Zagat Survey Discussions

The British Food Standards Agency recently released a report from a study that found organic food to not be healthier than regular food.

The article below has a link to the study:
http://food.theatlantic.com/nutrition/so-what-if-organic-isnt-more-nutritious.php

This has been a long debate…where do you stand? Please share your comments!

---

Vote in a Featured Survey and get a free ZAGAT.com membership!

Since the study only measured the nutritional value of organic and regular food, there are other issues that they didn’t even touch. I eat both, but prefer eating food with fewer foreign substances. I also think organic tastes better. A salad with organic vegetables is much more appetizing than one that comes with a side of chemical fertilizer and pesticides.

There is no difference in taste. No matter whatyou say, that is snobbery.
The difference is Health.

As someone who has the pleasure of living far too close to the EPA's #1 superfund site (an active military base that was a former chemical weapons testing facility) the equation is very simple for us ... Mother Nature = GOOD ... chemicals (toxic or otherwise FDA approved) = BAD. 

The rates of cancers, tumors, etc. for long time residents of this area who previously drank well water far outpace any national average. Relevance to food you ask? Easy, the "Government" once said it was okay to test these things and bury them in the ground afterwards. Now they say ... not so much. The "Government" also approved synthetic fat substitutes as safe for consumption. Now they say ... not so much. The "Government" previously approved cold & pain combo meds as safe for OTC retail sales. Now they say ... not so much.

In other words, just because they may give the seal of approval to something as "safe" for me & my family to consume on a regular basis, I still don't trust it any better than I can usually pronounce it and I'd much rather go with the Organic option at the drop of a hat whenever given the choice -- regardless of taste, nutritional value, or any other study measurement.. Mother nature almost always got it right the first time, why screw with it?

Well put! I couldn't agree more.

joelklay wrote:
There is no difference in taste. No matter whatyou say, that is snobbery.
The difference is Health.

Joel,

There have been studies that support the argument that there is a difference in taste.
 

1) Joel, I may challenge you to produce the reference for peer-reviewed studies showing that organics taste differently/better - you'll come up fairly empty (orange juice is one exception....).

2) Speaking as a nutrition professor (and I'm going to greatly curtail my comments as I could go on longer than you probably are willing to read!), at this point we absolutely cannot say that organics are healthier than conventionally produced produce...a common misconception is that organic food production doesn't involve the use of pesticides (they are many approved ones for organics, just not herbicides). However, ever since the banning (at least in the U.S.) of pesticides that bioaccumulate, these really are pretty much a red herring in regards to health as they have broken down into inert residues by the time we consume them (this is NOT the case for the people actually working with them at the farm....).

Studies have shown similar nutrient content between organics and conventionally produced produce (sometimes organics have a little more Vit C) - a fact that organic farmer don't like the embrace. However, in their defense, those studies are somewhat biased as they typically are only looking for very few nutrients/phytochemicals.

Bottom line, we KNOW that organic food is good for the earth, and it's certainly not worse for us, so if price is similar (or you have the $$$), organics are certainly the better choice. They do, on average, travel further than conventional products - so this may belie the "they taste better" argument since most people would agree local food tastes better since it was harvested more recently.

The only research-backed argument you can make (in my professional opinion) is for organic milk (I'll spare the details), BUT since almost all dairies are banning the use of rBGH (in great part b/c Walmart doesn't want hormones in their milk anymore), this distinction is becoming less clear.

---

Seize the fat one!

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!

Dr. Beau,

As far as nutrient values, studies have been performed that document Vitamin C levels as high as 52% above conventional farming methods, and as low as 6% below conventional farming. One such study that documented significant statistical differences was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, by a team from the University of California, Davis. The bottom line is that proponents of either side can pick studies to support their conclusion.

You are correct that certain pesticides are certified for use in organic farming. However, it would be an error to conclude that pesticides are used at all organic farms, just because they are certified for use. A study, albeit informal and not scientifically documented, has found that some farms do not use pesticides, while others have a varying use of pesticides. The question is how, if at all, does a specific pesticide residue impact health.

I live in the Los Angeles area, and there are local farms that use both organic and conventional farming methods. Thus, I’m not entirely sure why you attribute local foods to only conventional farms. Also, flavor has much to do about ripeness – not necessarily how recently the crop was harvested or how far it travels. On a number of occasions, I’ve seen locally grown produce (organic and conventional) that were picked too green.

Taste tests conducted by researchers from Kansas State University, indicate there are no ‘significant’ differences between the two methods. Another study by Richard C. Theuer in 2006, albeit perhaps biased, mentioned that past studies indicated no ‘significant’ or ‘consistent’ differences. Notwithstanding, the words ‘significant’ and ‘consistent’ indicate measurable differences. Thus, it would be incorrect to say there are absolutely ‘no’ differences. This is not to say the differences make a particular product taste 'better.'

ZAGAT Administrator wrote:
The British Food Standards Agency recently released a report from a study that found organic food to not be healthier than regular food.

The article below has a link to the study:
http://food.theatlantic.com/nutrition/so-what-if-organic-isnt-more-nutritious.php

This has been a long debate…where do you stand? Please share your comments!

 
No insult is intended to those who hold opinions different from mine except to those "experts" who claim that organic is no better. The stupidity of it boggles the mind unless stupidity has nothing to do with it and it is a matter e of total dishonesty.

It is simply to apparent for those who have the opportunity to observe that those who eat food from regular sources tend to get sick as they age and it isn't a function of age but of the accumulation of materials introduced into our food supply under the claim of "improvement" but actually to provide the producers greater profits at the public's expense.

On the other hand, a meaningful number of those who are ill and begin to use a carefully orchestrated plan of strictly organic foods recover their health.

I've witnessed it in cancer and I've witnessed it in other illnesses that can be categorized as a resulting from a compromised immune system.

This weeks Time Magazine covers the topic as well as an overview of the American food supply system.

---

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

In these studies, we measure for those compounds and nutrients that are known to us.....but we have not yet identified all the elements of natural, healthy foods which nourish us and keep us healthy.

As others have pointed out here: why would we possibly choose the option that puts chemicals/more chemicals into our food and bodies? Given the choice....and given the ways in which we so often discover the harm of manufactured chemicals only after years of using them....how could that seem like the better choice?

And pouring chemicals into the land, air and water of our global ecosystem, flowing downstream to kill coral reefs and pollute bodies of water and other ecosystems which are critical to our environmental and weather balance....how could that seem like the better choice?

It is also a matter of social justice, not to pour these chemicals into the local environments of farmers and agricultural communities, here in the US, and abroad (often with even fewer regulations about allowable toxicity). With a "not in my backyard" attitude, we are concentrating exposure to dangerous chemicals in communities and therefore having devastating effects on the lives of the individuals and families within them. 

It seems to me, the clear choice is to try our very best, to support organic practices whenever possible, as well as to encourage local and small farm food production. 

I'm certainly not "perfect" in that regard, and I'm not saying that we should never eat outside of that constraint.....However, we are almost all far from doing our very best, and our policies certainly don't encourage best practices, so this is something I personally am committed to improving.

Our consumer choices have an impact, so choose wisely.....

In good health to all. 

There is a difference in taste organic meat :) taste fresh ,meat is tender you do not put all those MSG extras what so ever. Chicken does not have a heavy smell as if came out of sewer so sorry but that is true , organic chicken the way it has been fed makes a huge difference and not only in chiken other type of meat too. So also the way you slater the animals too. Not only organic but also if you sluter the animamls and kept the blood in taste diffente too. The blood has to drain out too I am SO SORRY BEING THIS DRAMATIC :( but just telling the truth of course on th eplants make a huge diffence in taste like organic tomatoes smells great:) where others taste like paper. Hope this will make a diiference

Though Organics offer slightly more nutritious value than the regular food our grandparents and parents before us have eaten, it's the style and way one goes about creating the meal that contributes to the nutrition. 
Keep eating and keep creating.

The study totally misses the point. We might debate about whether or not organic tastes better, but that's not the issue. As an organic gardener of 30 years, it's clear to me that small-scale agriculture using organic methods leaves a very small footprint on the earth, and consumes very few outside resources. You may not be able to feed the world using organic methods, but you can feed your immediate community without resorting to chemical fertilizers or pesticides. That's justification unto itself.

Wow. That is a very profound realization for some people. I know that I did not think of that while reading the article or even the prior responses to the article. I think people would be more interested in the fact that organic methods creates more from less. I hope more people have this realization as well.