Organic food is no healthier, study finds

[cali]

LONDON (Reuters) – 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.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/hl_nm/us_food_organic

[NeedleCast]

1. This doesn't really surprise me

Although in relation to the environment, I still think some organics are a good idea.

[Armchair QB]

2. Organic is just another way of saying

More Expensive

[NeedleCast]

10. Perhaps, but it if one can trust organic growers

then the processes are less damaging to the environment.

[bamacrat]

84. Buying organic is a rip off since you can grow your own damn garden for way less.

This about like the Atkins diet, starts off great you feel good and it seems to be beneficial to you. But after that first piece of bread or that first Big Mac youre back to square one. if you want fruits and veggies that are not processed grow them. You dont need a garden anymore, there are alot of apartment friendly ways to grow your own produce. Now as far as meats go, I dont know, the organic way makes more sense but if it is better for you than its a waste of money.

[wolfgangmo]

118. It's another way of saying healthier for people and planets.

But hey, you just keep eating your $1.99 Roundup burgers and enjoy them.

Make sure you make an appointment at my clinic when you get sick in 20 years.

[Johonny]

90. yeah

but people aren't going to like this result.

[ananda]

3. The study is bullshit.

Organic IS healthier.

[NeedleCast]

8. Lulz?

That study provided data. You provided opinion and no data. You lose.

[SpiralHawk]

37. You want data? Here's your data

Eat mutant chemicalized corporate food-product crapola all the time and you will turn into a big tub of Republicon Homelander spewage with ass pimples, like Limbaugh.

That's my data-based FACT. You lose.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. That reminds me of another major scientific publication.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x90135

[NeedleCast]

40. I don't think Data means what you think it means...

[SpiralHawk]

58. Here's the real data

The blog site this came from has links to the stories and the study.

http://thecalloftheland.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/food-and-farms-emerge-as-key-movement-of-our-era/

"Meanwhile, the dietary forces impelling people to recognize foods and farms as a key political issue are mounting in strength and credibility. According to stories in both Time Magazine and Mother Earth News, we now have solid, scientific evidence that industrial farming is giving us less healthy food. Produce in the U.S. not only tastes worse than it did in our grandparents’ days, the evidence shows it also contains fewer nutrients.

"Both articles cite a February, 2009 study entitled “Declining Fruit and Vegetable Nutrient Composition,” by Dr. Donald R. Davis published in the journal HortScience, 2009."

[Touchdown]

146. The bad of industrial farming doesn't prove the good of organic.

Alternatives of industrial farming are smaller farms, whether they're organic or not. Organic is a specific way of farming, without synthetic pesticides and growth products.

Horizon is an organic dairy that is part of an organic mega-corporation based out of California. Factory farming can be organic as well.

Try again.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. I like your data

Personally I stopped eating chemical corporate food product crapola, and I stopped eating meat, I lost 150 pounds, lost my diabetes, lost my high blood pressure and hypertension and reversed damage done to my heart. So I will take the organic food and remain a vegetarian, thank you.

[JonQ]

23. Um, ok

besides the caps lock function do you have any data to back that up?

[Stuckinthebush]

100. This is only one study

But it is a meta analysis of many studies. That makes it pretty strong.

Science is cool.

[ControlledDemolition]

143. Even if it isn't, I don't want chemicals in my soup! I don't want a polluted environment... n/t

[eridani]

148. For the planet, yes. For people, no huge effect. n/t

[mzteris]

4. ummm -

it's not that they're "more nutritious" - it's that they don't have chemicals and hormones...

I wonder who sponsored that study?

[Xicano]

62. Exactly.......

This 10min video should be watched. It breaks down the main problem with GMO foods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyzu5NEWCTE

Continued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElKHbNAETME

[Zywiec]

5. Not surprising - more wasted money. n/t

[the other one]

6. Certainly its less damaging to the enviroment

and to me, that means healthier.

[cali]

27. absolutely. I prefer organic and about 60 to 70% of what I purchase is certified organic

having said that, local is even more important to me than organic.

[BonnieJW]

47. I purchase from an organic farmer's stand.

His pesticide is his chickens which have free range among his fields. His fertilizer is the poop from those same chickens. I also purchase eggs and, yes, chicken from this farmer also. His veggies have the same nutrients as the veggies I can purchase from the store; however, his veggies don't have herbicide and pesticide on them. His veggies are not genetically modified. His chickens are treated humanely and are allowed to do what chickens are supposed to do: eat bugs and lay eggs.

[cali]

57. IN summer, I grow my own produce

but I must confess, I don't use the poop from my chickens. And my chickens are treated more than humanely. I love my cochins. They get scones and other goodies and they're free to meander. (chickens really stick with their own territory).

[msongs]

7. not about nutritional values - its about toxic poisons sprayed on food by corporations

broccoli is broccoli, mine has no sprays, poisons, or any chemicals except compost n bird poop lol

Msongs

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Organic broccoli contains a nasty chemical called ascorbigen.

It's known to up-regulate a horrible enzyme called CYP1A1, which can cause other awful chemicals to turn into carcinogens.

Mothers, don't feed your babies organic broccoli.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Any mother that feeds her 'baby' any kind of broccoli is a crackhead.

'babies' can't digest broccoli.

[mzteris]

45. and the gas.....

Most moms who are breastfeeding learn very quickly not to even EAT broccoli!

[Bettie]

126. Brocolli + BF baby = no sleep for mama!

At least with all three of my boys it has been that way!

[Maine-ah]

105. my daughter is 2 & 1/2, and has never had problems with broccoli

I also ate it while I was BF'ing, and never had any problems. Broccoli is also her favorite veggie.


I guess that makes me a crackhead.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. 2 & 1/2 is a "baby"?

Funny, I call that a toddler.

Semantics, I guess.

[Maine-ah]

110. funny, she's been eating it since she was less than an year old

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Raw?

No, seriously, good for you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Cooked food has more nutrients than raw.

Canned fruit more than fresh.

[nosmokes]

131. Now you're just talking smack, and you sound like a canned fruit.

unless the fruit was 'fortified' w/ vitamins and minerals in the processing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. Nope, sorry.

Yes, fortified products obviously has more of whatever it's fortified with, usually vitamin C.

But the canning process breaks down the fruit matrix, allowing much more of the nutrients to be solubilized and bioavailable.

That's well known.

I've got this acquintance, he's a food chemist. Awhile back he was commissioned to look into canned peaches. Apparently some local PTA types had been demanding that the school kids be given fresh peaches, because canned peaches were bad for them and beneath them. Never mind that peaches are in season in the summer, and the kids are out of school in the summer.

Anywho, nutrients were WAY higher in the canned peaches. Order of magnitudes higher.

Oh nosmokes, is there incorrect assumption you won't make?

[nosmokes]

139. so where do all these extra nutrients come from

when you put the fruit in a can or cook the green beans? i suppose god sends an angel to touch them with a magic nutrition wand?

and anyone who eats a canned peach when fresh is available is certifiable. that's not in any peer reviewed journal nor has it been presented to a scientific congress, but it is a fact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

142. they come out of the peach cells.

See, if you eat a fresh peach a lot of those cells just get shat out with breaking down. Can a peach and the cells can break down in the canning juice, and during pasteurization.

That's why canned peaches are a little bit mushier, but much more nutritious.

"that's not in any peer reviewed journal nor has it been presented to a scientific congress, but it is a fact."

It's not a fact, it's just an uninformed, ignorant opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Anyone so bored that they're looking for a fight on THIS subject needs to get out more.

Personally, I'm just not interested enough.

And if people want to buy organic produce, I really don't understand why it puts anyone else's panties in a wad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. What makes you think it does?

This thread is just a report on the nutritional value of conventional foods vs. organic foods.

Why it makes some people get their panties in a wad is beyond me. Maybe they got scammed and don't want to admit it.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Scammed? I was positively manhandled by a bundle of organic chard last week.

And you're right, I don't want to talk about it. :blush:

[Hannah Bell]

144. not universally true at all.

[hfojvt]

25. are you saying that water is a chemical too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3012344

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Are you saying it isn't?

[nosmokes]

63. If you're gona mislead that much just go ahead and lie, it's the same thing.

that's like calling water toxic because it has hydrogen.

A good rule of thumb- don't be a smartass because nobody likes a smartass.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Hydrogen is toxic?

:shrug:

Oh, and my post was technically correct on all counts.

[nosmokes]

81. Absolutely. as toxic as CYP1A1 in broccoli is...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. CYP1A1 isn't in broccoli.

Ascorbigen induces CYP1A1.

CYP1A1 isn't itself toxic, it metabolize compounds into more toxic compounds.

I realize that science is hard, but if you want to talk science you'll have to keep up.

[wolfgangmo]

119. Your attitude is why...

... lot's of people have low science literacy in the US. NO one like a self satisfied jerk. No one want to hang out with an asshole.

I'm not saying that you are one. You might be one of the nicest people on the planet, but you don't come across that way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. No, people have low science literacy because they're stupid.

Everybody's afforded a basic K-12 education in this country.

If they can get through that without knowing shit about science, it's their own damn fault.

[KoKo]

68. Really... so you say the regular brocolli somehow is absent this terrible chemical?

Where are the scientific studies to back up your declaration? :shrug:

[KoKo]

69. OMG....It's amazing folks can post replies with out any scientific data

from "peer reviewed" papers to back up their posts about issues like Food and Vaccines.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. I never said that.

[KansDem]

75. Agreed. This article does not address damage done to the body or the environment...

...due to toxins and poisons.

Anything can be made "more nutritious." Hell, I imagine you could inject vitamins and minerals into library paste and it would have the same "nutritional value" as organic broccoli. But I sure as hell wouldn't eat it!

Anybody who reads this report and surmises that organic and corporate-processed food are equal is not being honest with him/herself.

[grahamhgreen]

9. LOL - I can TASTE the chemicals in non-organic food in a blind test!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Yeah, right.

And I can divide by zero.

[NeedleCast]

17. Divide By Ze....damn it!

[wolfgangmo]

121. How do you know he can't -- are you now claiming omniscience.

Perhaps you should volunteer for the Sarah P for Prez campaign.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. I'm agreeing with him.

He can detect trace levels of pesticides by taste.

I can divide by zero.

Where's the conflict?

[JonQ]

32. I doubt you can

unless you are some next leap in human evolution with superior taste buds.

[grahamhgreen]

87. Just go get yourselves an organic banana and a commercial one - give that a try!

Let me know what happens...

[JonQ]

93. I've tried both

the only difference I've noticed has been in price and quantity. There are differences between different strains, but you can't taste the pesticides or inorganic fertilizers as some claim.

[underpants]

95. I can too. I don't like organic green peppers- I am used to the chemical taste

seriously

Everything else (and I have little sense of smell and a limited sense of taste) is clearly better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6185694

[malaise]

11. I'll take my chances

Thank you

[cali]

31. just a reminder: posting an article is a de facto endorsement of any pov

as it happens, I prefer to buy organic produce and re the small amount of meat I buy, I always buy organic.

[malaise]

44. I buy organic and I don't

eat red meat.

[cali]

46. This isn't a contest, but what the hell.... not only do I largely buy organic I grow my own organic

vegetables in the summer. And that's a real committment. Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point, simply, was that just because I posted a story, doesn't mean that I endorse it. That's all.

[hedgehog]

14. I wonder what the standard was for "significant difference"?

4) ESSENTIAL VITAMINS AND MINERALS

UK and US government statistics indicate that levels of trace minerals in fruit and vegetables fell by up to 76% between 1940 and 1991. 34,35 In contrast there is growing evidence that organic fruit and vegetables generally contain more nutrients than non-organic food.

The Soil Association conducted a systematic review of the evidence comparing the vitamin and mineral content of organic and conventionally grown food. It was found that, on average, organic food contains higher levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium. 36

An independent review of the evidence found that organic crops had significantly higher levels of all 21 nutrients analysed compared with conventional produce including vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29% more), iron (21% more) and phosphorous (14% more). Organic spinach, lettuce, cabbage and potatoes showed particularly high levels of minerals. 37

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10587.php

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Here's where to start.

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

[hfojvt]

15. talk about missing the point

Presumably people are buying organic because they feel it is healthier for the world. That is, no chemicals being sprayed around and ending up in the water you drink and swim in and in the air you breathe. No people getting cancer or bronchitis because they work in a chemical plant, or live next door to a chemical plant, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Deliberately misleading: It's not about "nutritional superiority", it's about pesticide residue.

Seems to me to be a no-brainer to avoid some of that shit, whenever possible, particularly where what kids eat is concerned.

And not all food is created equal in terms of pesticide residue, either. Obviously fruits that have peels and whatnot are not as much of a concern. Things like strawberries, blueberries, that are pesticide-intensive? You bet, I think it's worth the extra $ to go organic.

When you're talking about things like free range chicken or eggs fed a vegetarian diet, there are other considerations, again, beyond simple "nutritional superiority". This study sets up a false premise- that people buy organic because the food is supposed to be 'more nutritious'- then proceeds to knock it down.

I'd be curious to see who funded this "study", personally.

[ThatPoetGuy]

20. Is the study posted anywhere?

Which nutrients were measured?

Any real research on the subject needs to be outcome-based -- are people who eat organic food healthier than people who don't? The study probably only researched vitamins and minerals, leaving off things like phytochemical content, and leaving off adverse effects like pesticide residue.

[hedgehog]

24. Good point - measuring nutrients directly only measures the

nutrients we know about.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. You could just read the article.

As for phenolics, yes those were accounted for.

And as for "adverse effects of pesticide residue" I'm pretty sure that's already been studied at length. There isn't any.

[ThatPoetGuy]

50. I read the article.

You didn't, if you think it addressed methodology.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. The article in the OP addressed where it was posted.

The methodology was addressed in the Am J Clin Nutr review, which is how I know they looked at phenolics.

[ThatPoetGuy]

55. Where?

http://www.ajcn.org/misc/release.shtml

I don't see it among the recent research.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Oh for crying out loud. Search by author.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=alan+dangour&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT


Is this your first time look at scientific literature?

[ThatPoetGuy]

61. The abstract makes no mention of phenolics.

It does refer to 11 different nutrient categories, but only names nitrogen, phosphorus, and titratable acidity. If phenolics are among the other eight, the abstract does not make nay mention of it.

Do you have access to the full article?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Do I? Yes, I do.

And you're welcome to go out and find a copy yourself.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Anyone use a worm bin for compost? Try putting a non-organic banana peel in there.

See what happens to your worms.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. Most calculations are not made when discussing food issues- "organic" means nothing

The Attack of the Killer Tomato
by Peter Bahouth



...

My tomato’s life began in Mexico on land acquired by the U.S. - based Jolly Green Giant Company in partnership with the Mexican Development Corporation. Previously the land was used by local Mexican farmers as a public, cooperative farm called an “ejido.” The tomato seed, though based on a Mexican strain, is now a hybrid, patented and owned by Calgene Inc., a genetic engineering firm that relied on taxpayer-funded research by the University of California, Davis.

The company fumigated the land with methyl-bromide, one of the most ozone-depleting chemicals in existence. It was then doused with toxic pesticides developed, manufactured and distributed by Monsanto. Production waste from the pesticide manufacturing process was sent to the world’s largest hazardous waste landfill in Emelle, Alabama, a predominately poor African-American community. The Mexican farm workers, displaced from their cooperative land, were given no protection from the pesticides they applied: no gloves, masks or proper safety instructions. The workers made $2.50 per day and have no access to health care.

Once harvested, the tomato was put on a plastic tray, covered in plastic wrap, and then packed in cardboard boxes. The plastic was made with chlorine manufactured by the Formosa Company of Point Comfort, Texas. Workers and residents of Point Comfort face a potentially significant rise in cancer, immune suppression, and developmental effects from exposure to dioxins, by-products of chlorine manufacturing. The cardboard began as wood from a 300-year-old tree in British Columbia, and was pulped in a mill on the Great Lakes where residents are warned against eating dioxin-contaminated fish. The cardboard was then shipped by United Trucking Company to Latin American farms. The boxed tomatoes – reddened by ether, nutritionally-impaired, and relatively tasteless – are sent via refrigerated trucks throughout North America.

Once the tomato reached its destination in Toronto, the plastic and cardboard packaging is thrown into the trash, where it is picked up by the municipality, shipped back into the U.S. and burned in an incinerator in Detroit, Michigan.

Throughout the process fossil fuels drive the tomato’s trip. Fueling the trucks, fouling the air, and warming the climate is oil drilled for in the Gulf of Comanche, Mexico, extracted by Chevron and processed by Pemex. This fuel which makes my tomato’s trip possible is then shipped via tanker, dodging 3,800 existing oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast which are uniquely responsible for a host of the region’s environmental and economic problems. The refined fuel is then distributed to the plastic makers, pesticide pushers, packaging barons and motor vehicles that make this tomato’s 3,800 mile attack possible.

...

http://www.voiceyourself.com/site/ponder_this/contributing_editor_archive_view.php?page_id=422338

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I know. That's why I stopped eating entirely in 1982.

It's worked out great.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

35. Glib

nonsense.

Why bother even responding. You added exactly nothing to the conversation.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Thanks for your appraisal, comrade

I'll be sure to run any further contributions by the Central Committee before I speak up. :hi:

[Pharaoh]

28. Except for the fact

of the pesticides used on non organic vegetables.

They do not mention the fact that these plants absorb the poisin and it is absorbed into what you eat.

[onehandle]

29. There is still fat and sugar in organic foods. You can buy an organic brand "pop tarts."

If this is what they are talking about, I agree.

But if they are including chemicals, hormones, etc in their study, I wouldn't find the study conclusive. Too soon if you ask me.

But again, yes you Can kill yourself with many 'health foods.' Still gotta consider the fat and sugar.

[JonQ]

33. They are also responsbile for greater than their fair share of food poisoning

cases in this country. About 1% of our food is organic, about 6% of food poisoning cases are attributed to organics.

Why? What is organic fertilizer? Yep, manure. Combine that with the assumption most people have that organic = safe and you get less rigorous washing of vegetables than you would normally. Leading to . . . food poisoning.

[emilyg]

41. Good point.

[nosmokes]

65. It is NOT a *good point* it is an outright lie.

Manure used in organic farming has been composted which means it has reached a temprature that has killed any unhealthy bacteria. The lie that e- coli is just bouncing up on the crops from fresh manure is directly from industrial ag propoganda. And for pete's sake, commercial growers are now using waste from city sewage treatment plants! You think that is healthier than composted animal manure then you seriously need to do some research, because that sludge contains all sorts of nasty ass stuff that shouldn't be anywhere near a food source, like heavy metals, and the drugs that go through our system and can't be filtered out by treatment- it ends up in the sludge or in our drinking water.

[nosmokes]

53. BULLSHIT

cite a source

[JonQ]

127. I read it once upon a time

Can't find the source now, so I'll retract that claim for the time being.

[wolfgangmo]

123. Does you post point to...

... bad food sources or stupid people. Methinks it is the latter.

Ya caint fix stupid.

[Kceres]

34. That may be so nutritionally.

But I prefer to feed my family sans the pesticides, thank you.

[JonQ]

48. Then skip organics as well.

Plants produce their own pesticides in response to being attacked by insects. They didn't spend the last 500 million years sitting around waiting for us to save them with inorganic poisons after all.

And, interesting thing about natural pesticides: the plant produces them to be used systemically, meaning they are present within the plant tissue itself (food in other words). Whereas most manmade pesticides are sprayed on and affect only the surface of the plant. Meaning you can wash of most manmade pesticides pretty easily, you cannot wash off the poisons put there by mother nature.

[wolfgangmo]

125. Um.

Wow. So, if I understand your argument, then food smothered in Roundup, good, and food that gets rid of bugs on it's own, bad.

OK. Good to know.

[JonQ]

149. Point is

many assume that manmade toxins = evil, deadly but natural toxins = safe and wonderful, healthy even.

And roundup can be ingested in it's pure form up to 500mls with only mild affects according to a report issued in the journal of human and experimental toxicology. It's unlikely your food would be "smothered in Roundup" up to or exceeding this amount (500 mls is alot, and they typically dilute it before use).


This is my point exactly: fear mongering. Chemicals are bad because they were made by people. Why are does it matter that people made them? Because it's unnatural. WHy is that bad? Because unnatural is bad. Why? Because they were made by people. And so on.

Actual science is kicked to the wayside in favor of Luddite style fear of the new and "unnatural". Chemicals are the enemy even when shown safe. Natural is good even when shown to be unsafe.

[Richard D]

36. BS

What's more important in organic foods is what is not there. This study doesn't even approach that.

[redqueen]

42. Yep. (nt)

[Fridays Child]

49. The question is: "organic" by whose definition.

If what you eat has been grown without fossil fuel-based pesticides, fertilizers, feed enhancers, etc., it's likely that you are healthier than those who don't try to keep such substances out of their food supply. We are not evolutionarily designed to consume petroleum, and doing so surely wreaks havoc on the human body. But I doubt that the study referenced here sought to examine that question. Isn't the devil always in the details?

[nosmokes]

51. reviewed 162 studies going back FIFTY(!!?) years

Now why on earth would thy go back fifty years in reviewing studies? Because ALL of the older studies re gonna show no difference. Current studies sho marked eifferences in in minerals and micro-nutrients(vital to health) as well as anti-oxidants in organics. Add to that the benefit o not poisoning the earth air and water, not to mention the growers and producers of the food you're eating or poisoning yourself and your family with what's on your plate and it's really a no brainer.

Of course if you wanna be part of the global warming problem and corporatism that is crippling this country and ruining this planet, then by all means keep shopping at the supermarket buying "fresh" produce that was picked two weeks or more ago, meat that has been fed all sorts of stuff it hasn't evolved to digest so it's been pumped full of drugs to keep it alive and it's been fed hormones to get it to market weight faster than normal as well as standing around in a pool of it's and thousands of it's closest friends filth for weeks on end. DEEElicious,no?

As for the cost of organics there are many ways to make them affordable. Join a CSA. Plant a garden. Many CSAs will allow you trade work for all or part of your fee. If you eat meat you can buy a side of a grass fed free ranged lamb or beeve and save a ton o money.

It's all about priorities. Do you hafta have the latest fashions or the newest electronics, or would you rather eat well and spend quality time sharing quality food with family and friends?

Me, I ain't rich and nobody is mistake me for a wealthy man, but I dine like a King and I'm never at a loss for friends.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Why would they go back fifty years?

To be thorough.

"Because ALL of the older studies re gonna show no difference. "

Why would that be?

"Current studies sho marked eifferences in in minerals and micro-nutrients(vital to health) as well as anti-oxidants in organics."

Oh, they looked at current studies too.

[Bill McBlueState]

56. huh

So what you're saying is, the authors of a peer-reviewed study gave more thought to the analysis than the author of a post on an internet message board. How can this be?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. There's even a nice figure of the selection criteria in the paper.

Maybe nosmokes is upset because they rejected 44 papers just because they hadn't been peer-reviewed.

[nosmokes]

66. *THE*definitve study to date on organics & nutrition

Organic Food Is More Nutritious Say EU Researchers

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Press release, huh?

No peer review? Doesn't sound terribly definitive.

[nosmokes]

80. it was peer reviewed.

I posted all of this back when the study came out and argued and debated w/ you corporate sycophants until my fingers were calloused from hitting the damn keyboard. For some reason y'all seem to believe that if a giant corporation delivers it it must be a good thing, certainly better than anythingpoor simple ol nature could come up with. The denial of modern science involved with current organic farming and bio intensive farming techniques proves that y'all don't have any actual knowledge of WTF is going on in the real world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. It hasn't even been published, according to the article.

"The results were released to the press but there is no mention of a of a journal publication as yet. The research team said its findings will be published in full within the next 12 months."

"For some reason y'all seem to believe that if a giant corporation delivers it it must be a good thing,"

Corporations have nothing to do with anything. Either it's based on sound science or it isn't.


certainly better than anythingpoor simple ol nature could come up with."

Is that an organically grown computer you're typing on?

"The denial of modern science involved with current organic farming and bio intensive farming techniques proves that y'all don't have any actual knowledge of WTF is going on in the real world."

Nosmokes, your whole behaviour on this thread has been to deny science simply because you don't like the results. Not unlike Rush Limbaugh or any other anti-science loon.

[nosmokes]

111. oh man, i don't have the time or inclination to fight this war all over again.

I'm sorry, I stand corrected, the complete study has not been published but relevant portion(s) have. As sections of the study are completed they are presented at international scientific conress' (or whatever the plural of congress is) which is, I believe still an accepted method of presenting information to the community and is just as valid as presenting this info via peer reviewed journal which is, as I'm sure you know, no guarantee as to the accuracy of the material contained in the paper, anymore than it being presented at a conference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. Sorry, no.

Presenting data is not as valid as peer review.

I can present data that German Alien Vegetable Nazis have hyponotized my brain with the death beams, that's not as valid as peer review.

[LanternWaste]

124. But it does explain a lot.

"I can present data that German Alien Vegetable Nazis have hyponotized (sic) my brain with the death beams, that's not as valid as peer review...."

But it does explain a lot.

[BlooInBloo]

64. Newest argument for organic: Ignore information.

[nosmokes]

67. nonsense

All they did was REVIEW studies done, right? Right. Now why did they settle on 162, why did they go back fifty years. I know for a fact that by going back that far it skews the daata in favor of the conventionals because the later testing methods are more accurate and in some cases less biased. Even our own FDA admits that the nutrition value of conventional fruit and veg has gone down since the 1950's, but the same is not true of organically grown.

There are also myriad problems in the actual testing of this, but the best study done yet was a four year mammoth undertaking by the EU a couple/three years ago that found definitively orgnic fruit and veg more nutritious than conventional.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Why 162? Glad you asked.

Well, nosmokes, they started off with around 52,400 papers. Of those, around 52,000 were discarded because they had nothing to do with the subject.

44 were discarded because they weren't peer-reviewed. 36 were disgarded because they had no clear conclusion to the study.

46 were discarded because they weren't direct comparisons between organic and conventional.

11 were discarded because they were so obscure they couldn't find a source for the paper.

87 were discarded because they didn't properly specify how the organic vegetables were certified.

22 were discarded because there was no information on statistical methods used.

2 were discarded because there were no laboratory methods reported.

33 were discarded because cultivars were not identified.

2 were reviews, not research papers.

There, that's the selection criteria.

[underpants]

97. That was my question- the use of chemicals has greatly increased in the last 30 years

vastly increased really

Hell a lot of what was grown back just after WWII WAS organic like, you know, by small farmers

This review is complete BS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6185694

[sendero]

74. 100% bullshit...

... more "medical science" bullshit. This study claims to measure the unmeasurable.

And BTW, I don't eat much organic food because you can stick the word organic on anything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. Agricultural science, not medical science.

And I didn't know nutritional content was unmeasurable. Better tell the scientists.

[winyanstaz]

78. People prefer organic because we are sick from putting chemicals in our bodies...

and preservatives and pesticides and who knows what all.

[Thickasabrick]

79. Idiots, it's not about the nutrition...it's about the absence of pesticides.

There is no way a study comparing poisoned food vs non-poisoned could have been published so soon. Organic only went mainstream a couple of years back. It would have to be a 30 to 50 year study comparing who got what kind of cancer, etc.

Just my two cents.

[Bill McBlueState]

89. The study actually supports your claim

The study actually supports your claim that "it's not about the nutrition." Not sure how that makes anyone an idiot.

[PufPuf23]

83. Soil micro-nutrient depletion is prevalent in industrial

farming whereas organic foods sold at local farmer's markets or in one's own garden are grown is soils that on average have less micro-nutrient depletion. This was hinted at in one study conducted by a "Soil Association" upthread.

Also heirloom varieties regards to patented industrial vegetables are better in taste and more often than not nutrition but do not have the shelf life, even appearance, and tranportability of frankenfoods.

[grahamhgreen]

88. Who funded the study? nt

[depakid]

91. Well, it sure does "perform" better in blind taste tests

Try it yourself and see.

Also- something to consider. Where are those nutrients coming from? Did we just suspend the laws of thermodynamics?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Yeah, scientists have looked into that too.

Properly administered blind taste tests.

People can't tell a difference.

Critical Reviews in Food Nutrition, 42(1), 1-34.

[depakid]

96. You go on thinking that

Then have someone blindfold your own homely self and have a go. Strawberries and apples might be some things to try first.

Do the REAL empirical thing.

See what you think, err taste, smell.

Make notes. Report back.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. You realize what you're describing is absurd, right?

[depakid]

101. I'm describing science

What you're afraid of having a go?

And writing down what you perceive?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. No, you're not.

You're not describing a blind taste test, you're describing eating with a blindfold on.

[depakid]

103. Well, if you can think of another way to control for the sight variable on taste and smell

I'm all ears.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. Ah, I see you've edited your posts.

In properly administered double blind taste tests, people don't tell the difference between organic and conventional crops.

Which makes sense, because trace levels of pesticide residue are well below levels that humans can taste.

If you want, go ahead and test it yourself. Or just read the scientific literature.

[depakid]

106. I asked you to be an empiricist

Yet, like so many, you choose cowardice. Might muck up your mindset, eh?

Organic foods taste (and smell) better. Fairly simple proposition, which we and anyone else can test for our own selves.

With respect to nutrition- well, if you think that various minerals and such come from "nothing" -then there are Casino's all around these days that want your business.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. And I'm asking you to be an emipricist.

You've never actually done a proper blind taste test.

You're making claims that aren't supported by science.

You've hidden the flaws in your methodology.

You're completely full of shit.

"With respect to nutrition- well, if you think that various minerals and such come from "nothing" -then there are Casino's all around these days that want your business."

Say what? Conventional foods and organic foods either make nutrients or absorb them from the ground. There's nothing going on with the physics of this review, regardless of your inability to comprehend it.

[depakid]

108. "You've never actually done a proper blind taste test."

LOL.

Of course I have.

Not only with various fruits and vege's but with Champaign. I figure we had 20 or so, and we each pitched in- bought Crystal, Dom- the whole range. Only one person knew what was in each glass- and even they could only reckon from the bottle shape 'cause each was wrapped in postal paper.

We had our sips and wrote down what we thought, by the number.

Turned out that more folks (by a pretty wide margin) liked the Taittinger vintage, though some of the lower end ones also scored reasonable well.

Try it sometime.

As to "conventional" foods. LOL. When did something that's been in our language for 50 years out of millenia become "conventional?" In your mind, maybe.

Aside from difficulty comprehending- or is some of this sarcasm? it might be appropriate to have a look at soil biology.

People do study that, you know?

Soils do get stripped of nutrients- as well as various deals that help in the uptake of them.

Oops- there;s that pesky thermodynamics thing again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. Well if you want to talk about champaigne, fine.

But if you can tell the difference between organic and conventional foods, maybe you should publish your data.

"Soils do get stripped of nutrients- as well as various deals that help in the uptake of them."

Indeed they do. But that's neither here nor there.

[Vickers]

92. In other news, polyester shirts are shown to be just as effective as cotton shirts.

:crazy:

[Cha]

99. I've done my own tests over the

last 4 decades and I, personally, have been going with the Organic..buying and supporting local and organic farmers..when I get back to Kaua'i I will be growing it.

The produce gets the nutrition from the soil and when the soil is rich and free from pesticides it translates into the food.

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/organicnutritious.html

[Throd]

112. But it gets white women to pay more for produce.

[bemildred]

113. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This seems to be a meta-study of a rather vague category (to wit: "organic food"), and is most certainly vague, contentious bullshit. It is well known for example that food grown in good soil can offer better nutrition, and that eating better food has "health benefits".

[cureautismnow]

116. Is this an example of 1 in 7 scientists who fake data or just the 2%?

"One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

137. Love the irony of the username.

Given the guy who tried to link vaccines with autism just got exposed as a scientific fraud.

[cureautismnow]

138. There has been no such "exposure," ex-bornagainhooligan.

Besides, the link has already been proven in a court of law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On the Heels of Court Ruling Denying Autism-Vaccine Link, U.S. Federal Court
Declares MMR Vaccine Caused Autism in a Young Boy

NIXA, Mo., Feb. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following release was issued
today by the National Autism Association:

Less than two weeks after federal vaccine court ruled against three families
claiming vaccines caused autism in their children, Huffington Post writers
Robert F Kennedy, JR and David Kirby reported Tuesday on the story of Bailey
Banks, a 10-year-old who regressed into autism following the MMR vaccine.

Last week, Banks' parents were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 plus
medical-care compensation by the vaccine court, where Special Master Abell
ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain
inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which
triggered young Banks' autism spectrum disorder:

"The Court found that Bailey's ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately
caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue
can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of
the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM.
Furthermore, Bailey's ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual
damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the
generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this
delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of
causation was... a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably
from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay," Abell noted in his ruling
in June of 2007.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS216490+26-Feb-2009+PRN20090226

[wolfgangmo]

117. These types of studies are not science.

They are a book report. Notice that they said the "study" reviewed other studies.

Interestingly enough a lot of the studies "quoted" have been completely been debunked as biased or fraudulent. There is a report like this every few years and it seem to be BS every time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. Looks like the scientists who reviewed it and published it disagree with you.

"Interestingly enough a lot of the studies "quoted" have been completely been debunked as biased or fraudulent."

Name one.

[4lbs]

132. Organic doesn't mean more nutritious. It means chemical-free and preservative-free.

So, an "organically-grown" apple or orange isn't more nutritious than an apple or orange grown the "regular" way.

What it does mean is that the "organic" apple and/or orange weren't sprayed with pesticides or treated with other chemicals designed to simply make them look better.

Nevertheless, there must be something else going on, because the "organically-grown" oranges in my parents' backyard are much better than those I find at any supermarket. I pick them right off the trees. Navel and Valencia oranges. The oranges I get from my parents' orange trees have thin peels, and explode with juice when you cut into them. If I buy oranges at a supermarket, the orange peels are really thick, and the pulp inside is often dry, with a small amount of juice.

"Organic" wheat bread isn't necessarily more nutritious than "regular" wheat bread. However, "organic" wheat bread doesn't contain chemical preservatives. Thus, you can buy a loaf of "regular" wheat bread and take up to a month to eat all the slices, because of the preservatives. With the "organic" wheat bread though, you often have to eat it within 7 or 10 days because there are no chemical preservatives in it.

[XRubicon]

136. This is a red herring...

I'm sure organic food has no more nutritional value- what it doesn't have is steroids, antibiotics, etc. They grow animals nowadays like weeds, back in the day chicken breasts looked small, now they are huge with added roid rage.

I think this is one of the reasons for all the overweight people these days.

[bvar22]

140. ?

........If for no other reason than the taste.

[wroberts189]

145. There have been many studies that say yes...

I would say choose what you want ..but GM is not labeled.

[nightrain]

147. I don't care what the study says. I prefer to eat food that is less processed with fewer chemicals

on it, and from a more local source. Great to have a garden, but that's not available to all.