Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:34:57 AM
As evidenced by the comments below, it doesn't matter how many studies show this blatantly obvious fact. The anti-science zealots will still screech about the supposed benefits of organic food, based on nothing but their feelings and anecdotal "evidence".
FYI, they`ll also ignore the settled science proving that vaccines are safe and that global warming is a hoax. Facts just get in the way of their dogmatic religious zealotry.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:21:04 PM
Nutritionally, the only difference that has ever been reported between organic and non-organic foods is that some plants produce more antioxidants when they have to fight off pests and disease without chemical aid. This is possibly significant, but you can get the same amount of antioxidant more cheaply by buying non-organic fruit and eating more of it. (Also, in meat, there's the difference in fat types between grass- and grain-fed animals, but that`s not quite the same thing as organic vs non-organic production.)
So, the only health difference is the presence of additives such as pesticides, antibiotics, etc. Officially, all of these have been approved as safe to eat at concentrations that might be found on food. There are certainly reasons to be skeptical of such claims, but it isn`t that surprising to discover that in actual human diets, any health effects of approved safe pesticide dosages are statistically insignificant. That`s what safety laws are designed to ensure!
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:07:31 AM
[EDITED:">These people are nonsense. Read this and think about what corn is used in. This is only one example of why people should be eating more organically. Or at least be more aware of what they are shoving in their faces.