Log In

Study: Organic food not healthier than conventional products

Organic Vegetables
For years, common knowledge has been that organic food is a much healthier alternative than non-organic food. What a new study suggests may baffle many: organic food is "not any healthier" than regular food you may consume.
Stanford - Are you forking over an extra few dollars to buy products that claim to be organic in order to improve your health? Don’t bother because it won’t, at least according to a new research study by Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care.
When it comes to vitamins and nutrients, organic produce and meat aren’t any better than regular food choices. The only difference is that organic food may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticides by approximately 30 percent.
The researchers reviewed more than 200 studies that made the comparison between people who ate organic or conventional foods. The list of organic and non-organic foods included milk, grains, fruits, vegetables, meat and poultry eggs.
By the end of the study, there was no more or less amount of nutrients and vitamins in these organic and regular animal and plant items. However, there was a small difference in the amount of phosphorous in organic products and there were more omega-3 fatty acids in organic chicken and milk.
“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that,” said first author Smith-Spangler, an instructor of medicine at the School of Medicine, in a news release. “Our goal was to shed light on what the evidence is. This is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations.”
Dena Bravata, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, explained that the findings still benefits consumers because there are still benefits to eating organic, such as taste, environmental farming concerns and animal welfare.
Smith-Spangler added that an individual’s goal should be to incorporate a healthier diet overall, such as fruits and vegetables, instead of focusing on how the food they purchase and consume is grown.
Agreement has been made in the scientific community that further research is needed, especially considering how there have been relatively few studies relating to this issue. “It appears there are a lot of different factors that are important in predicting nutritional quality and harms.”
The research study can be found in the latest edition of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
Sales of organic foods in the United States have soared from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $24.4 billion in 2011.

33 comments :

#21Sep 4, 2012 Bart B. Van Bockstaele
@sumdume
In my opinion, most of the comments are posted by people who dislike the results. Because the results do not agree with their personal beliefs the study must be flawed in their opinion.
Which is why I called it "wishful thinking". It is why homoeoquacks and other alternologists are so well-loved: they specialise in telling people what they want to hear.
#22Sep 4, 2012 sumdume
I often hear about the increased levels of CLA and Omega acids in grass fed beef. I have never seen the proper dose of those nutrients (for lack of a better term) for humans. How much more conventional beef would a person have to eat to get the same dose of CLA and Omegas as a 6 ounce grass fed steak?
#23Sep 4, 2012 Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Good question. I don't have time to look it up now, but my *guess* would be that the data does not even exist. We are talking about very small quantities, and there is -on top of that- astonishingly little hard data about the benefits of Omega 3.
A possible starting point: http://www.beefinfo.org/Default.aspx?ID=13&ArticleID=23&SecID=3
#24Sep 4, 2012 sumdume
Thanks for the link. I believe you are correct that little if any reliable data exists on the subject. That alone let's unscrupulous people take advantage of well meaning individuals.
#25Sep 5, 2012 Bart B. Van Bockstaele
That's entirely correct. Alternology and quackery thrive on lack of evidence. They embrace darkness and ignorance. Medicine has evolved from this darkness. It has learned to reject what was once accepted (bloodletting comes to mind) because evidence showed it was either not effective or even harmful. It has also learned to accept what was thought to be quackery (vitamin C and scurvy comes to mind), also based on evidence. In other words, bloodletting is now quackery and vitamin C is accepted medicine (at least in some very specific cases).
Omega 3 is essentially an alternology: there is some evidence that it may be beneficial, but that evidence is very weak. Yet, alternologists and quacks are emptying our seas, looking for Omega 3 to sell to their naive victims with more money than sense, also known as the worried well.
The whole "organics" movement is just another form of alternology/quackery. People have short memories. Have they forgotten the 60s? We are now 50 years later, half a century. And how much evidence have we accumulated that organics is better than conventional? Right: none at all. In fact, our life expectancy at birth has increased since then, in spite of "organics" remaining a tiny minority movement. If anything, it shows that conventional is the way to go (even though that would be the wrong conclusion, the right one being: we don't know).
#26Sep 5, 2012 Steve K
A tale of two stories ... one posted above by Andrew ... one posted by Mike Adams on his website entitled 'Flawed organic foods study really just a media psyop to confuse the public about organics while pushing GMOs' http://www.naturalnews.com/037065_organic_foods_mainstream_media_psyop.html
#27Sep 5, 2012 sumdume
Speaking of the devil!
#28Sep 6, 2012 Steve K
Speaking of the devil's advocate, 'spin-dume'!
One of Globalist strategies, noted by a doctor who attended 1969 medical gathering, was use of 'bogus scientific studies'. This might be one such examples. Apart from Adams article referred to under [#26] post, are the following two:
New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods ~ http://www.anh-usa.org/new-junk-science-study-dismisses-nutritional-value-of-organic-foods/
Cargill & Others Behind anti-Organic 'Stanford Study' ~ T Cartalucci, Activist Post http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/cargill-and-others-behind-anti-organic.html
... Keep spinning your tripe of ridicule / misinformation 'spin-dume'. You and Lucifer seem to make a fine team! LOL!
#29Sep 7, 2012 Anne Sewell
Interesting video on the subject:
#30Sep 7, 2012 Anne Sewell
So basically, you just helped to spread Monsanto and Co's propaganda.
#31Sep 7, 2012 Bart B. Van Bockstaele
@Anne Sewell
Interesting video on the subject:
This guy likes to use the word idiot. Probably because he is one.
#32Sep 7, 2012 sumdume
What in the study shows that is is bogus science or Monsanto propaganda?
#33Sep 7, 2012 sumdume
@Steve K
Speaking of the devil's advocate, 'spin-dume'!
One of Globalist strategies, noted by a doctor who attended 1969 medical gathering, was use of 'bogus scientific studies'. This might be one such examples. Apart from Adams article referred to under [#26] post, are the following two:
New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods ~ http://www.anh-usa.org/new-junk-science-study-dismisses-nutritional-value-of-organic-foods/
Cargill & Others Behind anti-Organic 'Stanford Study' ~ T Cartalucci, Activist Post http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/cargill-and-others-behind-anti-organic.html
... Keep spinning your tripe of ridicule / misinformation 'spin-dume'. You and Lucifer seem to make a fine team! LOL!
Thanks Jack SSSS i will keep speaking the truth while you lie out of your.......

33 comments :

Top ^

View: Mobile site | Full Site

© 2014 digitaljournal.com | Contact Us
powered by dell servers