Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
07-12-2014, 09:44 AM
Post: #1
New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
"Analysing 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops, the team 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 today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops."

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press....ganic-food
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2014, 02:29 PM
Post: #2
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
Here is a big if with the study " The researchers say the increased levels of antioxidants are equivalent to “one to two of the five portions of fruits and vegetables recommended to be consumed daily and would therefore be significant and meaningful in terms of human nutrition, if information linking these [compounds] to the health benefits associated with increased fruit, vegetable and whole grain consumption is confirmed”.
Does not hurt to eat so called organic when possible, but this is far from settled, IMO
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2014, 04:52 PM
Post: #3
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
It's not the organic part that makes certain veggies contain more antioxidants.
It is the variety chosen to be grown that controls it.
The minute they said that antioxidants were different between organic and conventional, I called BS.

Is it considered a conspiracy if they really are after you?Huh
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2014, 06:57 PM
Post: #4
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
Ugene, I knew you'd be calling BS even *before* that moment Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2014, 09:02 PM
Post: #5
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
All these claims of "natural food" coming from the organic marketing cabal will fall by the wayside in 2015, at least here in Maine.
That is when each and every grower that sells $1000 or more in farm products is required to get a pesticide license and list every chemical used to produce their product.
That is also when the word "oragnic" will be rendered to the same circular file that "global warming" has been tossed into.

Is it considered a conspiracy if they really are after you?Huh
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-13-2014, 06:38 AM
Post: #6
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
It is a touchy freely word to justify charging more. And yes once the "organic "farmers have to list the pesticides used, for some the charade will be over.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-13-2014, 08:12 AM
Post: #7
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
I am NOT an "Organic" farmer, nor do I want anything to do with that particular crowd!


......."That is when each and every grower that sells $1000 or more in farm products is required to get a pesticide license and list every chemical used to produce their product".......


That will NOT include me as I don't use any chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics or any other substances that don't occur naturally in our world.

That is why some people, of their own free choice, like to buy my beef, pork and eggs, and sometimes perhaps pay even more for it to do so. That is THEIR preference, and I am glad for it.

Many of them have told me that they PREFER to buy all the food they can from people they know personally, and know how that food was raised, and what was used to do so.

I gladly think that consumers have the absolute right to know how that food they are buying as raised, and anything not of the natural world, that was used to do that.

However as far as I am concerned perhaps the jury is still out on what negative consequences that use of things like GMO's may have on the human race, but I believe that everyone of us buying any food produced with it.......should have the absolute right to know that fact. If GMO's are good for us why is Monsanto, and others, spending millions of dollars to keep from having to say that publicly? If this is great stuff, I think they should brag about it on the package.

Last year I killed, and buried, two half raised pigs because they had an arthritic condition that I could not treat without modern antibiotics. I believe the overuse of antibiotics is extremely harmful to the human race as bugs build resistance to them due to this overuse. this has led us to where we may have some terrible outbreak someday and the antibiotics will no longer work well. I would rather lose two animals than contribute to this charade! Most animal feed today is "medicated" (with preventive antibiotics) and that is why I don't use it!

I am proud to say that my 21 head of black Angus cattle have eaten nothing but hay and green grass pasture for all of their lives. I would think that Monasanto would be equally as proud to have signs over the meat cases in Shop and Save saying: "This meat was proudly produced with Monsanto GMO corn"!

But they have spent millions NOT to have to indicate that in any way, shape or manner.

What are they afraid of about disclosure of this fact?

Loss of sales? Is money more important than honesty these days?

Some friends of mine just planted 60 acres of silage corn, to be fed to dairy animals. This seed has a tag on each bag with warnings: "do not allow this seed to touch your skin, wash hands after handling bags", and so on. This seed was green! I planted corn in my garden earlier this year....by holding it in my hand and dropping one kernel at a time. What is in this green corn seed that makes it "toxic"? And corn grown from this is going to get into the human food stream?

Anything a lactating animal ingests, is in the milk in minutes. Can this possibly have anything to do with the extraordinary rates of breast cancer that we are seeing today? Breast cancer was unheard of in my youth in the 1950"s!

WC
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-13-2014, 07:55 PM
Post: #8
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
You will be required to have a pesticide license regardless of whether or not you use pesticides.
At least that is how I understand the law.

As for the rates of any cancers, who relay knows what many people died from back in the day.
It may have been that breast cancer deaths were more prevalent but remained undetected and the cause of death misdiagnosed.

Is it considered a conspiracy if they really are after you?Huh
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-13-2014, 10:29 PM (This post was last modified: 07-13-2014 10:30 PM by Three Pipe Problem.)
Post: #9
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
Quote:As for the rates of any cancers, who relay knows what many people died from back in the day.
It may have been that breast cancer deaths were more prevalent but remained undetected and the cause of death misdiagnosed.

Ugene, you're right to wonder this. In general diagnoses not only subject to the state of the art but exhibit "trends" over time... people used to be diagnosed with "dropsy" or "ague" and they aren't any more. This can be researched under the heading of "diagnostic change".

That said, the speculation that what appear to be very high rates of breast cancer, or cancer in general, may be due to diagnostic change, just doesn't hold up, as best I can tell. Western docs have known about cancer and been diagnosing it for a very long time. In fact the best evidence that increased cancer rates have something to do with our modern lifestyles comes from colonial doctors. Gary Taubes, in _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ assembles a really impressive compendium of accounts from colonial era doctors. All too familiar with cancer and heart disease in their places of origin, doctor after doctor wrote accounts of being astounded that the diseases were virtually unknown among the colonized populations. Many of these doctors also documented how, as the populations began to eat imported Western foods (especially white flour & sugar) the diseases started appearing. The accounts included numerical estimates of the rates of these "diseases of civilization" over time.

I tried to find my copy and quote some of the relevant passages for you, but could not locate it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-14-2014, 08:04 AM
Post: #10
RE: New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food
cancer cells feed off sugar and it makes them grow faster.

Quote:"Then they will say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!' And to the hills, ‘Cover us!' If men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Book of Luke
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | My Site | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication