Organic Food Is Not Healthier Than Conventional Produce: Study Wonder who funded this study ............. Thoughts?
No shit... You think whether somethings organic or not changes the nutritional content? I don't because I passed middle school science.
Confirms what I already knew. People like to think they're better for eating organic, but in reality they're just paying more than me for food.
This is a highly debated subject, but ignoring nutrition completely... Organic meats and produce are better for the environment and taste a fuck load better. Grass fed beef vs. conventional beef? Not even close...taste of grass fed blows anything else out of the water in my expeience.
Lol here we go, with the nutrition nonsense no one argued that that's the reason people buy organic, its due to the pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones... I love how the media is just milking this too, unfortunately people are waking up and smelling the bullshit these days, nice try.
[quote name='"JuanRing"']Confirms what I already knew. People like to think they're better for eating organic, but in reality they're just paying more than me for food.[/quote] Lol the vaccine Guy again, and what exactly did you already know, :-/.... farmers markets are not more expensive in anyway, if u shopped at one you would know this.
This is a very narrow study. No non English papers used. Only 17 papers in total. And none of the studies lasted over two years. Also the title of the news stories covering this are all wrong. Organic food is most certainly still proven to be healthier. The difference just isn't as great as they think it should be, at least for certain nutrients. Don't quote me on this, but i think they found beta carotene to be 53% higher in organic food than non organic. Which is significant.
its not about nutritional content its about not putting poison in your body if you don't have to. in that regard eating organic is MUCH better then eating conventional produce. its funny how people try to twist things to fit there world view.
"Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children – but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday." Yea whos safety limits. " Her team did find a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning." NO shit :-/ "Still, some studies have suggested that even small pesticide exposures might be risky for some children, and the Organic Trade Association said the Stanford work confirms that organics can help consumers lower their exposure." Oh wow really ...tell me more please. Come on what more do u really need, the big boys are starting to feel the hurt in their pockets, so they fund nonsense studies to sway public opinion, guess slapping ALL NATURAL on everything didn't go too well.
[quote name='"Neurosis"']"Who funded this study?" A literature review like this has no direct monetary costs.[/quote] Yea so it was all free, really you think any biased funding source would be listed, come on :-/...
Um, yes. I am currently writing a literature review, and no one is slipping bills into my back pocket either. I'd love to say that I'm getting paid off big time, but part of working in science is working hard for your portfolio and not for your bank account. I'm sorry to dissolve this fantastical idea that you hold... but a lot of research is not motivated by financial gain. It's also an obligation to state the funding source of scientific work. So you can relax, no big corporation is out to get you buddy.
Honestly, I buy organic foods just to support organic farmers. Each visit to the farmers market is like a vote imo
Pesticides and antibiotics are already controlled by the government, for all food, not just organic, organic just has stricter regulations. There's nothing superior about organic food. It's just that since they lose tons of their harvest to bugs and other pests, since they don't use things like pesticides, they have to charge more to break even. Nothing wrong with supporting local markets, I definitely agree with that, but why not let your farmers produce their food for the cheapest amount, that way everyone wins in the end.
I personally think the use of pesticides and whatnot for maximum profit just isn't right. As well as GMO's. Like I said, the more people buy organic the less money conventional growers get. Its not really to feel superior or anything its just a donation to a good cause At least its a step in the right direction.
Once again noone said organic is superior or anything, the concerns, which are absolutely legit are the kind of things being added, sprayed on, or whatever else. And exactly what's the point of this study all of a sudden, why exactly does Stanford U ,care about how much money people pay for their groceries, and why is the media spreading this Information as much as they can, to save citizens an extra buck, yea ok.