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.
That's really what it's all about. The placebo effect (placebo = latin for roughly "I will please") is very powerful. You can find placebo effects in drug studies of over 20%. I am not sure about the studies of feeling "righteous and pure", but as an aging former hippie, I suspect that the effects are more about the moral vanity that has afflicted my generation.
I don’t pay as much attention to buying “organic” as much as I do buying “local”. Living in Michigan I buy local as much as I can. Be a true conservative. Buy local first.
Years ago professor Bruce Aimes of UC Berkeley did an extensive study of naturally ocurring chemicals such as those in foods and man made chemicals. The study included hundreds of thousands of chemicals.
In general he found man made chemicals were less toxic and carcinagenic than natural chemicals but not by a wide margin.
He compared the toxicity of then used more powerful pesticides with the toxins found in many common foods taking into account the range of amounts people might consume. He then listed the most dangerous in order. None of the top 20 were man made pesticides or antibiotics (which are fully metabolized by the time the animal is processed)etc...
I do not recall the most dangerous in order, but some were coffee, peanuts, naturally grown and untreated corn, wheat and other grains, celery etc...
People stopped eating their lunches during his presentation. But, he reassured them by saying the human system was made to handle normal amounts of toxins and not to worry about it. His advice was don,t smoke, or drink excessively and wear seat belts.
As a scientist, I have found that the people who are gaga about natural or organic foods know very little if anything about bioscience. The “no genetically modified foods” people are really freaky as every food one eats now has been greatly genetically modified by nature or man over time. Read Guns Germs and Steel to get a layman’s description. The only result of eating “organic” food is a weight loss-—in your wallet.
I don’t have intestinal worms because I don’t eat organic grown food...
And I hope you enjoy them.
I will continue to consume and enjoy my pesticide protected, hormone added, chemically fertilized, industrially farmed meats and produce, which has allowed Americans and other industrial-farm nations to have the highest standard of living and longest lifespans the world has ever seen.
But you go ahead. Enjoy those weevils in your corn, e-coli outbreaks and fantastically high prices. It’s a free country! Sorta...
I buy organic milk because it seems to spoil more slowly than the usual stuff. The organic is still good on its “use by” date, whereas the regular milk sometimes seemed to be spoiling as it came out the door of the store.
Bad idea - When organic foods are attached by viruses, or insects or mold, or birds etc., they develop internal toxins and antibodies(just like we do). Those defense mechanisms are cancer causers. Pesticides wash off the toxins don't.
Eat free range chicken? Same problem but worse.
But hey its your money.
UTH.
Which means that it is also lower in vitamin content and the proteins have been damaged.
So you are actually ahead of the game if you drink the two buck a gallon stuff rather then the four dollar a half gallon over processed stuff that is labeled "Organic".
... which have...
Sorry. Just got up. First cup of coffee.
Milk taste better organic, vegis, chicken, fruits; steaks do not. Cheese, bread... stuff just taste better. Poison? No thanks; grew up on a farm and I haven't a lot of respect for the king-size bastards whom bought out the small farmers and turned farming into a ridiculous industry of wanna-be cowboy/farmers who grew up limp-wristed and lame.
As I type, I’m cooking some spinach from my garden, I know that cooking it loses some of the nutrients but I’m replacing them with bacon grease.
Chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
Well, no. The taste differential between milk labeled organic and the regular stuff is caused by the fact that they are processed differently. Organic milk, just like aseptic milk has been subjected to ultrahigh temperature processing. This lowers the vitamin content of the milk and destroys some of the proteins but it caramelizes the sugars which makes the milk taste sweeter.
If you like the sweeter taste then you would be better off buying the aseptic milk which tastes the same but is cheaper and has a much longer shelf life.
Chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
____________________________
Explain strawberry milk.
I do trust the food from my local grocer. It’s a food co-op, and a locally owned store. Most of the produce is local (including many winter crops), and what the stores sell is what the owners and members feed their own families.
Red cows.
But you are on your own for banana milk.
My point was that not all things organic are better than synthetics. The wide availability of high quality, inexpsnsive foods can be traced directly to science - including artificial pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, and engineered/hybrid seeds.
No.
Chemicals? What does pasteurization have to do with chemicals? If chemicals are a negative, are pathogens like salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella species, Campylobacter jejuni, and so on, considered a positive?
I have tasted both in their raw state as well as processed and unless you have a farmer who is feeding the cows something like chives to give the milk a flavor it really does all taste the same.
As good as any plant would be. Plants do produce pesticides naturally you know.
Chemicals? What does pasteurization have to do with chemicals? If chemicals are a negative, are pathogens like salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella species, Campylobacter jejuni, and so on, considered a positive?The cow's milk unpasteurized from cows fed with food not chemically doused is what I meant to say ... This is a good link on raw milk. My daughter, interestingly, was highly allergic to all dairy (her eyes would puff up), so she stopped with consuming it and took supplements instead, but when we switched over to raw milk, not only can she consume as much as she wants, she says she no longer feels weak with tough workouts (she's a polo player). And I notice a difference in the pool as well. More positive protein; more power!! I heard about raw milk years ago from a friend who would vacation in Ireland. She drank the milk there [unpasteurized] all the time without adverse reactions regarding her allergies.
Bull droppings !!
The decision to eat organic is Not whether the food has more vitamins or nutrition. They should be about the same.
The decision between the two is whether you want your apple With neurotoxic pesticides and herbicides, or Without.
It’s a simple choice, if you don’t like chronic neurological impairment or cancer.
You realize that all food is made up of chemicals, right?
There was a kid I was friends with from the farm next to us as I was growing up whose family ran a small dairy farm. They only drank raw milk. One winter he quit going to school. We learned he had contracted brucellosis. He almost died and we didn't see him for about six months. He was never the same. It ruined his life. Brucella is just one of many very dangerous pathogens you risk whenever you choose to drink raw milk. Children are especially at risk. Infections are rare but they are serious and debilitating when they occur and it's usually the children who are hit the hardest. I never understood why anyone would accept the risk given that pasteurization kills the bugs. To each his own.
To each his own.One of our family members runs an organic farm, and we feel very fortunate to benefit from same ... so, yes, to each his own! :)
It's their money and they can do what they want, but don't force it on me.
And it still doesn’t help your health.
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.