Science Debunks Organic fantasy garden

[The Outsider]

But that one reference was as thorough a meta-study as I have seen. They analyzed data gathered over 8 years. Published in the Journal of Toxicology - not a corporate shill. Solid statistics. Within that article are references to USDA, FDA and other peer-reviewed publications that tell the whole story. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3135239/

I am not suggesting it wasn't thorough, but it's just one study. I had glanced through that paper and found informational references to USDA, FDA, EWG. The only other peer reviewed publications referred there are by the author himself. I am also aware that UC Davis has one of the best Nutrition programs from which the author is from, but it's just one study and I would be skeptical of it like the neutrino traveling faster than light discovery at CERN.

And if you think the organics don't use harmful pesticides, you would be wrong. Look up rotenone. It is natural, plant-derived and deadly.

Rotenone is being phased out.

Your other points need more explanation.

1. Regarding antibiotics, from the article:

On one (and only one) claim, organic supporters are correct. Organic food is produced without using antibiotics in livestock feed, and this is good for public health. Because inappropriate use of antibiotics contributes to the increasing problem of antibiotic resistance, microbiologists endorse not using them in animal feed. Indeed, the above study concluded that conventional foods were much likelier to contain bacteria with resistance to multiple antibiotics.

Surely, you would agree that this is a major problem on which even the authors of the article agree upon. Specially for kids - if they grow up on a diet of antibiotics, how are they going to be able to fight infections in their bodies? With a dose of stronger antibiotics. And the side effects of prolonged use of strong antibiotics is well documented. 2. Regarding hormones, the regular animal products all come from animals who have been given synthetic hormones - meat, eggs, milk, yogurt. These synthetic hormones continue to survive in these products which we consume. Surely, the unnecessary intake of synthetic hormones cannot be good for you. 3. Regarding taste, well even if there is a study I won't take it too seriously because it's a personal preference. I certainly find it tastier and can certainly tell a marked difference in milk and meat. Organic milk tends to have that extra sweetness and freshness to it and free range organic meat is more tender and not as flabby as the one from 6 chickens in a cage.

[Brainfade]

Rotenone is being slowly and voluntarily phased out by manufacturers in the US. But organic produce from other countries is still prevalent, and one needs to be careful. But the bigger point is that organic farmers use their own suite of "natural" pesticides that may or may not be safer than synthetic pesticides. As for your concerns wrt the reference, I have to reiterate that it is not "one study." It is a metastudy. A better analogy would be this: If 5 independent labs provided data that neutrinos traveled faster than light, and two guys from CalTech compiled these data and analyzed them further in a review article and published it in a respected journal, would you overcome your skepticism? You misunderstand the problem with antibiotics. The issue is not dietary intake - they are destroyed by cooking. It is a public-health issue because inappropriate use may lead to the development of resistant strains of bacteria. Synthetic hormones - if they are peptide hormones (like rBST/rBGH), they are destroyed by pasteurization, stomach pH and peptidase enzymes produced in the digestive system. Steroid hormones are not destroyed in this manner , but they are not found in statistically higher amounts in meat and milk products (long-term FDA studies).

Do federal agencies monitor for the presence of these hormones in food? Estradiol, progesterone and testosterone are sex hormones that are made naturally by animals. No regulatory monitoring of these hormones is possible, since it is not possible to separate or tell the difference between the hormones used for treatment from those made by the animal's own body. However, it is possible to detect residues of zeranol and trembolone acetate in the animal's meat. FDA has set the tolerance levels for these hormones. A tolerance is the maximum amount of a particular residue that may be permitted in or on food (see BCERF Fact Sheet #25 on Pesticide Residue Monitoring and Food Safety). The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) monitors meat from cattle for zeranol residues. FSIS also monitors meats for DES residues from any illegal use (DES use is no longer permitted). In response to concern about cases of early puberty in Puerto Rico described below, a large number of meat samples were tested for hormone residues in the mid- to late 1980s. No zeranol or DES residues were found in the meat samples in this survey. Do hormones remain in the milk or meat of treated animals? The levels of naturally produced hormones vary from animal to animal, and a range in these levels is known to be normal. Because it is not possible to differentiate between the hormones produced naturally by the animal and those used to treat the animal, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of the hormone used for treatment remains in the meat or the milk. Studies indicate that if correct treatment and slaughter procedures are followed, the levels of these hormones may be slightly higher in the treated animal's meat or milk, but are still within the normal range of natural variation known to occur in untreated animals. Scientists are currently trying to develop better methods to measure steroid hormone residues left in edible meat from a treated animal. http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

Taste: You may have more discerning taste than I do. I don't eat meat, but I taste no difference in milk. Now, that lovely full-fat milk tastes better than skim :-)! With veggies and such, the difference is not due to organic methods, but more so due to letting fruits/veggies ripen longer on the plant. With industrialized agriculture, fruits/veggies ripen in a truck and so do not accumulate the sugars and other chemicals that confer taste. This is the case even with organic produce. But, locally grown, plant-ripened products - even conventionally grown - are tastier.

[The Outsider]

Rotenone is being slowly and voluntarily phased out by manufacturers in the US. But organic produce from other countries is still prevalent, and one needs to be careful. But the bigger point is that organic farmers use their own suite of "natural" pesticides that may or may not be safer than synthetic pesticides.

The difference in the organic industry is that they are not slaves to corporations to deny making changes when something is proved to be harmful.

As for your concerns wrt the reference, I have to reiterate that it is not "one study." It is a metastudy. A better analogy would be this: If 5 independent labs provided data that neutrinos traveled faster than light, and two guys from CalTech compiled these data and analyzed them further in a review article and published it in a respected journal, would you overcome your skepticism?

I'll read it more carefully when I have some more time. As of now my biggest concern seems to be the absence of any reference in their paper besides the authors'.

You misunderstand the problem with antibiotics. The issue is not dietary intake - they are destroyed by cooking. It is a public-health issue because inappropriate use may lead to the development of resistant strains of bacteria.

There are so many things which are consumed raw - all kinds of fruits and many vegetables in salads. On average I eat 2-3 fruits a day and a salad once with a meal. I am pretty sure that's the case with most people.

Synthetic hormones - if they are peptide hormones (like rBST/rBGH), they are destroyed by pasteurization, stomach pH and peptidase enzymes produced in the digestive system. Steroid hormones are not destroyed in this manner , but they are not found in statistically higher amounts in meat and milk products (long-term FDA studies).

My point is why even bother consuming something which is definitely not going to benefit you and can only harm you. A lot of this research is still in it's infancy and is barely 10 years old if that.

Taste: You may have more discerning taste than I do. I don't eat meat, but I taste no difference in milk. Now, that lovely full-fat milk tastes better than skim :-)! With veggies and such, the difference is not due to organic methods, but more so due to letting fruits/veggies ripen longer on the plant. With industrialized agriculture, fruits/veggies ripen in a truck and so do not accumulate the sugars and other chemicals that confer taste. This is the case even with organic produce. But, locally grown, plant-ripened products - even conventionally grown - are tastier.

I agree with the vegetable and fruits part. Even I am not able to discern the difference if I buy some conventional produce or organic produce from a farmers' market and the supermarket staleness is due to the reasons you've mentioned. On milk, I can make out the difference but again it just might be because I am used to a particular brand of organic milk rather than an inherent difference between organic and conventional. For the meat again, I'll give the benefit of the doubt because what tends to happen is that organic meat is also free range usually while the conventional meat comes from 6 chickens in a cage. So the difference might well be due to free range rather than organic. But given a choice between buying at the organic store or the supermarket I'll choose the former whether the difference in taste is due to freshness or it being organic is something I am not willing to bet on.