Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Organic Food versus Conventional Food

Reading an article this morning about organic food, I thought this was very intriguing. I've heard this position several times, and think there are really some interesting points here. Read through it and let me know what YOU think. 

There currently is no substantive evidence that organic foods have nutrition-related benefits over conventionally produced foods, according to a new review by members of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Health.

They noted that the research on this issue is "disappointingly small" and that where studies have been done, they were focused mostly on short-term effects from eating organic foods -- mainly the antioxidant presence in subjects' bodies -- rather than longer-term health outcomes.

Furthermore, they said most of the antioxidant studies found no differences in conventional and organic diets.

The review, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, added to the researchers' work last year in which they considered 162 articles in the scientific literature over the last 50 years and reached similar conclusions.

Read more at their website

Don't forget to comment!

1 comment:

Cari Walters said...

I thought that the idea behind organic foods was to keep pesticides/chemicals out of our bodies rather then increased health benefit. Although eating foods in a non process chemical free form seems a pretty good way to keep the good health inducing enzymes whole. Did they do studies on how the chemicals effect our bodies.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin

What things are most Important to Store?