Re: SERIOUSLY NOW????? - Article: Study finds Organic food is no healthier

[Guest guest]

VINDICATED (partially) today!!!

Thank God for those who can " Knock " back!

This just in from Rodale today:

Organic IS healthier and Here's Why...A new study on the nutritional value of

organics, didn't crunch the right numbers!

http://www.rodale.com/organic-foods-and-nutrition?page=0%2C0 & cm_mmc=DailyNewsNL-\

_-2009_07_31-_-Top5-_-NA

Syl (skipping a mini-victory dance)

>

> I am so mad (again), no outraged, by this. Look how the whole article

OBVIOUSLY does not say anything about how Organic foods (including the majority

of organic and natural packaged foods) dont contain additives, GMO's and other

nasties that are killing us!

>

> Article Here: http://news./s/nm/20090729/hl_nm/us_food_organic

>

> LONDON (Reuters) †" Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over

ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

>

> Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said

consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived

health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion

in 2007.

>

> A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific

literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant

difference.

>

> " A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between

organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be

of any public health relevance, " said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

>

> " 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. "

>

> Syl (who is fuming - and you can probably see the smoke if you look toward New

Mexico!)

>

[Guest guest]

It is interesting, the two paragraphs quoted. The first one where it says, "A small number of differences.....". The differences, taken alone, may be small, but the cumulative effect can be massive. One step may be small, but many steps make a journey.And, "...on the basis of nutritional superiority". Small Steps notwithstanding, it completely sidesteps the issue of the toxins inherent in our commercial food chain, and it's negative cumulative effect.Anyway, my initial thoughts on this article.Peace, love, laughter I am so mad (again), no outraged, by this. Look how the whole article OBVIOUSLY does not say anything about how Organic foods (including the majority of organic and natural packaged foods) dont contain additives,

GMO's and other nasties that are killing us!Article Here: http://news. / s/nm/20090729/ hl_nm/us_ food_organicLONDON (Reuters) – Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference."A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors."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. "Syl (who is fuming - and you can probably see the smoke if you look toward New Mexico!)