Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Organic Foods No More Nutritious, Safe than Conventional, Study Says

  1. #1
    Administrator Bill Cosby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    55,278
    Blog Entries
    42

    Default Organic Foods No More Nutritious, Safe than Conventional, Study Says

    Organic foods are no more nutritious than conventionally grown foods, and no less likely to be contaminated with certain bacteria, according to a new review of studies.

    However, organics were less likely to contain pesticide residues, or harbor bacteria that were resistant to antibiotics, compared with conventional alternatives, the study found.

    Though farming practices vary, organic plants are generally grown without the use of pesticides or industrial fertilizers, and organically raised animals are not routinely treated with antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic foods typically contain no genetically modified organisms.

    Consumers purchase organic foods for a number of reasons, including perceptions that organic foods may be safer or more nutritious than conventionally grown foods. However, the health benefits of organic foods remain unclear.

    "Our aim was to understand the evidence about differences in nutrient and contaminant levels between organic and conventional foods," said study researcher Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, an internist at the Stanford School of Medicine.
    Though prices vary, consumers may pay up to twice as much for organic as conventional foods.
    What the researchers found
    Smith-Spangler and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 200 studies comparing nutrient and contaminant levels in organic and conventional foods, including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, poultry, milk and eggs.
    They found no significant differences between organic and conventional products, in terms of their vitamin content.
    "Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this perception," the researchers wrote.
    Organic and conventional foods were about equally likely to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella. About 7 percent of organic produce, and 6 percent of conventionalCK produce was contaminated with E. coli. For chicken, 35 percent of organic, and 34 percent of conventional samples were contaminated with Salmonella.
    But when the researchers looked at pesticide contamination and antibiotic resistance, conventional and organic foods differed.
    The researchers found pesticide residue on 7 percent of the organic produce samples, but 38 percent of conventional produce samples. In all, organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing pesticides than conventional produce.
    The researchers also found that conventional chicken and pork were 33 percent more likely than organic products to harbor bacteria that were resistant to three or more antibiotics.
    "The data on pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria is very compelling, and in favor of organic foods," said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, a Boulder, Colo. organization that promotes the benefits of organic food and farming.
    However, the researchers said the difference between organic and conventional produce were only slight, in terms of how likely it was that the pesticide levels on the food reached the maximum acceptable limits. The risk of either type of produce exceeding regulatory limits may be small, Smith-Spangler said.
    What the findings mean
    Experts have debated the routine use of antibiotics in animal farming. The extent to which antibiotic use in livestock contributes to antibiotic-resistant infections in people remains unclear. Overuse of antibiotics in human medicine is likely the major cause of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans, according to the study authors.
    "It is impossible to say from this study whether one method of farming is better than the other, though we are not seeing the negatives associated with organics that we are with some of the conventional products," said Gene Lester, a plant physiologist for the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture in Maryland.
    While the findings are interesting, he cautioned, they are far from definitive. Variation within organic farming practices, and differences in the way previous studies reported their findings make it difficult to draw conclusions, Lester said.
    "We found very few studies that compared the health of human populations consuming largely organic versus conventional diets, so it is difficult to interpret the clinical significance of the findings," Smith-Spangler said.
    Future studies should investigate whether the decreased risk of exposure to pesticide residues in organic foods leads to real health improvements, particularly for pregnant women and children, Smith-Spangler said.
    The review is published today (Sept. 3) in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
    We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions.
    Howard Zinn

    We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

    Louis D. Brandeis

  2. #2

    Default

    Monsanto runs the FDA, you think they wouldnt also have a propaganda arm as well?

    .
    You cant fix stupid, I could post to my blog where its good for you to eat dog shit, does that mean you will eat dog shit?

    .

    .
    There is something to be said about common sense, and its not being all to common.

  3. #3
    Senior Member California Chrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern by the grace of God
    Posts
    43,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Cosby View Post
    Organic foods are no more nutritious than conventionally grown foods, and no less likely to be contaminated with certain bacteria, according to a new review of studies.

    However, organics were less likely to contain pesticide residues, or harbor bacteria that were resistant to antibiotics, compared with conventional alternatives, the study found.

    Though farming practices vary, organic plants are generally grown without the use of pesticides or industrial fertilizers, and organically raised animals are not routinely treated with antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic foods typically contain no genetically modified organisms.

    Consumers purchase organic foods for a number of reasons, including perceptions that organic foods may be safer or more nutritious than conventionally grown foods. However, the health benefits of organic foods remain unclear.

    "Our aim was to understand the evidence about differences in nutrient and contaminant levels between organic and conventional foods," said study researcher Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, an internist at the Stanford School of Medicine.
    Though prices vary, consumers may pay up to twice as much for organic as conventional foods.
    What the researchers found
    Smith-Spangler and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 200 studies comparing nutrient and contaminant levels in organic and conventional foods, including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, poultry, milk and eggs.
    They found no significant differences between organic and conventional products, in terms of their vitamin content.
    "Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this perception," the researchers wrote.
    Organic and conventional foods were about equally likely to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella. About 7 percent of organic produce, and 6 percent of conventionalCK produce was contaminated with E. coli. For chicken, 35 percent of organic, and 34 percent of conventional samples were contaminated with Salmonella.
    But when the researchers looked at pesticide contamination and antibiotic resistance, conventional and organic foods differed.
    The researchers found pesticide residue on 7 percent of the organic produce samples, but 38 percent of conventional produce samples. In all, organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing pesticides than conventional produce.
    The researchers also found that conventional chicken and pork were 33 percent more likely than organic products to harbor bacteria that were resistant to three or more antibiotics.
    "The data on pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria is very compelling, and in favor of organic foods," said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, a Boulder, Colo. organization that promotes the benefits of organic food and farming.
    However, the researchers said the difference between organic and conventional produce were only slight, in terms of how likely it was that the pesticide levels on the food reached the maximum acceptable limits. The risk of either type of produce exceeding regulatory limits may be small, Smith-Spangler said.
    What the findings mean
    Experts have debated the routine use of antibiotics in animal farming. The extent to which antibiotic use in livestock contributes to antibiotic-resistant infections in people remains unclear. Overuse of antibiotics in human medicine is likely the major cause of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans, according to the study authors.
    "It is impossible to say from this study whether one method of farming is better than the other, though we are not seeing the negatives associated with organics that we are with some of the conventional products," said Gene Lester, a plant physiologist for the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture in Maryland.
    While the findings are interesting, he cautioned, they are far from definitive. Variation within organic farming practices, and differences in the way previous studies reported their findings make it difficult to draw conclusions, Lester said.
    "We found very few studies that compared the health of human populations consuming largely organic versus conventional diets, so it is difficult to interpret the clinical significance of the findings," Smith-Spangler said.
    Future studies should investigate whether the decreased risk of exposure to pesticide residues in organic foods leads to real health improvements, particularly for pregnant women and children, Smith-Spangler said.
    The review is published today (Sept. 3) in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
    It's a money making scam. But hey, if some idiot wants to pay six bucks for an orange, who am I to tell him no?


    Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof.

  4. #4

    Default

    Some of the benefits of Organic are outlined in the first sentences of your OP.

    Whereas you might wash off the pesticides from your veggies/fruit, the damage has already been done to the bees/birds in the field.

    Likewise, when Monsanto poisens acres and acres of fields with herbicide, and plants herbicide resistant crops, the poisen still makes its way into the food chain.

    Commercially grown produce employs the use of chemical fertilizers that poisen the soil. It also produces veggies that are void of the nutrition you usually expect, because the soil is essentially dead.

    Of course, the morons will always rush to comment about the cost of organics, never realizing that they'll pay dearly sooner or later.

    As we do with coal fired energy.
    "Argumentum Ad Numerum" ask your pollster about it today.

  5. #5

    Default

    There is a overt move for the ruling elite to control ALL natural resources, and its now becoming extremely obvious what is going on.

    Holodomor comes to mind.

    Remember some of these idiots think the world is over populated. They justify this sentiment with Global Warming, Food shortages, Decease, etc..

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

  6. #6

    Default

    Flawed organic foods study really just a media psyop to confuse the public about organics while pushing GMOs


    http://www.naturalnews.com/037065_or...dia_psyop.html

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bosco View Post
    Flawed organic foods study really just a media psyop to confuse the public about organics while pushing GMOs


    http://www.naturalnews.com/037065_or...dia_psyop.html
    Happens all the time.

    During Bush's tenure, there were studies about how ineffective calcium is for the prevention of osteoporosis in women.

    They were on the tube every day citing a study where no appreciable benefit was derived from the women who took calcium.


    Then they found out that many of the women admitted that they weren't taking the calcium during the testing.
    "Argumentum Ad Numerum" ask your pollster about it today.

  8. #8
    Senior Member anatta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    flame above the ghee
    Posts
    31,637
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Happens all the time.

    During Bush's tenure, there were studies about how ineffective calcium is for the prevention of osteoporosis in women.

    They were on the tube every day citing a study where no appreciable benefit was derived from the women who took calcium.


    Then they found out that many of the women admitted that they weren't taking the calcium during the testing.
    Note all the soy milks, and almond mikls both add calcium "50% more". the body can onlt absord so much under ideal conditions -too much calcium is an inflamatory effect.
    I try not to drink much cow milk, but i do some, so that is one thing i will not scrimp on -
    Not drinking cow mammary glands -when they are fed HORMONES and ANTIBIOTICS.
    It has got to be concentrated moreso in the milk then the meat. Paid $4.39 for a half gallon today!!!!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicRocker View Post
    Note all the soy milks, and almond mikls both add calcium "50% more". the body can onlt absord so much under ideal conditions -too much calcium is an inflamatory effect.
    I try not to drink much cow milk, but i do some, so that is one thing i will not scrimp on -
    Not drinking cow mammary glands -when they are fed HORMONES and ANTIBIOTICS.
    It has got to be concentrated moreso in the milk then the meat. Paid $4.39 for a half gallon today!!!!
    $4.39 for a half gallon of soy milk?

    I don't drink milk, save for about 1 quart/week in coffee.

    I take my calcium via supplements at night.
    "Argumentum Ad Numerum" ask your pollster about it today.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicRocker View Post
    Note all the soy milks, and almond mikls both add calcium "50% more". the body can onlt absord so much under ideal conditions -too much calcium is an inflamatory effect.
    I try not to drink much cow milk, but i do some, so that is one thing i will not scrimp on -
    Not drinking cow mammary glands -when they are fed HORMONES and ANTIBIOTICS.
    It has got to be concentrated moreso in the milk then the meat. Paid $4.39 for a half gallon today!!!!
    You might want to look into Hemp Milk, its just as good as Soy, and costs less.

    I get mine at a chain called Grocery outlet. its like 1.40 a half gallon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •