Organic food 'not any healthier'

Organic food 'not any healthier'

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.

They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.

Overall, there was no discernible difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.

Critics say the work is inconclusive and call for more studies.

The research, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at 17 studies comparing people who ate organic with those who did not and 223 studies that compared the levels of nutrients, bacteria, fungus or pesticides in various foods - including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk and eggs.


“Start Quote

There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health”

Dr Cyrstal Smith-Spangler Lead researcher


None of the human studies ran for longer than two years, making conclusions about long-term outcomes impossible. And all of the available evidence was relatively weak and highly variable - which the authors say is unsurprising because of all the different variables, like weather and soil type, involved.

Fruit and vegetables contained similar amounts of vitamins, and milk the same amount of protein and fat - although a few studies suggested organic milk contained more omega-3.

Organic foods did contain more nitrogen, but the researchers say this is probably due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest and is unlikely to provide any health benefit.

Their findings support those of the UK's Food Standards Agency, which commissioned a review a few years ago into organic food claims.


Organic

• Organic food is produced to standards designed to keep the production more "natural", using environmentally and animal-friendly farming methods
• Fewer, if any, chemicals are used and most pesticides are banned or very carefully controlled
• Various bodies in the UK, including the Soil Association, certify food and producers as organic
• Food certified as organic is not allowed to contain genetically modified ingredients

Prof Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who carried out that work, said: "Consumers select organic foods for a variety of reasons, however this latest review identifies that at present there are no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or health benefits.

"Hopefully this evidence will be useful to consumers."

Dr Crystal Smith-Spangler, the lead author of the latest review, said there were many reasons why people chose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.

"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn't find that.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.

But the Soil Association said the study was flawed.

"Studies that treat crop trials as if they were clinical trials of medicines, like this one, exaggerate the variation between studies, and drown out the real differences.

"A UK review paper, using the correct statistical analysis, has found that most of the differences in nutrient levels between organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables seen in this US study are actually highly significant."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "Evidence has not yet emerged that there are nutritional benefits from eating organically produced foods compared to conventionally produced foods. We will continue to review research on this subject."

BBC News - Organic food 'not any healthier'

The research was no doubt conducted by a chemical company.
Anyone that has tasted organic foods, can tell the difference straight away, the shite that is farmed nowadays, has a distinct lack of taste

I was amused by the part were they said although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides. DUH, theres no synthetic pesticides in organic or it wouldn't be organic.

Assuming that what you can measure in a lab is what counts in your gut is a bit questionable. It'd probably be better to see long-term studies which looked at health outcomes. On the pesticide thing, if you're in Thailand, this is something to think about. There was a study a couple of months ago which found pesticide residues in veg bought in supermarkets around Bangkok which were many times (in ka-nah up to 200 times) the EU limits. And your own health is not the only reason to buy organic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Assuming that what you can measure in a lab is what counts in your gut is a bit questionable. It'd probably be better to see long-term studies which looked at health outcomes. On the pesticide thing, if you're in Thailand, this is something to think about. There was a study a couple of months ago which found pesticide residues in veg bought in supermarkets around Bangkok which were many times (in ka-nah up to 200 times) the EU limits. And your own health is not the only reason to buy organic.

---

My thoughts as well. Even if the values were identical (which I strongly doubt) the pesticide residues alone would be enough.
I happen to think there are qualities not measurable or quantifiable in a naturally grown produce. :)

Totally contradictory, of course the food may offer nothing more in terms of nutrition, but clean nutrition is something else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

There was a study a couple of months ago which found pesticide residues in veg bought in supermarkets around Bangkok which were many times (in ka-nah up to 200 times) the EU limits.

---

Also it sometimes happens here ( hopefully infrequently ) that pesticides meant only for flowers are used on vegetables.

If you eat out of 7-11 like the dog then you have probably shit your trousers before you made it home..at least once...

if something is labelled "organic", then one has to pay distinctively more for the product... but thats all, we know for sure about "organic"...

that there is less pesticide in it, is only an assumption the consumer makes...
in fact, it can have more pesticides than non-organic food...

there is no control for using "organic" with the product/brand name (?)...

is there any "organic brand" in thailand, which promises to be pesticide free (website, package)?

There is one thing that is a tell; is the produce spotless or does it have obvious signs of life and blemishes. That's a pretty good indicator of organic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.

---

Yup, Stanford is just a diploma mill so why even listen to the OP's point? This is a significant survey in my opinion. Think of the overpricing of organic food. Do you think that is going to save the planet, or line the pockets of the grower?

I try not to eat meats that are full of hormones, and we wash all in vegetables before cooking. I for one again see the point of the study.


I am all for shopping at markets and getting the best meat and produce you can, but that only goes so far.

I think the point of organic is getting back to naturally grown foods, which do not pollute the soil or the water tables.

With companies like Monsanto, which have been proven to sell products that are harmful to humans, we should all becoming more aware of the food we are eating and making the effort to source are food safely, which in effect make organic much cheaper in the long run, one of the reasons organic is still more expensive is the land has to be left for several years to become chemical free.

Just for example chemical free rice growing is becoming more popular, as consumers are looking for alternatives.

^^ Well, it does say at the top of the page "None of the human studies ran for longer than two years, making conclusions about long-term outcomes impossible" and it says nothing at all about "saving the planet".

Heres a article full of BS

The great organic con trick | News | The Week UK


I like the part where the article states that all food in the UK was organic until the 1960s, a good look at the worlds population and its obesity rates are a good indictator that the food we eat now is full of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yasojack

Just for example chemical free rice growing is becoming more popular

---

Return to the old ways. Cheaper and better given the cost of fertilizer these days.

Busted! Co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco's anti-science propaganda

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/d...tte-Carrot.jpg

Friday, September 07, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Range

(NaturalNews) (This article is jointly authored by Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com and Anthony Gucciardi of NaturalSociety.com) Over the last several days, the mainstream media has fallen for an elaborate scientific hoax that sought to destroy the credibility of organic foods by claiming they are "no healthier" than conventional foods (grown with pesticides and GMOs). NaturalNews has learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

The New York Times (http://www.naturalnews.com/037094_Ro...Times_organic_...), BBC and all the other publications that printed stories based on this Stanford study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals of Internal Medicine | Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review) have been victims of an elaborate scientific hoax carried out by corporate propagandists posing as "scientists."

The evidence we show here (see below) demonstrates how this study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food. The era is different, but the anti-science tactics are the same (and many of the quack science players are the same!).

Flawed organic food study author Ingram Olkin chief statistical 'liar' for Big Tobacco
Here's a document from 1976 which shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin, co-author of the recent organic foods study: [Letter Regarding Dr. Ingram Olkin's Research Project]

The so-called "research project" was proposed by Olkin, who was also at one time the chairman of Stanford's Department of Statistics.

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science). As this page describes on the use of these statistical models: "Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality." (A Study of the Models Used in the Analysis of Certain Medical Data Ingram Olkin Stanford University)

This research ultimately became known as the "Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function" and it was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe. (Legacy Tobacco Documents Library: Dr. Ingram Olkin "Multivariate Logistic ... (qbo66b00))

This research originated at Stanford, where Ingram headed the Department of Statistics, and ultimately supported the quack science front to reject any notion that cigarettes might harm human health. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: "The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!" (“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.” « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science)

By the way, if today's "skeptics" and "science bloggers" were around in the 1950's and 60's, they would all be promoters of cigarette smoking because that was the corporate-funded scientific mythology being pushed at the time. Back then it was tobacco, today it's vaccines and pesticides. New century, new poisons, same old quack science.

The evil Council of Tobacco Research
As the evidence clearly shows, Ingram Olkin has a history of collaboration with tobacco industry giants who sought to silence the physicians speaking out regarding the dangers of cigarettes. One such entity known as the Council of Tobacco Research (CTR) has been openly exposed (Tobacco Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as paying off publication companies and journalists with more than $500,000 (about $3,000,000 today after adjusting for inflation) as far back as 1968 in order to generate pro-smoking propaganda. The kind of "dark propaganda" serves only to deceive and confuse consumers with phony, fabricated "scientific evidence."

It all seems eerily similar to the organics-bashing story that just recently appeared in the New York Times, written by proven liar Roger Cohen (http://www.naturalnews.com/037094_Ro...Times_organic_...).

CTR was part of the massive Tobacco Institute, which was essentially a colossal group of cigarette corporations using quack science to attempt to hide the true effects of cigarettes from the public. CTR was a key player in attempting to defeat the monumental case known as the Framingham Heart Study (Framingham Heart Study) -- a historical research project that linked cigarette smoking to heart disease. It was during this time that Olkin applied to the CTR in order to oversee and conduct a project smearing and 'disproving' the Framingham study.

This can be proven simply by examining the words of the cigarette manufacturer lawyers who were desperate to defeat the potentially devastating heart study. In their own documents, they state (http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_l...43-0244.html):

"I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin's interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the "multivariate logistic risk function."

In an even more telling statement, Olvin's "sidekick" Dr. Kastenbaum, was revealed to be highly knowledgeable "tobacco industry's participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use, the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and the marketing of tobacco products to children." In other words, these scientists were part of a massive deception campaign intended to smear any real information over the serious dangers of cigarette smoking using 'black ops' disinformation techniques.

This deception campaign is being paralleled once again, in 2012, with the quack science assault on organics (and a simultaneous defense of GMOs). Biotech = Big Tobacco. "GMOs are safe" is the same as "cigarettes are safe." Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities.

Dr. Kastenbaum, by the way, went on to become the Director of Statistics for the Tobacco Institute intermittently from 1973 to 1987. Another name for his job role is "corporate science whore."

Organics study co-author was hired to perform scientific "hatchet jobs"
Further documents (Confidential Report Prepared by Industry Counsel and Forwarded to B&W in-House Counsel and in-House Counsel for Other Tobacco Companies, with Whom B&W Maintains A Common Legal Interest, Regarding Funding of Ctr Special Projects Research) go on to state that Olkin then received a grant from the CTR for his work alongside disinformation specialist Dr. Katenbaum in an effort to perform "deliberate hatchet jobs" on the heart study as described by author Robert N. Proctor Golden in his book entitled Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition (Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for ... - Robert N. Proctor - Google Books...). Golden explains how Olkin was paid off along with others to falsely testify in Congress that cigarette smoking did not harm the heart:

"George L. Saiger from Columbia University received CTR Special Project funds 'to seek to reduce the correlation of smoking and disease by introduction of additional variables'; he also was paid $10,873 in 1966 to testify before Congress, denying the cigarette-cancer link...

This was the same organization that paid what amounts after inflation to over one million dollars to journalists and major publications to disseminate phony information supporting their claims. It's also important to note that during this time Olkin was still prominently placed within Stanford, remaining so even after openly concealing the truth about the cigarette heart disease link from the public.

Now, Olkin's newest research fails to address any real factors in the difference between conventional GMO-loaded food and organic. At the same time, it absolutely reeks of the similar 'black ops' disinformation campaigns from the 1960's and 70's in which he was heavily involved.

Make no mistake: The Stanford organics study is a fraud. Its authors are front-men for the biotech industry which has donated millions of dollars to Stanford. The New York Times and other publications that published articles based on this research got hoaxed by Big Tobacco scientists who are documented, known liars and science fudgers.

Stanford secrecy, plus ties to Monsanto and Cargill
Stanford receives more secret donations than any other university in the U.S. In 2009 alone, these donations totaled well over half a billion dollars. (articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/local/la-me-donate4-2010feb04)

There's little doubt that many of these donations come from wealthy corporations who seek to influence Stanford's research, bending the will of the science departments to come into alignment with corporate interests (GMOs, pesticides, etc.).

Who is George H Poste?
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/george-poste-bio.aspx

• Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
• Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
• Served on the Monsanto board since February 2003.
• Former member of the Defense Science Board of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Stanford University has also accepted $5 million in donations from food giant Cargill (a big supporter of the biotech industry) in order to expand Stanford's Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). "Food security" is a euphemism for genetically engineered crops. Much of the research conducted there is done to try to advocate GMOs (Search results for "genetically modified"- FSE...).

Cargill has also donated big dollars to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California. (Monsanto, Dupont, Cargill Spend Big to Defeat GMO Labeling Initiative...)

The "scientific" Hall of Shame - a list of scientists funded by the Tobacco industry to fake scientific results
The CRT is the Council of Tobacco Research -- essentially a scientific front group that was set up to attempt to invoke "science" to "prove" that cigarettes were not bad for your health.

This list just proves how easily scientists sell out to corporate interests when given grant money. Remember: What Big Tobacco pulled off with fake science in the 20th century, Big Biotech is pulling off yet again today.

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURT.../pdf/USCOURTS-...

Documents reflect that, at a minimum, the following individuals and organizations received funding through Special Account No. 4 beginning in the 1960s and ending in the 1990s: Able-Lands, Inc.; Lauren Ackerman; ACVA Atlantic Inc.; George Albee; Aleph Foundation; Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Aspen Conference; Atmospheric Health Sciences; Domingo Aviado; James Ballenger; Alvan L. Barach; Walter Barker; Broda 0. Barnes; Battelle Columbus Laboratories; Battelle Memorial Institute; Walter Becker; Peter Berger; Rodger L. Bick; Billings & Gussman, Inc.; Richard Bing; BioResearch Laboratories; Theodore Blau; Irvin Blose; Walter Booker; Evelyn J. Bowers; Thomas H. Brem; Lyman A. Brewer, III; Brigham Young University; Oliver Brooke; Richard Brotman; Barbara B. Brown; K. Alexander Brownlee; Katherine Bryant; Victor B. Buhler; Thomas Burford; J. Harold Burn; Marie Burnett; Maurice Campbell; Carney Enterprises, Inc.; Duane Carr; Rune Cederlof; Domenic V. Cicchetti; Martin Cline; Code Consultants Inc.; Cohen, Coleghety Foundation, Inc.; Colucci, & Associates, Inc.; Computerland; W. Clark Cooper; A. Cosentino; Daniel Cox; Gertrude Cox; CTR; Geza De Takato; Bertram D. Dimmens; Charles Dunlap; Henry W. Elliott; Engineered Energy Mgt. Inc.; Environmental Policy Institute; J. Earle Estes; Frederick J. Evans; William Evans; Expenses related to Congressional Hearings in Washington D.C.; Hans J. Eysenck; Eysenck Institute of Psychiatry; Jack M. Farris; Sherwin J. Feinhandler; Alvan R. Feinstein; Herman Feldman; Edward Fickes; T. Finley; Melvin First; Edwin Fisher; R. Fisher; Merritt W. Foster; Richard Freedman; Herbert Freudenberger; Fudenberg; Arthur Furst; Nicholas Gerber; Menard M. Gertler; Jean Gibbons; Carl Glasser; Donald Goodwin; B. Greenberg; Alan Griffen; F. Gyntelberg; Harvard Medical School; Hearings-Kennedy-Hart Bill; William Heavlin; Norman Heimstra; Joseph Herkson; Richard J. Hickey; Carlos Hilado; Charles H. Hine; Hine, Inc.; Harold C. Hodge; Gary Huber; Wilhelm C. Hueper; Darrell Huff; Duncan Hutcheon; Industry Research Liaison Committee; Information Intersciences, Inc.; International Consultancy; International Technology Corporation; International Information Institute, Inc.; J.B. Spalding Statistical Service; J.F. Smith Research Account; Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan; Joseph Janis; Roger Jenkins; Marvin Kastenbaum; Leo Katz; Marti Kirschbaum; Kravetz Levine & Spotnitz; Lawrence L. Kuper; Mariano La Via; H. Langston; William G. Leaman; Michael Lebowitz; Samuel B. Lehrer; William Lerner; Edward Raynar Levine; G.J. Lieberman; S.C. Littlechild; Eleanor Macdonald; Thomas Mancuso; Nathan Mantel; R. McFarland; Meckler Engineering Group; Milton Meckler; Nancy Mello; Jack Mendelson; Michigan State University; Marc Micozzi; Irvin Miller; K. Moser; Albert Niden; Judith O'Fallon; John O'Lane; William Ober; J.H. Ogura; Ronald Okun; Ingram Olkin; Thomas Osdene (Philip Morris); Peat, Marwick Main & Co.; Thomas L. Petty; Pitney, Hardin & Kipp; Leslie Preger; Walter J. Priest; R. Proctor; Terrence P. Pshler; Public Smoking Research Group; R.W. Andersohn & Assoc.; L.G.S. Rao; Herbert L. Ratcliffe; Attilio Renzetti; Response Analysis Project; Response Analysis Consultation; R.H. Rigdon; Jay Roberts; Milton B. Rosenblatt; John Rosencrans; Walter Rosenkrantz; Ray H. Rosenman; Linda Russek; Henry Russek; Ragnar Rylander; George L. Saiger; D.E. Sailagyi; I. Richard Savage; Richard S. Schilling; Schirmer Engineering Corp.; S. Schor; G.N. Schrauzer; Charles Schultz; John Schwab; Carl L. Seltzer; Murray Senkus (Reynolds); Paul Shalmy; R. Shilling; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Henry Shotwell; Allen Silberberg; N. Skolnik; JF Smith; Louis A. Soloff; Sheldon C. Sommers (CTR); JB Spalding; Charles Spielberg; Charles Spielberger; Lawrence Spielvogel; St. George Hospital & Medical School; Stanford Research Institution Project; Russell Stedman; Arthur Stein; Elia Sterling; Theodor Sterling; Thomas Szasz; The Foundation for Research in Bronchial Asthma and Related Diseases; The Futures Group; Paul Toannidis; Trenton, New Jersey Hearings; Chris P. Tsokos; University of South Florida; Helmut Valentin; Richard Wagner; Norman Wall; Wayne State University; Weinberg Consulting Group; Roger Wilson; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Jack Wiseman; George Wright; John P. Wyatt; J. Yerushalmy; and Irving Zeidman.

Learn more: Busted! Co-author of Stanford study that bashed organics found to have deep ties to Big Tobacco's anti-science propaganda

And yet, the life expectancy is now so long that it has become an economic problem.

Go do something constructive. Less time to be paranoid.

There's no comparison, organic food is richer in nutrients simple as that. They found an orange in Australia, big bright bursting with colour, with close to 0% vitamin C.

I had to laugh years ago, when the world was told, that mass farming was the way to go as we would not be able to feed the world LOL, look in any country and see just how many millions of acres are left with nothing grown on them.

Flawed organic foods study really just a media psyop to confuse the public about organics while pushing GMOs
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


(NaturalNews) If you read the mainstream news headlines today, you might be shocked to see headlines that say things like, "Organic foods no healthier than conventional foods" or "Organic foods may not be healthier for you." You'll see these headlines all across the usual disinfo outlets: NPR, Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, WebMD and elsewhere.

The problem with these headlines is that they are flatly false. The study these news outlets are quoting actually confirms that organic foods are far healthier for you than conventional foods.

So how is the mainstream media lying about this? By fudging the facts, of course.

For starters, the "study" isn't even a study. It was just a review of other studies. No new laboratory analysis was done whatsoever!

The "review" was conducted at Stanford University and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. You can read the abstract here:
Annals of Internal Medicine | Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review

As the study itself concludes:

• Exposure to chemical pesticides was significantly lower in organic foods (roughly 30% less than conventional foods).

• Exposure to "superbugs" in meat (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) was also significantly lower in organic foods (roughly a 33% risk difference).

• The study conclusion says, right out, that "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

How the media lied

Somehow, the mainstream media took this study and then lied to their readers, claiming organic food is "no different" than conventional food. That is a flat-out lie, of course. Because it fails to mention all the following:

• GMOs are not allowed in organic foods. So GMO exposure is many orders of magnitude higher in conventional foods, where GMOs are commonplace.

• Artificial chemical sweeteners are not allowed in organic foods. But conventional foods are often sweetened with toxic chemicals such as aspartame or saccharin.

• The study completely failed to look at the use of genetically-modified bovine growth hormones (rBGH) in conventional milk versus organic milk.

• The environmental impact of conventional food production is devastating to the planet. Chemical pesticides aren't just found in the crops; they also run off into the streams, rivers and oceans. No mainstream media article that covered this story even bothered to mention this hugely important issue -- it's one of the primary reasons to buy organic!

• The funding source of the study is listed as "None." Does anybody really believe that? All these scientists supposedly volunteered their time and don't get paid to engage in scientific endeavors? It's absurd. The money for the study had to come from somewhere, and the fact that the Annals of Internal Medicine is hiding the source by listing "none" is just further evidence of scientific wrongdoing.

A total psyop to confuse the public and push GMOs

Ultimately, this study comes down to being a total psyop pushed by the mainstream media for the purpose of confusing the public and ultimately promoting GMOs.


• GMOs shouldn't be labeled on foods: it should be a huge corporate secret!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151004427426316&set=pb.3559053131 5....

• Flu shots are great! Take more flu shots and you'll be protected from the flu (total disinfo, a complete lie).
http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.ht...

• West Nile Virus is a huge danger to everyone. Run! Run! Spray yourself with deadly chemicals to be "safe!"
http://www.naturalnews.com/037039_West_Nile_virus_chemical_spraying_f...

• Vitamins are dangerous! Don't take vitamins! They might kill you!
Media hoax exposed: Recent attack on vitamins a fabricated scare campaign
Vitamins are deadly? Media hoax exposed, part two

Anthony Gucciardi, by the way, has published an excellent video overview of the deception regarding this issue:
http://naturalsociety.com/ridiculous-study-claims-organic-same-as-con...

Learn more: Flawed organic foods study really just a media psyop to confuse the public about organics while pushing GMOs

You're funny git.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yasojack

The research was no doubt conducted by a chemical company.
Anyone that has tasted organic foods, can tell the difference straight away, the shite that is farmed nowadays, has a distinct lack of taste

---

Yup. The likes of Monsanto, Cargill, etc fund most of the "scientific research" publishing rubbish like this.

Anyone that thinks eating food that has been treated with chemicals is fine for you, are simply dumb!

There are a number reason why cancer and so many other sicknesses are on the rise. Food is part of that rise. I am not going to mention the names of the companies that I've met, but one company shocked the rest of the manufacturers at the 'Sustainable Food Event' I attended back in 2009 with the chemicals they use. I'm sure there are many on here that drink there cold coffee!

This manufacturer's claim was not what chemical you use, but how you use it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

There are a number reason why cancer and so many other sicknesses are on the rise.

---

Right, because people get older and don't die from some diseases any more so they die of others, prominently cancer.

Fact is that people get older all the time and part of that is the quality of available food. Food related diseases are related to the fact that people eat too much of it.