A recent study (publication date is actually today July 29, 2009); says their study finds that organic food is no healthier than conventional food. Here’s why you shouldn’t believe them...
This study seems to be impressive when you first look at the big picture. The American Journal of Nutrition, Published July 2009, lots of references and materials gathered from many studies dating back 50 years. But there’s one problem. They are simply rehashing the studies from years gone by and do not present any actual scientific research. They’ve simply gone back, looked at old published papers on same or similar topics, gathered information and then related the overall findings that fit their criteria. What’s wrong with that?
Well, where’s the actual “recent research” data on the nutritional content of conventional foods that shows how much of a given vitamin, mineral, antioxidant, enzyme, co-factors, pesticide, herbicide or otherwise and compared that to the same in an organically grown food? Answer: There is none.
And, you also can’t just “LUMP” all organic foods into 1 category because, sadly enough, people try to scam us using the organic label just like in any other business. Sure, you can feed a cow organic corn and organic soy and call the cow organically fed cow. But in nature, a cows natural diet is the flowering tops of grasses.
I can feed you organic cardboard boxes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. So does eating organic cardboard boxed give you any nutritional advantage over conventional cardboard boxes? No. Why? Because we didn't evolve over hudreds of thosands and millions of years to eat cardboard boxes! It's that simple. Capish?
Then you can raise a cow conventionally and then 3 months prior to slaughter, “finish the cow on grass” and technically you can call it natural grass-fed meat.
You can eat organic cereals, but not be aware that the extremely high heat extrusion process by which most cereals are made and formed into their flakes or other shapes, kills all viable nutrient value. So it doesn't matter what it's made out of if the process kills the nutrients.
Were the organic vegetables studied picked locally after being vine ripened? Or were they picked before they were ripe and then shipped across the country while they rotted to their ripeness rather than “vine ripened”?
How about “Organic Eggs”??? I wrote about this only a few months ago. Most cartons of eggs in a health food store marked “organic” or “natural” are marked “100% organic vegetarian diet” or “fed 100% all roasted organic corn and soy diet”. So what’s the problem? It’s the diet that’s the problem. Hens don’t eat soy or corn in a natural environment. They peck and eat bugs, worms, seeds and whatever else is in those fields they run around in. Why is that a healthy diet for hens? Because it’s what they’ve evolved to eat over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
So, to come up with a study that says organic foods have no nutritional advantage over conventionally grown foods only raises more questions rather than providing validation of the farming practices of the American Food Industrial Complex. Hey, and don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with you eating their stuff if you choose. You should just be aware you’re being deceived and understand the alternatives (properly grown organics) have a much greater nutritional value.
You know what you do? Go find a local organic farm and that’s where you buy your eggs, milk, cheese, meats, veggies and fruit. Learn how to make your own condiments (via lactofermentation methods) like your great grandmother did.
And for those who want to find out if organic foods actually have more nutritional benefits than conventional food, you must first really be looking! Try doing some original research next time!