What about the negative studies?
The debate over the health benefits of eating organic foods continue to rage on. Proponents claim subjective feelings of increasing health effects and the much better taste of organic produce, while opponents wave studies in the air that seem to counter such claims. A most recent study from Stanford seems to indicate that there are no discernible benefits to eating organic foods. But that and other studies have been seriously called into question. A very good rebuttal and enlightening article that points out the many flaws in the Stanford study can be found at the New York Times here.
Who can we trust?
If we research the issue, there are many studies that indicate proven benefits of eating an organic diet. Unfortunately for us in the the United States, our EPA and other government agencies have been a revolving door for chemical and agriculture giant corporations such as Monsanto, Dow and others. It is sickening to see the cronyism that guides our rules, regulations and funding for studies regarding our agricultural and chemical products in the U.S. This is far too widespread in the government to cover in this article, just do a Google search and you will uncover mind boggling examples of this. Apparently holding any high position in government regulatory agencies seems to insure employment in an executive capacity with chemical or agricultural corporations. On the flip side, our food and environmental agencies are well staffed by former agribiz executives. You have to be a fool to think that the regulations regarding the safety of modern agricultural practices in the United States are done strictly with the safety of the consumer in mind without tremendous bias involved.
The positive evidence.
In a recent experiment in growing organic foods, the Gardens for Research Experimental Education and Nutrition grew leeks and potatoes in bio dynamic soil with proper microbes in the soil such as found in organic gardens. The potatoes had fifty times higher calcium content and the leeks had four time the calcium content of conventionally grown produce. That is truly astounding.
In a Study in Denmark, 3 different groups of rats were fed either totally organic food, conventional food with chemicals and fertilizer or natural fertilizers but containing chemical pesticides. In the study, the rats fed the organic food slept better, weighed less, and their immune systems were noticeably stronger.
In another study, fruit flies that ate conventional soy survived half as long as fruit flies that fed on organic soy. Was that based on one being GMO based or was it being pesticide free? Personally we think these sorts of studies are purposely overlooked due to the strong political and lobby influences of big Pharma, Agriculture and Chemical companies in our government, universities and medical professions. Many people believe that the National Rifle Association or some other bugga boo have the largest lobbies in Washington. Nope, that would be the Pharmaceutical industry (you know the ones who sell the vast amounts of growth hormones and antibiotics to farmers). Though the Stanford study claimed to find no differences between the Escheria coli bacteria contamination between conventional and organically raised animals, conventional meat has been found to have 33 percent higher risk of contamination with bacteria that has become resistant to 3 or more antibiotics.
These are but a few of the examples of studies we don’t hear about that support the use of organic products. Even a doubting Thomas would have to wonder about the information we are fed against an organic diet in light of the pervasive influence of giant agribiz on our government, medical community and media. When hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, beware of what you are sold as “fact.”
If for no other reason, go to the local organic food outlet, buy some fresh fruits and veggies. Do your own taste test and you will be sold on that alone, that organic is the way to go!