Comments on: Organic Food No Healthier than Regular Food

By: jcarter

jcarter — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:05:34 +0000

JUST THINK BACK A HUNDRED YEARS AGO an futher EVERYTHING WAS BASICALLY ORGANIC NO CHEMICALS OR ETC THEN PEOPLE INVENT FATTIES FOODS LOL ITS WEIRD WHAT PEOPLE WOULD DO OR USE JUST TO EARN MONEY. ME PERSONALLY I RATHER PREFER ORGANIC AND HEALTHYIER FOODS IT DOES SHOW A DIFFERENCE TO ME MY BODY IS MORE ALERT I DONT BE SO TIRED AND ETC BUT LET ME EAT FAT FOODS AN BAD FOODS I HAVE PAINS AN IT MAKES MY TUMMY HURT LOL TRUE BUT IT DOES BECAUSE ONCE YOUR BODY IS USE TO EATING A CERTAIN WAY AND YOUR SCARE IT. WITH HARMFUL THINGS BIG DIFFERENCE!

By: Dr. Joana

Dr. Joana — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:30:08 +0000

The test sounds like another Monsanto attempt to abolish organic farming..Nature knows best..because its the only way

By: Deanne Mattice

Deanne Mattice — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:19:01 +0000

I was wondering about the msg products that they use on conventional foods and how much of a difference this use makes in the foods we eat. I still get migraine headaches even after eating salads or fresh fruit. Msg is a naturally occuring substance when proteins are cooked for long periods of time. however, why should the food industry add msg to fruit juices and call it flavorings! why do they add it to the wax they rub on apples and cucumbers? why do they add it to the fertilizer and allow the foods to be sold in the market when they understand it's a toxin causing many health issues, including weight gain. this isn't a religion for me, this is survival, because the poisons in the foods available to me in the grocery store are causing serious health problems for me.

By: dooberheim

dooberheim — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:51:46 +0000

It is incorrect to judge the veracity of information by looking at who says or sponsored it. The only way to judge information is by the way it was generated and if it correlates with other known facts.

A commercial interest using proven fact to support it's actions is not misrepresenting fact. This is a common discrediting tactic, and is 100% illogical, and should be pointed out as such.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:08:42 +0000

When reading published studies, it is most important to find out who sponsors the organisation and the research to get an idea of motives for the ‘findings’. Have a look at the list of the donors that support the research done by the Institute of Food technologists – easily accessible via their website. There you will see big business, Unilever and Kraft amongst them. They are also contracted to the FDA who is advised by a board who has members whose salaries are being paid by big food companies. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that an anti-organic paper was published by an institute in bed with multi-national food cooperations. Dig deeper and find out who actually sponsored that specific report and it will get more interesting.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:57:17 +0000

I agree that for the most part, organic is a religion. I still try to buy organic animal products, though, because they necessitate at least some improvement in humaneness over conventional animal production (e.g. use of bovine growth hormone that turns cows into porn stars with back problems). The organic issue is definitely not black and white. Some organic production has high yields, while other doesn't. The world definitely could feed 6 billion people organically but it would require loads of physical labor that the chemicals in conventional agriculture have come to replace. This demand for farm labor (in lieu of chemicals) is a major reason that the world is suffering from overpopulation in the first place. As for whether organic production is better for the environment or not... there is some evidence that suggests that organic food requires more carbon to produce than conventional. Products like feather meal and plastic mulch are approved and used extensively by organic farmers. Anyone who wants to learn more should work on a farm (like I did). And if you volunteer on an organic farm, be sure to ask them why they can't afford to pay you a salary for your back-breaking labor.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:01:15 +0000

I love the people who say things like "of course organic is healthier!!", yet they provide no evidence what-so-ever. Organic food, at best, is a narcissistic fad and an incredibly successful marketing scam. At worst it has the potential to cause mass starvation. As Nobel Prize winning agronomist Norman Borlaug has pointed out, you cannot feed 6 billion people organically even if you plowed over the entire Amazon rainforest.

All plants produce toxins (think tobacco and coffee). Over 99% of all the toxins you consume are naturally occurring. We're only dealing with 1% of what goes in your body here. The whole idea that organic is better is total and utter nonsense. The person who said it was a religion hit the nail on the head.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:40:44 +0000

"Artificial Sprays" does NOT equal bad.

ALL produce is FULL of pesticides... organic or not. These pesticides are part of the plant, produced to kill bugs/pests by the plant itself. The human body can not tell the difference between a compound produced in a plant, or one produce artificially.

Anyone that knows that some plants are toxic and even fatal to people can easily understand this.

PLANTS CAN KILL. Natural does NOT automatically equal good.

By: newell

newell — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:48:15 +0000

Of course Organic foods are better for you. They don't have artificial sprays that ARE bad for you. I am a huge fan of organic foods and I hope one day all farms will be organic. Organic foods are 1,000 times better then conventional

By: SLB

SLB — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:13:05 +0000

Is there not an issue with the definition of organic? When food manufacturers can label their products organic when only 90% or less is organic, that is just wrong, no wonder the uninterested or uneducated consumer stands no chance!