Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see anything in the OPs article that mentions any tests done for levels of toxins in the produce....only nutrients...therefore it means nothing to me and the scientists are very welcome to dine on GM foods all they want, I'll take the local organic food always....what I don't grow myself anyways.
I don't see anything in the OPs article that mentions any tests done for levels of toxins in the produce....only nutrients...therefore it means nothing to me and the scientists are very welcome to dine on GM foods all they want, I'll take the local organic food always....what I don't grow myself anyways.
what toxins? there was a whole slew of information in there about relative pesticide levels.
I don't need a study to tell me my homegrown potatoes make most of the store bought ones seem like garbage. I also prefer to err on the side of caution and limit my exposure to chemicals which may be banned in a decade (how many chemical insecticides and pesticides have been used for years and then banned later?). Perhaps the nutrient content of "ordinary" commercial produce and organic is the same, but that says nothing about how healthy it is overall or about the taste.
Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans.
...
and
Quote:
Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
and
Quote:
The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.
THESE are the very reasons I buy only organic if I can. Potatoes and apples in particular are little pesticide sponges. I'll pay extra to not be poisoned, thank you very much.
And the EPA says it's safe? Oh yeah, I trust those guys! They have a history of ignoring their own scientists and, hell, just making stuff up. Just because the EPA tells me how much poison is acceptable in my food doesn't mean I'm jumping off the organic bandwagon any time soon.
BTW - ONE thing they really couldn't and I'm sure didn't measure (especially since all they did was re-study 237 other studies) is how long it's been since your produce was in the ground or on the tree when it makes it to your house. I buy from local Farmers Markets. Most of the time the produce was picked the morning I bought it. Or I eat from my own garden.
My point is - If you buy an apple that was picked in October and stuck in a warehouse for a year, then sprayed with chemicals to "ripen it", then shipped to the store -- your nutritional value has gone down markedly. If you buy broccoli that was grown in Northern California and then was in transit to, say, Utah for three days, you have lower nutritional value by the time it makes it to your stove.
Most produce loses the bulk of its nutrition after a week (although some studies a few years back suggested that constant light in grocery stores aids in keeping it healthier.) So if you buy it and store it in your fridge for several days after it was on the road for a week, you aren't getting what you think you are. Better to buy frozen if you're going to do that.
I could probably write a paper on how often scientists publish contradicting studies.
I don't see why people risk it with pesticides. There's some possibility that they can be bad for you. There's no downside of eating organic foods. Give it the benefit of the doubt.
I don't need a study to tell me my homegrown potatoes make most of the store bought ones seem like garbage. [...] Perhaps the nutrient content of "ordinary" commercial produce and organic is the same, but that says nothing about how healthy it is overall or about the taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R_Cowgirl
BTW - ONE thing they really couldn't and I'm sure didn't measure (especially since all they did was re-study 237 other studies) is how long it's been since your produce was in the ground or on the tree when it makes it to your house. I buy from local Farmers Markets. Most of the time the produce was picked the morning I bought it. Or I eat from my own garden.
My point is - If you buy an apple that was picked in October and stuck in a warehouse for a year, then sprayed with chemicals to "ripen it", then shipped to the store -- your nutritional value has gone down markedly. If you buy broccoli that was grown in Northern California and then was in transit to, say, Utah for three days, you have lower nutritional value by the time it makes it to your stove.
Most produce loses the bulk of its nutrition after a week (although some studies a few years back suggested that constant light in grocery stores aids in keeping it healthier.) So if you buy it and store it in your fridge for several days after it was on the road for a week, you aren't getting what you think you are. Better to buy frozen if you're going to do that.
This has nothing to do with Organic/non-Organic though. The same can be said for going to a local apple orchard and roadside farm stand and buying picked-that-morning non-organic apples and sweetcorn, versus going to Kroger and buying organic apples and sweetcorn picked a week ago and shipped in from California. The non-organic fresh produce will taste way better and have more nutrients, not because of its organic/non-organic status.. but because its fresh!
The title of the article is misleading. What they determined was that the organic that was tested wasn't more nutritious, not that it was or wasn't "healthier". Such careful misuse of language is pure spin.
The title of the article is misleading. What they determined was that the organic that was tested wasn't more nutritious, not that it was or wasn't "healthier". Such careful misuse of language is pure spin.
...which is actually typical of the Organic Industry. The must be POd that a page out of their playbook was used against them.
...which is actually typical of the Organic Industry. The must be POd that a page out of their playbook was used against them.
Meh... both sides are equally guilty of using spin to promote their agenda, that's why it's important to read (and understand) the actual studies and not get caught up with sensationalist headlines and "interpretive" articles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
