no, but... it separates the fools from their money.
Posted on 07/29/2009 8:01:05 PM PDT by caper gal 1
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.
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
From the Department of Agriculture which the other day discovered paper has two sides?
Great post, just what I thought
It may not be healthier but organic food sure costs more. The price to pay for the feel good placebo.
I thought beer was good for the heart? ;o)
same here. common sense indicated this very thing.
It supports my theory of the reason so many liberals buy into these fashion trends, because they really can’t be labeled “theories”, is to parade just how superior they think they are. It is appallingly classist, implying that if you care about the envrionment and your body you will pay more for organic and if you don’t (i.e. “can’t”) you are beneath contempt.
Always remember and never forget: There is food value in beer - there is no beer value in food.
no, but... it separates the fools from their money.
Yep, recent news flash--most of bottled water is tap water.
Bottled water that comes from public water supply via an Reverse Osmosis machine actually is a huge water waste (for every ounce of purified water three other ounces are wasted by the RO process).
Agreed. I actively avoid buying anything with an “Organic” label to not look like being a Kool-Aid drinking fool.
Organic means carbon based … most foods are, therefore organic, regardless how they were grown. Basic HS science.
There is one real big problem with the “study”. It did not address the main reason most people buy organic...pesticides (and antibiotics/hormones in meats and produce). It was actually just a compilation of studies, meaning they’re telling us something we already knew. All they told us was that, for the most part, vitamin and mineral content in an apple is the same as the vitamin and mineral content in an apple. There’s a “DUH” in there somewhere.
No way!
Over here my FRiend...
While there is certainly no added nutritional bonus, there are still some reasons to go organic. My sister’s two daughters had to go to an endocrinologist. One was not growing and the other was going into premature puberty, at age 6. They had to switch to all organic, including meat, milk, etc. It has made all the difference in the world for them. We never saw the need, but it made sense for them.
HA ! - I knew it.....
Where do the other three ounces go?
EXACTLY!
I have said all along that buying “organic” is a paying more for inferior quality.
When I see “organic” on something, the first things I think of are bug infested (no pesticides) turd contaminated (no “artificial “ fertilizers) and mold and fungus laced (no preservatives) overpriced inferior goods.
Why the heck would I pay a premium for THAT???!!!
Bingo!!
Your body does not consume such items for energy, that is what goes out the back door. You do know what your back door is don't you.
Your body does not consume such items for energy, that is what goes out the back door. You do know what your back door is don't you.
“While there is certainly no added nutritional bonus, there are still some reasons to go organic. My sister’s two daughters had to go to an endocrinologist. One was not growing and the other was going into premature puberty, at age 6. They had to switch to all organic, including meat, milk, etc. It has made all the difference in the world for them. We never saw the need, but it made sense for them.”
Actually your body does absorb the antibiotics and hormones when you eat the food. Are they consumed for energy? No, but that doesn't mean they don't do any damage.
“Always remember and never forget: There is food value in beer - there is no beer value in food.”
Thanks, I will never forget and will hit my lib/vegan/non beer inbibers with your words every chance I get...starting on the golf course tomorrow.
Mahalo
“As far as bottlewd water, you are right some are a complete waste of money, but others are far superior to tap water.”
Have you started growing four tits from eating beef???
I call BS on the very obvious Kool Aid Drinker!
You don’t need to grow spare parts to be adversely affected by consuming unnecessary antibiotics and hormones in your meet and dairy products.
Studies have shown that the increase in antibiotic resistance is due people consuming them in meat and milk. Studies have also shown that early puberty in females is also linked to hormones on beef and dairy cows as well.
What an unusual rejoinder. Antibiotics, which are designed to circulate in the bloodstream, do not circulate in the bloodstream if they have first been mass-fed to a cow because the stomach makes a distinction between the antibiotic and the medium-rare muscle, passing the muscle to be used for energy and the antibiotic to...where again?
Which studies?
There are several: Budweiser, Sam Adams, Anchor Steam, Heineken's, Miller, Corona, Dos XX, Carta Blanca among others. I'm sure you get the idea.
In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.
Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said....The legislation is supported by the American Medical Association, among other groups, but opposed by farm organizations like the National Pork Producers Council....The use of antibiotics for “purposes other than for the advancement of animal or human health should not be considered judicious use,” Dr. Sharfstein said in his written testimony. “Eliminating these uses will not compromise the safety of food.”
The CDC replied: The majority of antibiotics used in food animals belong to classes of antibiotics which are also used to treat human illness; these include tetracyclines, sulfonamides, penicillins, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicols, and streptogramins. Because these classes of antibiotics are similar, then bacteria resistant to antibiotics used in animals will also be resistant to antibiotics used in humans.
Antibiotics Used In Food Animals Causes Antibiotic Resistance In People
The latest research study in Australia shows that less antibiotic used in food animals leads to less drug resistance in people. // Australia has adopted a policy of restricting antibiotic use in food-producing animals and this may be linked with lower levels of drug-resistant bacteria found in its citizens.
So, regardless of what soil plants are grown in, there is no difference in their quality?
Well, I never got into the bottled water rut but I can guarantee I could tell the difference and my grandson can tell the difference between each of our 8 wells.
Organic is a scam
Major Organic Fertilizer Fraud
* ‘Organic’ fertilizer was spiked
Farmers unaware, weren’t penalized, state says
By JIM DOWNING
The Sacramento Bee, December 30, 2008
For up to seven years, California Liquid Fertilizer sold what seemed to be an organic farmer’s dream, brewed from fish and chicken feathers.
The company’s fertilizer was effective, inexpensive and approved by organic regulators. By 2006, it held as much as a third of the market in California.
But a state investigation caught the Salinas-area company spiking its product with ammonium sulfate, a synthetic fertilizer banned from organic farms.
As a result, some of California’s 2006 harvest of organic fruits, nuts and vegetables - including crops from giants like Earthbound Farm - wasn’t really organic.
According to documents obtained by The Bee through a Public Records Act request, California Department of Food and Agriculture officials were notified of the problem in June 2004 but didn’t complete their investigation and order the company to remove its product from the organic market until January 2007.
State officials knew some of California’s largest organic farms had been using the fertilizer, the documents show, but they kept their findings confidential until nearly a year and a half after it was removed from the market. No farms lost their organic certification.
The nonprofit California Certified Organic Farmers, which certifies about 80 percent of the state’s organic acreage, decided not to penalize farms that had used the product on the grounds that farmers did not know they were using an unapproved chemical.
The state could have Advertisement pursued harsher penalties against California Liquid Fertilizer, including violation of the California’s organic product law, which carries fines of up to $5,000, said Agriculture Department spokesman Steve Lyle. It also could have referred the case to the attorney general’s office for civil action as an unfair business practice.
“We did not pursue those courses of action because our priority was to remove the product from the market,” Lyle said. “More process would have delayed that.” The investigation took as long as it did, he said, because the case was complex.
The trouble has continued. In November 2007, the distributor of another organic liquid fertilizer, representing about 5 percent of the market, pulled its product in the middle of another state investigation. Rumors in the industry point to another major disclosure as soon as this month.
Not a safety risk
Synthetic fertilizers don’t present food safety risks, but the organic movement has always opposed them because they take a great deal of energy to produce, decrease natural soil fertility and can pollute water.
Above all, the California Liquid Fertilizer case shows how much the organic regulatory system depends on trust.
Organic farming started with small operations that rejected modern agriculture’s huge, chemical-dependent fields in favor of diversified plots fertilized with old-fashioned compost, manure and cover crops. Today, organic farms still do without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. But much else is radically different.
Sales of organic products have soared from $5 billion nationwide a decade ago to $24 billion today, according to the Organic Trade Association. California accounts for nearly 60 percent of the U.S. harvest of organic produce.
The biggest organic operations cultivate thousands of acres and sell to mainstream buyers like grocery chains.
With farms under pressure to cut costs and deliver big harvests, demand has grown for a new class of potent liquid fertilizers that help crops thrive.
“Organic agriculture is becoming very dependent on these amendments,” said Thaddeus Barsotti, who runs Capay Organic farm in Yolo County. “If you don’t use them, and your competitor is using them, you’re going to suffer.”
Good for cool-weather crops
Liquid fertilizers work particularly well for cool weather crops like strawberries and salad greens, and market leaders Earthbound and Driscoll’s became big customers for California Liquid Fertilizer, according to executives from those companies.
But liquid fertilizers are used on farms producing virtually every variety of organic fruit, nut and vegetable. On his mid-sized farm, Barsotti likes to give his bok choy, cabbage and pepper crops a nitrogen boost early in the growing season, though he said he never used California Liquid Fertilizer’s products.
The state learned of the problems at California Liquid Fertilizer from a whistleblower. In a June 18, 2004, complaint, the former employee alleged that for five years ammonium sulfate had been used in the company’s liquid fertilizer.
A year later, according to state records, state Department of Food and Agriculture inspector Pierre Labossiere took the first sample of Biolizer XN, the company’s leading product, from Tanimura & Antle Inc., an Earthbound Farm partner in Salinas.
Laboratory analysis supported the allegations, and in July 2005, Labossiere asked California Liquid Fertilizer to explain why, the records show. He never got an answer, and during multiple follow-up visits to the firm’s factory near Gonzales was told that the fish and feathers used to make the product were unavailable for sampling.
Over the next year, Labossiere followed up, finding indications of ammonium sulfate in six more samples at farms and fertilizer dealers around the state. In February 2006, he twice intercepted tank cars of ammonium sulfate in a Salinas railyard. Receipts showed the liquid had been shipped to California Liquid Fertilizer from a plant in Decatur, Ill.
California Liquid Fertilizer’s then-president, Peter Townsley, did not respond to repeated phone calls from The Bee or to a written request for comment...
The CDC:
A third possible reason that antibiotic resistance is a food safety problem is that the food supply may be a source of antibiotic-resistant genes. Harmless bacteria present in food-producing animals could be resistant, and humans could acquire these bacteria when they eat meat products from these animals. Once ingested, resistant genes from these bacteria could be transferred to bacteria that cause disease. Quantifying the extent to which this contributes to a food safety problem is difficult.
“Studies have shown that the increase in antibiotic resistance is due people consuming them in meat and milk. Studies have also shown that early puberty in females is also linked to hormones on beef and dairy cows as well.”
I think the increase in antibiotic resistance is due to people abusing antibiotics.
I do agree, though, that excess consumption of soy particularly, due to the estrogen, can cause early puberty in girls and delayed puberty in boys.
I mean no offense to you, but Aquafina was listed along with several other popular waters on our local news yesterday as being nothing but tap water from Philadelphia.
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.