Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Scientists: Organic Food is More Nutritionally Rich Than Conventional & GMO

It’s always interesting when biotech shills spout a bunch of their credentials on posts about GMOs, complaining that there is no scientific proof that genetically modified organisms are bad for our health, bad for the environment, or bad for food sustainability.

But here’s something positive. In researching the true nutrition of food that is grown organically (without pesticides and herbicides, as GMOs are), one scientist that is well respected in her field found some revealing evidence showing how non-GMO, organic foods are better for us. Read on to learn more.

Many GMO-advocates are probably aware of the fact that genetically modified crops contain higher levels of pesticide residues than conventional crops. But what about organic vs. GMO when it comes to nutrient content?

You can argue with a biotech scientist all day long, and they’ll tell you there is no difference, but they are flat wrong. It’s no straw man – there is real evidence that organic produce is better – in a number of ways. 

You can blame it on a Stanford study that started this whole debacle. Their meta data did tell us that:
    “... Published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.”
An agricultural scientist, Dr. Kirsten Brandt questioned Stanford, though, in making this assumption.

She feels that many of the nutrients in plants were overlooked, some were undervalued, and the overall nutritional density of a plant was not really considered based on their criteria. When she looked at their meta-data, she came to a different conclusion altogether. 

For the rest of the story:

No comments:

Post a Comment