Largest ever study of its kind finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food

originally posted by: knoledgeispower
The user didn't call you a corporate shill

Stop peddling that Monstanto-Bayer-Syngenta paid-for PR crap and please use your own brain and do some research.

Nope, no use of the word corporate shill in that sentence. The user was simply telling you to stop regurgitating lies, stop being a sheep and look up the research for yourself.

Frankly that comment is the moral equivalent of calling someone a shill or paid agent and I will deal with such drive by stupidity as I feel necessary.

Dear OP
I have often wondered about this. There was a study that showed

drcranton.com...

Death rate from cancer was reduced by 90% during an 18-year follow-up of 59 patients after treatment with EDTA chelation therapy. Only one of 59 treated patients (1.7%) died of cancer while 30 of 172 control subjects (17.6%) died of cancer (P = 0.002).

I am thinking EDTA removes heavy metals. Heavy metals = cancer.
We know that anti oxidants and salvestrols clean out cells.
It's already stated in the article that organic contains less heavy metals.
and we know they contain salvestrols whereas none organic do not to any significant degree.
There's a study somewhere (I don't have it at hand) claiming the breast cancer rates in organic eaters.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Seems there's a contradiction..
Still I am an advocate of raw organic produce.
Limbo

a reply to: LABTECH767

There ARE benefits to tobacco. Studies linking tobacco are all epidimiological studies with huge biases.

www.sott.net...

I have looked extensively into tobacco studies. The tobacco companies were right.

If you care to say differently, please provide one bit of scientific fact that conclusively proves that any specific disease is caused by smoking. Better yet - find one disease, just one - that smokers get but non-smokers don't!

Tired of Control Freaks

There is no comparison, it's obvious (even to the quacks that promote conventional, pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, poisonous, non-nutritive and genetically engineered food like substances). Organic not only looks and tastes far better, it has 1,000 times the nutrition (not just calories) enzymes, beneficial bacteria, co-factors adn vitamins/minerals. We all need to learn to start an indoor or small home garden and start growing our own healthy food, for an emergency or just to make plain economic sense and not be at the hands of supermarkets when the SHTF! Grow Organic Food at Home

This has nothing to do with genetically modified foods just growing methods. Use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides vs manure and natural insecticides like preying mantis and lady bugs. This is not an anti GMO thread. a reply to: LABTECH767

If farmers could all agree to go natural with fertilizers and insecticides if they would rotate crops to renew the soil the soil will respond with better water retention, and higher nutrients for the plants to use. Over time this would be less expensive. For centuries we used natural methods to grow foods. The chemicals may be easier but it poisons water supplies and causes fish die offs. Unfortunately we can't get the super growers to agree to give up their easy methods. They'd have to hire more people to walk the fields and sometimes hand pick the bugs off of the plants.

I grow my own herbs naturally. Parsley sage thyme rosemary marjoram dill tarragon and lavender and most of these plants yield over the winter too. I've brushed snow off my parsley plants in the dead of winter. Rosemary grows into a shrub that gives you fresh herb every day of the year. Loads of flavor and way cheaper than buying fresh herbs in the produce self or using dried herbs. I grow cabbage tomatoes beans and peppers too. All using cow and horse manure. I have really rich black soil that only needs water if we don't have rain for a week.

The problem they were facing in labeling the foods was chemical drift from neighboring farms tbat were not growing organically. Those farmers said the organic farmers rose the level of pests in their crops and so they used extra chemicals on the crops next to the organic fields. This led to chemicals showing up in the organic food even though the organic farmers did not use the chemicals themselves. If it showed up they couldn't call their products organic.
It will take the entire farming communities to agree before it's cheaper to grow organic. That requires more hands on farm help.


act reply to: diggindirt

Well so far I've seen next to no conclusive evidence at all fruits and vegetables, organic or not, decrease the rates of cancer. And I've seen a lot over the years. There're a few isolated studies, but the vast bulk do not arrive at a confident conclusion. So is there ANY benefit to fruits and vegetables? That's what needs to be looked at, not just cancer. Cancer appears to be something that operates outside the rules or something. Who knows, maybe we'll find out that eating more meat reduces cancer. Or maybe it's something weird, like pulling out all your teeth.

Few years ago I read about the China Study. But with all of the other studies in the world it looks like the results from the China Study cannot be trusted. Science is not something that relies on one voice. It's peer reviewable. And the results are in and they say there's no one answer to this riddle.

It does look to me like hte only sure winner against cancer is 3d chemotherapy that targets only the tumour. That of course limits it to developed countries and people who have strong health insurance. Yet isn't that how it's most of the time? If it weren't for people taking time to die, this would be a great example of survival of the fittest. In order for it to be an example people have to die before a reproductive age. But cancer is something that takes more time to kill. However, that's not to say wealthier families in developed nations don't have a higher chance of surviving to reach a reproductive age. It's just that poorer nations have so many more children, thus keeping them fit (and surviving), as I see it.

Iut's just very depressing news. Got death stamped on our heads swimming a world perplexing and painful under the immense weight of poverty. On the plus side, some people do well and they're what make it worth it.

You know, there are also studies and people that claim that organic food is NOT more nutritious.

However, even if that was true half of the point of organic food is not only to ingest less fertilizers, pesticides, and preservatives but also to release less such chemicals into the environment. Also, because there are less of these, organic food tends to be fresher and less processed on average.

Finally, experientially I feel like organic produce tastes better on average.

The only real downside is cost sometimes. But that is partly due to outdated agriculture subsidies and systems.

originally posted by: purplemer

The largest ever study of its kind has found significant differences between organic food and conventionally-grown crops. Organic food contains almost 70% more antioxidants and significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals.

www.futuretimeline.net...

I wanted to share this with ATS because often time on the boards here people say there is no difference between organic and non organic food. Personally I do not need a study to tell me there is. It is common sense.

Analysing 343 studies into the differences between organic and conventional crops, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 1-2 extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

The study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops. Cadmium – one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food – was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones.

This demonstrates that organic food leads to a greater intake of antioxidants and a reduced intake of heavy metals. There are many studies available that link desirable antioxidants reduce the risk of chronic illness like heart disease and certain cancers.

Professor Leifert added: “The organic vs non-organic debate has rumbled on for decades now, but the evidence from this study is overwhelming – organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.

This study is considering a good starting point for further investigation and the entire database used for this study is openly available.

Purp...

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Finally, experientially I feel like organic produce tastes better on average.

I do not think anyone would argue that homegrown or farm stand produce looks and tastes better than just about all store bought.

I do know my local Whole Foods is sourcing produce from New Jersey farms that I also purchase produce from. Obviously there is an upcharge but if I cannot make it to that farm for specific produce at least I know I can still get theirs if need be.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I can taste it in bannanas. i grew up mwith home grown fruit and veg but not bannanas. non organic doesn't taste like a 1970s bannana did

You are totally right. Bananas and fruit I can definitely taste the difference. Also milk for sure. Organic milk tastes way better.

a reply to: homeopath

Organic not only looks and tastes far better

I'm sure that's what all these people thought too. Warning on language.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: purplemer

So basically the hippie crowd had a study and found out that what they decided to call "Organic" is healthier than what they decided to call "Non-Organic" that's a shocker

Wow, refer to my post above. Even if organic does not have more nutrition, it most definitely is healthier to ingest less manufactured pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and preservatives. That's for darn sure. Also, organic agriculture on average releases less of the same into the environment. Virtually all agricultural and ecological studies have noted the deleterious effects of excess said chemicals as a result of agricultural run off in environmental systems.

Please explain how "science," "data," and research are "hippy."

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I can taste it in bannanas. i grew up mwith home grown fruit and veg but not bannanas. non organic doesn't taste like a 1970s bannana did

You are totally right. Bananas and fruit I can definitely taste the difference. Also milk for sure. Organic milk tastes way better.

I heard it strait from a small dairy producer. His words about milk "you wouldn't believe the junk they put in this milk" referring to the end product of the milk in his tanker truck just taken from his cows. That was well over 20 years ago.

As far as fruit and vegetables its about transportation and enhanced self life. Its all about sales and getting it to the store. Like its been said a hundred times already sure stuff right out of the garden is going to taste way better. I had a salad with tomato the other day out of the garden, first of the season and it blew me away.

If a person had very limited space and could only grow on crop I would suggest shard.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Even if organic does not have more nutrition, it most definitely is healthier to ingest less manufactured pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and preservatives.

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

"In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*"

I've highlighted a couple of the important sections as I know most people are either going to be too lazy to read the whole thing or just flat refuse because it goes against their organic "religion."

Source: www.realclearscience.com...

The source also links to other sources.

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: homeopath

Organic not only looks and tastes far better

I'm sure that's what all these people thought too. Warning on language.

If people only look at taste or nutrition, they will be missing half of the point of organic food. Organic food also is generally more sustainable environmentally speaking. Also, certain foods such as strawberries accumulate pesticides or herbicides. Washing them won't take it away.

I am well aware that organic farmers use... organic pesticides or what have you.

But generally speaking, on average, holding all things constant, organic farmers use more moderate levels of chemicals/organic pesticides/herbicides/etc. I'm an environmentalist so that is half of my concern.

Moreover, on average again I guarantee if you look at packaging for organic foods versus normal, you will see that non-organic foods have WAY more random ingredients, preservatives, processing, and so on. Go take a gander at the store. Look at the packaging and ingredients lists.

It's all on average, and there are exceptions.

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Even if organic does not have more nutrition, it most definitely is healthier to ingest less manufactured pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and preservatives.

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

"In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*"

I've highlighted a couple of the important sections as I know most people are either going to be too lazy to read the whole thing or just flat refuse because it goes against their organic "religion."

Source: www.realclearscience.com...

The source also links to other sources.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You didn't read the whole thing, did you?

Case in point: "People buy organic because they think it's better for the environment; it's not. It's safer; it's not. It tastes better; it doesn't. It's more nutritious; it isn't. And these are all misconceptions that have been deliberately promoted -- according to these authors -- by organic farmers and organic proponents despite the fact that scientific evidence doesn't support any of these claims."

ETA: Link to an actual study: www.plosone.org...

This is also a point that is missing from the organic versus not taste/nutrition tests.

If one just pulls a non-organic tomato and organic tomato both right out of the ground, it is possible that they taste the same.

HOWEVER, the difference I think comes out at the store. For example, when we look at organic products versus non, there are far less ingredients, preservatives, and time from farm to table on average in organic produce. This usually means too that organic products are fresher. So even that alone will make the organic foods healthier, fresher, and so on. You have a shorter shelf life when you use less post-harvest chemicals and preservatives.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I can taste it in bannanas. i grew up mwith home grown fruit and veg but not bannanas. non organic doesn't taste like a 1970s bannana did

You are totally right. Bananas and fruit I can definitely taste the difference. Also milk for sure. Organic milk tastes way better.

I heard it strait from a small dairy producer. His words about milk "you wouldn't believe the junk they put in this milk" referring to the end product of the milk in his tanker truck just taken from his cows. That was well over 20 years ago.

As far as fruit and vegetables its about transportation and enhanced self life. Its all about sales and getting it to the store. Like its been said a hundred times already sure stuff right out of the garden is going to taste way better. I had a salad with tomato the other day out of the garden, first of the season and it blew me away.

If a person had very limited space and could only grow on crop I would suggest shard.