No Banner to display

Organic vs conventional foods: new study says no significant nutritional difference
Posted by on Sep 5th, 2012

Next time some holier-than-thou rich tannie or a hippie starts preaching that they only buy organic foods because it’s better for you than the cheaper ones you are getting then feel free to slap them with this quote on the results of a new study from researchers at the University Of Stanford published in the Annals Of Internal Medicine recently: “an analysis of 237 studies of organic produce, meats and dairy foods, concluded that organic foods are no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.”

Organic food

Nutritional values aside the studies did show that there was less pesticides on organic produce, but that the majority of regular produce contained acceptable levels.

Some of the findings:

•There were no significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional fruits and vegetables. The studies looked specifically at vitamins A, C and E.

•Detectable pesticide residue was found in 7% of organic produce and 38% of conventional produce. However, only three studies found pesticide residue that exceeded maximum allowed limits in the European Union on organic or conventional produce.

•Both organic and conventional foods were at similar risk for bacterial contamination.

I guess it all depends on why you are buying organic produce hey…if it’s coz you think it’s more nutritional then sorry for you.

If however you buy organic because you think the pesticides on the conventional foods are gonna give you cancer or make your one brain cell die then you likely have a case…even though the regular foods have acceptable levels.  The less bad sh*t the better.

Now go eat an apple before you have that cigarrette.

[via USA Today]

"Hippie" says:
September 09, 2012 at 9:08 am

Very few people, in my experience, make any claim that the organic food that they buy is more nutritious. Merely that is is grown in a more healthy manner. That 38% pesticides stat should give anyone pause. Just because some organisation tells us that it constitutes an acceptable level is no excuse- they arent very well going to tell you that youre going to die because the farmers are dousing your food with chemicals and poisons- that would be bad for business.

anon says:
September 09, 2012 at 9:08 am

Yeah, publish a study, that ignores that organic foods don’t contain any antibiotics and other hormones and that it encourages sustainable farming.

If you took 10 minutes and read what organic farming entails it would take you 10 seconds to discount this study.

Jacob says:
September 09, 2012 at 9:08 am

It is now public knowledge that the co-author of the Stanford study claiming that organic food is the ‘same as conventional’ has massive ties to Big Tobacco, is the very creator of a complex algorithm that allows one to ‘lie with statistics’, and worked deeply with an organization that paid off media organizations and journalists to promote pro-tobacco propaganda in the 60s and 70s. It has also come out that Stanford has been the recipient of massive financial support on behalf of Cargill – a massive food insutry giant that has openly supported Monsanto’s biotechnology with millions in funding to defeat GMO labeling.

Read more:

Tammy says:
September 09, 2012 at 9:08 am

Thank you Jacob! Great link, and it doesn’t surprise me. When I hear people say “organic is no better for you than non-organic” I ask “and where do you get your information?”

Leave a comment