Comments for ​Flaws in the "Organic Food" Study at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Sat, 25 May 2013 14:40:06 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/agriculture/3816-flaws-in-the-qorganic-foodq-study-#comment-47952 This was something really informative and something that everyone should know. If people still don't use organic food, they will start having it after the post. - Stay Healthy with Organic Products Fri, 01 Mar 2013 04:02:25 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/agriculture/3816-flaws-in-the-qorganic-foodq-study-#comment-47589 The keyword that they use is significantly, you can define significantly to mean a substantial amount of more nutrients. - Elizabeth Miller Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:51:17 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/agriculture/3816-flaws-in-the-qorganic-foodq-study-#comment-47502 While I myself try to eat as organic as possible to reduce the amount of chemicals I'm putting into my body. A study like this seems to be set up to be quoted by all major players who have the potential to face profit losses if people switch to eating only organic foods. While most of the people who eat organic understand what that label on food means. The "mass markets" seem to be just coming onto the idea of eating more organic foods and an easily misquoted study such as this can be used to say there is no scientifically recognized benefit to organic foods. This misquotation can easily misinform those who read it and take it for face value. This is upsetting to me since I personally would love to have more organic options and more accessibility to organic options for everyone. The real problem is that studies like this can be used to hinder the expansion of those options and their accessibility. This then forces some people to not have the choice for organic foods if they are trying to avoid the over-consumption of the chemicals used to treat non-organic foods. - Q Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:02:12 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/agriculture/3816-flaws-in-the-qorganic-foodq-study-#comment-47478 We humans think we are so clever. A simple unanswered question might help put the topic in perspective. How many compounds are present in compost that is made up of truly organic material, and how many compounds are present in commercial fertilizer? The answer to the first is unknown, the second is very well known. If the first cannot be answered, then the distinction cannot ever be made. - Stephen Jones Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:19:35 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/agriculture/3816-flaws-in-the-qorganic-foodq-study-#comment-47453 The most important reason to eat organic foods has pretty much always been to reduce one's exposure to pesticide chemicals. Reducing one's intake of superbacteria is also an important criterion. More nutrition - has always been a tough call. I will continue to eat organic foods when I can, for Reason #1, and because to me they have more flavour. - Carol S. Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:21:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/agriculture/3816-flaws-in-the-qorganic-foodq-study-#comment-47448 Here’s the abstract of this very solid piece of work: Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods. Data Sources: MEDLINE . . and bibliographies of retrieved articles. . . Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce . . Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork . . Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present. Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. - Chris Squire Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:37:32 +0100