|
Ever since I learned that name "organic foods" I have thought they
were mostly BS and hype.
For a while in college I was a chemistry major and organic just means any chemical compound formed with carbon. And of course that is why I thought the label "organic foods" was a bunch of BS, because all foods are made out of carbon. Although I suspect that people who are in the business of "organic foods" will give you a different definition, such as that "organic foods" are grown naturally, "organic foods" are grown without pesticides, "organic foods" are grown with love, and a whole slew of other "politically correct" terms. I always thought that the "organic foods" label was just a "politically correct" term on why you should buy a bunch of over priced food grown by hippies. Don't get me wrong, that is just my big picture definition of "organic foods". I do suspect that you probably can make foods better and perhaps healthier by the way you grow them. This article seems to say my initial assessment of "organic foods" was correct. Study: Organic-food benefits to health are minimal by Lauran Neergaard - Sept. 3, 2012 11:23 PM Associated Press WASHINGTON - Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me? Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out -- and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics. Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children -- but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday. Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious. "I was absolutely surprised," said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch. "There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods," from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, "there isn't much difference." Her team did find a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning. Specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday's analysis agreed. But when bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non-organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. That finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not because they're sick but to fatten them up. Farmers say it's necessary to meet demand for cheap meat. Public health advocates say it's one contributor to the nation's growing problem with increasingly hard-to-treat germs. Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, counted 24 outbreaks linked to multidrug-resistant germs in food between 2000 and 2010. The government has begun steps to curb the nonmedical use of antibiotics on the farm. Consumers can pay a lot more for some organic products but demand is rising: Organic foods accounted for $31.4 billion sales last year. That's up from $3.6 billion in 1997. The Stanford team combed through thousands of studies to analyze the 237 that most rigorously compared organic and conventional foods. Bravata was dismayed that just 17 compared how people fared eating either diet while the rest investigated properties of the foods themselves. Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable pesticide levels. In two studies of children, urine testing showed lower pesticide levels in those on organic diets. But Bravata cautioned that both groups harbored very small amounts -- and said one study suggested insecticide use in their homes may be more to blame than their food. |