Item — HN Reader

I can't agree with him about organic food health benefits. When you eat industrially raised food (oil based fertilizer) you get a smaller spectrum of minerals, etc.

And, as my young grandson once said: "why would anyone want to eat food with bug spray on it?"

That said, it is a matter of free choice - my wife and I gladly pay slightly higher prices for locally grown organic food. If not organic, we then at least favor locally grown food.

1 comments

What you are saying is scientifically false. As in: there is no evidence this is true, and the opposite has in fact been demonstrated.

It may FEEL like you're getting more nutrients - but you aren't. You are getting fewer traces of pesticide, which is probably a good thing. But nutrients - no.

Neither of you have referenced supporting papers or research. Which one of you is correct?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-fo...

"The findings, partly published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, contradict previous work that has found organically grown food to be nutritionally superior."

It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you've made it out to be above, but I'm no expert.

Yes some evidence please. The most recent paper that supposedly 'debunked' the differences in nutrients actually did show some differences but the authors chose to describe them as negligible. The study certainly did not seem comprehensive enough to be definitive.

The authors said they were statistically insignificant - which means they have not been demonstrated as being present. Some studies showed organic had inferior quality. Vegetables have incredible amounts of variance.

One study such as this does not offer conclusive evidence. If you actually read all the way through the article you linked to you would see that there are numerous problems with the headline interpretations. One example

'The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.'

I suggest that if you are going to attempt to wield the sword of 'scientific proof' you should at least have some understanding of how it works. 'scientifically false' is a very strong statement. When used without proper evidence it does just as great an injury to science as a combined crystal healer / homoeopathy convention.

I would suggest you actually parse what it says - that was a review of multiple studies. There are studies that swing either way.

'There are studies that swing either way' <> 'scientifically false'

That is my whole point.

That is correct. He made an assertion of fact, and the assertion was scientifically false.