# Organic vs conventional foods



## MrRippedZilla (Oct 24, 2016)

Let's see if this generates some critical thinking since the answer is not as obvious as most would make it out to be...


*Defining what is & isn't organic*

The technical definition of organic is simply any carbon-based substance. That's it.  
The organic food industry has trivialized "organic" to refer to super nutritious, super safe, awesomeness. Of course they won't mention the part about "inefficiently produced without the benefit of modern technology" but I digress. It's a carbon-based substance and nothing else that screams marketing bullshit. 


*Digging into the data*

Most of the scientific literature has found no overall advantage attached to consuming organic rather than conventional foods. 

The very few who do favor organic tend to argue that its more environmentally friendly & sustainable for the long term (debatable). The problem we have with this literature is that it almost always involves pro-organic bias authors heavily involved with the Institute of Organic Agriculture, the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research, etc. This doesn't automatically mean we should ignore these papers, just something to take into consideration when looking at literature as a whole and understanding why these pro-organic reviews are the exception, rather than the rule. 

In contrast, the vast majority of the literature concludes that we simply don't have enough evidence to answer the question of whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional. In other words, we don't know. 
One of the main reasons for this lack of clarity is due to the differing impact that organic & conventional foods have depending on the food source itself. A few examples:

- We know that conventional green veggies contain less vit C and higher nitrate (more on this later).
- Organic green veggies & potatoes have a higher ascorbic acid profile. 
- Organic strawberries tend to have an overall more favorable nutritious profile.
- And yet, conventional spinach has a better antioxidant profile...
- With no difference in antioxidant content between conventional vs organic watercress or rocket. 
- Organically fed animals seem to be able to reproduce at a better rate but this doesn't transfer to humans (your kids won't become super awesome due to organic food).

So we can see that there is a difference between organic vs conventional food but these differences do not translate to a universal health advantage for either side. 

The other reason for this lack of clarity is due to insufficient clinical, controlled, human trials. Even within the small number of well controlled trials, it's difficult to come up with a general conclusion due to methodological differences such not taking into account the effect of different food sources (greens vs meats, etc) within the same organic/conventional group.
This leads me to believe that the differences in essential micro-nutrients is negligible and not worth factoring in when it comes to deciding what to buy. Being healthy is about consuming a varied, well balanced diet with the organic/conventional side of the equation being close to irrelevant. 


*Digging deeper: 2 beast reviews*

Magkos *(ref 4)* is one of the leading researchers in this field and he & his colleagues issued a beast of a review paper back in 2006 concluding that the claims of organic food being more nutritious & safer are, at best, weakly supported and, at worst, plain false. A few key points from the paper (I suspect no one will bother reading it all due to its length):

- Organic fruit & veg do contain less chemical residues BUT this seems insignificant when we consider that actual levels of contamination in both types of food are WAY below acceptable limits. 
- Leafy, root & tuber veggies have less nitrate but its still unclear whether this difference in nitrate levels (still in normal ranges) actually constitutes any sort of benefit to human health. For example, we have data suggesting a PROTECTIVE effect against pathogenic microorganisms so the risks of no nitrate must also be considered.
- No differences found in environmental contaminants (heavy metals, etc) between organic & conventional foods.
- For other food hazards like biological pesticides, endogenous plant toxins, etc, the evidence is limited with no conclusions being drawn.

The take home point is that the generalization of organic = safer is an incorrect one. 

Another beast review was issued by the Institute Food Technologists (IFT) *(ref 5)* and I highly recommend it for anyone wishing to read through the data themselves rather than relying on my interpretation of it all (its an easier, shorter, review to read through vs the Magkos paper). For the rest of you, here are some highlights:

- Organic fruit & veg contain less pesticide residues but also more naturally occurring toxins due to pest pressure insects, diseases and so on.
- Some, not all, studies suggest increased microbiological hazards from organic foods due to prohibition of antimicrobial use. 
- Many studies demonstrate qualitative differences between organic & conventional foods but neither system appears to be superior to the other when it comes to overall safety/nutrient composition. 
- Pesticide residues, natural toxins, etc exert their heath effects (good & bad) on a dose-dependent basis. Data doesn't exist to show the biological impact of different levels of theses chemicals between organic & conventional foods. 
- Organic animals, in some cases, have the potential to possess higher rates of bacterial contamination since organic production prohibits antibiotic use.

Again, we have mixed picture that doesn't really indicate an advantage to either side as far as nutrition & safety profiles are concerned.  


*Conclusion*

Hopefully everyone can see that organic & conventional foods both involve trade-offs with the net effect being...a draw(?).
The key point I want to emphasize is that organic food shouldn't be seen as a necessity or better from a safety/nutrient composition perspective.
If you enjoy the taste more and can afford it, then it's all good. If you can't, then it comes down to focusing on meeting your macro needs with a balanced, varied diet with the impact of organic vs conventional food sources on your bodycomp & health goals being minimal (if any at all) 


_References_

1) Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?

2) Fruit and soil quality of organic and conventional strawberry agroecosystems

3) Antioxidant assays - consistent findings from FRAP and ORAC reveal a negative impact of organic cultivation on antioxidant potential in spinach but not watercress or rocket leaves

4)  Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature


----------



## BRICKS (Oct 24, 2016)

About the only  time I even look at the organic section at the grocery store is if the regular bananas are too damn green.  Sometimes the organic ones are ready to eat.  Sometimes it's the other way around.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 24, 2016)

I'll be printing this out for my mother although she'll probably be claiming you own stick in a pesticide company or some such nonsense. Thank you for the great write up Ripped


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 24, 2016)

This makes me think of the re-emerging trend of people drinking unpasteurized milk because it's better for you... riiight.  So people have actually died from doing this you idiots. It's not better for you.  And no it doesn't build your immune system either.


The number of gripes I have with big ag in the US is damn near endless... but most aren't "organic" oriented.

It's stuff like feeding cows corn.  We created an incredibly dangerous pathogen in doing this - E. Coli. 0157/H7.  

The meat off of these cows tastes like shit as well compared to their grass fed counterparts.

Also gotta love poultry packaging "vegetarian fed" "no antibiotics" and such. Cool story bro.

And don't even get me started on subsidies...


----------



## stonetag (Oct 24, 2016)

PillarofBalance said:


> This makes me think of the re-emerging trend of people drinking unpasteurized milk because it's better for you... riiight.  So people have actually died from doing this you idiots. It's not better for you.  And no it doesn't build your immune system either.
> 
> 
> The number of gripes I have with big ag in the US is damn near endless... but most aren't "organic" oriented.
> ...


Most, as in a huge % of big Ag will never go organic as defined, waaaay too many "unnecessary" production costs involved to produce the yield required to make money, but yet keep them within the range to receive their subsidies check.
Grass fed beef is another sham. Cattle are only fed "grass" for a period of time before slaughter in most grocery meat counters, which will change the taste to a degree. A true grass fed bovine from 
calf to slaughter is considered a specialty market where the beef is usually acquired from a ranch that specializes in that, a lot more money, and a taste that will change how you think about beef, just saying..lol


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Oct 24, 2016)

PillarofBalance said:


> This makes me think of the re-emerging trend of people drinking unpasteurized milk because it's better for you... riiight.  So people have actually died from doing this you idiots. It's not better for you.  And no it doesn't build your immune system either.



One of the inspirations for my article was actually this very topic - pasteurized vs unpasteurized milk. Specifically, this link was brought to my attention: Organic milk industry reveals hypocrisy

Here in the UK it's illegal for most to sell unpasteurized milk due to "possible health concerns" (translated: heavy opposition & influence from the dairy industry to prevent its sale). I suspect, again, that its a neutral effect rather than one being less healthy/nutritious than the other - I personally prefer it purely for the taste more than anything else.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 25, 2016)

stonetag said:


> Most, as in a huge % of big Ag will never go organic as defined, waaaay too many "unnecessary" production costs involved to produce the yield required to make money, but yet keep them within the range to receive their subsidies check.
> Grass fed beef is another sham. Cattle are only fed "grass" for a period of time before slaughter in most grocery meat counters, which will change the taste to a degree. A true grass fed bovine from
> calf to slaughter is considered a specialty market where the beef is usually acquired from a ranch that specializes in that, a lot more money, and a taste that will change how you think about beef, just saying..lol




Yup I buy my shit local from a spot where if you drive down the road you can see em out there.




MrRippedZilla said:


> One of the inspirations for my article was actually this very topic - pasteurized vs unpasteurized milk. Specifically, this link was brought to my attention: Organic milk industry reveals hypocrisy
> 
> Here in the UK it's illegal for most to sell unpasteurized milk due to "possible health concerns" (translated: heavy opposition & influence from the dairy industry to prevent its sale). I suspect, again, that its a neutral effect rather than one being less healthy/nutritious than the other - I personally prefer it purely for the taste more than anything else.



I don't know much about the UK and your food supply. How it differs from the Us. Might make for some interesting reading for me.


----------



## Dex (Oct 25, 2016)

I buy organic produce but go through self checkout and ring up regular (by accident of course).


----------



## stonetag (Oct 25, 2016)

Dex said:


> I buy organic produce but go through self checkout and ring up regular (by accident of course).



LOL...Yeah I almost never do that!


----------



## ron1204 (Oct 25, 2016)

what do you think about farm raised fish vs. wild caught fish?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Oct 25, 2016)

ron1204 said:


> what do you think about farm raised fish vs. wild caught fish?



Good question 

Well, Rotenone is a potent neurotoxin used by organic farmers to kill fish and has been associated (key word since this doesn't mean causation) with Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, chrnoic exposure reproduces the exact same features for Parkinson's: 
Chronic systemic pesticide exposure reproduces features of Parkinson's disease
The we have other pesticides used by organic farmers - Pyrethrin that can result in breathing difficulties when inhaled, sodium hypochlorite, copper sulfate, boric acid, lime sulfur, elemental sulfur....you see what I mean by "organic" not referring to super "natural" food sources?

So yes, from my perspective I suspect it will be the same as most other food groups. You'll find some slight differences between the two but neither will have a real, overall, advantage over the other. Go for whatever is cheapest or tastes better to you.


EDIT: nice summary of the effects of organic pesticides, taken from the Magkos paper: https://imgur.com/a/o4lzn


----------



## Megatron28 (Oct 25, 2016)

ron1204 said:


> what do you think about farm raised fish vs. wild caught fish?



I think there is a huge taste difference.  Farm raised fish is way too bland.  I won't buy it for that reason.


----------



## Megatron28 (Oct 25, 2016)

Zilla: just curious if you looked at genetically modified foods.  Europe and America seem to have big viewpoint differences on this.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Oct 25, 2016)

Megatron28 said:


> Zilla: just curious if you looked at genetically modified foods.  Europe and America seem to have big viewpoint differences on this.



From a long term sustainability perspective, I see it as being an inevitability - especially in poorer countries where the alternatives plain suck.

From a health/nutrition perspective, I don't have any firm opinion because of the lack of data < caused by a lack of funding < caused by uncertainty of whether genetically modified foods will become mainstream (no one is funding something with so much regulatory uncertainty) < caused partially by a lot of bad press based on bullshit. 

It angers me that rich folks are causing so much uproar based on very little evidence on subjects where the impact is mostly designed to help poor folks...but I digress. This is a decent, eye-opening, read: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11318252/gmo-bananas-vitamin


----------



## John Ziegler (Oct 25, 2016)

Not sure exactly when the whole organic this and that gained so much popularity but at any rate I dismissed it as another jump on the bandwagon fad just like the whole everybody acting like they have Celiac disease nowadays going gluten free.


----------



## stonetag (Oct 25, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Good question
> 
> Well, Rotenone is a potent neurotoxin used by organic farmers to kill fish and has been associated (key word since this doesn't mean causation) with Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, chrnoic exposure reproduces the exact same features for Parkinson's:
> Chronic systemic pesticide exposure reproduces features of Parkinson's disease
> ...


To add a little to your post ripped which I liked, and the fact rotenone is used in wild applications also. Its use in hatcheries is discouraged in the US, but not illegal. Foreign countries still use it extensively. I have had a fair amount of experience with it and its pretty nasty stuff. It is hard to find a fish in this world, wild or farm that has no trace of a chemical substance.


----------



## stonetag (Oct 25, 2016)

ron1204 said:


> what do you think about farm raised fish vs. wild caught fish?



Wild fish are a hell of a lot funner to catch...lol


----------

