Web Toolbar by Wibiya Dr. Jay Weber
September 23, 2012
Are organics more nutritious? Again? Sigh.-by Marion Nestle
The latest study arguing that organics are not more nutritious than conventionally grown crops once again makes big-time news.
The last time I wrote about a study like this, I posted the British newspaper headlines.
Never mind the media hype.  Here’s what the authors conclude:

The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Isn’t reducing exposure to pesticides and antibiotic use precisely what organic production is supposed to do?
Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in plant crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals.
This meta-analysis confirms that organic foods have much lower levels of these things.  I’d call that doing exactly what it is supposed to.
But what about nutrients?  I can’t think of a single reason why organics should have fewer nutrients than conventional crops, and plenty of reasons why they might have a bit more if the soils are rich enough.
Plants make their own vitamins.  The vitamin levels should not be expected to differ significantly.  The mineral content might.  Read More
Dr. Jay’s Note:  When it comes to food, I will choose nature over science every time. Real food (made by nature) vs. fake food (made in a lab) - one of the most important lifestyle choices of our time.

Are organics more nutritious? Again? Sigh.-by Marion Nestle

The latest study arguing that organics are not more nutritious than conventionally grown crops once again makes big-time news.

The last time I wrote about a study like this, I posted the British newspaper headlines.

Never mind the media hype.  Here’s what the authors conclude:

The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Isn’t reducing exposure to pesticides and antibiotic use precisely what organic production is supposed to do?

Organics is about production methods free of certain chemical pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, GMOs, and sewage sludge in plant crops, and antibiotics and hormones in animals.

This meta-analysis confirms that organic foods have much lower levels of these things.  I’d call that doing exactly what it is supposed to.

But what about nutrients?  I can’t think of a single reason why organics should have fewer nutrients than conventional crops, and plenty of reasons why they might have a bit more if the soils are rich enough.

Plants make their own vitamins.  The vitamin levels should not be expected to differ significantly.  The mineral content might.  Read More

Dr. Jay’s Note:  When it comes to food, I will choose nature over science every time. Real food (made by nature) vs. fake food (made in a lab) - one of the most important lifestyle choices of our time.

  1. drjayweber posted this
Blog comments powered by Disqus