foreverflyhi
Well-Known Member
I call bullshit on your studies, and even if right, why not talk about the increase rate of obesity, cancer and other diseases that are being linked to our food and water and chemical agriculture. Why not link the dissappearing of bees to agriculture pesticides? You don't becquse you fail to make the connection between indoor synthetics and outdoor synthetics.But back to organic vs chem will always be a debate and eventually through studies proven to be not anything better or better for your health
Differences in bacterial contamination organic vs chem are similar. There were no differences seen in E. coli contamination. There was a 33% greater chance of isolated a multi-antibiotic resistance bacteria on conventional produce, but no evidence this translates into a health risk. Again – even if we assume a difference in health risk (something not demonstrated by the data) this can be remedied by thorough washing.
also something to consider is
The alleged superiority of organically grown produce is a separate question. In a 2003 survey 68.9% of people who purchase organic food said they did so because they believed it to be healthier (more than any other reason given). However, fifty years of research has so far not produced convincing evidence that there is any health benefit to consuming organic food. Likewise, systematic reviews of nutritional quality of organic produce also reveals no difference from conventional produce.
The recent review is therefore in agreement with previous reviews – organic produce is not more nutritious or healthful, but it is more expensive.
Some studies that find small differences in the content of specific nutrients may be due to confounding factors. For example, organic produce is generally smaller than conventional produce, so if nutrient content is measured by mass (as opposed to the total for an individual vegetable or piece of fruit) organic produce may have a slightly higher concentration. This does not necessarily translate to more overall nutrients for the consumer. Further, many studies measure multiple endpoints (nutrients) and find some differences, but may not be properly accounting for multiple analyses. The researchers in the recent study found that results were “heterogeneous” – meaning that there were significant differences in outcome among the studies. This could indicate a lack of replicability of specific outcomes, indicating that differences were more artifacts of method rather than genuine.
Conclusion
The recent review of organic vs conventional produce agrees with previous systematic reviews that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that organic produce is healthier or more nutritious that conventional produce. Despite the scientific evidence, the alleged health benefits of organic produce is the number one reason given by consumers for buying organic. This likely represents the triumph of marketing over scientific reality.
Fuck your bs Monsanto sponsored sources.
And yes, I do acknowledge lack of support towards organics and synthetic debate, but hey, that's my opinion and thousands of others that know their shit.
That's why I mentioned I never had a good hydro, you can trick any other stoner, but not me, not hyroot, and numerous other heads I know that can tell the difference. You say bad harvest or drying? You say no difference between organic food and synthetic gmo food? You even go all out and diss a community of Led growers that are much much smarter then you will ever be.
ahahhahaha ok, go eat a McDonald's burger and call it gourmet
Last edited: