Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
1–10 of 208 posts
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#2More information on the study (including the paper) here: http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutrit...
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#3Heartening that everyone can read this research largely if not entirely funded by tax payers from the authors' respective countries.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#4It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies:
"Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods."
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#5More information on the study (including the paper) here: http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutrit...
How did you find that? When I looked up the title I got a link to journals.cambridge.org that redirects to a login page. Your link is much better.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#6It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies: "Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carr…
Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants.
Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy.
So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#7More information on the study (including the paper) here: http://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutrit...
How did you find that? When I looked up the title I got a link to journals.cambridge.org that redirects to a login page. Your link is much better. http://scitr.com/a2d
The link I gave above is the 2nd Google search result when I search for the name of the paper.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#8It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies: "Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carr…
Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants. Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy. So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?
You'd conclude everything is unhealthy if you lived your life the way studies told you to. Problem is most studies you see these days are backed/funded by an agenda to be basically their marketing.
I'd like to see a study that dismisses labels like "organic"/not and look for the nutritional content AND poisonous content.
That way, we'd find the best current/future farming methods available instead of this inane religious branding war between marketing giants.
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#9It looks like it is not a new study but rather a meta-analysis of existing studies: "Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers’ perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carr…
Their top claim seems to be that organic food is higher in anti-oxidants. Unfortunately, the idea that anti-oxidants are good for you has always been scientifically shaky, and as more studies have been done, it's increasingly looking like anti-oxidants may be unhealthy. So, the message of this study is, avoid organic food?
That leads to the obvious conclusion that we should skip the foods and eat the pesticides directly!
Re: Higher antioxidant, lower cadmium, and lower pesticide residues in organic crops [pdf]
#10Like the article says, the authors didn't claim the differences they found actually have any impact on health. They just claim they measured a difference, and the difference was significant (unlikely to be explained by chance).
That's fine, but this really doesn't inform consumer decision making in a valuable way. Many consumers would hear this and immediately assume that consuming organic food is safer, which isn't well-supported.
Note that low levels of toxic chemicals can often be completely harmless (if you want a better explanation than that, buy http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815340761 and read the section on the Ames test, dose response relationships, and why tests aren't useful predictors of risk at low concentrations.