POLL: Organic Foods and Health Benefits

September 27, 2012

in News

A recent study from Stanford University says there's not significant additional nutritional benefit from organic food. Will you continue to buy organic?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Wholesale Organic Food January 2, 2013 at 4:18 am

There is scientific evidence to prove that organic food is better in quality than conventional food.

Lev Belford October 2, 2012 at 8:04 am

Is this front page news? There was a talk show about this study on public radio and as was pointed out there were many aspects lacking in this single, limited study.

Melissa Strayton October 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Were these test comparisons done before or after the non-organic food was irradiated, as so much is to extend shelf life? What does irradiation do to nutritional content — and our bodies? If consumers are pushing for GMO labelling and agribusiness ultimately has to change labelling, we ought to push for an irradiation label too. With organic food, irradiation also becomes a non issue along with genetic modification and pesticides. Would you like your brocolli — and its nutrition — with or without radiation, gene splicing, and a dose of chemicals?

James Minnich September 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Regarding the front page article, “Study: No Added Nutrition Found In Organic Food”, It would appear that Gwen Stanley failed to do the necessary research to determine the validity of this study. If she had she would have found out that a co-author of the report, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an “anti-science” propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37. In addition there are numerous studies from renown physicists and medical professionals, world wide, who have written extensively concerning the dangers associated with eating foods containing GMO’s. The fact is that Vermont leads the nation in the total number of organic farms. They produce the healthiest food available in the country. Surely, Ms. Stanley must realize the adverse impact an article like this has on the organic farming community. They are not subsidized like the huge agri-businesses but must rely solely on product sales to stay in business. This article, written by non-professionals and unsubstantiated, damages the reputation of Vermont organic farms. She should be ashamed and Vermont Standard should be taken to task for making the study a front page item. Wake up Vermont. It’s people like Gwen Stanley who are trying to destroy the Vermont farming culture.

For additional information check the link below: http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html#ixzz27yVFE7lw

Steven Thomas September 29, 2012 at 9:55 pm

After the banner headline, the Standard article noted that the studied was funded “in house” but noted that agri-business giant Cargill was a major donor. Now doesn’t that seem a bit out of whack?? There are other inconsistencies in the study as well and it is being trumpeted by big agriculture. I think if they hadn’t pushed it too far by stating that even exposure to pesticides in non-organic foods isn’t an issue–which is patently ridiculous–people might be less skeptical of the results. As this report–and its funding–gets a closer look I think we will find this is yet another case of throwing tons of money at something in the hopes of discrediting it.

jeanna September 28, 2012 at 9:08 am

Study may have some merit, however, more education and awareness needs to be focused on what organic food does not have.. i.e. added hormones, pesticides, antibiotics – Toxins can cause harm in the body and more education on prevention is needed. As consumers become more knowledgeable, they can then make their personal choice on what they put or do not put into their bodies.

Leave a Comment


five + = 12

Previous post:

Next post: