Organic Food Study: Eating Organic Food is Hype
I suspected this for a long time now, you know, eating organic this or that, paying more, much more, for the same non-organic food, just to find out, the REAL difference is minimal, at best. That is what Stanford researchers found out after conducting a study comparing organic and non-organic food. The simple conclusion is that nutrition-wise, there is no different between organic and non-organic food, whatever that really means. The only difference found between the two was that organic food has lower levels of pesticides and antibiotics. Now, before you give a big "told you so", the study showed that the non-organic food contained them well within the government safety limits, none were over. So, it comes down to whether you believe the limits set by the government are valid or not and if you are willing to pay much more for the same item because it is labeled, "organic". Organic food is not more nutritional the study showed. Taste was slightly different between the foods. The study also showed that the chances for bacteria contamination between the food types are unchanged, both were the same. They did find that in non-organic meat, that bacteria found had a 33% more chance of being to antibiotics because farmers feed them antibiotics to fatten them up.
Food labeled as "organic" must certify that it is produced without pesticide\fertilizer, or routine use of antibiotics. Organic food accounted for $31 billion. The study suggested that people should buy fruit only from USA\Canada, not Chile or other countries because of lower pesticide levels. Just remember, even the items with higher levels of it were within US government standards for health.
More by this Author
It is great food and a low price!
Over 2 million Filipinos immigrate to the USA per year, where do they live? Where are the most popular spots for Filipinos?
Join this long list of consumer problems and complaints about this car. Most o the problems are on models pre-2009. Many sad stories.