[ambler0]

Whether or not an organic diet (whatever that may be exactly) ultimately proves to be healthier, it's wrong to describe the movement to eat such food as a "ridiculous cargo cult". It's clear what people are worried about (dangerous pesticides, environmental pollutants) and the expectation that food labeled as organic is better in this respect is not unreasonable. Whether or not labeling food "certified organic" makes enough of a difference is a different discussion; clearly there is no substitute for knowing where your food comes from.

The fact that you lump this in with gluten-free and anti-GMO, which are themselves interesting and unique topics of discussion that have in common only their faddishness, and then lump all three of these in with a charlatan like Dr. Oz, shows to me that you have an oversimplified view of these issues.

[sowhatquestion]

> you have an oversimplified view of these issues

Nice try, but no.

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries." (emphasis mine)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...

"Study of 100 Billion Animals Finds GMOs Safe"

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-s...

"A recent study has shown that for those with non-Celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), the gluten itself might not be to blame for GI troubles."

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/does-non-celia...

"Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown food"

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutr...

...

Admittedly, the issue of organic food is more controversial than the others. There was also a study showing that organic foods had higher levels of antioxidants: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715...

But given the amount of money people spend on organic food and the level of enthusiasm for it, you would think it cured cancer--not that there was inconclusive evidence that it might have somewhat higher levels of antioxidants and lower levels of pesticide residue. In any case, antioxidants can be supplemented, much more cheaply than buying organic food. But that doesn't provide the level of enjoyment (or for some people, the pseudo-religious experience) of buying organic produce.

And THAT is as complex as I think the issue is. The term "cargo cult" hits close enough to the mark, for me.

[ambler0]

You're lumping them all together again, but each issue deserves to be discussed by itself.

Regarding GMOs, what is interesting is not the fact that an organism was geneticially modified in a lab. What one wants to know is why it was modified. You can bet that your Roundup Ready crop is going to be slathered in ...Roundup. It's up to you to decide whether or not that's a big deal. The point is that this isn't superstition, it's basic fact-finding about the food we eat.

I never claimed that organic produce is more nutritous than non-organic produce. I did suggest that it's a reasonable working hypothesis that it is safer because of lower pesticide levels.

If anything on your list deserves your derisive attitude, it's the gluten-free craze. I have very little interest in that one; it strikes me as another diet fad and the testimonials are reiminiscent of other bogus complaints, e.g. re MSG. Which is too bad, since celiac disease is real and these patients are now being taken less seriously.

"the amount of money" Spending 10 cents more per pound for the organic fair-trade bananas so I can practice the precautionary principle and possibly help improve the lot of the serfs that pick them seems OK to me.

"You would think it cured cancer" Well, it is one of the things people are hoping to prevent...

Of course, none of this touches on the other reasons one might be picky about how their food is sourced, namely environmental and labor concerns.

What frustrates me so much about your post is that you see people doing things for stupid reasons and conclude from this that there aren't good reasons for doing these things. There are plenty of smart, dare I say skeptical (seems to be one of the fetishes on HN), people thinking about these issues who don't share your perspective.

[AnimalMuppet]

My wife has a friend who is very into organic. She says that all those pesticides are not good for us, and she's probably right, at least to some degree.

But the thing is, famine is really not good for you. If pesticides prevent that (and, arguably, they have done pretty well at doing so), then they're better than the alternative of not using them.

Of course, the best alternative is "neither"...

[ambler0]

Of course eating non-organic produce is better than eating no produce at all. Eating only organic is a straw man position.

[AnimalMuppet]

For an individual, sure. For a society, no, that's not a strawman at all.

[walshemj]

some people are not old enough to remember the regular famines in India and Pakistan - obviated by engineered strains of rice