Is Organic Food Healthier? New Study Shows No

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6279
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Evildweeb 2.5

PostTue Sep 04, 2012 7:16 pm » by Evildweeb


.



Read what you want into this....I already know better.........



Is Organic Food Healthier? New Study Shows No Nutritional Edge



Upload to Disclose.tv




on Sep 4, 2012 by slatester

Sure, you pay more, but eating organic meat and produce provides more nutrition than conventional food, right?

Maybe not. According to the New York Times, scientists at Stanford combed through 40 years' worth of research comparing organic and conventional foods and found that those labeled organic provide the same nutritional value as their conventional counterparts. The study also found "no obvious health advantages to organic meats."

Organic advocates were quick to point out the findings neglected to mention that conventional food tends to carry higher traces of pesticide and, in the case of beef, pork, and chicken, higher levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

So while the study may have its merits, it might be best to take it with a grain of sustainable, free-range organic sea salt.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkm2Ia8XokM
Image

I am not a Conspiracy Theorist - I AM AN ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATOR

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 19563
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: underneath the circumstances

PostTue Sep 04, 2012 7:33 pm » by The57ironman


Evildweeb wrote:
So while the study may have its merits, it might be best to take it with a grain of sustainable, free-range organic sea salt.

.


....i'll take it with some bath salt... :mrcool:


.
................................................... CHA-CHINGLE BELLS .................................................
ImageImageImage

Conspirator
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: canada

PostTue Sep 04, 2012 8:20 pm » by Mydogma


scientists at Stanford combed through 40 years' worth of research comparing organic and conventional foods

hmmm lets figure this out...first of all what is convential food? nice how they are conditioning us to accept that convential food comes processed in a box or can...or industrial farm...is not convential food my mother natures standards her tomatoes, Beans..(and i guess meat nataurally grazed) how about a title more truthful....40 years worth of research compairing convential natural foods to bastardized GMO food with less the vitamins and more preservatives...
so these bought scientists(if the really deserve to have that label) have come to the conculsion that man made plastifoods are better for us then my garden tomatoes....hmmm...thats a hard one...perhaps we should fund millions of dollars of research dollars to get more scientific understanding...haha..or fire them and they can get a real job instead of using tax payer money to give to these bought universities to taint research findings to taint the facts in favor of their meggggga corporate donors agenda...go back to school mr. scientist...mother nature aced it the first time...
thanks for the post
If you don't wake up, Your the problem, not the thief...www.cattledum.com

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 19563
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: underneath the circumstances

PostTue Sep 04, 2012 8:26 pm » by The57ironman


Mydogma wrote:scientists at Stanford combed through 40 years' worth of research comparing organic and conventional foods

hmmm lets figure this out...first of all what is convential food? nice how they are conditioning us to accept that convential food comes processed in a box or can...or industrial farm...is not convential food my mother natures standards her tomatoes, Beans..(and i guess meat nataurally grazed) how about a title more truthful....40 years worth of research compairing convential natural foods to bastardized GMO food with less the vitamins and more preservatives...
so these bought scientists(if the really deserve to have that label) have come to the conculsion that man made plastifoods are better for us then my garden tomatoes....hmmm...thats a hard one...perhaps we should fund millions of dollars of research dollars to get more scientific understanding...haha..or fire them and they can get a real job instead of using tax payer money to give to these bought universities to taint research findings to taint the facts in favor of their meggggga corporate donors agenda...go back to school mr. scientist...mother nature aced it the first time...
thanks for the post

.




:owned:


.............i wish i had it in me to iterate like that.. :clapper:


.
................................................... CHA-CHINGLE BELLS .................................................
ImageImageImage

Conspirator
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 6:05 am

PostTue Sep 04, 2012 8:32 pm » by Perronick


I don't care if it's more or less nutritional. I would eat less nutritional food as long as it's not poisoned with antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, colorants, bpa and so on ...

And btw, the NYT and Stanford Univ. can go suck a D

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:57 pm

PostTue Sep 04, 2012 10:28 pm » by Pitchke


Perronick wrote:I don't care if it's more or less nutritional. I would eat less nutritional food as long as it's not poisoned with antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, colorants, bpa and so on ...

And btw, the NYT and Stanford Univ. can go suck a D



:pray:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

PostWed Sep 05, 2012 9:13 pm » by Seriouscitizen


The only thing "true" about the results of this study is that indeed most organic foods can't have a much higher nutrition level than for example non-organic vegetables.

The source wich creates the nutrition isn't only the "organic" vegetable itself but the soil. To have a label called organic you can only build on soil wich has been pesticide free for a number of years before you start growing crops on them. I don't know the exact number of this, and wich pesticide it is, by memory though.

Since world war II people where afraid to starve and started neurotically mass produce food in europe. They used a pesticide made in America wich was also used there to increase their harvest.
After years of intesive use people find out this particulair pesticide was very harmfull for the soil and the health of people. So it was banned. Now this pesticide is being used in Africa.

What happenend is that the mineral level of the soil dropped so bad that it still hasn't recovered from it. This means that ANY kind of intensive agriculture, with or without the use of chemicals, obstructs the soil from recovering to the state it was 60 years ago. I read that a piece of bread now has 1/10 of the nutrition of a piece bread in the 50's.

And than i haven't even taken in acount the added chemicals wich also harms our health!

So since organic farming is relatively "new" and uprising. Most the organic vegetables and fruit are build on "old" plots wich are still damaged. So regardless to the benefits of no use of chemicals the nutrition of the soil is still bad. There are probably only a few exceptions.

Also people's overweigt is partially a result from the intesive agriculture. Because the lack of natural nutrition in our "natural" foods, Our body gets tricked every time we eat a piece of bread. We can eat a lot of it but most of the time we get hungry again right after. Because the body recognizes there is a lack of minerals, it is actualy starving and starts saving up, creating fat, everytime you eat. This is why even though you eat much and also healthy food, but it is hard to stay satiated therefore you eat more; without actually getting the proper nutrition. (therefor adding supplements like supergreens, or eating only raw food to keep the nutrient level up, is a solution)

I eat Organic food, because of lack of better. But there will be a time in the future when organic is just another "bad" food and we move on to permaculture. That is now, probably the only way of having agriculture without damaging the soil and therefore get proper nutrition in a way it is truly natural.

Conspirator
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 6:05 am

PostWed Sep 05, 2012 9:27 pm » by Perronick


The famous Stanford paper was made by The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), sponsored by Cargill, Monsanto, BP, Bill and Melinda fucking Gates, Goldman Sachs, among others.


Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agricu ... -over.html) with the following sentence:


"Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots."

Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph's readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford "study" regarding organic food.

Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri's bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.

The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England's latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study.


A Corporate-funded "Study"

The Stanford Center for Health Policy states the following on its own website:

"The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute's research, teaching and outreach activities."

The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these "friends," national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy?


According to FSI's 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf) Agricultural giant Cargill, British Petroleum (BP), the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), the Ford Foundation, Google, Goldman Sachs, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and many other corporate-financier, Fortune 500 special interests.


Full article: http://www.blacklistednews.com/Cargill_ ... 0/Y/M.html

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Questioning Building 7,.......... Stop HAARP ..........Stop HydroFracking

PostWed Sep 05, 2012 9:36 pm » by Hurtswhenipee


You can make a study say anything you want. :flop: :flop:

Cover up after cover up of case studies!

Follow this link to see :rtft:

http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/200 ... and-again/
Image
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: canada

PostWed Sep 05, 2012 10:40 pm » by Mydogma


Seriouscitizen makes some great and often overlooked statements...beyond the vitamins is the trace elements that get stored in the plants seedpod(or fruit) two tomatoes even if the same will not have the same trace elements, ie silver and magnisium....the idea of industrial farming have drained water tables and robbed the lands of nutrients..(And us some natural medicines) the whole PTB want it that way..the want to avoid urban sprawl as they say and have us all jammed into big metropolisis.. So viruses spread quickly, so we all drink of the same water and shit inn toilets sending it down a big sewage pipe with the othe million turds..to end up in a big waste pool which is a bio hazard and we have to hire someone to clean it up..there is no sustainability in this model..proof was when toronto lost its power..the city became helpless in hours..nobody had money as the atm machines didn't work, boil water advisories and so on..big cities would be the first nightmare sufferers if a mass cme like in the late 1800s happened today..months without power..within a week no food on shelves..sustainability begins at home..cities should be designed like my neighbourhood(but better) make minimum lot sizes of 1/4 acre whereby your drilled wwell is atleast fifty feet away from septic tank and septic bed..and everyone grows something over your septic bed...the old addage is true..the grass always grows greener over your septic, both from the moisture and abundance of nutrients..this done part and parcel with community coop gardening would greatly improve community health and better prepare themselve in case of an emergency..as it sits now with our reliance on the gmo food chain..when it stops..we go hungury..for crappy food or good food....on a water well system..if one gets contaminated or goes dry..its a contained probem..if the power goes out..I can hand pump my well..take a bucket full and flush my toilet..and still grow my own food..which is exactly what they don't want..u to have any independance from the system..on a side note I think everyone shuld start learning to love a pet bunny..my daughter has three females and two males..they reproduce quicly..and although I have never eaten one..I will happily do so..as well as the fact that their meat is healthier then chicken and meat will always be a commodity..just my thots..cheers
If you don't wake up, Your the problem, not the thief...www.cattledum.com


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook