After Stanford University published a study where they claimed organically grown food to contain no more nutrients than conventionally grown food - organic advocates went berserk, claiming the study had ulterior motivations and even have published a petition to have the study removed.
Over 3,000 people have signed the petition on the grounds that the study did not factor in the potential health risks of genetically modified foods, high fructose corn syrup, and other additives that are found less frequently in organic foods than not-organic foods.
Here's what one outraged reporter said:
"The scientists weren’t studying genetically modified foods (though if GMO foods were in the conventional data, one might think that GMO-caused health factors would have revealed themselves in the results). And they weren’t studying high-fructose corn syrup — they were only reviewing fruits, vegetables, eggs, grains, dairy, poultry and meat. Not processed foods.
The article, in other words, wasn’t about the entirety of everything that people think is wrong about the way our food is grown and produced today. It wasn’t even about every type of difference between organic and conventionally grown food."
The original study's final verdict on the lack of differences between organic food and conventionally grown food was somewhat vague in its final statement.
Here's what it said:
"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."
While organic food consumers may not receive any extra "health" benefits, it is common knowledge that pesticides and antibiotic-resistant infections are two things which organic foods do not have compared to conventional foods.
The question one has to ask oneself then: Is that enough of a difference to buy more expensive organic food compared to conventional foods?
We have a feeling organic food enthusiasts will answer that question with a resounding YES!!!
[Image via Change.org.]