Organic Foods — The Joke’s On Us
A report released today by the British Food Standard’s Industry, found that organic foods are no healthier for you than regular ole pesticide sprayed foods:
Their report, after a 12-month study based on 50 years of research, says the benefits of chemical-free vegetables, fruit and meat have been overstated.
The findings could be a major blow to the £2billion-a-year organic food industry which has been hit by the recession.
Consumer group Which? said shoppers may now think twice about buying more expensive organic food.
The findings are based on the first comprehensive review into the nutrient value of organic food compared with food grown through conventional farming methods.
The FSA commissioned the study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. More than 100 types of food were studied including rice, chicken, milk and eggs.
The review, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found small but not “important” differences between the nutrient content of organic and conventional types of food.
Public health nutritionist Dr Alan Dangour, who led the review, said: “This is the first time all this evidence has been brought together under one single study. Organic food is no worse than conventional but there is certainly no reason for suggesting organic food has a superior nutritional content.
“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.
“There is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content.”
I thought this was common knowledge, I thought everyone knew that organic foods are a crock of organic shit?
The organic-heads won’t believe this for a second though, it’s not in their best interest. No one likes to hear they’re wrong, it’s like insulting their religion in a way.
Ever since that daft bitch Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, the nutjobs have come out of the woodwork. The enviro-freaks claim that only organic farming is sustainable. Yet if every farm were to go organic, we’d still have to cut down all the remaining forests to make room for more organic farms, and yet there would still be billions of people that would starve to death.
Organic-heads take pride in the fact that their foods have only been sprayed by *naturally occurring products*, like sulpher and copper, pyrethrins and rotenone; BT spray and Spinosad (which are both made by bacteria) . Yet, sulphur irritates the lungs, and rotenone has been shown to cause Parkinson’s disease in rats. Yikes.
Organic-heads will drone on and on and on about how bad chemicals in food MUST be for you, how they MUST cause cancer, blah blah, blah. But is it true? Of course not. Sure, if you grab a bucket of DDT and pour it over your head, the chances are you’re going to get sick. However, time after time, it has been shown that the amount of chemicals found in food are not only below legal limits, but often times completely undetectable. If you want to ingest harmful chemicals, have some caffeine. Or solanine. Or psoralens. Yum yum.
OTOH, organic foods are a petri dish of multiple diseases. Organic production involves manure, but not chemical washes. So, moulds, like aflatoxin B1 have been found in organic peanuts (how’s that for a carcinogen?), among other numerous bacterial outbreaks.
There’s so much more to say about this, but you get the idea. Enviro-weenies like to believe they know how to take care of a farmers land better than the actual farmer. But as the saying goes, “those who can’t do, teach”. And that’s the enviro-trade in a nutshell. It’s in the farmers best interest to take care of his land, not to pollute it, and create a high yield. But just like global warming or cooling, or Silent Spring, or the hundred of other fake crisis the enviro-trade lunatics have hoisted upon us in the last 40 years, their cause is simply about money and power.
Eff you and the Smart car you rode in on, you will get neither.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
http://www.emaxhealth.com/75/7431.html
“While few organic farmers participate in dishonest advertising, their trade groups and cooperative markets routinely support marketing campaigns that lead many in the public to believe organic food is healthier and safer than conventional foods. But no scientific study has ever supported such claims. To the contrary, there is some evidence to support the position that conventionally grown food yields lower e. coli counts than organic crops. The discovery of e. coli in organic spinach offers a significant data point in support of this conclusion.”
Mainly that manure is the principal fertilizer in any organic farm, whereas chemical fertilizers don’t have nasty critters like E. coli. But whatever makes them happy, and if they want to buy oranges at ten dollars a bag, more power.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Here in Pittsburgh every other thing is named after that bitch Carson. If the criteria was “killed fewer people than Stalin or Hitler” I could think of other candidates.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:26 am
Mr. Mayor, I also thought that this was common knowledge. I know some people that buy “organic” everything, but it’s not because they think it is any healthier.
They have some notion that chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. are ruining the Earth…(the Earth from whence it came? Ignorant…)
July 30th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Good one…is it 1st of April yet?
July 30th, 2009 at 7:20 am
“Organic” just basically means anything with carbon in it, and if I have the understanding right, carbon must be eradicated everywhere!
July 30th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Most people eat organic because of the lack of chemicals and hormones added by insecticide and chemical growth agents. It does not result in a more nutritious product but a less dangerous one as a result of not ingesting the added chemicals. Test the results of 50 years of eating insecticide and growth hormones. Ask why girls are going through puberty at a much earlier age than 30 years ago? Scientists will tell you its the added growth hormones given to milk cows.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:36 am
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070305/puberty_obesity_070305/20070305?hub=TopStories
Or it could be obesity. Marriage in the Middle Ages also had 13- to 14-year-old girls married off and bearing young, so they must have been pubescent at that time.
Incidentally, using blanket terms like “scientists” gets you no credibility. I don’t cite links and resources, then double-check them for contradictory evidence, just for a hoot.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Agreed.
However, having commenters make their point like zymaze did, well that opens up a real debate. I mean that in the most positive sense.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I always welcome debate, but I want it honest. It’s not easy for people who obviously aren’t the same stripe as us to come in and lay it on the line, so I don’t want to squash debate, either.
Personally I’ll take early puberty over kids dying of starvation before they hit puberty. Bring on the chemicals!
July 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Rocky, Mr. zymaze raises an important point. When I was “going vegetarian” about 20 years ago (which I still am, and do not regret), I read this argument. And it is a valid one to be studied.
I did a good bit of reading at the time (this was before Al Gore had let the rest of us have his internet) in magazines, books, etc. The argument went something like, “DON’T EAT COMMERCIALLY RAISED BEEF, PORK, CHICKEN, OR SPAM! THE HORMONES IN THE FEED HAS CHEMICALS IN IT THAT WILL MAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS HAVE A PERIOD BEFORE THEY SHOULD!!!”
And, there may be some truth to it. Fortunately, I never had a daughter to test it out on. But, as my wife and I turned vegetarian, we did have test subjects in the form of sons. Our two oldest boys had already been baptized in beef. We had a little “bun in the oven” that we could “train in the way that he should go.”
As time has passed, I have watched our sons. The older boys that were already meat-eaters (btw, we never withheld McDonalds from them if that’s what they wanted), and our #3 son (who we determined would be deprived of commercially produced meat in his developing stages) all pretty well came out the same.
They all have struggled with their weight, and love hamburgers, bacon, and pork ribs.
When #4 son came along many years later, we decided to just let him have whatever he wanted…you get lazy when you get older. He is 13, and hates meat! You can not force a hamburger, or a drumstick down his throat. And he is just as prone to gaining weight…getting a puffy belly as the rest of them were.
So, what does this have to do with 11-year-old girls getting their period? Nothing!
But I do believe that the fact that my kids had video games, and computers, and 117 television channels to watch, and not nearly as much physical work as I did, and air conditioning, and parents that wouldn’t just let them go “ride bikes with friends from sun-up ’til sun-down” has something to do with the obesity that they have struggled with.
I am pretty sure that it is the same for girls these days.
This is all anecdotal. My wife (who is the only woman I can ask about this without getting slapped) tells me that she got her first period when she was 12. She grew up eating mostly home-grown vegetables, and before hormones in feed had screwed up cows. This study shows that two dozen of 168 girls went on the rag at 11…
11, 12, 13, 10, I just don’t see the big deal. In fact, two of my wife’s best girlfriends growing up were daughters of the “Bar-B-Q” King here in our town (world famous at one time). They are still flat-chested at 50ish, and my wife tells me that they used to ask her in their early teens about having the cramps and stuff, because she caught it WAY before they did.
So, I don’t really believe that non-organic food has much to do with the natural human progression. I tend to come down on the side of “too much food, and not enough activity” as the culprits.
Man, that was a big bunch of nothing, huh?
July 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Ha ha! That was beautiful!
My opinion on the subject is as follows: http://img.moronail.net/img/7/1/1171.jpg
July 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I don’t know about anyone else but i do not want to be ingesting foods sprayed with harsh chemical pesticides when i watched my local butterfly population become wiped out. Also if anyone would actually do some research into what these chemicals are and what they do then more of us would shop at local farms that grow organic foods which in case anyone knows there history crops where grown organically before mass commercialization came around introducing all sorts of wonderfully dangerous preservatives into our blood streams. I drink raw milk by the way, tastes great and it won’t kill me. Before anyone says foods can not be prolonged we have to realize that there are safe ways to preserve foods without things that cause cancer. There are coffee bean growers in brazil now starting to spray there plants with safe pesticides. I personally know an organic chemist so you learn a few things over the years and knowledge is a good thing rather then reading into what a lobby group dictates with there profit margins.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
The study did not even consider or evaluate the amounts of pollution and pesticides in and on the foods. It only compared a short list of nutrients and found there to be no significant difference. Big deal right? No!
You cannot, in good faith, extrapolate the brilliant statement “organic foods are no healthier for you than regular ole pesticide sprayed foods” from this article.