organic foods

Here's another observational study of organic food, but it's from the French, who brought us "fine dining." The paper's claims are greater than their proofs. It's just another paper from a "high impact" journal shedding shade.
The organic industry is built upon a gigantic lie. It's the notion that "natural" farming methods are safer and healthier while "unnatural" methods are dangerous. It should surprise no one, therefore, that such a deceptive industry would attract its fair share of hucksters.
If you believe the hype that the Organic Consumers Association puts out, you believe that organic foods are better for you than the conventionally raised variety. And you likely also believe that animals raised in line with organic principles are also treated more humanely. Oops!
The language of science has been hijacked. Those who are looking to make a quick buck (or in the case of the organic industry, 43 billion bucks) have no qualms about twisting the definition of highly precise scientific terminology to suit their own profit-driven agendas. Here's a brief glossary of the some of the most commonly misused scientific terms. (Note: the health food and fad diet industries are among the biggest abusers.)
The health website WebMD supposedly gives us scientifically sound advice. So why is it following in the footsteps of the Natural Resources Defense Council with respect to pesticide scares? As a result we think the Web Doctor's health advice on this issue is decidedly unscientific.
While organic crops supposedly aren t treated with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, a recent report suggests that isn t always true.
We were rather perturbed to see a piece by Julie Revelant on FoxNews.com this week called 10 Ways to Rid Your Body of Toxic Chemicals.
Now that the claim that organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally-produced ones is rarely espoused by responsible writers, organic producers and adherents have fallen back on the fewer pesticides claim. But is that really accurate? Blogger Steven Savage says no, not really.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it will make fundamental revision to its proposed national standards for organic foods. Its backtracking is in response to thousands of written comments that indicated dissatisfaction on the part of organic adherents. Proponents objected to the fact that the proposed rule did not, for example, forbid the use of either genetically engineered products or food irradiation. The new rule will, presumably, disallow these processes. USDA will thus ignore the scientific evidence that such processes are safe, and instead enforce a belief system promoted by many with near religious fervor rather than focus on food safety and wholesomeness.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it will make fundamental revision to its proposed national standards for organic foods. Its backtracking is in response to thousands of written comments that indicated dissatisfaction on the part of organic adherents. Proponents objected to the fact that the proposed rule did not, for example, forbid the use of either genetically engineered products or food irradiation. The new rule will, presumably, disallow these processes. USDA will thus ignore the scientific evidence that such processes are safe, and instead enforce a belief system promoted by many with near religious fervor rather than focus on food safety and wholesomeness.