Posted on 05/24/2010 4:24:51 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Consumers who opt for organic foods often believe they are improving their health, but there is currently no strong evidence that organics bring nutrition-related health benefits, a new research review finds.
A "disappointingly small" number of well-designed studies have looked at whether organic foods may have health benefits beyond their conventional counterparts', according to the review, by researchers with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health in the UK.
Moreover, they found, what studies have been done have largely focused on short-term effects of organic eating -- mainly antioxidant activity in the body -- rather than longer-term health outcomes. And most of the antioxidant studies failed to find differences between organic and conventional diets.
The review, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, adds to findings reported last year by the same research team.
In that study, the researchers combed through 162 articles published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, and found no evidence that organic and conventional foods differ significantly in their nutrient content.
For the current review, the researchers were able to find only 12 published studies that met their criteria for evaluating the health effects of organic foods.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
SOURCE: http://www.ajcn.org/ American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online May 12, 2010.
Any one here trust your local grocer that the food they are selling as “organic” at higher prices is, in fact, organic? I don’t.
No, but you have to admit that organic food is one of the best examples in history of the value of excellent marketing.
We eat organic whenever possible (without a doubt, it tastes better). We also drink raw cow’s milk, which is outstanding; I never knew milk tasted *that* good. Chemicals are rarely a positive.
“Organic” eating is a religion. [I comment as one with a lot of formal education in the chemistry of food and nutrition.] If it makes you feel righteous and pure, do it, but that’s all placebo effect. If you want fresh, do what I do and grow your own.
Many years ago, some environmentalist reporter was interviewing a scientist and asked, “What did people do before artificial pesticides and fertilizers?” His response was, “People died younger.”
Do you know the difference between white eggs and brown eggs? Brown eggs are more likely to come from brown colored chickens and they cost more. That’s the only difference.
Organic Food destroys the Amazon Rain Forest.
Organic Food take 3x as much land to deliver a ton of crops. When American land is used for organics, the rest of the world asks Brazil to cut down rain forest to grow the soy beans non-organically.
So to feed their egos, leftists destroy rainforest.
The most land-economical eating is with pesticides, herbicides in mass commercial agriculture. That method leaves as much forest alone as possible.
Some organic foods are loaded with bacterial contamination..so you have to be careful, especially things like raw alfalfa and bean sprouts. There was just another recall from sprouts grown in Oregon (once again). Don't assume just because it is organic that it is safer. Raw sprouts shouldn't be given to sick or people prone to certain illnesses.
See the most recent recall:
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/05/24/salmonella-outbreak-sparks-nationwide-alfalfa-sprout-recall/
The best case for organic foods is the relative lack of pesticides, antibiotics, and other synthetic chemicals and GMO contaminants.
There are indeed pesticides that are certified for use in "organic" farming. I have some of them in my shed for garden use. There is a common belief that organic equals chemical-free, and that simply is not the case.
**Freeper Kitchen Ping**
Yeah, and you probably prefer natural asbestos insulation over fiberglass insulation. After all, asbestos truly is a natural fiber and does a better job of insulating and you can just ignore that mesothelioma nonsense.How one can compare asbestos, which is the main cause of mesothelioma, with organically grown vegetables, I do not know ...
>> A “disappointingly small” number of well-designed studies
Why the emphasis?
And what is it about organic milk that is has a longer shelf life?
I suspect that if you were to investigate who was behind this study, it might well be either someone, or someone funded by people who make money supplying hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides to non organic corporate farms.
I buy organic milk, eggs, and meat primarily to avoid things like growth hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides which cannot be washed off these products like they can with fruits and vegetables.
Studies like this will never be able to capture a long enough period of time to determine whether avoiding these substances in your 20s, 30s, and 40s helps you avoid cancer in your 50s, 60s, and 70s.
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.