Tweet
From your article, Oerdin:
I think I'm gonna have to go with the crowd on this and just write you off.
FWIW, the title of the article is not "Organic food has no health benefits"; that's the title of the articles by the BBC, Reuters, etc. The ACTUAL title of the article is:
They started with 3558 articles, lowered that to 162 and then used only 55.
From the article itself:
For animal products they ONLY looked at saturated fat, nitrogen and ash. There was no consideration for cholesterol, amino acids, or other micro-nutrients.
Ultimately, the study only concluded that we have insufficient research on the subject. This is because the organic market has only become significant in the last 20 years.
Snide remark: I bet the only other journal article that Oerdin (and the other idiots in this thread) know is the Lancet one about Iraq casualties. This illustrates how much damage a single fraudulant article in a journal can do.
For now, I'm just going to call them idiots on this subject. We'll see how other topics go before I totally condemn him/them as most others have.
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added.
I think I'm gonna have to go with the crowd on this and just write you off.
FWIW, the title of the article is not "Organic food has no health benefits"; that's the title of the articles by the BBC, Reuters, etc. The ACTUAL title of the article is:
Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature
They started with 3558 articles, lowered that to 162 and then used only 55.
From the article itself:
Significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found in some minerals (nitrogen higher in conventional crops; magnesium and zinc higher in organic crops), phytochemicals (phenolic compounds and flavonoids higher in organic crops) and sugars (higher in organic crops).
For animal products they ONLY looked at saturated fat, nitrogen and ash. There was no consideration for cholesterol, amino acids, or other micro-nutrients.
Ultimately, the study only concluded that we have insufficient research on the subject. This is because the organic market has only become significant in the last 20 years.
Snide remark: I bet the only other journal article that Oerdin (and the other idiots in this thread) know is the Lancet one about Iraq casualties. This illustrates how much damage a single fraudulant article in a journal can do.
For now, I'm just going to call them idiots on this subject. We'll see how other topics go before I totally condemn him/them as most others have.
Comment