from Hacker News

Expert reaction to organic food nutrition study

by alexfarran on 7/12/14, 8:56 PM with 48 comments

• by kevingoslar on 7/13/14, 12:12 AM

  Unfortunately, all the responses are pretty negative and feel selective. The responding authors always criticize details, sometimes even around implied intent rather than factual content, while carefully omitting core parts of the original paper's findings.

  For example, nobody even cares to agree that organic food has significantly lower pesticide residues, which I think is a pretty agreeable positive effect of organic produce, and one of the cornerstones of the argument for organic foods. This affects not only the health of consumers (around which there can be an absolutely healthy debate despite the fact that less poison is probably almost always better here), but also impacts the environmental footprint of farming.

  There are also loads of straw-man arguments, which further undermines the trust in the credibility of the responders. The OP never denied that eating more fruits and vegetables - organic or not - is better than eating none at all. All that the paper did was publishing findings about the differences between organic and non-organic produce. I don't think antioxidants or phenolic compounds were framed as essential nutrients, and besides that non-essential nutrients do have effects on the consumer's wellbeing and health as well.

  A truly unbiased response would feel more balanced. It would welcome certain findings, rounding out the picture with additional facts that might change certain conclusions drawn from the data, and add contradicting data found on a similar scale of research to the conversation. Such a straight and drastic dismissals of the paper in its entirety, however, based on carefully selected details, feels motivated by external factors beyond science or neutral dialog.

• by mixologic on 7/13/14, 1:02 AM

  I would think we would be better at spotting sock puppets. "Expert reaction?" More like paid schill: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/

  Syngenta? Croplife? BASF?

• by falcolas on 7/12/14, 10:52 PM

  > The paper also reports a decrease in protein, nitrates and fibre in the organically grown crops, which may be undesirable, and which are maybe unsurprisingly not referred to by the authors in their advocacy of organically grown produce.

  Hmm. I think this is important, and something I certainly overlooked in the initial hype.

• by pistle on 7/13/14, 2:42 AM

  Quick, somebody put together the app that does some Bayesian work to score people and their quotes, research, funding, etc. to show on a scale where their tendencies would be expected to be for a given next statement. Let's get META!!! on meta-analyses.

  What's interesting is the turf battles going on over what I would say are details vs the "news you can use."

  Industrial agra => :P tasting + less desirable enviro impact.

  Alt agra => less offputting, better enviro impact, but big hand waving around potential to be capable of scale and affordable for current and future population.

  I get a sense there's this looming dread of having to deal with someone saying, "We can't survive (or will have a bad time) as a species if we sit back and slurp big agra, but we can't realistically keep everyone around/afford it if we try to help everyone eat 'correctly/safely'."

  If the organic path is the moral path, is it OK to allow food costs to increase substantially? Is it OK to disallow the big agra calories and nutrients which likely enable subsistence for those unable to fight over spots for their Teslas and Priuses at Whole Foods?

• by coldtea on 7/13/14, 12:52 AM

  Of course a lot of the "experts" are on the payroll of big food corporations.

  It's difficult to have independent science in this day and age on matters where billions are at stake.

  There is of course bias on the other side as well (e.g ideological), but nothing trumps actual, solid, business interests as a bias.

• by ricardobeat on 7/13/14, 12:26 AM

  In their statements they all ignore the question of environmental impact, pesticides, worker health, etc, which are the strongest reason to buy organic (and not because the food has magical properties).

• by bellerocky on 7/13/14, 12:49 AM

  I don't think anyone in my family eats organic foods. Many of the older generation have lived into their 90's and 80's. My grandparents are in their 80's now. Would their parents have lived into their 100's had they eaten organic food? They weren't sickly miserable people all their lives. I just don't get the ultra-health kick. My take is to stop worrying about your food so much and eat whatever satisfies your hunger, just not too much. Micromanaging our diets is this generation's yogurt enema.

• by aaron695 on 7/13/14, 3:47 AM

  Organic is a toxic anti-science religion.

  Do we really need an article explaining how organic is not better for you?

  Do people on HN really think that could be true? I'd like to think not.

  If you go to an organic farmer and explain that this method using chemicals has been prove better and harmless through science they won't do it because they are fundamentalists.

  I'm amazed by the tolerance of the organic religion by the scientific community.

• by elouisyoung on 7/13/14, 1:53 AM

  this article is fucking trash