3 ms·

Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-f

by byerley 12y ago

Isn't this directly at odds with the Stanford study from 2012? - http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidenc... "No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."

kaitai 12y ago
The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it. If you buy only the tastiest plants and animals I will guarantee you a healthy diet.
- judk 12y ago
  Sugar is a very tasty plant.
  - sleep-less 12y ago
    Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in reasonable quantity.
    - manicdee 12y ago
      That is correct, if by "reasonable quantity" you mean, "not adding any to your diet that already has plenty of fruit and vegetables."
  - kaitai 12y ago
    Ever try eating a sugar beet? Naaaaaaasty. Sugar cane, on the other hand, I'll agree with you about. But you can only really chew it, not eat it.
ramblingrain 12y ago
No. It sounds to me like the Stanford study failed to find a significant difference. That's different from demonstrating equivalence. There are some quotes in the article about how this disagrees with another study (not the Stanford one, but nonetheless). The paper itself quotes the paper you reference and draws many comparisons. This sounds like another look, with more data, and the Stanford study was by no means final. All of these are meta-analyses of hundreds of papers, so it's a pretty new area of statistical analysis and a very difficult one. I haven't read the papers yet. For me, organic food means I'm not paying someone to add XYZ to the environment, and I like that. The risk assessment has not been done, and (see other comments) environmental affects are widespread and very troubling. - full paper, source article: Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20... - full paper, Stanford article: Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? http://media.dssimon.com/taperequest/acp75_study.pdf http://media.dssimon.com/taperequest/acp75_study.pdf

by byerley 12y ago

kaitai 12y ago

The Stanford study also found significant differences between organic and non-organic in pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria (in chicken & pork). I don't understand why these are considered to be unrelated to health in press releases like the one you linked. As they say, "the clinical significance of this is unclear", but I think that's because we haven't studied it. If you buy only the tastiest plants and animals I will guarantee you a healthy diet.

judk 12y ago
Sugar is a very tasty plant.
- sleep-less 12y ago
  Did you fall for the anti-sugar campaign? There's nothing wrong with sugar in reasonable quantity.
  - manicdee 12y ago
    That is correct, if by "reasonable quantity" you mean, "not adding any to your diet that already has plenty of fruit and vegetables."
- kaitai 12y ago
  Ever try eating a sugar beet? Naaaaaaasty. Sugar cane, on the other hand, I'll agree with you about. But you can only really chew it, not eat it.

ramblingrain 12y ago

No. It sounds to me like the Stanford study failed to find a significant difference. That's different from demonstrating equivalence. There are some quotes in the article about how this disagrees with another study (not the Stanford one, but nonetheless). The paper itself quotes the paper you reference and draws many comparisons. This sounds like another look, with more data, and the Stanford study was by no means final. All of these are meta-analyses of hundreds of papers, so it's a pretty new area of statistical analysis and a very difficult one. I haven't read the papers yet. For me, organic food means I'm not paying someone to add XYZ to the environment, and I like that. The risk assessment has not been done, and (see other comments) environmental affects are widespread and very troubling. - full paper, source article: Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_2014_full_paper.pdf http://csanr.wsu.edu/m2m/papers/organic_meta_analysis/bjn_20... - full paper, Stanford article: Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? http://media.dssimon.com/taperequest/acp75_study.pdf http://media.dssimon.com/taperequest/acp75_study.pdf