• Dimensions Magazine is a vibrant community of size acceptance enthusiasts. Our very active members use this community to swap stories, engage in chit-chat, trade photos, plan meetups, interact with models and engage in classifieds.

    Access to Dimensions Magazine is subscription based. Subscriptions are only $29.99/year or $5.99/month to gain access to this great community and unmatched library of knowledge and friendship.

    Click Here to Become a Subscribing Member and Access Dimensions Magazine in Full!

Organic food not healthier, study finds

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

How do you feel about organic foods?

  • I eat it exclusively. Non-organic food is toxic.

  • If it were cheaper it's all I'd eat.

  • I think it tastes better but it's pricey.

  • Seems like hype for the tree huggers to me.

  • Preservatives are all that's keeping me alive!

  • Organic beef jerky and twinkies are too damn hard to find.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Ernest Nagel

is old
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
2,652
Location
,
I'm sure this has been discussed here before but I thought in light of this recent study it might be worth reviewing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE56S3ZJ20090730

Organic food not healthier, study finds
Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:38pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over conventionally produced food, according to a major study published on Wednesday.

Its conclusions were challenged by organic food campaigners.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers paid higher prices for organic food in part because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Peter Melchett, policy director of Britain's Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said he was disappointed by the conclusions reached by the study's authors.

He criticized the methodology of the study, which he said had led researchers to reject some clear nutritional benefits as "not important."

Melchett also pointed out there was not sufficient research to assess the long-term effects of pesticides on human health.

Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.

The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.

($1=.6107 Pound)

(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; editing by Matthew Jones)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
 

Latest posts

Back
Top