Slashdot Mirror
UK's FSA Finds No Health Benefits To Organic Food
blackbeak writes "The UK Food Standards Agency's 'Independant Organic Review' results were just released, and the BBC rushed to publish the findings in the shockingly titled article, 'No Health Benefits to Organic Food.' From the article, 'There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.' A peek into the research at Postpeakpublishing provides a slightly deeper look."
HA HA, organic milk. Laughed my arse off! ... Just exactly how does organic milk differ from the "other" type? I have visions of a star trek "Borg" cow somehow hooked up to a milking cube.
You mean, pseudoscience isn't nutritious? Who would have guessed?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
it's this ignorant mind set that supports the omgs chemicals are teh evilz rubbish that's all over the internet.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
There is a finite amount of farmland, organic food requires more farmland to grow, I'm not sure what the numbers are but take into account spoilage, pest infestation, smaller fruits, longer grow time, etc.. This is why organic foods cost more, they literally cost more to produce. Now take into account that the U.S. and many 1st world countries feed starving 3rd world countries. Organic foods drive up the cost of regular grain that would be exported to the starving masses because there is less farmland available to grow regular goods, and as more people buy organic foods "because it just feels good" or "because it's good for the endocrine" the more the cost of regular food, and subsequently rescue food, will go up. That means the amount of food given to the starving masses in any given aid country will go down proportionally.
So eat up! the more 'designer' food you eat the more the starving children in Africa will starve, but their used to that treatment, the same enclave of hippy bozos that brought us organic food also vies for the prohibition of DDT in developing countries where over a million people, mostly children below the age of 5, die each year from malaria. Because they want to watch out for the peregrine falcon and all, I mean, where will all the children dying of malaria and starving from lack of food get their whole wildlife appreciation thing from without the peregrine falcon?
The US also happens to be the world's largest food importer as well.
If you RTFA you would know they were simply comparing the nutrient benefits of the two not speculating on the effect pesticide has. The problem is not with the article or the study but from morons like yourself who extrapolate meaning outside the scope of the study and determine that because the study found there was the same nutritional value from organic and conventional foods that they were stating that conventionally produced food was just as healthy as organic. NOWHERE in the study did they state this, few if any people would say that conventionally grown food is as healthy as organic food due to the use of pestecides.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
In other words, he's made a judgment based entirely on emotion and utterly lacking in scientific support.
No, that's bias not a 'natural' attitude.
I don't know how CAFOs are run in the EU, but in the US antibiotics in feed are common in poultry CAFOs, at least according to Purdue, and these pork folks lobbying to keep them in use.
And here is the New York Time on the matter. Purdue again. Some probably biased special interest group. Virginia Department of Health. And here is an EPA ruling where I conveniently highlighted the word Antibiotic to make it easier for you to find.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State