peril wrote:
> "usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
%[email protected]...
>
>>peril wrote:
>>
>>>>><..>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>what else was eaten; whether or
>>>>>>>not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and
>>>>>>>fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those
>>>>>>as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's
>>>>>>monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for
>>>>>>residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production.
>>>>
>>>>IN THE *UNITED STATES*.
>>>
>>>'Organic
>>>
>>>Strive
>>
>>Theory is demolished by practice. Organic doesn't mean free of
>>pesticides,
>
> Practice demolishes
your stupid theory.
> 'Strive
Keep *striving* all you want -- organic farmers *continue* to use
pesticides, they *continue* to kill animals, they *continue* to use dead
fish products and blood and bone meals for fertilizer, etc. What they
*strive* to do and what they *actually* do are two separate things, dummy.
>>nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more
>>nutritious, has more flavor, etc.
>
> Of course it is.
Ipse dixit. Spokespeople for the organic industry does not make such
claims, nor do researchers like Consumers Union.
Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that
their products offer no significant nutritional advantages.
Katherine DiMatteo, *spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade
Association*, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000)
whether organic foods were more nutritious than their
conventional counterparts. She *twice responded* that “*organic
foods are as nutritious as any other product*.” *Not* *more*
*nutritious*, merely “as nutritious.”
The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
(
http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm)
answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this
way: “*No one knows*. The *question is a difficult one to study*
because of all the factors besides farming methods that could
affect nutritional quality, including soil type and climate. The
evidence from the small body of reliable studies available thus
far *does not show any significant differences between the
nutrient content of organically grown and conventionally grown
food*.”
UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
like to say yes, *unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that
it is*. *The studies are equivocal*; there are *no definitive
studies* that show that organic is much better than
conventionally-produced produce."
Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
(and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this
after its own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997.
(available at
www.consumerreports.com/Special/News/Reports/9712n001.html):
“Yet organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’
grown produce, and *any nutritional differences there might be
between them are likely so subtle as to evade detection*.”
Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
(
www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
“Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability
of water, amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it
took to come to market and whether it was properly handled and
refrigerated. *Numerous laboratory tests have not found any
substantial nutritional differences in organically and
conventionally grown produce*.”
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/researchfund/fs2docs/fs7061.htm):
“Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of
plants and on other components of nutritional quality. Although
differences can be found they are not consistent among the
different experiments that have been conducted. Varying the soil
nutrients or other growing conditions could conceivably produce
similar results. *There is no conclusive evidence that crops
grown organically are either inferior or superior
nutritionally*. There are major differences between experiments
and among crops within the same experiment.”
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/1999/oct_18_97.htm
Now go rub some tourist's smelly old feet.
