1

I was at Costco getting milk for my 2.5 year old daughter, and my wife prefers the expensive organic stuff. I'm more skeptical about these things, and I don't like spending extra when I don't understand the benefit.

The math, assuming 2 servings (8 oz) per day:

  • Horizon 2% fat organic milk with DHA - $34.29 per month
  • Kirkland 2% fat milk - $8.37 per month

The difference is $25.92 per month. If the trend continues that's $311.04 extra in a year, which is significant enough for me to ask: Does this expensive milk have any actual benefits over the standard milk?

Mike G
  • 149
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    This might be better asked on Health.SE than on Parenting, or perhaps even Skeptics. It's also fairly broad (are you interested in the benefits for your toddler only, or other issues like environmental impact or ethics of factory farming?) – Acire May 21 '16 at 03:20
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the broad question of organic benefits is not uniquely a parenting issue. – Acire May 21 '16 at 20:31
  • @Erica Actually, the OP is asking specifically about milk for toddlers, which is pretty much uniquely a parenting issue. – lambshaanxy May 22 '16 at 01:48
  • I'd like to see it clarified to better understand what the OP wants to know. I can also imagine any number of people interested in "actual" benefits of organic beyond parents of toddlers. – Acire May 22 '16 at 01:50
  • 1
    I want to know if there's anything specifically about this fancy added-DHA and organic stuff that's of actual benefit to my toddler. I've heard some loose argument that DHA is good for the brain development or whatever. I'm asking as a parent. Development, growth, health, safety-- I head the help page, this question is on-topic. – Mike G May 22 '16 at 07:20
  • Please edit to focus on what you're interested in, then -- asking about research of effects of DHA in toddlers is one thing, but the overall frame of this question is much broader, as well as bordering on subjective (opinions on whether that $311.04 is worth it can vary significantly). I'd also consider this question as a strong duplicate candidate: Is organic whole cow's milk better than “toddler milk” powder for a 1 year old? I want you to get the info you really want, and that is more likely to happen with a well-focused question. – Acire May 23 '16 at 03:17
  • @Erica That question is about fresh cow's milk vs toddler formula, which is an entirely different topic. – lambshaanxy May 23 '16 at 11:52
  • @jpatokal Its answers discuss research related to both organic and DHA supplements in milk. There's a good chance the OP will be able to find the information he wants there, or use it as a starting point for further research. – Acire May 23 '16 at 11:54

1 Answers1

0

No, it's unlikely to be worth it from a health perspective. There's essentially no evidence that organic food is any "better" (or worse) for you, and the jury is still out for the effects of DHA: while there are some studies indicating it might slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease or inhibit growth of colon cancer, neither is likely to be a significant concern for the average two-year-old.

Safety is best thought of as tradeoffs, not absolutes. For example, given that motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in young children, that $300/year would likely provide a far higher benefit if invested in (say) a better child seat or a reversing camera for your car.

Update for clarity: I understand the argument that there could be benefits to eating organic food and that, all things being equal, you probably don't want your kids eating any more pesticides, hormones, etc than necessary. My point is simply that there is currently no actual evidence that eating organic food makes any sort of perceptible difference, and you need to weigh the actual extra cost against both the possible benefits and alternative uses of that money.

lambshaanxy
  • 2,037
  • 1
  • 14
  • 21
  • 2
    Bad answer. You have either not read your own source material or are being dishonest. The reason there is no evidence for or against organic foods is stated in your own reference above. " "there have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of populations consuming predominantly organic versus conventionally produced food controlling for socioeconomic factors". The entire point of the Wikipedia entry is that there have been no studies, NOT that there are not any potential or expected benefits. That means your conclusion that the answer is NO is just plain not justified and thus wrong. – Adam Heeg May 22 '16 at 23:13
  • 2
    Continuing with what your reference misses and you totally avoid is that organic foods avoid pesticides and hormones. The information you referenced only spoke about potential added benefits, but it did not discuss potentially missing side effects which is another perceived benefit of organic food. The only point I'm making is that your answer does not match your reference material. – Adam Heeg May 22 '16 at 23:16
  • 1
    @AdamHeeg You're misreading the answer. As simply as I can put it: Organic food costs extra, and there's no proven benefit. On the other hand, there are proven benefits to (say) child seats. Why would you invest $300 in something that could theoretically make your child safer (or not), vs something that would actually make them safer? – lambshaanxy May 23 '16 at 04:06
  • Car safety features makes children theoretically safer, not "actually" safer. It's about risk reduction. – Acire May 23 '16 at 04:44
  • @Erica In the event of a crash, a good child seat makes a statistically significant and demonstrable difference: that's actual safety. Drinking organic milk, as far as we know, doesn't. – lambshaanxy May 23 '16 at 08:34
  • It's still just statistically significant safety, as there is a chance of injury the car seat could not prevent. Statistically significant means "we are extremely confident," not "it is incontrovertibly proven." – Acire May 23 '16 at 11:06
  • 2
    @Erica Not quite sure what you're driving at here. If you're dismissing "just" statistically significant safety, then what's better? Safety is about improving the odds, not absolute guarantees, which don't exist in the real world. – lambshaanxy May 23 '16 at 11:50
  • Yes, that was my point -- it improves the odds ("it's about risk reduction"). – Acire May 23 '16 at 11:50
  • @Erica So we agree then: reducing a risk from (say) 20% to 10% is an actual improvement in safety. – lambshaanxy May 23 '16 at 11:56
  • 1
    @jpatokal you say in your update "is currently no actual evidence", that is misleading because the fact that there also is no actual research is extremely important to your entire point and basically overrides your blind reasoning that no evidence means no benefit when in fact no evidence is only because of no research, the lack of evidence has nothing to do with the level of benefit. For a more neutral resource that addresses these topics I suggest this link. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880?pg=2 – Adam Heeg May 23 '16 at 13:07
  • @AdamHeeg There's plenty of research. Could there be more and better research? Sure. But if you disagree, please go ahead and post your own answer. – lambshaanxy May 23 '16 at 21:58