NEW British Study: Organic vs. Conventional NO nutritional difference

[Yulia_R]

What do you guys think about this new pretty comprehensive study. To be honest, I’m very surprised with the results.

http://civileats.com/wp-content/uplo...8041-1..6”.pdf

[Yulia_R]

Well, I just found this article pointint out at the flaws http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/31-10

[staceychev]

Honestly, I don't really care about the nutrition differences between conventional and organic. I choose organic whenever possible because:

a) I don't want my family exposed to pesticide residues
b) It's a moral decision: caring for the environment
c) It's a moral decision: caring about the health of those who work to provide food for me and my family

[kjbrown92]

:
I never even considered that there may be a nutritional difference. It's the pesticide, GMO, etc. stuff that I don't want.

[tbone_kneegrabber]

i feel like its kinda like: bike vs car, both "get you to the church on time!"

but we know that a bike is less polluting and has the added benefit of exercise etc.

however there are times when a car is needed (long distance to travel, traveling with kids, unable to ride a bike, weather etc etc)

so organic has benefits that may not be nutritional, and sometimes you have to get coventional (availability, price, local etc etc)

[natural_mama89]

I think there definitely differences in nutrition with GMO vs. non GMO. Maybe not just regular conventional, but I have heard lectures and read many articles about how harmful GMO food is.

[laohaire]

My DH went to a nutrition class years and years ago and his teacher had a really big thing about conventional being as nutritious as organic - it seemed to be something really emotional for her or something. DH always wondered, "isn't the main reason people eat organic is to avoid pesticides??"

Who knows. Personally I can believe there might be only minimal nutritional differences between conventionally farmed veggies and conventional organic veggies (as opposed to small farms committed to sustainable growth - their soil probably yields measurably more nutritious vegetables, but that's just a guess on my part). But I always though the big health factor was "avoidance of poison" not "increase of nutrients." Maybe this is a myth that people who aren't into nutrition/organics buy into?

Actually... DUH... this is a myth PROPEGATED by the industry! Just realized that. They are addressing an audience that doesn't know squat about organics, and making sure they don't convert by accident or something. They are not addressing you and me.

[mamadelbosque]

I have no doubt that nutritionally speaking, the difference between a tomato shipped from chili to the us that was organic vs conventionally grown is minimal. But, thats why I don't buy tomatoes from chili - I buy local whenever humanly possible, and organic when its not. I buy organic cause' I figure at least that way I'm avoiding hte pesticides and NOT supporting monsanto & co's awful practices with GMO & chemicals & fertilizers and such.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by kjbrown92

:
I never even considered that there may be a nutritional difference. It's the pesticide, GMO, etc. stuff that I don't want.

: again. I've always been surprised to hear people talk about organics in terms of nutrition ... it's just not the point.

[noobmom]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

: again. I've always been surprised to hear people talk about organics in terms of nutrition ... it's just not the point.

I agree with most of what's been said. But I do think of pastured (and sometimes that means organic) "livestock products" as being more nutritious. The study was seriously flawed in this area. Can they really say by measuring the ash content and unspecified fat content of meats and dairy that they can conclude there is no difference? I didn't even know what ash meant, I had to look it up. It's basically what's leftover if you burn the meat, commonly interpreted as the total mineral content of food. In both the case of the fats and the ash, it doesn't say a darn thing about the types of fats or which minerals...just the total amount. So in their mind a gram of saturated fat is nutritionally equivalent to a gram of unsaturated fat. And a gram of lead is as healthy as a gram of calcium.


We extracted 125 nutrient comparisons from 9
satisfactory quality-livestock-product studies, and data on only 2
nutrient categories were reported in !4 studies. Analysis of the
very limited database found no evidence of a difference between
production method in either fats (unspecified) or ash (Table 2).