Organic food... Worth the price?

[Blonde Lawyer]

Ambergris,

How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40.  I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product.  That's not why the UK banned it.  They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
 
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/

[matchewed]

Ambergris,

How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40.  I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product.  That's not why the UK banned it.  They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
 
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/

So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf

Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.

[Blonde Lawyer]

Ambergris,

How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40.  I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product.  That's not why the UK banned it.  They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
 
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/

So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf

Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.

My post was unclear. I was just using that link to show that there are items banned in other countries that are allowed here.  Not to show you why those countries banned those items.  I figured you could each do your own research on that.  So you are saying that the other countries that banned items that are allowed here relied on bad science and our science is the good science? I'm not saying just because something is banned elsewhere it is bad but obviously one of the two countries is relying on bad data and I'm not going to just assume we are the right (or wrong) one.

Also, I said I avoid red dye because I have a legitimate traditional allergy to it (hives and swelling) not because of behavior issues.

[matchewed]

Ambergris,

How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40.  I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product.  That's not why the UK banned it.  They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
 
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/

So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf

Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.

My post was unclear. I was just using that link to show that there are items banned in other countries that are allowed here.  Not to show you why those countries banned those items.  I figured you could each do your own research on that.  So you are saying that the other countries that banned items that are allowed here relied on bad science and our science is the good science? I'm not saying just because something is banned elsewhere it is bad but obviously one of the two countries is relying on bad data and I'm not going to just assume we are the right (or wrong) one.

Also, I said I avoid red dye because I have a legitimate traditional allergy to it (hives and swelling) not because of behavior issues.

Nope, we're not the "good" interpreters of science and they the "bad". My statement was that there are bad interpretations of science. Any particular banning may or may not be an example of that.

*Edit* But you did assume that there science was legitimate. I bolded above where.

[Blonde Lawyer]

Ambergris,

How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40.  I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product.  That's not why the UK banned it.  They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
 
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/

So your statement is that red dye 40 causes aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders and you link a bullet list of things that are banned in other countries as your proof? Furthermore looking down the rabbit hole of information and links the organization that petitioned the removal has no mention of behavior disorders regarding red dye 40 except for an empty unsupported claim at the end of a red dye 40 summary on page 32 of the pdf linked below. The only leg they stand on is that red dye 40 may metabolize into a carcinogen when tested on rats, maybe, and maybe when the rats diet is 5.19% red dye 40... maybe. Lots of maybes for extreme situations.

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf

Bad conclusions based on bad interpretations of science can still be bad conclusions. Organizations of people can still run into the same fallacies as individuals themselves. This is an example of one of them. That's how you reconcile those instances. When people make shitty conclusions based on science or shitty conclusions of bad science. Can go either way.

My post was unclear. I was just using that link to show that there are items banned in other countries that are allowed here.  Not to show you why those countries banned those items.  I figured you could each do your own research on that.  So you are saying that the other countries that banned items that are allowed here relied on bad science and our science is the good science? I'm not saying just because something is banned elsewhere it is bad but obviously one of the two countries is relying on bad data and I'm not going to just assume we are the right (or wrong) one.

Also, I said I avoid red dye because I have a legitimate traditional allergy to it (hives and swelling) not because of behavior issues.

*Edit* But you did assume that there science was legitimate. I bolded above where.

Wasn't relying on the AARP article for that.  Previous research I did.  I don't know if it was scientific or not.  Just an area that interests me because of my allergy. I actually heard about the ban long before that article came out because parents in my mother's class (she's a teacher) stopped allowing their kids snacks w/ the dye because of the UK ban. I guess it hit the parent internet forums before the mainstream media.
Nope, we're not the "good" interpreters of science and they the "bad". My statement was that there are bad interpretations of science. Any particular banning may or may not be an example of that.

[AH013]

I'd generally say no.

I'm constantly amused by friends who insist on buying organic this, and organic that for home consumption because it's so much healthier than non-organic, and then go out for a meal and eat shitty greasy food.  Riiiiiiight.  Like the morbidly obese chick who orders the king size candy bar and the jumbo tub of popcorn with extra butter at the movies but then gets the diet soda "to be healthy"...it doesn't exactly cancel out.

Eat predominately healthy non-processed foods, avoid processed and fast food.  Congrats, you're in the top 1% of Americans for healthy diet.  Incremental gain on going from 100% healthy produce diet to 100% organic produce diet is minimal, but the cost difference can be +100% or more.

[Bettis]

I'm skeptical about how good organic really is so I only buy it if there is a minimal price difference and will last longer without spoiling.  I noticed organic carrots are only about 30 cents more at my market and they last twice as long in the fridge as the non-organic.  I did buy organic whole grain bread yesterday since it was $1 off and only about $1 more than the standard whole grain stuff.  My wife thought it tasted great.  It was the only one that I could find without sugar as a main ingredient but I wouldn't buy it every time.  We aren't huge bread eaters, mainly just for PB&J or PB&Fluffs.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

What is the point of looking for low-sugar bread if you're eating it with jelly or marshmallow fluff?

[Bettis]

Good point lol  I guess it's the "better than nothing" thought process ala Big Mac with Diet soda.

[samburger]

Eat predominately healthy non-processed foods, avoid processed and fast food.  Congrats, you're in the top 1% of Americans for healthy diet.  Incremental gain on going from 100% healthy produce diet to 100% organic produce diet is minimal, but the cost difference can be +100% or more.

Yep, and I tend to think that it's unhealthy for physically well people to be so twisted up about what goes into their bodies. I understand the fear, but obsessive diet management is more neurotic than it is healthy.

The organic question seems much more relevant to people who're in poor health. I have some serious immune issues--would I benefit from avoiding certain pesticides? Dunno, but I'd bet that chronically ill folks have more to gain by asking these questions than healthy folks.

[firelight]

OP here. Reason I asked the organic food question was because I'm starting to feed my baby solids (she was purely on breast milk till now). Everyone says organic is better or equal to normal food. My question was how much better and of it was worth the cost. Though we can't make my baby eat only organic (she chews on every. single. thing she can get her hands on), I was curious if eating organic predominantly made a difference to her growing body.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

No. There's no reason to believe your baby will do better (or worse for that matter aside from the slightly higher risk of food poisoning) with organic food. We don't buy organic and our child has done great with solids pretty much from the beginning.

Not relevant, but we found the idea of baby-led weaning to be very helpful. There's a decently written e-book on it but it pretty much amounts to - feed your kid what you're eating for dinner, cutting it up well, and she won't be a picky eater. My girl certainly isn't picky...

[GuitarStv]

We did the baby led weaning, and it worked well.  We never actually pureed anything (thank God, because it seems like such a lot of work), our kid just immediately started munching away on small bits of soft foods.

[monarda]

I thought of this thread when I read this post today.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/29/organic-milk-vs-conventional-milk-why-nutrition-expert-is-ditching-organic/

[Ambergris]

Ambergris,

How do you reconcile instances where other nations ban food or food product for being unsafe, supported by their research, and the US concludes it is safe, supported by their research? One example is red dye 40.  I've only looked into this because I have a legitimate allergy to the product.  That's not why the UK banned it.  They banned it because their studies showed it was causing aggressive reactions in children with behavior disorders, among other reasons.
 
http://blog.aarp.org/2013/06/25/8-foods-we-eat-that-other-countries-ban/

"Research" isn't enough (and I should have been clearer at the end there): the research has to be gotten to the point where there is a scientific consensus for it to be fully trustworthy. As I said, there are cases where there isn't a settled answer in the scientific community, but where the government institution has to - or is bullied into - making a call. This call can be based just on being over-cautious. In the case you mention above, the UK actually does not ban the substance, although other European countries do. There is some weak connection with allergies, cancer and hyperactivity, but both are based on poor studies.

In the case of GMO food, there is an emerging scientific consensus, and that is that (those foods tested) really are no worse for you than regular ones. Requiring them to be labeled would be an egregious case of bending to public pressure. With organics, the consensus either for or against them isn't as strong.