Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
According to this organic food is not healthier than ordinary food.
Quote:
Organic food is no healthier, study finds
Review of 162 studies over 50 years show no significant benefits
LONDON - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.
The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.
While it may not be "healthier" I'll still opt for organic when I can to keep the extra chemicals out of my system.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
That's why I buy organic fruits and veggies when I can, too, Bob. Truly, I was never under the impression that they were more nutritious, I always thought they may be less harmful.
But then the Michael read an article recently about "Cage Free" eggs, and the definition of "cage free" is completely misleading and doesn't even remotely mean what "pastured" eggs means...and what we want when we buy "cage free" is actually "pastured". So, how do we know what "organic" means?
I'm curious about their phrase "no health benefits" though. The article/blurb focuses on there being no more nutrients/no more nutritious. Health benefits would seem to include the effects of fewer/less pesticides. They don't mention how "health benefits" are measured.
That's why I buy organic fruits and veggies when I can, too, Bob. Truly, I was never under the impression that they were more nutritious, I always thought they may be less harmful.
But then the Michael read an article recently about "Cage Free" eggs, and the definition of "cage free" is completely misleading and doesn't even remotely mean what "pastured" eggs means...and what we want when we buy "cage free" is actually "pastured". So, how do we know what "organic" means?
If you read up on what can be defined as "organic" you'll see it's not completely pesticide/chemical free. But it still gives some guidelines and limits on what can be used so there will be less.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
If you read up on what can be defined as "organic" you'll see it's not completely pesticide/chemical free. But it still gives some guidelines and limits on what can be used so there will be less.
Not less actually, just different. The technicality is it is natural. We have downgraded and jumped back into the time machine using oldtime coppers and sulfates that have a much higher toxicity level than the evil GMOs and pesticides. I just finished about a 3 day stint of writing on this for a new project and not only are there just the same if not more chemicals on organic foods, they can be more toxic.
There is nothing healthier or greener about organic foods, if anything it is a step back in the wrong direction.
Leigh- when you mention the toxicity of GMOs, are you talking about toxicity to humans or to target organisms like insects?
BTW: I agree that there is really no health benefit to 'organic' foods.
Target organisms.
With any crop, organic or not the only real known danger is that of bacterial/viral infection, a risk that even the CDC says is higher with organics by the way.
Also, if you look at the most recent report on US foodbourne illnesses Chemical illness that were confirmed only belong to 134 cases. Of that there are no deaths and most or from fish (due to the fish eating another sick fish).
Compare that to Bacterial and Viral that make up 12000 cases, include deaths, and could be involved in organic, GMO, or a stupid chef in a kitchen.
The point is that more illness comes from a guy not washing a counter top than a chemical that you wash off in the sink. By the way that has also been tested and a simple wash reduces more than the majority of present pesticides.
When you mentioned "sulfates that have a much higher toxicity level than the evil GMOs and pesticides", I was unsure if you were suggesting that GMOs were toxic to humans (even if less so than some of the natural pesticides). Some people think that the transgenes (like Bt) are toxic or harmful to humans, but I think the research backing up their safety is good.
The point of most agricultural pesticides is to kill the critters that will eat the plant and/or reduce the yeild not kill the bacteria that will infect the human. So I was thinking she could have meant more or less toxic to the target critters (more or less effective in other words) or the residue being more or less toxic to the end consumer. I wasn't even thinking about more or less toxic to microorganisms that could infect the consumer.
I'm curious about their phrase "no health benefits" though. The article/blurb focuses on there being no more nutrients/no more nutritious. Health benefits would seem to include the effects of fewer/less pesticides. They don't mention how "health benefits" are measured.
Lost- It seems to be a review, so I'd imagine that of the 162 papers they reviewed various aspects of health benefits would have been examined.
Pen & Teller's latest episode of Bullshit (on Showtime) is on organic foods. I just watched it this morning. Of course, I wouldn't take them as an unbiased source of information, but it was pretty entertaining.
Growing up, my Dad owned a produce business that was retail/wholesale. We did mostly fruits, but a lot of vegetables too.
The term 'organic' is the biggest joke in the business. Everyone laughs about the suckers that pay twice as much for basically unregulated claims. Unless your supplier is really legit, you are usually getting totally messed over anyway.
And, like you say, even if it is organic, it's not really more nutritious, just 'in theory' has less pesticide used. Even that can be bogus though, because some of the 'natural' stuff they use can be more harmful to human bodies that the chemical stuff.
__________________
***********************
If you weren't born drop dead gorgeous, be thankful for the opportunity to develop character first.
So many myths and misconceptions about organic food an entire book could be dedicated to correcting the misunderstandings. As Alan mentioned him and I tackled the issue in an edition of AARR and I also address this in Knowledge and Nonsense. I recently read some good info on Organic food in Silver's Challenging Nature which has prompted me to further my writings on the issue. I should complete the article within the next couple of weeks Organic Food: The Real Story
Organic Food
Linear Mode
