Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Shop, cook, eat, drink, post, repeat.
 
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:04 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Stanford releases non-study on organic food
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:03 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Portland, OR
Another blast at the Standford study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/scien ... .html?_r=0

Note that this one cites a meta-analysis from the year before which used the same data to reach opposite conclusions (i.e. that organic foods do contain extra nutrients). The other study got zero news coverage, given its lack of controversy potential.

_________________
The Fuzzy Chef
Serious Chef iz Serious!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stanford releases non-study on organic food
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
"Blast" is very strong reading of that, which is a pretty level article (and criticism). The article re-enforces that the picture is not very clear, and that the studies are poor, and that if there are differences, they are likely not big. Above and beyond all, those two studies tell us that if we want to know more, we need to do some better science.

News coverage is driven by a lot of things. The other study was conducted in England, which would significantly decrease its interest to american readers/viewers. It's authors may not have publicized it in America. Other interested parties may not have noticed it, or flogged it. The news cycle may have been pre-occupied with other issues; having a 'slow news day' can certainly affect what gets coverage. And people who don't care for the stanford study may also have not noticed positive news coverage of organic food because it didn't push their buttons as the stanford study did (confirmation bias, this time confirmation of persecution). Or, indeed, it might have lacked controversy; however, since many many people believe organic is bunk, a study which says otherwise (and is an implicit criticism of industrial farming techniques and most of the food people eat) certainly has lots of potential for controversy, the pot would just need stirred.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stanford releases non-study on organic food
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:41 pm
Posts: 1884
Location: Near Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ahem, before you two get started again...I'm calling a no wedgie zone. ;-)

Can you tell I've been spending a lot of time with tween/teen boys? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stanford releases non-study on organic food
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 946
I've always thought that the issue of organic vs not is not in the actual nutrient value of the food itself, but rather the presence/absence of pesticide residue on the food. I suspect it's that, rather than anything else, that drives the market, and these studies are likely to do little either way to convince proponents/undecideds or opponents one way or the other. Kinda makes it not worth getting excited about, maybe?

_________________
Carey


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stanford releases non-study on organic food
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
Anecdotally, my primary reasons for selecting it is pesticide content (*) (in certain foods, especially those which are very difficult to clean like broccoli), flavour and sustainability, but most of the people I know are convinced it has very significant health benefits (intuitively I think it should, but the evidence is conflicted and weak). They also tend to believe that pink salt won't be nearly as bad for you and in adrenal depletion, and all sorts of other things they read on the internet. That is definitely anecdotal though, and I don't fool myself that me, or the people I know, are in any way representative of general society. I am curious as why most people buy it, but no one seems to be publishing studies. I'd imagine there would be several major groups, just like in most food choices.

(*) I feel guilty about that, though, 'cause I try to be skeptical and rational, and lots of 'organic' pesticides are pretty damn nasty, and it isn't clear that industrial organic is inherently superior to industrial regular, pesticide wise, or at least it isn't clear that the difference is worth it. Of course, there is food raised with significantly reduced pesticides, period, but that is a very small sub-class of organic, and often has sustainability issues, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stanford releases non-study on organic food
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:03 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Portland, OR
Paul,

"controversy potential" as in "man bites dog". The British study, which showed that organic foods have selective nutritional benefits over "conventional" foods, fits with the conventional wisdom and as such is lacks controversy. Also, as discussed, there were people who were willing to inflate the Standford study into a set of grandiose claims (including one of the researchers), which helped its newsworthiness. Sadly, "junk science" is simply more entertaining than responsible science (not, by any means, limited to the anti-organic camp).

Personally, I think it's likely that small, ripe-to-market farming is more nutritious than factory farming, and that small local farms also tend to be organic (but the converse is not necessarily true, thanks to Whole Foods and Earthbound Farms). Nobody's done a study that specific though, so who knows? All I know is that it tastes better.

_________________
The Fuzzy Chef
Serious Chef iz Serious!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum