SURPRISE SURPRISE Study finds that organic food has no benefit

  • Thread starter Thread starter tom37211
  • Start date Start date
1st....an article from livestrong on why not to consume testosterone and growth hormones is pretty funny considering lance's history with the two.

2nd
Have I heard of it? Yes.

Would you like to take another stab at these ideas?

From your article:


Maybe a peer reviewed study?
The initial article in this thread is making fun of the studies like the one's you're linking...which are pure conjecture at this point and not data based science.
 
Guess i can feel good about continuing to not shop at Whole Foods.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100524/hl_nm/us_organic_foods
 
Reviewing multiple research studies on a subject is a valid scientifiec survey method.
 
Moreover, they found, what studies have been done have largely focused on short-term effects of organic eating -- mainly antioxidant activity in the body -- rather than longer-term health outcomes. And most of the antioxidant studies failed to find differences between organic and conventional diets.
 
Those trials showed no strong evidence that organic eating boosted antioxidant activity, but the studies were also very limited in scope: they were small -- with the largest including 43 men -- and lasted no longer than a few weeks.
 
I can say from experience that apples (perhaps all fruits?) not blasted with ethylene gas seem to have more flavor.


At any rate, here is the food industry's response to Food Inc.

http://www.safefoodinc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=11


They seem to miss the point on a few of those, but overall it's a good read.
 
So I ask again. Can you point to studies that show long term health benefits of organic foods?
 
There's really no denying that "organic" farming results in a lot more GHG emissions. And grain-fed vs grass-fed cattle has nothing to do with "organic" farming. Most "inorganic" farms feed their cattle grass. They are simply "grain-finished." Grain feed has been used for the past 200 years.


Thank goodness that the vast majority of "inorganic" farms are not factory farms. 98% of farms are "family farms."



Also I love that you're asked to provide a link that backs up the claim that it's healthier and your response is some political bullshit and a Wikipedia link. You loser.
 
You should know what you're talking about before you comment on it. So I'll help you out...cause you really do have this backwards.

They're not releasing data saying anything on organic food. What they did was write a review on the subject. A review (I've written one before ) is just when you sum up all the studies released on a certain field or area. They do this because individual studies are often very specific. So a review makes it easier for someone to read about the field and understand what all the studies have said until that point.

What this particular review is saying is that there isn't enough data on the healthy side of organic food.

They're not saying based on these studies organic food is as healthy.
They're are saying is that the data is insufficient to say that organic food is healthier/better for you.

Basically the review found that there is insufficient data to support these wild ideas that organic foods increase anti-oxidant levels....or other wild claims they have been making about the food.

So while you're saying " they have missed all these studies how can they make these claims that it's not!".....that's what they're saying in the review. That the field contains inadequate studies to provide the positive proof that the claims exist at all.
 
How about that last half million years of human existence and evolution. It makes a pretty strong case for organic foods.
 
Organic foods are made without the use of conventional pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, -- which could potentially reap benefits for people's health and the environment.


The current review, Dangour and his colleagues point out, did not look for studies on the possible health benefits of reduced exposure to those substances. Nor did it address the environmental impact of organic food production.
 
Not to mention all the dirty handed mofo's that handle all that nice organic produce before deciding not to buy it. Or the people that sneeze into the bulk food barrels just after they have got their stuff out.

Marketing is marketing. Just hang around Whole Foods, Sprouts or any number of hippy uppity groceries and watch mothers with their kids. The best thing about these places is that they probably provide a better germ spectrum for your immune system to work on. What does not kill you makes you stronger.
 
These aren't quite analogous. Of course the fact that people do it doesn't make it true, but it's based on some logical proposition, rather than some millenia-old fabrication about humours.

My only point is that it's not insane to suggest that there might be something to it. It's certainly the case that our bodies do depend symbiotically on bacteria, there's no reason other symbiotes couldn't be beneficial. I don't know if there's been any significant study.
 
The rate of heat stroke is not a measurement of health. In fact, it has nothing to do with health. It's just an indicator that more people are getting too hot.

That's not to mention that rate probably hasn't gone up and you're probably just making shit up.



It's also adorable how mad you're getting.
 
What, the part where until the last 100 years or so, the average lifespan of a human was no greater than 35-40 years?
 
Back
Top