Saturday, May 1, 2010

More evidence that organic food is no better for you. It just costs more.

ORGANIC food does not have greater nutritional value than conventionally grown food, a major University of Sydney study has found.

In a result that will provoke dismay and anger in the organics industry, the study's authors found that food grown without pesticides or herbicides should not be promoted as healthier because there was no evidence to show that it contained more nutrients than normal food.

And the author of the report went further, recommending consumers stick with commercially grown fruit and vegetables because they are cheaper and, therefore, people could eat more of them.

The study, conducted by the School of Molecular Bioscience, surveyed the international literature on organic produce, conducted laboratory analyses of Australian foods and surveyed Australian health professionals about organics, critically evaluating the results.

No surprise here. This simply confirms what several other studies have found.

So the organic produce industry spin doctor plays the pesticide residue card, knowing this will play well to the scientifically illiterate.
There is no real scientific data that shows the safety of pesticides in the human body, especially in children."

See the trick he played? What he is also admitting with that statement is that neither is there any convincing evidence that such residues, at the tiny amounts that they are found in food, represent any danger. If there was, he'd have lost no time in saying so.

Rather, he cleverly planted the seed of doubt in the minds of the kinds of healthy and wealthy white middle-class people who don't have anything real in their pamperd lives to worry about, and who have more money than sense.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

No comments: