Controlling doesn’t get rid of all the confounders (easiest one: people who eat organic care more about what they eat, almost by definition—how do you control for that?), and long term studies are very hard to do.
A place to start is to feed two groups of animals foods, one eating organic and the other eating inorganic, with identical or near-identical nutrient compositions, and see how they respond over time. Linking dietary effects between animal and human models has been done in the past, so it isn’t too far-fetched. It won’t be perfect, since the animals won’t be humans, but it is certainly better than the paucity of data available, and assuming that organic = good with scarce evidence (see below).
Are we trying to find out if organic foods are more nutritious, or if organic foods offer health benefits beyond nutrition? (or to reverse that, do inorganic foods offer adverse effects beyond nutrition) Remember I said , ” Modified food may or may not have adverse effects beyond different nutrient contents (which so far is debatable),” The authors conclude in your 2nd link that they agree the evidence on the benefits of organic foods is scant at the moment.
“Organic” and “non-modified” are very different things.
“Organic” means that the food producer has received a particular kind of certification for his production. By the way, in this context the opposite of “organic” is “conventional”, not “inorganic”.
“Non-modified” has a less well-defined meaning, but generally it means food as it comes from the farm, not from a factory.
There is lots of “organic modified” and “conventional non-modified” food.
Misnomer noted. So, is there evidence that conventional foods (or foods that are not organic) have adverse effects beyond possible nutritional differences, when compared to organic foods, and genetically modified vs. not modified? (and by not modified I mean not genetically modified, if the context preceding the words didn’t make those words crystal clear) I am of course open to the possibility, but I would like to see harder evidence before paying a premium.
is there evidence that conventional foods (or foods that are not organic) have adverse effects beyond possible nutritional differences, when compared to organic foods, and genetically modified vs. not modified?
In reality there no reason to assume that the health difference between organic and conventional bananas is the same as the health difference between organic and conventional butter.
Controlling doesn’t get rid of all the confounders (easiest one: people who eat organic care more about what they eat, almost by definition—how do you control for that?), and long term studies are very hard to do.
A place to start is to feed two groups of animals foods, one eating organic and the other eating inorganic, with identical or near-identical nutrient compositions, and see how they respond over time. Linking dietary effects between animal and human models has been done in the past, so it isn’t too far-fetched. It won’t be perfect, since the animals won’t be humans, but it is certainly better than the paucity of data available, and assuming that organic = good with scarce evidence (see below).
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/1/203.short
Here is one meta-study. Here is another one
Are we trying to find out if organic foods are more nutritious, or if organic foods offer health benefits beyond nutrition? (or to reverse that, do inorganic foods offer adverse effects beyond nutrition) Remember I said , ” Modified food may or may not have adverse effects beyond different nutrient contents (which so far is debatable),” The authors conclude in your 2nd link that they agree the evidence on the benefits of organic foods is scant at the moment.
“Organic” and “non-modified” are very different things.
“Organic” means that the food producer has received a particular kind of certification for his production. By the way, in this context the opposite of “organic” is “conventional”, not “inorganic”.
“Non-modified” has a less well-defined meaning, but generally it means food as it comes from the farm, not from a factory.
There is lots of “organic modified” and “conventional non-modified” food.
Misnomer noted. So, is there evidence that conventional foods (or foods that are not organic) have adverse effects beyond possible nutritional differences, when compared to organic foods, and genetically modified vs. not modified? (and by not modified I mean not genetically modified, if the context preceding the words didn’t make those words crystal clear) I am of course open to the possibility, but I would like to see harder evidence before paying a premium.
Not to my knowledge.
In reality there no reason to assume that the health difference between organic and conventional bananas is the same as the health difference between organic and conventional butter.