Lee, yes, it may very well be the case that organic foods contain the
same nutritional value as those not grown in the same conditions.
However, just using logic alone I would guess that there are some
exceptions.

First, I had an in-law who was a county farm advisor here in the
states…California to be exact. He also had his own mini-farm so I
learned a little about this topic. First, the term ‘organic’, at least
at that time (about a decade ago) was determined by law and had no
federal agreement on what the term meant. In the specific example, the
land where organic foods were to be grown had to receive no chemicals
(you know the kind I mean) for at least three years and thereafter
there were other requirements before the word ‘organic’ could be used
for the food produced there. I know that the term means different
things different places. As to my guess that there are exceptions to
the nutritional equivalence of organic/non-organic foods, those that
are sprayed with chemicals, in some cases would absorb them. I would
question the value of eating some of the chemicals. To study this
would require a much larger set…and, it may already have been done. I
don’t know.

Overall, the main reason for organic foods has little to do with
comparing them with non-organics for what is IN the foods. It mainly
has to do what is ON the foods…toxic sprays etc. is what I’m talking
about here. So, IF one likes to eat poisons, by all means continue to
eat non-organics. That is your right. I won’t even go into the DDT nor
other pollution issues now, but if you are not familiar with it, it is
worth some study.

Livestock is yet another issue. Recently even Wal-mart has stopped
selling milk from cows injected with BGH.
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm
Here the issue is what is injected into or fed to the animals. Yes,
the morality of producing chickens with too much breast meat to be
able to walk let alone fly can be questioned too, but I won’t go into
that here. I’ll keep it to how the foods directly affect our physical
health. Currently, the majority of hamburgers eaten in the USA contain
food from as many as 1,000 different animals in each one. Cows are fed
dead cows too. It isn’t a pretty picture, but one worth looking into.
Things have changed drastically recently. Again, I won’t even go into
the power and political and economic influence the 4 primary suppliers
of food for the US hold over us all. If you want to learn, again it is
well worth the time. I will say it is no accident that we are seeing
more instances of E. Coli and other potential life threatening food
related issues. Just try a google using the word ‘tainted’ before any
food you are interested in studying.


On Jul 31, 7:41 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well I'm sure that the Brits here would have seen this in the news
> recently, a new study shows that organic foods contian no nutritinal
> benifits above that of non organi fooods.
>
> I must say that this comes as no suppries, but I did not thing that
> this was the point of organic foods, I always thought it was about not
> putting poisons into the earth, or keeping livestock in a better way
> for them.
>
> Perhaps I have been wrong though, can anybody here help me clarify
> this one?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to