Posted on 09/04/2012 2:02:00 PM PDT by lbryce
Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?
Maybe — or maybe not.
Stanford University scientists have weighed in on the “maybe not” side of the debate after an extensive examination of four decades of research comparing organic and conventional foods.
They concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli.
The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats.
Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans.
“When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. “I think we were definitely surprised.”
The conclusions will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people into overpaying. The production of organic food is governed by a raft of regulations that generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, hormones and additives.
The organic produce market in the United States has grown quickly, up 12 percent last year, to $12.4 billion, compared with 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association. Organic meat has a smaller share of the American market, at $538 million last year, the trade group said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They’re likely backtracking because the organic foods in our local grocers are going un-purchased. My local grocer admitted to having to throw out twice as much “organic” produce as the regular stuff due to the price being often double the price of the run-of-the-mill produce.
People are pinching pennies, and organic food is not only a ruse with tenuous benefits but a money pit.
'The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.'
“Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. “
There is the only advantage. Choosing organic means less pesticide, if that is what you want. You have to trust “scientists” to tell you that the level of parathion you are eating is OK. That is, of course, if the stuff sold as organic was honestly produced and not just labeled as organic at some distribution center (Mrs Gooch’s store would do their own testing).
I don’t buy “organic” foods, but I know many people who do and it’s very soothing for them. If it’s not “organic” they’ll fret and worry about the food and imagine all sorts of secret additives and genetic manipulations.
No problem to me, I buy the $2 avocado and they buy the $3 one.
“Organic” is a religion. Some people keep Kosher because G-d told them to.
I have a friend who is a beef producer, and they don’t try to get “organic” certification, but they believe they are much healthier anyway. I can only judge by the taste, which is as good as it gets.
Wow, well I guess that settles it. If the EPA says it, then of course it must be true. How about a non-governmental scientific inquiry into this issue? More to the point...
The scientists sidestepped the debate over whether the current limits are too high. “Some of my patients take solace in knowing that the pesticide levels are below safety thresholds,” Dr. Bravata said. “Others have questioned whether these standards are sufficiently rigorous.”
Actually the big deal with organic foods is meats that don't have growth hormones or antibiotics. Seems like that issue remains uncontroverted.
Your tagline is very well-said, insightfully expressed.
It's the pesticides that are the problem, and for the milk and meat the hormones.
I talked to friend who is semi retired, they work PT at a local chain supermarket in the Produce dept. He said they same thing happens where they work even though the store is in a relative affluent area.
Sometimes they can’t even sell a full case of organic produce before they have to toss it, while they can easily sell 5+ cases of the regular stuff.
I’d say more a sister-kiss than a pyrrhic victory. Paul Ryan is a hot date.
Newsflash: clean food has same nutritional value as dirty food.
Agree.
We've been pumped full of growth hormones through our food supply. Kids are hitting sexual maturity earlier by a couple of years. Antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria are creating serious health threats that have a constantly narrowing range of answers (I unfortunately know this from first hand experience).
There are meats that are not labeled as "organic", but claim to be free of antibiotics and GH's. They're competitively priced.
Australia has very few feedlots. Most beef there is grass fed and same for the lamb. I rarely get to eat grass fed beef but last time I did it was way above other beef
Organic is better too though I don’t obsess about it. I have lots of fruit trees here, I use a combination of organic and non-organic inputs to make them thrive.
Girls are, but not boys. Why is that? I'm still not sold on the "additives" theory. I think early maturity and overall larger size is due to the big increase in nutrients/calories in general, and protein in particular, in the average American diet over the last 25-50 years.
A good example I noted in the store just yesterday:
Fuji apples were going for $1.69 / lb.
Red delicious organic apples were going for $4.99 for a package of 4. The weight on the package was 0.79 lb. That’s over $6 / lb.
The cereal aisle had organic steel cut oatmeal at $3.99 for a 1/2 lb. box. Quaker Oats steel cut instant oatmeal was $4.99 for ten 8 oz. packages (5 lb.) That’s $8 / lb. vs. $1 / lb.
The produce manager at a local Sweetbay told me that they throw away over half the organic produce they take in. Most of our local farmers markets shut down due to lack of interest.
It’s like my wife says, “It’s expensive to eat healthy!”
Does your organic cauliflower have a large carbon footprint?
I have always found “organic” to mean nearky rotten and full of bugs.
Females, yes. Breast development and menses start much earlier than in generations past. However, males are actually suffering the opposite effects in that often males are slower to physically mature, have increased risk of physical feminisation such as gynecomastia, and in some extreme cases, are sterile or suffer from low sperm motility.
I've suffered from gynecomastia since I was a young boy, and most experts with whom I've discussed it have linked my problem to hormones in milk and livestock feed. I still drink milk (sparingly) but lean more toward grass-fed meats and wild game.
Soy and soy by-products contain phytoestrogens that are responsible for a multitude of male sexual dysfunctions. I avoid it at all costs and that includes anything that eats it such as commercial meats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.