"By the end of the study, there was no more or less amount of nutrients and vitamins in these organic and regular animal and plant items. However, there was a small difference in the amount of phosphorous in organic products and there were more omega-3 fatty acids in organic chicken and milk." It's an interesting study and I hope there are further studies to confirm this. What do you think? Do you think this was a conflicted study? False? Any thoughts would be great...
I was never sure of the reasons why people thought organic food was more nutritious in the first place, so this doesn't surprise me.
I suppose that the validity of it depends on who conducted the study. I would honestly like to believe that there is not much difference between organic and conventional food. It would bring me peace of mind and make me feel better about not being able to afford organic produce and meat. Can you provide a link to this study?
I think in some ways the organic craze sits upon "common sense" i.e. it would make sense if organic food was better for you - however what should make sense rarely does. So I'm not really all that surprised at these findings. Half the reason so many things have changed in agriculture is because of trying to make food more filling, healthier, and stronger.
Do you have a link or more information about the study? I would love to read it. I buy organic vegetables and fruits when I can. It's not about the nutrients for me. It's about the pesticides. I want to limit as much of that crap that goes into my body. I also preferred free range meat when I ate meat. My reasoning was that animals raised under duress would release toxins or hormones into their body and would wind up in our meat. There's also the humane issue.
Yes, it makes sense to me - I only ever buy organic when it's reduced or on offer at the supermarket, and I never think they look or taste any better than regular vegetables. I always wash fruit and vegetables before using them anyway, so I'm not too bothered about pesticides. I buy my fruit and vegetables from local growers at the street markets, and they're not overfond of excessive use of pesticides.
I thought the whole craze about organic food was not so much that it was more nutritious somehow, but that it wasn't covered in pesticides and other toxins? I didn't know there was supposed to be a nutritional difference at all.
I never quite fell for the organic hype and have not really opted for organic produce at any time, unless there was no choice. I never quite understood how a plant or animal grown organically could contain more nutrients than non-organically grown produce, so the results of this study come as no big surprise to me.
While there many not be a significant different in nutrients, [real] organically-grown produce does not contain pesticides and herbicides like regular produce.
Eh, free range doesn't mean the chickens or cows are running about free - it just means they aren't in a cage. Besides which I really wouldn't trust something that ate whatever and drank whatever - how do I know it hasn't infected it's self with something. For instance, chickens are filthy creatures that delight in being disgusting and therefore I really prefer their idiot behinds be kept confined.
This is one of the reasons why I gave up meat altogether. Plus, if you knew what the caged animals were eating, you probably wouldn't want to eat them either. Droppings about.
