It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by all2human
From external source,see link
Myth: Organic foods are the safest and healthiest choice for you
The truth: Both organic and non-organic foods are nutritious and safe to eat when you're making healthy choices based on Canada's Food Guide. Many factors affect a food's nutritional value, such as where and how it was grown, stored, shipped and even how it was cooked. So organic foods may have more, about the same, or less nutrients than non-organic foods. And both organic and non-organic foods are grown and produced under strict regulations to make sure they are safe for you to eat. Like any food purchase, buying organic food is a personal choice.
edit on Mon Sep 3 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS[/editbyedit on 3-9-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)
I honestly wonder if you're able to see the logical holes in the argument you provide. Please look for constants, and variables in the bits of information presented. It's a biased view.
It would pain me to have to go through it all with you. I seriously don't know how you can take in this propaganda.
Originally posted by Unity_99
Organic food is minus their radiation and minus their GMO. HELOOO.....!!!! Of course its healthier.
Multiple studies have shown that organic diets significantly lower children’s dietary exposure to pesticides. One University of Washington study analyzed urine from children ages 3 – 11 for organophosphorus (OP) pesticides and found that children consuming conventional foods had concentrations in their bodies that were on average nine times the EPA-established safe level for human health. When the children’s conventional foods were replaced with organic equivalents, their organophosphate levels dropped significantly. When the children resumed a conventional diet, the chemical concentrations in their bodies went back up to original levels. Scientists concluded that, "An organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production.”8,9
Charles Benbrook, PhD, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center who reviewed the Stanford study and most of the underlying literature, found the study misleading. He noted that several well-designed US studies show that organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. For crops like apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, and grains, organic produce has 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids in most studies.
As the Environmental Working Group notes, the Stanford study also contradicts the findings of what many consider the most definitive analysis in the scientific literature of the nutrient content of organic versus conventional food. In that 2011 study, a team led by Dr. Kirsten Brandt of the Human Nutrition Research Center of Newcastle University in the UK analyzed most of the same research and concluded that organic crops had approximately 12 to 16 percent more nutrients than conventional crops.
Critics were quick to point out flaws in the Stanford study’s methodology as well. First, meta-analysis (that is, examining a large number of studies for commonalities) does not allow for the nuances and range of each of the studies—such as differences in testing methods, geography, and farming methods. There are a wide variety of different organic farming practices, and any given sample of food will reflect the soil in which it is grown. Chinese soil, for example, is notoriously deficient in selenium, and this carries through to the food. This makes it very hard to generalize based on an overview of a wide variety of studies.
Second, when researchers select studies for meta-analysis, they are free to cherry-pick whichever ones they like—and leave out any that might not support their conclusions. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University found that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones. Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, a member of the Stanford team, said that this strawberry study was erroneously left out of the analysis, but that she doubted it would have changed the conclusions when combined with thirty-one other studies that also measured vitamin C! What this comment completely omitted is that the chemicals used to treat non-organic strawberries are considered to be among the most dangerous. So arguing about the exact amount of vitamin C in the fruit ignores the main point that conventional strawberries are especially to be avoided because of contamination by a recognized poison.
Third, there was no long-term study of the health effects on humans of consuming organic foods versus conventional foods. The duration of the human studies ranged from two days to two years. Most of the health effects will take a lot longer than that to show up.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by artistpoet
If you eat a bunch of chemicals the residue is excreted in our waste. Meat eaters also have problematic waste which should be processed differently than Herbivores waste. Cat crap shouldn't be used as fertilizer. This is what I have read anyway. If our waste was organic I would say it may be ok, but it isn't anymore, it is full of chemicals and medicines.