New Study Confirms: Organic Food is Far Healthier Than Conventional

Items such as these beckon me to George Orwell, who said, "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Because it should be obvious to anyone, even if you're not aware of the toxicity of genetically modified foods, or the fact that their sole general purpose is so that the crops can be plastered with pesticides, that foods not treated with pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizer, or irradiated or plastered with raw sewage or unused vaccines and other various grotesqueries, are more healthy than those that are. And yet the government would have you believe that there is absolutely no difference between organic and the, literally, pardon my language, shit that passes for inorganic "food". And those of you who, like me, endeavor not to eat the shit that passes as food, have an eating disorder. So allow me, with the help of our friends at Natural News, to restate the obvious.

David Gutierrez
NaturalNews -

Organic produce is nutritionally superior to so-called "conventional" produce, according to a comprehensive review conducted by researchers from the University of Aix-Marseille for the French food agency (AFSSA) and published in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

"This critical literature review indicates that organic agriculture, as developed until now, has the potential to produce high-quality products with some relevant improvements in terms of anti-oxidant phytomicronutrients, nitrate accumulation in vegetables and toxic residue levels," the researchers wrote.

To be recognized as "organic," a food product must be produced without the use of genetic modification or chemical fertilizers or pesticides, and must promote sustainable cropping methods. In the United States, organically produced meat and dairy must be raised without the use of synthetic growth hormones or antibiotics. Hormones and antibiotics are banned in animal production across the board in the European Union.

Recently the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA) reviewed existing research on the nutritional content of organic produce concluded that there was no difference, nutritionally, between organic and non-organic produce. The FSA study did not examine the reasons most often given by consumers of organic produce, namely benefits to the environment, farm workers, and consumer health due to lower chemical use.

Yet the AFSSA review calls the FSA's conclusions into question. After conducting an "up-to-date exhaustive and critical evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic food," French researchers concluded that organic produce is clearly nutritionally superior.

Organic produce contains more minerals, such as iron and magnesium, than non-organic produce, and higher levels of antioxidants such as phenols and salicylic acid.

"Organic plant food overall contain double the amount of phenolic compounds," the researchers wrote.

Animal foods produced organically contained significantly more polyunsaturated fat than non-organic animal products. In addition, organic vegetables contained 50 percent less nitrates than non-organic produce. No more than 6 percent of organic produce tested contained pesticide residue.

Sources for this story include: www.foodnavigator-usa.com; www.healthsentinel.com.