Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds

[feelosofer]

I think if you eat your vegetable and fruits fresh, wash them properly and buy locally, you will be healthy. I think organic is an overused buzz word in my opinion.

 

[acri1]

The question isn't if organic fruit contains more vitamins and minerals (what was studied)

The question is if organic fruit contains less of the harmful stuff (what was not studied).

The thing is, people tend to automatically assume that pesticides/chemicals/antibiotics/etc are automatically bad for you, when that's not always the case.

Obviously they are in some cases, but overall they're beneficial to food production and don't harm most people. Generally I'd say the use of antibiotics/pesticides is preferable to insects/bacterial infections in my food, and probably preferable to food being much more expensive.

So yeah, the question is what's actually harmful and whether or not organic food has less of it. I've never seem too much evidence that organic food is much more nutritious, but the other question is open.

 

[Type Username Here]

so eating raw natural foods is the same as eating raw and processed foods that have pesticides and extra chemicals in them

what kind of dumb ass would believe such a thing?

these are the same people who tried to get vitamin and mineral supplements classified as toxins.

the audacity of these people is un-fukking-believeable

Don't be so emotional friend. They study is about nutritious value. Nothing more, nothing less.

The question isn't if organic fruit contains more vitamins and minerals (what was studied)

The question is if organic fruit contains less of the harmful stuff (what was not studied).

Exactly.

 

[zerozero]

The thing is, people tend to automatically assume that pesticides/chemicals/antibiotics/etc are automatically bad for you, when that's not always the case.

Obviously they are in some cases, but overall they're beneficial to food production and don't harm most people. Generally I'd say the use of antibiotics/pesticides is preferable to insects/bacterial infections in my food, and probably preferable to food being much more expensive.

So yeah, the question is what's actually harmful and whether or not organic food has less of it. I've never seem too much evidence that organic food is much more nutritious, but the other question is open.

breh the reason they have to pump these animals full of antibiotics is that they're raising them in completely inhumane conditions. feeding cows corn instead of grass and having them stand there all day, doing god-knows-what to chickens, in a way the food prices we pay are artificially low because it's being subsidized by animal suffering and now these crazy infections and antibiotic resistance is the result we're reaping

I agree though that pesticides is a difficult issue. Cause the only way to have lower pesticides and fertilizers is to use genetically modified crops, so if you don't want GMOs and you don't want pesticides something's gotta give

 

[Gang$tarr]

I could live with pesticides.... but when u see the chickens so pumped full of hormones to make em bigger that they cant even stand on their own 2 feet. That's not natural, its fukked up

 

[Serious]

Stanford Organic Study Authors Face Petition to Retract 'Fatally Flawed' Study

Two weeks ago I posted at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker on a Stanford study that found that organic food was no more nutritious or less risky than conventionally grown food. Not terribly controversial, I thought; people who like organic food will likely continue to buy it. And those who disagree will look for research that supports their view; no single study provides a definitive answer to these kinds of questions.

I was wrong about all that. According to Rosie Mestel at The Los Angeles Times, the study was followed by "days of heated reaction," and activists have now launched a petition drive demanding that the researchers retract their "fatally flawed" study.

Mestel reports that activists set up their petition drive at Change.org, a liberal-leaning website (my characterization, not hers) that aims to promote social change. Recent campaigns have successfully opposed credit-card fees, opposed anti-gay discrimination, and supported the Lorax's pro-tree agenda. The anti-Stanford petition drive tries to link the study to other unrelated issues, such as genetically modified foods, mercury in the food supply, and high-fructose corn syrup, Mestel reports.

Then she neatly proceeds to dismantle the petition. The study, she writes, "wasn't about the entirety of everything that people think is wrong about the way our food is grown and produced today. It wasn't even about every type of difference between organic and conventionally grown food. And did we miss something -- or didn't the authors actually report differences that come down in favor of organic food?"

The petition also attempts to link the study to dubious tobacco industry research, claiming that one of its authors developed a technique that allowed tobacco companies to lie with statistics. Mestel demolishes that attempt.

She ends with the lightly edited views of five authorities, including some who criticize the study. Her story charts a clear path for us through a nasty thicket.

Even so, a week after her story appeared, the petition continues to gain signatures. When Mestel wrote her piece on Sept. 12, the petition, she said, had more than 2,900 signatories. It now has 3,724. A similar petition that I stumbled onto at thepetitionsite.com (Stanford! Don't Lie About Benefits of Organic Foods!) has 1,956 names on it.

Mestel reports that Stanford University has said, "We stand by the work and the study authors." And she says the study's authors have not commented on the petition.

Paul Raeburn: Stanford Organic Study Authors Face Petition to Retract 'Fatally Flawed' Study

This isn't even a new claim. I've read several nutrition books and studies in the past, that essentially said the same thing. The nutritional value between organic and gmo is minimal, literally I've done the comparison myself.

In the long run, I came to the conclusion that:
saving money eating GMO, fruits and vegetables >>>> blowing money on organic.

Plus I don't think most understand that a lot of "organic foods" still use pesticides.

The best way to go, is farmers market if you're that anal......

 

[Gang$tarr]

This isn't even a new claim. I've read several nutrition books and studies in the past, that essentially said the same thing. The nutritional value between organic and gmo is minimal, literally I've done the comparison myself.

In the long run, I came to the conclusion that:
saving money eating GMO, fruits and vegetables >>>> blowing money on organic.

Plus I don't think most understand that a lot of "organic foods" still use pesticides.

Man you're still not understanding that though organic doesn't have much MORE positive nutritional value, it has ALOT LESS negative bullshyt.


So ya u get almost the same nutritional value, but ur also ingesting a crap load of chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and genetically modified garbage that has a negative effect on you. Which I don't think was mentioned, so people looked at the article like propaganda by the big business food industry.