---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - ‎1 hour ago‎

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:45:53 -0400, songbird
wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - ?1 hour ago?

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?

Here is another take on the report.



Study questions whether organic food is better

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which
costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to
find out and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is
much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and
antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides,
including for children - but the amount measured from conventionally
grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported
Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

'I was absolutely surprised,' said Dena Bravata, a senior research
affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis
because so many of her patients asked whether they should switch.

'There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over
conventional foods,' from environmental concerns to taste preferences,
Bravata stressed, but when it comes to individual health, 'there isn't
much difference.' Her team did find a notable difference with
antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are
harder to treat if they cause food poisoning.

Specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of
bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday's analysis
agreed. When bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non
organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to
multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal
Annals of Internal Medicine.

That finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not
because they're sick but to fatten them up. Farmers say it's necessary
to meet demand for cheap meat.

Public health advocates say it's one contributor to the nation's
growing problem with increasingly hard-to-treat germs. Caroline Smith
DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, counted 24 outbreaks linked to multi-drug resistant germs in
food between 2000 and 2010.

The government has begun steps to curb the non medical use of
antibiotics on the farm.

Organic foods account for 4.2 percent of retail food sales, according
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It certifies products as
organic if they meet certain requirements including being produced
without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, or routine use of
antibiotics or growth hormones.

Consumers can pay a lot more for some organic products but demand is
rising: Organic foods accounted for $31.4 billion sales last year,
according to a recent federal report. That's up from $3.6 billion in
1997.

The Stanford team combed through thousands of studies to analyze the
237 that most rigorously compared organic and conventional foods.
Bravata was dismayed that just 17 compared how people fared eating
either diet while the rest investigated properties of the foods.

Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable
pesticide levels. In two studies of children, urine testing showed
lower pesticide levels in those on organic diets.

Bravata cautioned that both groups harbored very small amounts and
said one study suggested insecticide use in their homes may be more to
blame than their food.

Still, some studies have suggested that even small pesticide exposures
might be risky for some children, and the Organic Trade Association
said the Stanford work confirms that organics can help consumers lower
their exposure.

--
USA
North Carolina Foothills
USDA Zone 7a
To find your extension office
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html

The Cook quoted:

WASHINGTON -Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which
costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to
find out and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is
much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and
antibiotics.

Isn't the diffreence in pesticides and antibiotics the primary point of
going organic?

This is like saying that scientists could find no difference but water
content between fresh food and freeze dried food. Yeah, that''s right.
The water difference *is* the intended difference.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides,
including for children - but the amount measured from conventionally
grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported
Monday.

That's good news.

'I was absolutely surprised,' said Dena Bravata, a senior research
affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis
because so many of her patients asked whether they should switch.

In another study Dena Bravata was absolutely surprised that water is
wet.

Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable
pesticide levels. In two studies of children, urine testing showed
lower pesticide levels in those on organic diets.

There ya go.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The Cook quoted:

WASHINGTON -Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which
costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to
find out and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is
much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and
antibiotics.

Isn't the diffreence in pesticides and antibiotics the primary point of
going organic?

This is like saying that scientists could find no difference but water
content between fresh food and freeze dried food. Yeah, that''s right.
The water difference *is* the intended difference.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides,
including for children - but the amount measured from conventionally
grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported
Monday.

That's good news.

Growing organic can lower the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. I
don't suppose the brainiacs thought to measure that though. Doubt they
bothered to look at water table contamination either. Those are why I
care about buying organic.

marcella


'I was absolutely surprised,' said Dena Bravata, a senior research
affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis
because so many of her patients asked whether they should switch.

In another study Dena Bravata was absolutely surprised that water is
wet.

Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable
pesticide levels. In two studies of children, urine testing showed
lower pesticide levels in those on organic diets.

There ya go.

In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

Would it come as a surprise that Proposition 37 on California's November
ballot is about labeling GM products?

The study wasn't a "gold standard" (double blind) study. It was a
review of other studies (a megastudy) which brings in judgement calls on
what to include, and what to leave out. Ancel Keys, maybe the most
famous perpetrators of this type of study used 6 countries to show a
link between cholesterol, and heart disease. He used 6 countries when he
had data for 22 countries. Needless to say, when all 22 countries were
included, the connection between cholesterol, and heart disease went
away, but today, Lipitor makes a lot of money from cholesterol.
p 18
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health (Vintage)
by Gary Taubes
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1
(at a library near you)


The "partisan" organic site
http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Nutritional_Content_of_Organic_Food
lists a John Hopkins, 2001 study of organic vs conventional (which used
to be organic) . As I understand it, as explained by Alyson E.
Mitchell, foods grown on different soil will have varying amounts of
nutrient compounds, so matching them at a check-out counter may not be
definitive. Some vegetables grown conventionally on rich soil may have
equal nutrients. As she explained it, carrots and tomatoes grown
organically will have more nutrients. Bell peppers and other vegetables
have roughly equal amounts of nutrients grown either way.

The strongest argument I can find is a study on the "Effect of Organic
and Conventional Cropping Systems on Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin C,
Flavonoids, Nitrate, and Oxalate in 27 Varieties of Spinach (Spinacia
oleracea L.)" by Alyson E. Mitchell
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf300051f

and

http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

Then there is the soil, and the pesticides.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

"songbird" wrote in message
...
---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - ?1 hour ago?

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?

This is a summary:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

They didn't actually do anything except to review 'evidence'.

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

I was listening to a most interesting report on the radio the other day and
the person being interviewed seemed to be incredibly pragmatic and said that
she made decisons about buying organic or not based on the chance of the
'thing' having been heavily sprayed or not.

She also made the point that although, in the western world,
pesticide/chemical residues were not considered a problem by our respective
governments as individual chemicals were many times lower than the legally
permitted levels. she said that the real danger may arise from the
conbination of these chemicals eg 'B' might be OK on its own but combine it
with residue 'C' and it was realy not good in the human body. She believed
govts needed to look closer at these combinations - can't remember now what
she called it but it had a technical name.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Isn't the diffreence in pesticides and antibiotics the primary point of
going organic?

Depends who's doing the pointing.

For a segment none of the folks I know who actually grow organic love,
the point is to charge outrageous fees to "certify" the organicness.

For a segment not that far separated from the high-fee certifiers, the
point (and they spent a lot of money buying politicians to make thier
point) is to make sure that certified organic doesn't mean what you
would think it does so they can charge more for "organic" food without
it really being all that "organic" as you think of it.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

I was listening to a most interesting report on the radio the other day and
the person being interviewed seemed to be incredibly pragmatic and said that
she made decisons about buying organic or not based on the chance of the
'thing' having been heavily sprayed or not.

She also made the point that although, in the western world,
pesticide/chemical residues were not considered a problem by our respective
governments as individual chemicals were many times lower than the legally
permitted levels. she said that the real danger may arise from the
conbination of these chemicals eg 'B' might be OK on its own but combine it
with residue 'C' and it was realy not good in the human body. She believed
govts needed to look closer at these combinations - can't remember now what
she called it but it had a technical name.

Basically, the environment that our bodies live in has changed. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S., says,"Number of
Americans with Diabetes Projected to Double or Triple by 2050".
Something is happening, but we don't know what it is.

We know that contemporary farming uses nitrates as fertilizer, and as a
result, those plants contain more nitrates, which is just another
reactant to add to the pesticides on the food. Contemporary
agriculture's produce is lower in flavonoids (polyphenols). Flavonoids
include antioxidants, and some can lower blood pressure. Flavonoids
weren't included in Stanford's megastudy on organic vs conventional
produce.
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...w&report_id=12
6

In Northern California, on some fields west of Davis, Kaffka and his
colleagues have been comparing organic and conventional tomatoes grown
in neighboring plots. It's part of a UC Davis study dubbed the
"Long-Term Research on Farming Systems Project," which was begun in 1991
and is slated to last 100 years.

So far, the researchers have found that the organic tomatoes have almost
double the concentration of two types of flavonoids ‹ quercetin and
kaempferol ‹ which are considered to be healthful plant compounds with
potent antioxidant activity. The 10-year mean levels of quercetin were
79 percent higher than those in conventional tomatoes, and levels of
kaempferol were 97 percent higher.

The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the
difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial
fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the
plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from
manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be
broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released
to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously
available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson
Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the
plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary
plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

The above is classic organic gardening: take care of the soil, and the
soil will take care of the plant, and the plant will take better care of
you.

Its is quite curious that with studies like these, how the Stanford
report could come to the conclusion that organic, in general, has the
most nutrients.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is an election year (in the U.S.
A.), and if pigs should suddenly learn to fly, don't be surprised.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:11:25 AM UTC-6, Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message

...

---from a google news headline in passing...---



The Guardian - ?1 hour ago?



Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than

conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,

although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and

antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.



---



ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and

antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better

for you" ?



This is a summary:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685



They didn't actually do anything except to review 'evidence'.

But no one knows how valid that evidence was or how it was gathered or
who paid the bill for it. I would say that the summary is weak and
practically useless.

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

I was listening to a most interesting report on the radio the other day
and
the person being interviewed seemed to be incredibly pragmatic and said
that
she made decisons about buying organic or not based on the chance of the
'thing' having been heavily sprayed or not.

She also made the point that although, in the western world,
pesticide/chemical residues were not considered a problem by our
respective
governments as individual chemicals were many times lower than the
legally
permitted levels. she said that the real danger may arise from the
conbination of these chemicals eg 'B' might be OK on its own but combine
it
with residue 'C' and it was realy not good in the human body. She
believed
govts needed to look closer at these combinations - can't remember now
what
she called it but it had a technical name.

Basically, the environment that our bodies live in has changed. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S., says,"Number of
Americans with Diabetes Projected to Double or Triple by 2050".
Something is happening, but we don't know what it is.

I'm darned sure that for diabetes the cause is indeed very well known - bad
diet and too little exercise.

And it's nto too much of a leap to also look at other changes and realise
that since we've moved so far away from how we traditonally lived that the
causes for other health issues arise there. I'm darned sure that the 3
major cnacers I've had that commonly kill people came from standing under
Agent Orange spray as a child.

We know that contemporary farming uses nitrates as fertilizer, and as a
result, those plants contain more nitrates, which is just another
reactant to add to the pesticides on the food. Contemporary
agriculture's produce is lower in flavonoids (polyphenols). Flavonoids
include antioxidants, and some can lower blood pressure. Flavonoids
weren't included in Stanford's megastudy on organic vs conventional
produce.
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...w&report_id=12
6

In Northern California, on some fields west of Davis, Kaffka and his
colleagues have been comparing organic and conventional tomatoes grown
in neighboring plots. It's part of a UC Davis study dubbed the
"Long-Term Research on Farming Systems Project," which was begun in 1991
and is slated to last 100 years.

So far, the researchers have found that the organic tomatoes have almost
double the concentration of two types of flavonoids ‹ quercetin and
kaempferol ‹ which are considered to be healthful plant compounds with
potent antioxidant activity. The 10-year mean levels of quercetin were
79 percent higher than those in conventional tomatoes, and levels of
kaempferol were 97 percent higher.

The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the
difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial
fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the
plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from
manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be
broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released
to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously
available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson
Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the
plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary
plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

The above is classic organic gardening: take care of the soil, and the
soil will take care of the plant, and the plant will take better care of
you.

Its is quite curious that with studies like these, how the Stanford
report could come to the conclusion that organic, in general, has the
most nutrients.

Basically the Stanford report was only a literature review.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is an election year (in the U.S.
A.), and if pigs should suddenly learn to fly, don't be surprised.

I suspect there won't even be any preloved pig flying suits that come up for
sale post election.

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:11:25 AM UTC-6, Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message

...

---from a google news headline in passing...---



The Guardian - ?1 hour ago?



Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than

conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,

although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and

antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.



---



ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and

antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better

for you" ?



This is a summary:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685



They didn't actually do anything except to review 'evidence'.

But no one knows how valid that evidence was or how it was gathered or
who paid the bill for it. I would say that the summary is weak and
practically useless.

They say there was no funding. Remember, they aren't testing, they are
only reading other people's work, and forming their conclusions. What
they read, and how they cast it in a "maybe, possibly, might" kind of a
vocabulary, is essentially useless when compared with actual testing.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

I was listening to a most interesting report on the radio the other day
and
the person being interviewed seemed to be incredibly pragmatic and said
that
she made decisons about buying organic or not based on the chance of the
'thing' having been heavily sprayed or not.

She also made the point that although, in the western world,
pesticide/chemical residues were not considered a problem by our
respective
governments as individual chemicals were many times lower than the
legally
permitted levels. she said that the real danger may arise from the
conbination of these chemicals eg 'B' might be OK on its own but combine
it
with residue 'C' and it was realy not good in the human body. She
believed
govts needed to look closer at these combinations - can't remember now
what
she called it but it had a technical name.

Basically, the environment that our bodies live in has changed. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S., says,"Number of
Americans with Diabetes Projected to Double or Triple by 2050".
Something is happening, but we don't know what it is.

I'm darned sure that for diabetes the cause is indeed very well known - bad
diet and too little exercise.

And it's nto too much of a leap to also look at other changes and realise
that since we've moved so far away from how we traditonally lived that the
causes for other health issues arise there. I'm darned sure that the 3
major cnacers I've had that commonly kill people came from standing under
Agent Orange spray as a child.

We know that contemporary farming uses nitrates as fertilizer, and as a
result, those plants contain more nitrates, which is just another
reactant to add to the pesticides on the food. Contemporary
agriculture's produce is lower in flavonoids (polyphenols). Flavonoids
include antioxidants, and some can lower blood pressure. Flavonoids
weren't included in Stanford's megastudy on organic vs conventional
produce.
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...w&report_id=12
6

In Northern California, on some fields west of Davis, Kaffka and his
colleagues have been comparing organic and conventional tomatoes grown
in neighboring plots. It's part of a UC Davis study dubbed the
"Long-Term Research on Farming Systems Project," which was begun in 1991
and is slated to last 100 years.

So far, the researchers have found that the organic tomatoes have almost
double the concentration of two types of flavonoids ‹ quercetin and
kaempferol ‹ which are considered to be healthful plant compounds with
potent antioxidant activity. The 10-year mean levels of quercetin were
79 percent higher than those in conventional tomatoes, and levels of
kaempferol were 97 percent higher.

The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the
difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial
fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the
plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from
manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be
broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released
to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously
available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson
Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the
plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary
plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

The above is classic organic gardening: take care of the soil, and the
soil will take care of the plant, and the plant will take better care of
you.

Its is quite curious that with studies like these, how the Stanford
report could come to the conclusion that organic, in general, has the
most nutrients.

Basically the Stanford report was only a literature review.

Yup, they concluded that the studies that they studied were
inconclusive. We have seen however, other studies doing the testing
found "organic" produce had more nutrients. I get the feeling that these
studies weren't included in Stanford's review.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is an election year (in the U.S.
A.), and if pigs should suddenly learn to fly, don't be surprised.

I suspect there won't even be any preloved pig flying suits that come up for
sale post election.

Be the first one on your block to fly a pig. You'll have to be prepared.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

Billy wrote:
....
They say there was no funding. Remember, they aren't testing, they are
only reading other people's work, and forming their conclusions. What
they read, and how they cast it in a "maybe, possibly, might" kind of a
vocabulary, is essentially useless when compared with actual testing.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

and yet someone probably got credit or a degree
from it anyways (applied statistics? ).


songbird

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

Correction

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
songbird wrote:

---from a google news headline in passing...---

The Guardian - 1 hour ago

Organic produce and meat typically is no better for you than
conventional food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content,
although it does generally reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a US study.

---

ok, so tell me, how does "reduce exposure to pesticides and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria" equate with "typically no better
for you" ?


songbird

And who sets the levels that are considered safe? The EPA that sent
first responders into "ground zero" while it was still toxic, and
reassured residents that it was safe to return home?

I was listening to a most interesting report on the radio the other day and
the person being interviewed seemed to be incredibly pragmatic and said that
she made decisons about buying organic or not based on the chance of the
'thing' having been heavily sprayed or not.

She also made the point that although, in the western world,
pesticide/chemical residues were not considered a problem by our respective
governments as individual chemicals were many times lower than the legally
permitted levels. she said that the real danger may arise from the
conbination of these chemicals eg 'B' might be OK on its own but combine it
with residue 'C' and it was realy not good in the human body. She believed
govts needed to look closer at these combinations - can't remember now what
she called it but it had a technical name.

Basically, the environment that our bodies live in has changed. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the U.S., says,"Number of
Americans with Diabetes Projected to Double or Triple by 2050".
Something is happening, but we don't know what it is.

We know that contemporary farming uses nitrates as fertilizer, and as a
result, those plants contain more nitrates, which is just another
reactant to add to the pesticides on the food. Contemporary
agriculture's produce is lower in flavonoids (polyphenols). Flavonoids
include antioxidants, and some can lower blood pressure. Flavonoids
weren't included in Stanford's megastudy on organic vs conventional
produce.
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...w&report_id=12
6

In Northern California, on some fields west of Davis, Kaffka and his
colleagues have been comparing organic and conventional tomatoes grown
in neighboring plots. It's part of a UC Davis study dubbed the
"Long-Term Research on Farming Systems Project," which was begun in 1991
and is slated to last 100 years.

So far, the researchers have found that the organic tomatoes have almost
double the concentration of two types of flavonoids ‹ quercetin and
kaempferol ‹ which are considered to be healthful plant compounds with
potent antioxidant activity. The 10-year mean levels of quercetin were
79 percent higher than those in conventional tomatoes, and levels of
kaempferol were 97 percent higher.

The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the
difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial
fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the
plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from
manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be
broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released
to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously
available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson
Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the
plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary
plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

The above is classic organic gardening: take care of the soil, and the
soil will take care of the plant, and the plant will take better care of
you.

Its is quite curious that with studies like these, how the Stanford
report could come to the conclusion that organic, in general, doesn't
have more nutrients.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is an election year (in the U.S.
A.), and if pigs should suddenly learn to fly, don't be surprised.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/1...jill_stein_run
ning

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running