(10-04-2012, 11:43 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]"Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review"
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
Well, they did say:
Quote:Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
and then
Quote:Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
This doesn't at all say anything about proving that organic food is NOT more nutritious. All it says is that different studies show different things, and taken as a whole do not provide strong enough evidence to make a claim.
Thus, both "organic food is more nutritious" and "organic food is NOT more nutritious" are unsubstantiated claims. According to this particular study.
So, basically, this study shouldn't have gained hardly any attention at all. It doesn't really say anything, what it does say is inconclusive, and it certainly doesn't settle any debate.
The most that it does is point out that those claiming organic food is more nutritious could be making unsubstantiated claims. But to proclaim that the opposite is true is violates one of the most basic rules of logic. I learned it in 10th grade.
These are professional news reporters? On the other hand, who are these people going around making strong claims that organic food is more nutritious? Just a bunch of monkeys in a big circus. All of them.
Personally, I take a more "radical" approach: the truth. I tell people that some evidence suggests that organic food is more nutritious, and some does not. Nutrition isn't even close to the main reason to buy organic food, anyway.
"....I tell people that some evidence suggests that organic food is more nutritious, and some does not. Nutrition isn't even close to the main reason to buy organic food, anyway...." Exactly! The amount of chemicals/dodgy production practices/gmo that goes into non-organic food is more of a concern. And while we're on the subject it really frustrates me that 99% of the organic products I buy (excluding fresh products) is packaged in petrochemical plastic. What gives? This un-does alot of the good that went into keeping the product as pure as possible. Some companies use biodegradable cellulose plastic made from plants but is a very small minority. Even the canned goods have a plastic lining which seeps into the food it contains. Sorry I've gone off-topic...
It's not about being more nutritious. It's about being more healthy relative to the amount of harmful preservatives/chemicals/pesticides being ingested. In this case, saying something isn't more nutritious doesn't necessarily mean its not more healthy.
jacrob Wrote:The amount of chemicals/dodgy production practices/gmo that goes into non-organic food is more of a concern.
Xradfl Wrote:It's not about being more nutritious. It's about being more healthy relative to the amount of harmful preservatives/chemicals/pesticides being ingested.
Precisely. Yet again we see this "strawman technique" where the establishment seeks out the worst (from a truth standpoint) of the claims being made about organic food, and then launches a "debunking" campaign to attempt to discredit the notion of organic farming
in general.
Where I get annoyed with "the scientists" is that few of them seem to be making an effort to correct the blatant misreporting of their studies.
This type of crap is exactly why I keep beating the dead horse of learning about logical fallacies. If people do not understand
how to think, can they really be trusted to know
what to think?
I think Genetically modified foods have negative effects that have nothing to do with the health of the body as well. The crops provide more yield, often doubling the harvest when compared to non GE crops, but suck more nutrients out of the ground. In response to this, the farmers using these crops end up needing more and more fertilizer each year, until the land can support no more. In addition, these genetically engineered crops produce no seeds, so every year the farmers have to buy new seeds and ever increasing amounts fertilizer from Monsanto.
These crops were pushed on many Asian nations during the so called 'Green Revolution' which was supposed to create an economic boom and a surplus of food. It has done neither. Now many of the small farmers who bought into this program are losing all their money and their land, turning it over to multinational agribusinesses.
It's disturbing to note that even though these crops have had such mixed-to-negative results in Asia in the 60's and 70's, Monsanto and the Gates foundation are pushing them on African nations as we speak.
(10-05-2012, 05:15 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]The crops provide more yield, often doubling the harvest when compared to non GE crops,
I've heard that even this is a myth. But I will admit I don't really know if it is true or not.
Hi "good food" fans !
Check the TV on PBS to have good answers !
Check "Nature's path" company, to see how they compete
the other "poisonned stuff" productivity and even BEAT them ! !
No links, because: time to go eat our organic supper. . . B-)
. . .wife is waiting. . .
By the way, our supper comes from an "Avril" grocery,
in Quebec's province !
Blue skies.
(10-05-2012, 03:56 PM)Xradfl Wrote: [ -> ]It's not about being more nutritious. It's about being more healthy relative to the amount of harmful preservatives/chemicals/pesticides being ingested. In this case, saying something isn't more nutritious doesn't necessarily mean its not more healthy.
Exactly. Also, organic foods cannot be GMO, at least not in the US and Canada.
In saying all that all my spare cash goes on organic food. Now it's 5 days to pay day and I'm down to my last $22...sometimes I wish it were alot cheaper or rather I got paid more. So for the next few days I'll eat non-organic but increase clay consumption, water consumption and exercise to detox. I hope after the shift mostly everything will be grown organically or biodynamically, or I get paid more so I can eat good food all the time. Here in Australia only the wealthy can organic for every meal. In 2 years time I'm going to sell my unit and buy a clean plot of land and grow my own food and live in a yurt.
The actual production of fruits and veggies in the "organic vs. non-organic" dispute is not so black and white. There are variables on both sides which could affect the nutrition in the food itself. Produce grown from healthy soil yet sprayed with pesticide would disqualify it from being certified organic yet it would be as nutritious as anything "naturally grown." On the other hand, certified organic produce grown in relatively unhealthy soil, relying on non-sustainable methods of plant nutrition, will likely not be as nutritious.
The nutrition in a GMO would be dependent more on what the genetics were engineered for rather than just the fact it is a GMO. Some GMO crops have been modified to increase certain nutrients within the plants. Genetically engineering crops is an insanely powerful ability.
(10-05-2012, 05:15 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]The crops provide more yield, often doubling the harvest when compared to non GE crops
The methods used to derive this statistic are debatable. It also depends on the type of crop.
Quote:but suck more nutrients out of the ground. In response to this, the farmers using these crops end up needing more and more fertilizer each year, until the land can support no more.
This is not specific to GM crops, but rather most conventional agriculture. While those two are becoming increasingly intertwined, synthetic fertilizers in general have more to do with this than the advent of GMO's. In a sustainable system, nutrition for the plant is (mostly) dependent on soil health. Being able to fertilize crops with methods that add nothing to the soil means that the health of the soil doesn't have to be maintained for a plant to be healthy. The land itself is then dependent on the producers of synthetic fertilizer to be cultivated, until it is restored somehow.
Quote: In addition, these genetically engineered crops produce no seeds, so every year the farmers have to buy new seeds and ever increasing amounts fertilizer from Monsanto.
That's another thing that depends on the actual GM crop itself. But either way, the biotech companies require contracts to be signed in order for their seeds to be used, which includes an agreement not to reuse seeds. They inspect farms to be sure that all of the farmer's crops that are GM are bought on contract and will sue otherwise.
All it takes is to take one giant pile of organic food from the store, then a identical but non organic pile of food at the store, put both in a heat chamber until they evaporate slowly and measure the gasses.
Then put the end results up for public review on the contents of the pile of food.
Make it something like 100 kilos each to represent the yearly consumption
then you could write stuff like
Organic food:
1ppm this
3ppm that
65 ppm this
and so on
and then non organic
100 ppm this
1000 ppm that and so on
Just the "how much residual contaminants are in the analyzed air" gives the cleanest estimate of the contents of the food.
IT would be possible to shred the food into a fine powder and slowly increase the temp so that all the particles are expelled one by one.
That way you just look at the end and compare the two gasses like you would city-rural air and thats all the proof you need. If you need proof that things that "bad air quality" is unhealthy you are an idiot beyond belief.
Then you would have to conclusively prove that airpollution is healthy. And once that idea gets passed off as genuine i'm off this planet.