UPDATE!: NYT Finds Counter-Study!
And, on a similar note to the EWG List,
What the EFF was Stanford trying to prove with that meta-analysis-study on Organics?
The whole thing was presented to make you feel like Organic is just as bad as regular food and not worth the outlay.
The first thing I’ve always thought about Organic is this: Lower Chemical Load in the Body.
-You get less of less-toxic pesticides, antibiotics, growth-hormones, etc.
-Therefore, there is less of a chance those will STAY in your body and cause problems over time.
+Also, on an Environmental note, there would probably be less Residue and Runoff in the farmers’ fields of whatever they did use,
and that would have a reduced effect on the soil, environment, and water-table, etc.
How is it these guys are making it all sound like a bad, expensive waste???
Obviously, if you can afford it, the best way is still to err on the side of caution. Any advantage is a good one. And the EPA/USDA pesticide limits may not be super-healthy long-term, regardless of being published by a government body.
-Just look at the studies on the future IQs of children exposed to pesticides during pregnancy.
Hit up the Links for further info, ESPECIALLY the Great discussion on the Leonard Lopate Show about it on his “Please Explain” segment.
JUMP BONUS!: Here’s the Lopate podcast
“WARNING – pesticide in the playground”, by Patti Adair
• Source: Stanford
• Via: Neatorama
• More Coverage:
NYT-Study Questions Advantages of Organic