HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » Study questions how much ...

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:23 AM

Study questions how much better organic food is

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out - and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children - but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTHBEAT_ORGANIC_QUESTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-03-37-05


Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.

They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.

Overall, there was no discernable difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.

Critics say the work is inconclusive and call for more studies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19465692

20 replies, 2732 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Study questions how much better organic food is (Original post)
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 OP
AZ Progressive Sep 2012 #1
pnwmom Sep 2012 #2
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #5
no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #9
MADem Sep 2012 #3
ehrnst Sep 2012 #12
MADem Sep 2012 #19
Cha Sep 2012 #4
pnwmom Sep 2012 #13
JustAnotherGen Sep 2012 #6
Atman Sep 2012 #7
marmar Sep 2012 #8
pnwmom Sep 2012 #14
fasttense Sep 2012 #10
yellerpup Sep 2012 #11
caraher Sep 2012 #15
hedgehog Sep 2012 #16
Odin2005 Sep 2012 #17
Cha Sep 2012 #18
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #20

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:33 AM

1. Organic food is not genetically modified, doesn't have the chemicals and toxins of corporate grown..

...food, and your much more likely to be supporting honest small businesses and fairly paid workers. This study has gone astray from the whole point of buying organic food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:39 AM

2. The title misstates the conclusions of the actual research. There are other factors

besides nutritional content that affect the value of food products.

For example, the research shows that there is a 33% increase in antibiotic resistant infections among those who eat non-organic meat, due to the use of antibiotics to fatten the animals.

Just because there might be just as much protein or minerals in an organic vs. non-organic food product, doesn't mean that non-organic foods are just as healthy. No one benefits by including more antibiotics, hormones, or pesticides in their diets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:55 AM

5. Headline changed to that of the AP.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:57 AM

9. Agreed. The premise is misleading.

The issue should be whether organic food is safer for consumption and health than non-organic food.

And it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:40 AM

3. 0% less likely to contain pesticides....THAT is what you are paying for; absence of pesticides.

Some things don't matter--bananas? They have skins. Celery, OTOH? I like organic celery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:03 AM

12. Not really - you are paying for other types of insect and weed control

It's not that organic growers don't use fertilizer or insect control - they just don't use the synthetic methods. They still cost money - to flood your field, mulch it, manually remove beetles, etc costs money.

And Organic growers are charged more for crop insurance than conventionally grown produce.

To be certified Organic, you must also pay to apply, and have your crops inspected to ensure that you are indeed organic. There are fees for this certification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:06 PM

19. I buy celery not because they used garlic to keep away the bugs, but because they didn't use those

crappy nasty pesticides.

That's me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:53 AM

4. "Although it could cut your exposure to pesticides"?..

Ya think? Therefore it is Healthier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:17 AM

13. And antibiotics and hormones. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:04 AM

6. Human beings

Thrived for thousands and thousands of years without pesticides, steroids, and antibiotics being "grown into" their food. If possible - when possible - I'm eating like my father's grandparents and great grandparents did. And his greats include people that subsisted on a "slave" diet for much of their lives including post slavery - and they all made it into their 90s and beyond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:23 AM

7. My feeling, too; whenever possible.

I just can't see a downside to NOT putting unnecessary chemicals and GMOs into your body. Given the choice, whenever practical, I buy organic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:03 AM

8. Part of the problem, here in the U.S. at least, is that some things labeled "organic" ......


...... really aren't completely organic, thanks to the USDA's knuckling under to big food companies.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:18 AM

14. That is a problem. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:06 AM

10. Once the USDA got in the middle of labeling organic

(note they don't label GMO) organic foods immediately took a dive. You can do all sorts of crappy things to food and animals and still obtain a USDA organic label.

The researchers in the AP study used USDA standards for levels of pesticide, hormones and antibiotics that are safe. But the USDA is strongly controlled by Monsanto so who are you going to trust? I notice the article also mentions that the price of organic is higher. But if you are a careful shopper you can get organic type food without the high cost if you shop at farmer's markets.

The article from the AP does mention a taste difference but said it wasn't important. I really think the taste of my food is very important.

Both those articles sound like hit pieces for Monsanto. They sound like they are trying to convince you that real organic food is not any better, just more expensive. But when you buy meat in the Wal-Mart grocery store, you are buying meat that is injected with water and flavorings, meat that is gassed to make it look fresh and meat that is glued to make it look like a prime cut. You get ground beef with pink slime and all sorts of other additives.

Buying non organic in the grocery stores today, you don't know what kind of crap you are really getting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:43 AM

11. I'll have what the rats are having...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:46 AM

15. There are also other reasons to prefer "organic" foods

My biggest motivation to "buy organic" isn't whether there's a measurable health effect associated with organic foods, it's to provide some pressure against the worst practices of the industrial food machine. As noted by others, there is now an "organic food industry" that mimics many of the practices of the mainstream food industry; but this is why I prefer buying from small local producers - even if not "Organic (TM)" - over supermarket food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:06 PM

16. It's not just about what goes into your mouth, it's about the world you live in

but it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss

Following the three years when the FST fields were being transitioned to organic production, the organic corn fields produced just as much as the conventional fields. And while conventional growers are now battling newly herbicide-resistant superweeds with more powerful chemicals, the FST organic crops hold their own against weeds, producing the same as the conventional fields without the assistance of herbicides.

Another long-term research project out of Iowa mirrors Rodale Institute’s work. A 12-year study of organic versus conventional methods found that after the transition period, organic corn and soybeans produced, on average, nearly identically amounts of food as the conventionally-managed plants.

Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Maybe you heard the hullabaloo over a 2010 journal review written by a well-known researcher who has spent a lot of time discrediting the nutritional benefits of organic food. In the article, Joseph Rosen, PhD, professor emeritus of food toxicology at Rutgers University, suggested that organic food might not be worth the cost. This "new" review didn't include any new content, or address dozens of recent studies that prove the nutritional value of organic food. Nevertheless, nutritional considerations certainly influence the food choices we make, so it's a worthy conversation to have.

That said, eating organic involves a lot more than the nutritional content of the food itself. In 2010, the mainstream medical community—in the form of the President’s Cancer Panel—took the major step of urging Americans to eat organic food because it's grown without chemicals, pesticides, drugs, and hormones linked to cancer, along with countless other ailments.

But back to nutritional content, where organic still appears to have an edge over conventional, even if the differences are more complicated to measure than you might think. "We agree that many variables impact the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods, that differences can vary by year, and that more research is needed to accurately quantify the differences," explains Chuck Benbrook, PhD, chief scientist at The Organic Center, which generates peer-reviewed research on organic farming and products. "The Soil Association and The Organic Center have never stated that organic food is always more nutritious,” says Benbrook. “But on average, across years, types of food, soils, genetics, and so on, it’s about 25 percent more nutritious. That’s what the literature shows."

http://www.rodale.com/organic-food-benefits
Over the 30 years of the trial, organic corn and soybean yields were equivalent to conventional yields in the tilled systems.

Wheat yields were the same for organic and conventional systems. (Wheat was
only added to the conventional system in 2004).


Read more written by the people who put "organic" front and center:

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:17 PM

17. "Organic" is a marketing label to get yuppies to pay more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:06 PM

18. No, I've been eating Organic

for a long time. Worked on organic farms and have many friends across the country who are organic farmers. They work hard and do a great service to our planet in not spreading the poison in the soil.

I'm very appreciative of our Organic Farmers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 08:06 PM

20. The Stanford Organic Food Study.....

...brought to you by your friends at MONSANTO and CARGILL.

I rarely accept any so-called ''study'' put out by universities and authorized agencies these days because the colleges are bought and paid-for and the government agencies (I'm looking at you FDA!) like the whole fucking system -- is corrupt as hell.

- Always checked your sources for corporate cooties, I always say......

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread