snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Medical

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 29 July 2009, 06:38 PM
hoitoider's Avatar
hoitoider hoitoider is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: Beaufort, SC
Posts: 5,995
Icon23 Organic food is no healthier, study finds

LONDON (Reuters) Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/...s_food_organic

Actually I thought organic food generally tastes better than ordinary food, and that was the main reason it's popular in some markets & restaurants.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29 July 2009, 06:46 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Default

This looks like a huge exercise in missing the point.

Quote:
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
I've never heard of anyone choosing organic because they thought it had nigher nutrient content. I've always heard concerns about traces of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and pesticides which could have very long-term effects on metabolism and/or reproduction. EDCs, since they mimic messengers in the body that turn metabolic processes on and off, can act at tiny concentrations, contrary to the notion of a toxic threshold.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29 July 2009, 06:57 PM
Mama Duck's Avatar
Mama Duck Mama Duck is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: South Texas
Posts: 12,151
Default

I can't tell the difference, but my mother swears organic fruits and vegatables taste better. And of course, there is the "all chemicals are dangerous" crowd. They insist that organic foods are better for you because there are no pesticides, herbacides, fertizlers, etc. Of course, there's the "organic is more sustanible than traditional methods" crowd. While important from one aspect, they did prove there is no nutritional difference between the two, to really address whether or not organic is "better", there needs to be a study on the chemical aspect.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29 July 2009, 07:26 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan With a 'Y' View Post
This looks like a huge exercise in missing the point.



I've never heard of anyone choosing organic because they thought it had nigher nutrient content. I've always heard concerns about traces of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and pesticides which could have very long-term effects on metabolism and/or reproduction. EDCs, since they mimic messengers in the body that turn metabolic processes on and off, can act at tiny concentrations, contrary to the notion of a toxic threshold.
Actually I have often heard 'organic' advocates claim that organics were much higher than non-organic foods in nutritional content.

I could believe that both flavor and nutritional content is substantially affected by being allowed to remain on the plant longer, and being in transit and on the shelf a shorter period of time. I would also suspect that organic produce is better about this than the average non-organic produce. However, it would not be a function of being organic but of supplying premium produce to market. If you'll pay for the special handling, you'll get it.

I went to a 'pick it yourself' blueberry farm a few years ago and was talking with the owner. They used nothing on the crop but a mineral fertilizer to supply minerals missing from the local soil. It was merely mined and powdered, then the owner would spread the minerals along the bases of the bushes. They did not even take measures aaginst insects or birds, basically allowing the critters to eat everything too high or hard to reach for customers to pick. However, they were legally not allowed to use the word 'organic' because of the mineral supplement because it did not come from an 'organic' source. I know, it's a FOAF tale, but there you have it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29 July 2009, 08:16 PM
llewtrah's Avatar
llewtrah llewtrah is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2001
Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posts: 16,363
Default

Surely part of the idea is that organic foods are healthier for the environment as well as not having chemical residues for the consumer?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29 July 2009, 08:25 PM
rangerdog's Avatar
rangerdog rangerdog is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2002
Location: IOP Soiuth Carolina
Posts: 6,204
Default

Well, well. I buy organic eggs because they are way less cholestoral and way more protien. Neener neener study rats.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29 July 2009, 08:41 PM
blucanary blucanary is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerdog View Post
Well, well. I buy organic eggs because they are way less cholestoral and way more protien. Neener neener study rats.
That has more to do with the diet than weather they are organic. Something like Eggland's is nutritionally superior without being certified organic. It's the vegetarian feed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.