Perhaps for you, but I anecdotally find that many people who buy organic tend to think that it's also more healthy in terms of vitamins. There's a tendency to think that organic has a "higher nutrition density" because of the naturalistic fallacy, in that natural == better; people think that any modification to plant products only spreads out or even decreases that nutrition.

In terms of pesticides, though, years of scientific study have been used to clear the pesticides used on our foods. People who think that pesticides are somehow unhealthy are also not scientifically justified. Organics are also "no healthier" than non-organics in terms of pesticides as well, since pesticides are found to have no health impact.

> pesticides are found to have no health impact

There was a time not too long ago when cigarettes were found to have no health impact.

We have only just begun to understand how to treat cancer with gene therapy.

It's paranoid to say that pesticides cause cancer. It's arrogant to say they absolutely don't. And I think it's reasonable to say that farming as close to the naturally evolved food chain as possible is a good thing.

I recognize that without today's increased yields we'd have a lot more starvation and hunger in this world. But it's not a binary choice. It's not hippy pastoral-era farming vs post-modern industrial farm. We can find a balance.

> eating as close to the naturally evolved food chain as possible is a good thing.

Where does the "naturally evolved food chain" end? Right before Agriculture? Is baking bread "unnatural"?

Except some research shows that cooking foods allows us to reach calories that would typically be unavailable due to denaturing things like plant cell walls.

There is also research that shows a correlation between exposure to pesticides and both birth defects and cancer.

Until more conclusive evidence exists that proves otherwise, why take the risk?

It would've been pretty easy to see what sort of health impact cigarettes had if there had been much rigorous study at the time. The common pesticides used on farm goods, quite to the contrary, have been very rigorously evaluated by numerous bodies, especially the FDA. The rigor is likely largely a result of the public's learned suspicion of everything.

While it's good to anticipate that there are lots of things that can cause cancer, it's not a scientific approach to take to assume that all goods are guilty until proven innocent. Nor is the naturalistic fallacy scientific--you fall into it with your comment on things close to the natural food chain being more likely to be healthy, if I take you to be referencing goods that can cause long-term health problems like cancer.

While you're right that it doesn't have to be a binary choice, it actually essentially is. More or less all GM/pesticide-treated goods have literally no observed downside, and so while we will continue to monitor long-term population health performance to ensure that nothing is causing any issues, right now we find that it is only a choice between more or less starvation; higher or lower food prices; better or worse produce quality; and higher or lower rates of crop damage, which can lead to health issues in those who consume tainted crops.

>...pesticides are found to have no health impact

I assume you meant something more like ...the level of pesticide residue found on foodstuffs at the retail level in the United States (assuming no accidents, negligence, or sabotage) are found to have no health impact. Basically I agree with what you are saying.

Yep. Thanks for the clarification--I sometimes rely on contextual implication more than I should.

Organic foods for increased vitamins seems like an expensive alternative to vitamin supplements. But I feel like people who eat organic foods would rather not eat manufactured vitamin supplements, leaving the main benefit of organic food to be the fact that it's less processed and more "natural". I prefer to eat cows that don't eat cows, and chickens that don't eat chickens.

>an expensive alternative to vitamin supplements

I'm not sure that's true, it depends on absorption.

It seems reasonable to assume that human bodies are built to extract nutrients from whole foods most efficiently.

Chickens eat other chickens in the wild - what's wrong with that?

I'd imagine it's a slightly smaller proportion of their diet than in an industrial feed lot.

The people who think that non-organic foods are low in vitamins are probably also likely to be afraid of far worse health issues that could potentially come from consuming the "chemicals". So while it certainly makes economic sense to take vitamin supplements like you described if non-organics are just lower in nutrition content, I think there's worry about worse negative health problems coming from eating non-organics.

I would love to see links to human studies that prove pesticides have no effects on the human reproductive system. I assume, from your claims, you have some great controlled double blind studies to point me to?

>I would love to see links to human studies that prove pesticides have no effects on the human reproductive system

What you're looking for doesn't exist, since you can't prove a negative. But the FDA, which exerts a very high level of scrutiny over the food industry, has a very large database of studies if you look at their website under "food". Specifically, their pesticides page [1], and their Residue Monitoring Report, a very comprehensive analysis on pesticide levels consumed by the population and their effects [2].

[1]http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulterat...

[2]http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulterat...

But to make it easy, I quote:

>Results in these reports continue to demonstrate that levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are well below established safety standards.

The FDA and EPA establish these standards, so if you want the science supporting those standards, you'll have to ask them. I'm aware that you're referring to a specific study about birth defects, which is why you requested studies specifically referring to the reproductive system; but I defer again to the FDA and EPA. They monitor these things very closely, and if there is sufficient scientific support for pesticide-borne issues, they will have taken appropriate action. If not, that just means that the science is inconclusive, as is usually the case when one or two outlier studies make new or exotic claims. In this case, I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some strong selection bias in choosing the studies commonly presented due to the alarmism of news media, and the industry/FDA will be aware of further subtleties.

Right but your point amounts to an argument from authority, and animal models show specific harm from these chemicals. We share very similar endocrine systems. I don't think you can blanket say that there is 'no evidence"--it is far too early.

Deferring to a body that knows far more about these topics than either you or I is hardly an authority fallacy. The FDA will be aware of the animal models and birth defect studies, and I trust in them to adequately regulate pesticide use in response--and they will regulate infinitely more accurately and thoroughly than I would if I were left to literally analyzing scientific studies to find what I should and shouldn't buy at the supermarket.

Similarly, most people haven't read Einstein's paper on general relativity, but it's prudent to still take stock in GR because the physics community has read the research and come to a conclusion. I also don't think that there's "no evidence" of pesticide harm--there definitely is evidence that the pesticide levels that we consume are harmful. It just isn't sufficient evidence to be significant enough that we should assume it to be true that we need to eat organic. Every field has fringe studies that provide evidence for unique claims; the claims just don't become meaningful until that evidence becomes piled up enough to be significant. In this case, the evidence against pesticide residue levels being harmful is insignificant as judged by the FDA, and the evidence of pesticide levels being safe is judged significant.

I fundamentally lack respect for bureaucracies because although they may be made up of minds far brighter than mine, they are subject to organizational dysfunctions and well documented psychological failings like group-think. The Peter Principal is another problem, as well as the influence of outside money. Additionally, the incentives are wrong for individual scientists--making bold calls is a career risk. Going with the flow is career enhancing.

Further, the FDA doesn't operate on the precautionary principle.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Distorting effects of authority (this applies both within the FDA, and regarding listening to the FDA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Conformity and group-think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

People do it organic and especially local vegetables because they are more nutritious. But "more nutritious" doesn't mean "more vitamins". First of all, which vitamins? Surely they didn't test for every single vitamin found in all vegetables, not to mention other nutrients.

Second, it's dubious whether the nutrient theory of nutrition completely describes our body's relationship with food. Many people eat organic food because it eliminates the unknowns. We know that industrial farming has a negative effect on food quality, but the negative effect could be even larger than we are capable of measuring, so better to play it safe.

This echoes Europe's policy on GMOs, which is that if there is any risk of catastrophe, that risk is not worth taking. There is a name for this sort of policy, but I've forgotten the term and can't seem to find it.

Another reason that I personally avoid industrial agriculture is because it is fundamentally unsustainable: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/a-banker-bet.... I get all of my vegetables from a local farm mainly for this reason and another that comes from taking a sort of Marxist perspective on the issue. Industrial farming creates a lot of repetitive, unfulfilling jobs. I'd rather support people that live with and love their land, who get to engage with the challenge of optimizing all of the energy and nutrient flows in their farm. Running a farm can actually be a very interesting design/engineering problem.

Actually, it's pretty well established that it's going to take industrial agriculture to feed the world's population in the coming years. Unfortunately it is organic farming that will ultimately turn out to be unsustainable.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=organic-far...

"Of course, the cost of using 171 million metric tons of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is paid in dead zones at the mouths of many of the world's rivers. These anoxic zones result from nitrogen-rich runoff promoting algal blooms that then die and, in decomposing, suck all the oxygen out of surrounding waters."

Right.

In 2009, a programme from BBC's 'The Natural World' series covered this precise issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hs8zp

The programme's presenter is a farmer, from a family of farmers. She explored the latest developments in 'sustainable' agriculture and arrived at some surprising conclusions. 'Permaculture' was one of the most radical ideas, and the suggestion is that it could truly revolutionize modern farming.

It was a thoughtful, reasoned and compelling commentary; a programme which I found important enough to make an 'offline' copy for myself...