'm not sure this holds up though. I mean, if "real" organic food can't even be grown without great difficulty then it seems that whether it is healthier is a moot point. Another problme might be, where do you get the food? Could you just go to the supermarket and get it? If you did this and used the Fed definition then the whole thing seems so easy. You go to the local supermarket, buy some organic food and similar non-organic food and take them to a lab and test them. What am I missing? Because that seems soooo simple that people would be doing it left and right and we'd know the answer now for sure. Those are the only problems I can think of although I'm guessing there are other biases that would have to be guarded against.
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 3,238

17th May 2006, 04:38 PM	#6
Ririon Cool cat Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Trondheim, Norway Posts: 1,268	I used some nutrition tables at a previous job. It was claimed that the vitamin content was adjusted from time to time. Apparently all kinds of fruit and vegetables have a lower vitamin content than they used to 10 or 20 years ago. If that is true, that would probably support this claim.
	__________________ Engineer by day, scientist by night.

17th May 2006, 04:55 PM	#7
sciguy New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 13	Dogdoctor, in the pdf file linked in the "references" at the end of the article, it did appear they were comparing by dry weight. And the cost thing was something I hadn't thought about. Maybe people would be better off (from a pure price perspective) buying cheaper produce plus a bottle of multivitamins. Number Six, I've been thinking through things like that too. Testing methods might vary depending on what the root cause is thought to be. 1) If it's solely the chemical vs. organic field processing (fertilizers, chemical ripening agents, maybe herbicides, etc), then you should be able to take the same seed line, grow them with the two different methodologies, and compare the resulting food. How long does it take from sowing to harvest? What differences are there in the yield per acre? What differences (if any) are there in the nutritional content of the results? 2) It might be a difference in the stock used to seed the fields. Commercial growers may be using hybrids / seed lines that were chosen solely to maximize yield per acre, while the organic growers use less "bred" strains, which (coincidentally or deliberately) provide more vitamins. So any benefit from organic produce is just due to which sub-strain of broccoli they grow. Just to be clear, I certainly don't have anything against organically grown vegetables. It's just that anything "organic" seems to attract some of the more fringe claims (IME, most with little or no evidence), and I was wondering if the nutrition factor was one of them.

17th May 2006, 05:30 PM	#8
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 12,083	Originally Posted by sciguy Dogdoctor, in the pdf file linked in the "references" at the end of the article, it did appear they were comparing by dry weight. And the cost thing was something I hadn't thought about. Maybe people would be better off (from a pure price perspective) buying cheaper produce plus a bottle of multivitamins. The point I was getting at is if you spend $X for a given amount of vitamins raised the usual way and spend $X+y for the same amount of vitamins grown organically then why bother? You can just eat a little more fruit.
	__________________

17th May 2006, 05:49 PM	#9
Anders W. Bonde Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: East Jutland, Denmark Posts: 467	'tsfunny - around these parts, "organic" produce is usually smaller, wrinkeled and full of spots and what appears to be fungus attack. And always a lot more expensive. If I compare a tall, well-built human with a nice complexion with a small, pale, hunchbacked zit-faced ditto, I'd assume off-hand that the former had better living conditions - and I'd assume the same applies to analogous vegetables etc. And I'm sure that someone in the food chain eating humans would go for the yummy looking one, too. She who must be obeyed is very much an "organic" produce fanatic - I've asked her numerous times for evidence that "organic" is more nutritious, but neither of us have found any. Having said that, it makes sense to me that pesticide residue probably ain't good for human consumption - but is it worse than fungus and rot? Me, I buy "organic" if I find it tastes better - otherwise I want to see scientific evidence that "organic" is superior, as it had better be due to the much higher cost. [/rant]
	__________________ Anders W. Bonde

17th May 2006, 11:54 PM	#10
Flange Desire Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 572	Originally Posted by jimlintott I'm not so sure. Have you had any of those genetically engineered monstrosities they call Strawberries, lately. You know, they are the size of bowling balls and taste like parsnips. Just by the way (you probably already know this) .... All the food crops we grow have been genetically engineered. It used to be called selective breeding, and farmers have been doing it for millenia. I do agree that some of the lager strawberries are fairly tasteless.

18th May 2006, 12:09 AM	#11
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	Ok.. Explain what is meant by 'nutritionally dense'. I'm afraid it just doesn't seem to make a damned bit of sense. More nutrients per pound? Well, that could be measured. Let's see the studies. Give me numbers, not drivel.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

18th May 2006, 12:33 AM	#12
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,265	One potential problem here is the meaning of "organic". If I'm not mistaken, there's not a consensus on precisely what the term means.
	__________________

18th May 2006, 04:58 AM	#13
Geckko Muse Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 618	The "nutrients" are simply the chemical composition of the substance in question. Unless they are comparing different strains or varieties i can't see how putting cow dung on something rather than a "non-organic" fertiliser will do that. Also, as per earlier comment, if measurement are made by weight, a less hydrated substance will have higher "nutrient"/weight ratio. Also, also, this appears to be a meta-analysis - famously unreliable. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but it needs to be treated with great care. Also, also, also, regarding the comment someone made about measured vitamin content of certain produce falling over time. I could imagine that is possible because we are in fact growing different things - varieties that give high yields and grow faster. SO we aren't comparing like wit hlike.
Geckko Muse Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 618

18th May 2006, 05:10 AM	#14
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by jimtron One potential problem here is the meaning of "organic". If I'm not mistaken, there's not a consensus on precisely what the term means. "Organic" generally just relates to the types of fertilisers and insecticides allowed to be used (in the case of meat, also the types of medicatiion allowed to be used on the animals). It's just another variation of the old "chemicals are bad, but anything natural doesn't contain them" fallacy. Ironically, there was a health scare in the UK recently (within the last couple of years, I think) relating to one of the pesticides that is allowed in most organic farming regimes.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

18th May 2006, 05:14 AM	#15
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Ririon Apparently all kinds of fruit and vegetables have a lower vitamin content than they used to 10 or 20 years ago. I've seen this claim made in respect of minerals (specifically iron in spinach) but not vitamins. I couldn't find any reliable source for the claim about minerals, or the claim behind it which was that intensive farming has leached minerals out of the soil.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

18th May 2006, 05:15 AM	#16
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,894	Originally Posted by Ririon I used some nutrition tables at a previous job. It was claimed that the vitamin content was adjusted from time to time. Apparently all kinds of fruit and vegetables have a lower vitamin content than they used to 10 or 20 years ago. If that is true, that would probably support this claim. I heard a radio show talking about this but they were talking about "micro-nutrients" such as say zinc being lower in more intensively farmed crops not so much a difference between organic and the other-organic produce.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

18th May 2006, 05:22 AM	#17
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,894	Originally Posted by Mojo "Organic" generally just relates to the types of fertilisers and insecticides allowed to be used (in the case of meat, also the types of medicatiion allowed to be used on the animals). It's just another variation of the old "chemicals are bad, but anything natural doesn't contain them" fallacy. Ironically, there was a health scare in the UK recently (within the last couple of years, I think) relating to one of the pesticides that is allowed in most organic farming regimes. Yep I mean organic farmers wouldn't want to use any nasty chemicals on their organic crops like say Pyrethrum^WP or Rotenone^WP would they?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

18th May 2006, 06:16 AM	#18
Stitch Muse Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: On the fence Posts: 672	I recommend you read panic nation - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184...Fencoding=UTF8 It has a very good section on organic food. In short, organic and non-organic put the same chemicals on the produce, it's just that in the case of Organic it's in the form of dung etc that has to rot down to release the nutrients compared with them being delivered directly in non-organic. Oh and you don't have all the bacteria etc associated with dung when you go with non-organic.

18th May 2006, 06:33 AM	#19
Hardenbergh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,076	Quote: Root vegetables like carrots and potatoes are known to soak up pesticides from the soil. Organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides. Only eat organic root vegetables. http://angeles.sierraclub.org/news/S...07/organic.asp http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/overview.htm http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/flaxoil.htm Kevin Trudeau would be proud.
	Last edited by Hardenbergh; 18th May 2006 at 06:57 AM.

18th May 2006, 07:18 AM	#20
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Quote: Root vegetables like carrots and potatoes are known to soak up pesticides from the soil. Organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides. Only eat organic root vegetables. But don't buy them from organic farmers!
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

18th May 2006, 07:34 AM	#21
Ririon Cool cat Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Trondheim, Norway Posts: 1,268	Originally Posted by Geckko ... Also, also, also, regarding the comment someone made about measured vitamin content of certain produce falling over time. I could imagine that is possible because we are in fact growing different things - varieties that give high yields and grow faster. SO we aren't comparing like wit hlike. That is most likely the most important explanation. But say an organic farmer chooses a low-yield variety on purpose. If he for instance wants to grow a variety of vegetable that has traditionally only been grown in the same little French mountain valley (insert your favourite idyllic farm setting). Then what? What I am trying to say is, organic products can potentially have a higher nutrient value than a high yield product produced on an industrial scale. But there are no guarantees. I'm sure you could also find cases where a product that has been kept healthy using pesticides and has been given the scientifically perfect amount of fertilizer is better in most respects than the organic competition.
	__________________ Engineer by day, scientist by night.

18th May 2006, 08:51 AM	#22
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Ririon That is most likely the most important explanation. But say an organic farmer chooses a low-yield variety on purpose. If he for instance wants to grow a variety of vegetable that has traditionally only been grown in the same little French mountain valley (insert your favourite idyllic farm setting). Then what? If this is the reason for the organic farmer's vegetables being higher in nutrients, then his vegetables are higher in nutrients because they are low-yield varieties, not because they're organically grown.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

18th May 2006, 09:38 AM	#23
Jorghnassen Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 2,779	Originally Posted by Stitch It has a very good section on organic food. In short, organic and non-organic put the same chemicals on the produce, it's just that in the case of Organic it's in the form of dung etc that has to rot down to release the nutrients compared with them being delivered directly in non-organic. Oh and you don't have all the bacteria etc associated with dung when you go with non-organic. I do believe regular farming also uses composted manure as a fertilizer. In fact, industrial farming is not limited to the use of synthetic chemicals for fertilizers and pesticides (that is, they use plenty of "natural" stuff, it's just not "certified organic", Bt being a classic example...). What else are you going to do with all the crap cows, pigs and sheep produce anyway? That is just to warn about all those false dichotomies between "organic" and "not organic" farming. There's quite a lot of overlap any way you look at it, and plenty of room for criticism (and some for praises) on both sides. EDIT: Just wanted to add: has anybody read this book? Now I know the author of that book recommends buying organic but he does state that what's more important is buying from local (and small) producers, whether organic or not. I just want opinions as I've only read an interview with the guy and not the book itself.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert Last edited by Jorghnassen; 18th May 2006 at 09:43 AM.

18th May 2006, 11:12 AM	#24
Ririon Cool cat Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Trondheim, Norway Posts: 1,268	Originally Posted by Mojo If this is the reason for the organic farmer's vegetables being higher in nutrients, then his vegetables are higher in nutrients because they are low-yield varieties, not because they're organically grown. Yes. You could stretch the argument a little and say that a ye olde organic approach to things could give you more nutritious vegetables. This is all hypothetical, of course. But if I was to become an organic farmer, I would try to do something like this. (Which would be cool. River Cottage, anyone?) If you just stop using pesticides and start selling bad fruit and vegetables... "That don't impress me much."
	__________________ Engineer by day, scientist by night.

18th May 2006, 11:23 AM	#25
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 12,083	Quote: Root vegetables like carrots and potatoes are known to soak up pesticides from the soil. Organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides. Only eat organic root vegetables. What? Since when? Any science behind this or is this just more woo woo?
	__________________

18th May 2006, 12:31 PM	#26
Hardenbergh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,076	Originally Posted by Dogdoctor What? Since when? Any science behind this or is this just more woo woo? The first time I heard it was from a health food store owner. This might just be sales talk and it's also the reason why I started drinking organic carrot juice.

18th May 2006, 01:34 PM	#27
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 12,083	Originally Posted by Hardenbergh The first time I heard it was from a health food store owner. This might just be sales talk and it's also the reason why I started drinking organic carrot juice. Ahh well we can trust health food store owners because they are experts in .......umm experts in...........umm making a profit selling health food?
	__________________

18th May 2006, 05:14 PM	#28
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 5,706	Originally Posted by Anders W. Bonde 'tsfunny - around these parts, "organic" produce is usually smaller, wrinkeled and full of spots and what appears to be fungus attack. And always a lot more expensive. Spots and blemishes are not always indicative of rot or fungus. The vast majority of the time, that's just cosmetic and inconsequential. But Americans have been conditioned by decades of fruit and vegetables developed and grown for regularity, ease of handling, and cosmetic perfection; rather than nutrition or flavour. I tend to buy organic, and grow my own when I have the capacity to do so, simply because it tastes better than the bland factory-farmed stuff.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf

18th May 2006, 07:01 PM	#29
joe87 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 89	Most apple blemishes on oganic apples are caused by apple scab, which is a fungus. It is difficult to control without spraying fungicides. I have a few apple trees and if they aren't sprayed several times a year, there is a very poor crop.
joe87 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 89

19th May 2006, 01:38 AM	#30
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Hardenbergh This might just be sales talk and it's also the reason why I started drinking organic carrot juice. You started drinking organic carrot juice because root vegetables soak up pesticides and organic farmers use them to clean the soil of pesticides?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

19th May 2006, 03:28 AM	#31
Anders W. Bonde Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: East Jutland, Denmark Posts: 467	If apple scab is harmless for humans, then why bother with fungicides/pesticides? Still, in the overall picture, I'd prefer local "non-organic" produced in accordance with current applicable legislation and regulations to maybe-not-so-controlled imported "organic" flown in on a thirsty, smoking old B707 cargo conversion, or driven up through Europe in huge trucks on congested motorways. And if the "organic" tastes better I'll buy it - not just because it's "organic". "Organic" is not in and of itself a seal ofsuperior quality.
	__________________ Anders W. Bonde

19th May 2006, 04:45 AM	#32
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 915	Originally Posted by Dogdoctor Ahh well we can trust health food store owners because they are experts in .......umm experts in...........umm making a profit selling health food? A juicer I bought came with a manual telling me that juicing conventionally farmed fruit was a good way to avoid pesticide residues...written by an expert in selling juicers, no doubt
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 915

19th May 2006, 05:22 AM	#33
Jorghnassen Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 2,779	Originally Posted by Anders W. Bonde And if the "organic" tastes better I'll buy it - not just because it's "organic". "Organic" is not in and of itself a seal ofsuperior quality. Amen to that. If it's tasty, non toxic and reasonably priced, I say buy it. Scaremongers on either side be damned.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert

19th May 2006, 10:10 AM	#34
meg psychic reader Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kansas USA Posts: 892	I am an organic grower. We've managed our small farm organically for the last 5 years. We raise goats, a few pigs, chickens, garden vegetables and some fruit for sale at farmer's market. Actually, we're even beyond organic. We have a philosophy here of "if you can't eat it, you can't spray it." So I don't even use organically approved stuff like pyrethrum. Here's my take on the whole thing. I think there's a huge amount of woo in the organic movement, however, I don't think it's all woo. I think most of the woo comes from organic consumer devotees rather than actual growers. I think they tend to read a piece of information or a study, then make illogical leaps based on the information. Then these mythical assumptions get passed around like gossip and are believed to be true. This "organic farmers will plant root vegetables to clean the soil from pesticides" smacks of this "myth phenomenon" to me. I know of no organic farmers that do that. They grow carrots because they are in an agricultural area that can grow good carrots, they have good deep topsoil, and because they have a market for them. Period. Good quality carrots are actually somewhat difficult to grow, so no one would do it for a non-profitable reason. It is true that root crops tend to have more soil persistent pesticide residues in them than above ground crops. DDT and chlordane, both of which have been banned for decades are still being found in trace amounts on root vegetables, even organic ones. http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...6a17245d830100 There are many good sound practices espoused by organic growers that are being carried over into "traditional" farming recommendations. As well as being a farmer, I am an active Master Gardener, so I spend a good deal of my time at the county extension office dispensing advice and information to local residents. If you look through most of the recommendation publications coming out of extension offices now vs 5 years ago, you will see a definite trend of advising less chemical control of various problems and more cultural control. The basic science behind organic methods is indeed there, in many cases. Here's my opinion about the whole "nutritionally dense" thing. Freshly picked vegetables have more nutrients in them than less fresh vegetables. Sugars start breaking down into starches, and vitamins, particularly vitamin C, are lost the longer the produce stays on shelf. It's not a whole lot, though. This link says it's around 10%, normally. http://www.mydna.com/wellness/nutrit...egetables.html So, I think it would be relatively easy to "prove" that organic veggies were more "nutritionally dense" than typical supermarket veggies, if the researchers purchased the organic produce directly from the farm, or from say at a farmer's market, and got their conventionally grown produce from the average supermarket. What they would actually be proving, though, is that fresher produce has more vitamins in it than older produce. Even choosing between organic and conventional foods from the same supermarket, the organic veggies are probably fresher. Conventional produce can be sprayed with antibacterial agents and stronger cleaners than organic processors are permitted to use, so conventional produce, in general lasts longer on the shelves than organic does. So, in general, the organic produce at the store has more frequent deliveries and a shorter farm to market time than the conventional. If the research were between freshly picked produce of both types of farming methods, of the exact same variety of vegetable, in similar growing conditions, my personal bet is that there would be very little, if any, measureable nutritional difference between the two. Just my two cents Meg

19th May 2006, 11:03 AM	#35
Dogdoctor Canis Doctorius Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 12,083	One issue that is woo woo is the idea that root crops absorb chemicals. It is likely the chemical are entirely in the skin of the root crops and can be removed by vigorous washing or peeling.
	__________________