Organic has no health benefits
news.bbc.co.uk
Organic has no health benefits
1–10 of 137 posts
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#2It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception.
The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly.
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#3It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…
To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly.
What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming?
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#4Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#5It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…
"There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found."
To add to your point, "no evidence of any extra health benefits" is different from "evidence that there are no extra health benefits".
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#6It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…
To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly. What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
[deleted]
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#7Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.
Also, this study looked at the people eating the food, and ignored the people growing the good. Obviously, farmers are exposed to pesticides (and other petrochemicals) in much greater concentrations than consumers....
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#8It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…
To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly. What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
Off the top of my head, other questions to consider are:
• The environmental effects of different methods of farming and food production.
• Are toxins more or less present in the food produced by different methods?
• Is the food more or less pleasurable to eat?
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#9It's very infrequent that a scientific study's findings can be reduced to a headline without losing important information, especially when the headline is optimized for iconoclasm. This is no exception. The study found that organically- and non-organically-grown foods showed no difference in nutrition. To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is…
To assume that the food's nutrition is the only health-affecting factor between organic and petrochemical farming is silly. What do you suggest would be a verifiable health-affecting factor that would differ between the two forms of farming? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
[deleted]
Re: Organic has no health benefits
#10Strange how the study doesn't address the main reasons why I would tend to favor organic foods: less pesticides, its the only way (at least in Canada) to control GMOs in what you eat. Of course there would be other environmental reasons as well, but it still remain based on monocultures.
Exactly. The article avoids the "truth" as to why most people even eat Organic. The health benefits in eating organic are in what you aren't eating (e.g. pesticides, etc).