Posted: September 5, 2012
THE NEWS
Okay, did you see it? It created quite a buzz amongst the Mainstream Media: “Little Evidence Of Health Benefit From Organic Foods”
MY TWO CENTS
You know, I just hate when the Headline of an article is written primarily to draw the reader’s attention BUT has little to do with the article. And, this is another case in point!
This Stanford article is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, it isn’t a study. All they did was go back and look at “past” studies and give another synopsis.
Unfortunately, this same literature has been reviewed before with a completely different take.
If you get past the title of the article, which is horrible, you will actually find that there is plenty to like about Organic Foods!
But, here are my thoughts on what you should take from this “new” look at “old” studies.
1. If you consume organic foods vs. conventional foods you will be consuming less pesticides.
2. If you consume organic foods vs. conventional foods you will not be consuming foods that have antibiotic resistant strains and genetically modified growth hormones (rBGH) in them.
3. If you consume organic foods vs. conventional foods you will be improving the environment and not destroying it.
4. If you consume organic foods vs. conventional foods you will be supporting farmers that are making an effort to do “it” right.
5. If you consume organic foods vs. conventional foods you will be consuming foods that are more nutrient dense.
Look, this article didn’t even mention that conventionally farmed foods are allowed to be Genetically Modified (this should scare you) AND have Artificial Sweeteners in them.
Plus, I didn’t even mention the taste discrepancy…
Here are a couple articles posted by “The Healthy Omnivore” in the past concerning organic foods:
Okay, that is my take, so here are a couple other articles that also speak to this very important issue. Enjoy!
1. Michael Pollan, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”
“Michael Pollan Responds To Study”
JON BROOKS: Let’s say you’re a consumer standing there at your grocery store and you have a choice between an organically grown piece of produce grown far away and a conventionally grown piece grown locally. All things considered, which is the best choice?
MICHAEL POLLAN: It depends on your values. If you’re concerned about nutritional value and taste, you might find that the local food, which is more likely to have been picked when it was ripe, is better. Because any food that’s traveled a few days to get to you or been refrigerated for a long time is going to have diminished nutritional value. That argues for fresh being more important than organic.
But if you’re concerned about pesticides – let’s say you’re pregnant or have young kids you’re feeding – than you might choose organic, because it will have on balance fewer pesticide residues. You may also be concerned with the welfare of the people picking and the farmers growing your produce, or you may be concerned about soil health — that would argue for organic too.
I tend to favor local food, whether it’s certified organic or not. Most of the local food available to us in the Bay Area, though, tends to be grown organically, even if it’s not certified. So it is possible to have it both ways. If you’re shopping at your farmer’s market, you’re getting food that’s very fresh, probably very nutritious, and probably grown without synthetic pesticides.
2. Mike Adams, The Health Ranger
A total Psyop to confuse the public and push GMO’s
Ultimately, this study comes down to being a total Psyop pushed by the mainstream media for the purpose of confusing the public and ultimately promoting GMO’s.
3. Alliance For Natural Health
“New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods”
What the Stanford study didn’t mention is that by definition, organic foods cannot contain GMOs, so they are far healthier than conventional foods. Even though the biotech industry keeps saying GMO is “safe” and equal to non-GMO crops, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Organic farming is also healthier for the environment because it does not employ large-scale factory farming conditions (not to mention being more humane toward the animals being raised for meat).
Charles Benbrook, PhD, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center who reviewed the Stanford study and most of the underlying literature, found the study misleading. He noted that several well-designed US studies show that organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. For crops like apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, and grains, organic produce has 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids in most studies.
As the Environmental Working Group notes, the Stanford study also contradicts the findings of what many consider the most definitive analysis in the scientific literature of the nutrient content of organic versus conventional food. In that 2011 study, a team led by Dr. Kirsten Brandt of the Human Nutrition Research Center of Newcastle University in the UK analyzed most of the same research and concluded that organic crops had approximately 12 to 16 percent more nutrients than conventional crops.
About Kevin McCauley, Senior Editor
FOLLOW US!