Organic food has no extra health benefits

[Still Waters]

Organic food has no health, taste or nutritional advantages over conventionally manufactured or harvested food.

That is the damning verdict of a study by Berlin based consumer watchdog group Stiftung Warentest.

The results, from one of the most respected consumer groups in Europe - backed and funded by the German government but totally independent - is a massive embarrassment for the organic food industry.

Read more...

[Jeanine]

80- 90% of the grains grown in the world are genetically modified. "Round Up Ready" seeds kill predators by eviserating the bug's stomachs. This is continued in livestock, and then on into humans.

Organic grains are not GMO, and that's a very necessary reason to eat organic.

However, the most important reason is hydrides.

Hydrides are the little spark of life within the plant. When a pestacide or herbacide are any man made chemicals are added to the crop, weather in a farmer's filed or your own backyard garden, the hydrides are wiped out, and the spark of life in your food is gone. The nutritional depletion of food world wide is disasterous, and you will never hear about it in any mainstream news source.

And you can be sure they will do all they can to discourage us from getting the optimum benefits from our food supply. Otherwise, why go to all that trouble to destroy it?

This castastrophe is easily documented and the mountains of evidence which support it make the propaganda appear foolish and inept. Except that the propaganda is all most people get, and therefore it is accepted by most.

Below is only one many videos on youtube educating folks about the dangers of GMOs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzZBCujVhME

"In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote: "Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

[Psykonos]

While I am not fazed at all by this research, I shall continue to garden and shop organically. While the nutritional factor may no longer matter, the environmental one does. I do not want to poison the earth for some pretty veggies.

BTW, very interesting post, Jeanine!

[Wickian]

I always assumed that it wasn't that organic was more healthy, but that it wasn't less healthy like pesticide-ridden food is.

[aquatus1]

So, if inorganic food is so bad for you, so nutritiously depleted...shouldn't there be shorter lifespans in the countries that use them most?

[Alien Being]

Everything from organic food to green technology and watching your carbon footprint is a fabricated lie.

They are marketting ploys to make you pay extra for products and to allow your Governments to tax you to hell and back.

[SilverCougar]

I always assumed that it wasn't that organic was more healthy, but that it wasn't less healthy like pesticide-ridden food is.

Pretty much it, yes. Organic is more for not having the pesticides and being geneticly altered. Which actually does lead to healthier food.

[Mattshark]

80- 90% of the grains grown in the world are genetically modified. "Round Up Ready" seeds kill predators by eviserating the bug's stomachs. This is continued in livestock, and then on into humans.

Organic grains are not GMO, and that's a very necessary reason to eat organic.

However, the most important reason is hydrides.

Hydrides are the little spark of life within the plant. When a pestacide or herbacide are any man made chemicals are added to the crop, weather in a farmer's filed or your own backyard garden, the hydrides are wiped out, and the spark of life in your food is gone. The nutritional depletion of food world wide is disasterous, and you will never hear about it in any mainstream news source.

And you can be sure they will do all they can to discourage us from getting the optimum benefits from our food supply. Otherwise, why go to all that trouble to destroy it?

This castastrophe is easily documented and the mountains of evidence which support it make the propaganda appear foolish and inept. Except that the propaganda is all most people get, and therefore it is accepted by most.

Below is only one many videos on youtube educating folks about the dangers of GMOs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzZBCujVhME

Hydrides you say? Which hydrides? Hydrides just means a H- ion and hence is alone, a pretty meaningless term and a lot of them are quite poisonous and hydrides like phosphine for example, are used as rat poison and others such as Tributyltin hydride are extremely toxic to marine life. I think you have your understanding of hydrides well off I am afraid.

Also, any video mentioning NWO, not really a good source of science.

"In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote: "Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Here I agree with you, but to cast this as a wide net over all GM food is erroneous and each item needs to assessed on a case by case basis.

For anyone wanting to read the paper:http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

But to be fair, a lot of organic food is over priced and no better environmentally.

[Mattshark]

Pretty much it, yes. Organic is more for not having the pesticides and being geneticly altered. Which actually does lead to healthier food.

Mmmm, that isn't always true.

[MissMelsWell]

I'm not too choosy when it comes to something like organic cereal, or organic dried pastas, cheese etc... I AM however VERY picky about my meats, fruits and veggies. I don't care what this article says, I can tell the difference between organic free range beef or chicken just by looking at it and the organic free range tastes WAY better.

I also think the organic fruits and veggies taste much fresher and more flavorful than the pesticide ridden ones. Ok, the pesticide sprayed and waxed ones DO look prettier, but they don't taste better and often their "good looks" detract from whether or not they're actually flavorful.

I'm semi-pro organic, but not because of its health affects, but more because they do often taste better. But I'm hardly militant about it either. I won't buy meats if they aren't organic, but I'm not going to grill some poor waitress at a restaurant about the source of their meats either.

[The Silver Thong]

Monsanto is an evil company no doubt about. It's a private company that controls the food idustry that the government should be doing. Monsanto needs a lawsuit so large against it that it has to fold. As far as organic foods, never bought the hype nor spent the extra for it.

[Esoteric Toad]

So, if inorganic food is so bad for you, so nutritiously depleted...shouldn't there be shorter lifespans in the countries that use them most?

Lifespan's in general have been increasing for decades...by now you would think there would be a trend downward. The same logic, but in reverse, works for miracle cures and diet aids used by unknown tribes and 'ancient' people....why did they/do they all die off so early???

I've also heard that orangic farming produces less food per acre and as a result actually can cause more damage environmentally. Of course we should be careful with pesticides and GM food. Responsibly careful. There's a lot of fearmongering going on to sell 'organic'. I'm not an expert, but I'll venture to say that a lot of the hype is just that (a sales pitch). JMO.

[Torgo]

Organic food is in principle a good idea because modern industrial agriculture is dependent upon ~10x as much energy as actually ends up in the food calories in the form of fossil fuels to grow the food, and destroys the soil ecosystem and instead treats the soil as a sponge that must be filled up with chemical fertilizers (of which the phosphate variety will eventually run out within a few hundred years) and erodes the soil into the ocean over timescales of less than a century. The nutrition is not the benefit; the benefit is that if PROPERLY done, some forms of organic agriculture can theoretically be sustained indefinitely.

That being said, I don't know if it is possible to FEED our current population without the sucking up of more water than rain recharges and agricultural forms that destroy the land. We need to reduce our population or else nature WILL do it for us.

Genetically modified food is not uniformly good or uniformly bad. It has to be examined on a case by case basis. There is NOTHING bad, for example, about food engineered to be an edible vaccine or to have extra vitamins or be resistant to a blight. I have some reservations about BT corn - a form of GM corn that expresses a protein toxic ONLY to insects (completely safe for human consumption) because in addition to killing pests it fraks up the soil ecosystem and may necessitate more fertilizer to maintain yields. Herbicide resistant crops are only a stopgap measure as well - the herbicides may not always be there, and the gene has a chance of eventually jumping into wild weed populations. It is not the genetic modification that is the issue, it is the particular trait that is conferred. Genetic modification is just a better and faster way of doing what we have been doing for millennia with breeding and husbandary.

[puridalan]

It might not have added health benefits as make you a superhuman, but to ME it has many. Why? For one it doesnt have a number of different syrups and food dyes. For me it has actually turned my life around and I do not have headaches anymore. So while I may not possess super human powers, instead of eating processed foods or subs from subways in which the meat contains high concentration of nitrates. Guess what? I don't wake up with anal bleeding because of the nitrates I ate from subway. I feel healthier and more engerized because I am not putting junk food into my body and I am not drinkin hormones that are put in our milk that contains a lot of pus.

Soooo, it's not that it as added, it's what it doesn't have that is adding to making it better. I am not drinking extra hormones, or gorging myself on bad sugars, instead an apple has the right type of sugars instead of that twix bar.

All I have to say, is that smart people will continue to eat organic because it IS healthier for you than eating a bunch of crap that isn't healthy for your body. End of Story.

And for the other person saying about shouldn't we have shorter lifespans. No, only because of technology do we not have polio, chicken poxs, yellow fever..killing us off like flies. In the 1900s acute diseases killed people, now today we are seeing chronic diseases kill people. It is because of lifestyle choices ie sedentary lifestyle, drinking, smoking, obesity, and lack of exercise. Just because we live logner doesn't mean the crap we are eating is Good for us certainly not. We should be focused on the quality of life not quanity anyways.

Laughs, I can tell you growing a chicken from egg to full size in 20 days isn't healthy or normal from all the hormones they put in it. It's not like eating one chicken is going to kill you, it is when you combine the main picture of all of it together that tears our insides out. Ie with the hormone pus milk, with the 20 day chicken, with cheez-its, mcdonalds...and so forth..it adds up. No one is saying once in a while you can't have something bad, it is that making it your menu of choice=disaster.

I'd also be careful of things that say 'organic foods' many of them still contain a lot of crap in them. If you really want to eat totally healthy...I don't buy anything that looks like a cereal box or anything of the sort. When my health was really bad I only could eat homemade whole wheat bread, literally from a bread maker. If you want to eat healthy look at the label and see if you actually know what all the ingredients mean..and if it takes you wayyy to long to even look at all the ingreidents..probably isn't the best. I like to keep it to the ten or less rule. Or rather I like to make all the meals myself, whether it is steal cut oats in the morning or an indian soup at night. Same thing with can beans, still have 'stuff in them' the only way you get around that is literally taking the dry beans and soaking them overnight then cooking them a few hours the next day. People simply don't want to do it because they think it takes too much time, while it may take more time...I think you should take time on your health.

Edited May 29, 2010 by puridalan

[xCrimsonx]

Organic is remorseful for the animals.,. but It's just hype for those that are healthy because they are rolling in their organic money!!! I'm not talking about the genuine farmers either!

[SlippySlug]

Anybody who has grown vegetables or other crops on a large scale will know it is extremely difficult to manage without the use of pesticides or herbicides. To be certified organic, more time and effort will be put forth towards a much smaller outcome. This is probably why you can go to the organic health food store and spend two dollars on one small apple full of the scab fungus.

I grow tons of my own fruits and vegetables, most of which are old heirloom varieties. I've been doing this my entire life. Never have I used any chemicals or anything other than miracle grow. Honestly, I can't taste much of a difference other than freshness from vegetables I buy in the grocery store. I think it's somewhat of a placebo effect a lot of the time. Other times the taste may vary because of the unique varieties you may find at a farmer's market which a typical grocery store wouldn't carry.

The bottom line is... no matter where you buy your vegetables, they're all still good for you. If you don't like chemicals, try washing your food.