A multi-center, international group of scientists culled
the world’s literature and found several hundred studies which they then
analyzed (a meta-analysis) to discern significant differences between
conventionally-grown crops and organic crops (and foods made from them). They
found, on average, a 17 percent higher level of “antioxidants” and a lower rate
of detection of various synthetic pesticides. They also found a higher level
of“toxic cadmium.”
The article in the New York Times on this study
by Kenneth Chang was (surprisingly) noncommittal on the health significance of
this huge study, with the journalist citing several
experts who registered between “so what?” and skepticism concerning its
[lack of] overarching public health and nutritional significance.......Of
course, crops grown under organic mandates will have fewer of the licensed, approved, safe pesticidesthan
conventionals: what else is new? And the literature support for the health
benefits of isoflavones, polyphenols, etc. is scanty at best (cadmium is indeed
a “toxic” heavy metal — at high enough exposure — but none of the levels found
pose a realistic health risk to anyone of any age from dietary
consumption)......“None of the reviewed studies measured any remnants of
so-called ‘organic’ pesticides–that is those that are permitted under the
National Organic Program. There are many of these, and they are not necessarily
safe for human consumption, but the organic foods industry seems to want to
keep them secret.”.....To Read More...
Also feel free to see ACSH’s own evaluation of organic
food’s alleged health benefits here.
No comments:
Post a Comment