Print 60 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Sep 8 at 2:07 PM

organic strawberries  (Source:
Organically managed soils are more genetically diverse and healthier as well

A study published last year claimed that organic food has no additional health benefits over non-organic food. But now, a new study not only shows that organic strawberries offer more nutritional value than conventional strawberries, but they also make soil healthier. 

The study from last year, which was published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and led by Dr. Alan Dangour, claimed that organic chicken, beef, milk, fruit and vegetables do not provide any additional nutritional advancement to a person's diet. According to Dangour and his team, there is a small number of nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, such as the fact that organic foods have more phosphorous. But Dangour insists that phosphorous is available in everything people eat and is "not important for public health."

"Acidity is also higher in organic produce, but acidity is about taste and sensory perception and makes no difference at all for health," said Dangour. "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally-produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

Now a new study challenges Dangour's research, but only where strawberries are concerned. According to the new study, which was published in PLoS One and lead by Washington State University, organic strawberries are more nutritious and flavorful than those that are grown through chemical-laden farming. Also, organic strawberries leave soil genetically diverse and healthier. 

Ninety percent of the U.S. strawberry crop is grown on farms in California, so the Washington State researchers analyzed 31 biological and chemical soil properties and soil DNA as well as the quality, nutrition and taste of three types of strawberries on 13 chemical farms and 13 organic farms.

The results of their research were that organic strawberries had a longer shelf life, much higher antioxidant activity, more dry matter and higher concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds than non-organic strawberries. In addition, anonymous testers were asked to taste the different kinds of strawberries, and many of them found that one type of organic strawberries has sweeter and better flavor than the others, as well as a better appearance.

When analyzing the soil these organic strawberries were grown in, the researchers found that this organically managed soil had greater genetic diversity, and also beat the non-organic soil in terms of carbon sequestration, micronutrients, microbial biomass and enzyme activity.  

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Soil DNA?
By FITCamaro on 9/6/2010 9:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me?

RE: Soil DNA?
By Mitch101 on 9/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Soil DNA?
By Malhavoc on 9/6/2010 10:03:57 AM , Rating: 4
An interesting thing to mention regarding environmental and health effects of pesticide use is that when looking at studies, one is going to get a skewed view of producers.

While I believe most farms are diligent in following label directions, I have run into very few that haven't and send out produce when they shouldn't. If following label directions, there should be no residues left at time of harvest.

You should be aware that pesticide usage is thought to be one of the factors regarding Colony Collapse Disorder for bees.

RE: Soil DNA?
By Mitch101 on 9/6/2010 10:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
Penn and Teller BS: Organic Food Myths Debunked (Excerpt)

RE: Soil DNA?
By Malhavoc on 9/6/2010 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 4
The truth of the matter is that both sides of the fence can show what they want with numerous studies. I more on the side of I don't give a @#@!. I am more concerned with getting local fresh produce whenever I can. The closer I am to the source (whether organic or conventional) is what fuels my purchase. The price of agricultural chemicals drives adoption reduce input management. They aren't cheap anymore and are more often used when needed only (at least where I live).

I happen to live in a greenbelt so that works for me. Will I buy organic? Sure if it is fresher than my other options.

Also, I am not 100% familiar with US organic standards. In Canada (at least Ontario), you are certified Organic or you are not. When (and if) I go to the grocery store, we also have different labelling requirements for country of origin.

If I see something from US, I know that it is either packed or re-packed in the US and could come from somewhere else.

RE: Soil DNA?
By FredEx on 9/7/2010 8:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hopping in here since I pretty much agree with what you say, and...

I'm in southwestern Michigan and there are plenty of road side farm markets around here. I buy local produced to support the farmers. It also tastes much better. Some farms are small organic farms and their stuff is better since they being a smaller operation they are not out there picking stuff before it is fully ripened. No middle man when I'm hitting their road side stands.

My EX planted a garden this year and went a bit too far, so I have benefited. She has way more than she and her mom can use. Friends have their own gardens, so hard to give it away. She is always bringing over produce and it is the best, totally ripened on the plant. Often since she is in school again and working, she calls and I go over and pick it myself. I have never had produce that taste as good out of any store.

I see some talking about milk. Any savings in fat is good for people, especially those that need to reduce fat, such as some heart patients or folks with problem cholesterol. I'm diabetic, so I can't handle lactose since it converts to a sugar. I already had a problem with lactose anyway, if I had a glass of cow's milk, whole fat or less, I might as well drink it sitting on the toilet for the next 4 hours. That goes back as far as I can remember. I had to be a breast milk baby.

I prefer a certain brand of soy milk. It is low fat, no lactose and any of it in the brand is lower sugar than cow's milk. I get their offering that has no added sugar which ends up being 1 gram of sugar per serving. Cow's milk gives me a sugar buzz.

RE: Soil DNA?
By The Raven on 9/7/2010 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 4
You should be aware that pesticide usage is thought to be one of the factors regarding Colony Collapse Disorder for bees.

Good point, but nobody knows what causes that. And nobody knows why there is so much cancer, autism, etc. out there despite our technological advances. We should go back to our roots and things might get better. That is why I am onboard with organics. Because I don't know better regarding all these issues (nor does anyone else). What we eat influences our health greatly so I'm going organic. Not to save the trees, ozone, money or any other possible reason. The rest is all gravy in my eyes.

RE: Soil DNA?
By jeepga on 9/6/2010 10:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more. I don't have a problem with organic, but it's a marketing gimmick in many cases and something that many people (including my wife) fall victim too.

It's just another small thing that the media has blown up into a big thing -- like food irradiation.

RE: Soil DNA?
By Mitch101 on 9/6/2010 10:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
For me its the same when they label something 97% fat free but when you do the calorie math you find out its closer to 30% fat.

Im sure there are some very legitimate organic producers out there but there is a lot more scam out there than legit and the government cant keep up with the fraud that takes place.

RE: Soil DNA?
By xsilver on 9/6/2010 12:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
My pet peeve is stupid labeling

candy that is labeled "99% fat free"
peanut butter labeled "low in sugar"
sugar that is labeled "low GI" WTF?!

Even low fat milk to me is a bit of a gimmick - normal milk only has 3-4% fat in it - low fat milk is going to save you 2-3%. You have to drink a CRAPLOAD of milk for that to make a difference, and if you're having it with cookies/chocolate sauce/whatever just makes no sense.

RE: Soil DNA?
By ekv on 9/6/2010 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
chocolate chip cookies w/o milk?! that's just hell.

RE: Soil DNA?
By FITCamaro on 9/6/2010 1:01:50 PM , Rating: 3
Remember the "Got Milk?" commercials in the late 90s?

"Where am I....."

Loved those. I can't eat cookies without milk.

RE: Soil DNA?
By BadAcid on 9/6/2010 1:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
"oh I'm sorry, times up"

...Awwon Buww :(

RE: Soil DNA?
By xsilver on 9/7/2010 8:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
sorry, yeah what I meant is that people saying that they are on a diet so they drink skim milk - but then they dig in to half a box of cookies. Just have full cream milk and 1 cookie less. Makes more sense to me?

RE: Soil DNA?
By ekv on 9/7/2010 9:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
"1 cookie less" totally agree with what you're saying. You opened the door for the 'got milk' follow up though. Had to take it 8)

RE: Soil DNA?
By Spivonious on 9/6/2010 5:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well, whole milk is 8% milkfat. I drink skim because it's the cheapest. Did you know that they skim all of the fat off, and then add it back in for the 1%, 2%, and whole?

RE: Soil DNA?
By NullSubroutine on 9/6/2010 11:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, no. In the US and UK whole milk is ~4% or 3.25%.

RE: Soil DNA?
By FITCamaro on 9/6/2010 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you may have missed my point. Dirt does not have DNA. Organisms in dirt do.

RE: Soil DNA?
By JediJeb on 9/7/2010 5:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, and organically farmed soil will have more DNA present from all the bacteria from the manure used to fertilize the soil.

RE: Soil DNA?
By PaterPelligrino on 9/7/2010 2:30:00 AM , Rating: 3
There's no free ride in life, everything you do has unintended consequences; and tho a good case can be made that the increased productivity of chemically nurtured crops justifies the use of these chemicals, to think that there will be no negative repercussions is absurd. Soil isn't just dirt, it's an immensely complicated ecosystem of vast numbers of living organisms that contribute to the health of the soil; you pump pesticides and fertilizers into it and there are going to be changes, and change in nature is usually disruptive.

RE: Soil DNA?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2010 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 3
This reminds me of those studies showing how furniture and other things treated with fire retardant chemicals could be harmful to you. While that might be the case, we're forgetting one thing, before these chemicals existed your house used to burn down in minutes flat like a tinder box.

As with many things, the benefits of modern advances far outweigh the drawbacks.

Before pesticides entire crops were lost. Food would be sold with worms, bugs, and other gross things inside it. When's the last time you found worms in your produce? Like, never. People used to get sick all the time from contaminated food, sometimes die.

Not too long ago things like grapes and strawberries were considered a delicacy. Normal middle class people simply could not afford this luxury in the quantities they can today. Modern advances in pesticides and crop yields have made these one time luxuries a common food item for all class of people.

Contrary to what liberal environmentalists like Tiffany would have you believe, the overall quality and nutrition of produce today is far beyond what's it's been in any other time of human history.

Are there side effects and consequences with the use of these chemicals? Sure. But, again, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

RE: Soil DNA?
By geddarkstorm on 9/7/2010 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
And "organics" have better nutrition than "non-organics"? That always makes me twitch.

Yes, I do not think a strawberry forged of pure titanium will have quite the same succulent, juicy flavoring as a conventional "grown" strawberry; but it might be worth a buy to find out.

By Lord 666 on 9/6/2010 11:37:23 AM , Rating: 1
1. Bananas: I have tested at home blindly and can pick out the organic one each time.

2. Apples: Same as above... not to mention the abnormal size difference.

3. Eggs: Can see the difference most of the time after cracking the egg.

4. Strawberries: While the difference is easily seen, my wife prefers the non-organic one because of the amount of bugs we have always found within the organic containers.

By FITCamaro on 9/6/2010 1:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
As long as both tastes good and doesn't give me cancer, I don't really care.

By Lord 666 on 9/6/2010 2:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
For the bananas and apples, the taste difference is so noticeably improved in the organic version, the minor cost difference is irrelevant.

The best way to explain it is those two organic fruits taste like they did when we were growing up. Actually stopped eating some fruit for a while because of the lack of taste. Going organic on those those two actually encourages me to eat more fruit.

By tmouse on 9/7/2010 7:55:23 AM , Rating: 5
The vast majority of the time it has absolutely nothing to do with "organic" or not (personally I hate the term since it is totally unscientific, did anyone ever see an inorganic banana, I guess a sculpture would be an example). The point is many things like strawberries are picked very unripe and ethylene gassed just prior to their final destinations (this reduces shipping wastage), this does not give the fruit time to establish the natural sugar profiles of naturally ripened fruit. Some "organic" fruits are also gassed but some are not, the latter will always taste fresher. Same with eggs, the smaller stocks ensure better rotation thus "fresher" eggs. The chicken colonies are also smaller and more genetically diverse since the birds are often not as inbred for maximum production. These things probably account for 99% of the difference. Fresh will always be better if you can get it, the further you get from the source the lees value will be in "organic" versus regular. It’s like the clowns worried about hormones in their meat. They know absolutely nothing about the biology of hormones. Unless you eat very fresh and raw meat any hormones in it will have no impact on you what so ever. Things like the animal’s body temperature, carcass processing time, cooking and digestive enzymes destroy virtually all hormones (unless you like mainlining fresh, raw meat then you will have other problems when your immune system rejects the foreign proteins). There is also nothing “green” about organic farming, the wastage per acre of product far exceeds any “green” value. Organic MAY (important note here) be fresher, in the US anyone can call anything “organic”, and even if it is really “organic” there is no guarantee of freshness (although the odds are better), just remember it’s a privilege product and never will scale for mass consumption for high density areas.

By clovell on 9/8/2010 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
The FDA regulates what is labeled 'Certified Organic'.

By amagriva on 9/6/2010 5:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
I' don't know why but I thought you'd better liked the GMO's ones...

By Jeffk464 on 9/6/2010 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Its very hard to draw an exact link between a carcinogen and someones personal cancer case. How many carcinogens have you been exposed to, how can you say one was responsible. Plus sometimes people just get cancer regardless. People died of cancer before Scientists came up with all this crap.

By FITCamaro on 9/7/2010 8:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly my point. Like this freaking egg scare. Well as long as you're not eating the raw egg and wash your hands after you handle them, you'll be fine. Or the freaking tomato scare was it last year or the year before.

All of it is big government nanny state bullsh*t where nothing bad is supposed to happen to anyone ever for any reason. Our parents and grandparents grew up eating food cooked in lard. Ate eggs fresh out of the chickens ass. They survived just fine. I think there' so many kids with allergies and crap these days because we coddle kids too much.

A lady here at work, who I really love talking to, says she never let her kids lick the beaters when making a cake because they might get sick from the raw egg. I say BS to that. I still to this day eat raw batter for anything I bake. I never get sick from it.

By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2010 3:35:05 PM , Rating: 1
A lady here at work, who I really love talking to, says she never let her kids lick the beaters when making a cake because they might get sick from the raw egg.

Man, what a bitch. She's depriving her kids of one of the true joys in life at that age.

One day, when they are too old to do it themselves, they'll see other kids licking the beaters and think "I never got to do that..."

Then they will cry and drive their car off a bridge.

By Jeffk464 on 9/6/2010 6:45:46 PM , Rating: 3
There is a definite difference in flavor between organic milk and factory farm milk. Its like pabst blue ribbon vs Samual Adams. There is so much more flavor, its not surprising that there would be more good stuff in it.

By tmouse on 9/7/2010 8:22:18 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing really "better". It may be somewhat fresher and more than likely less watered down (this is done a lot and the more middle men the worse it gets). We used to get raw milk fresh from a dairy farmer we knew and the fat would float to the top (looked closed to 10% to me). The problem is while it tasted good (unless the cows got into the onion chives, yuck) the fat was not "better" for you. For the vast majority of animal products "organic" is not necessarily better for you.

By JediJeb on 9/7/2010 5:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
I grew up drinking milk we took straight from the cow every morning. Fresh butter made from the cream skimmed from the top too. Might have made me a little fat as a kid, but to this day at age 43 I still haven't had a cavity or broken bone even though I have taken some hard lumps along the way. Can't say that was the reason, but can't say is wasn't either.

By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2010 6:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Fresh milk starts to spoil in a matter of hours. So unless you live in a dairy farm or something, what are we even talking about? It's just not an option for most of us.

By JediJeb on 9/8/2010 1:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not when refrigerated. What we had would keep for a week when chilled properly without a problem. Even the processed milk you get from the grocery has set in a chilled tank a few days before processing. My grandfather ran a dairy and the truck that took the milk to the processing plant only came by every second or third day to pick it up. Of course it will not last for several weeks the way processed milk will, but you do not have to throw it out daily.

I really interesting story to read on this is the one about milk smugglers in New York City. There are actually people involved in smuggling in raw milk and selling it to people who want to buy it instead of processed milk. Since it is illegal to sell non pasteurized milk they have to smuggle it into the city. A farm in Indiana has found a loophole in the law though, which says if you own the cow you can drink the milk raw, so they sell shares in the cows, therefore you own the cow and they just milk it for you.

By Gondorff on 9/7/2010 5:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
I rarely play the 'organic food tastes better' card, but strawberries are one case that it seems to be valid. I find that more often than not, non-organic strawberries just taste watery and bland, whereas most organic strawberries are bursting with flavor. YMMV, of course.

By thurston on 9/7/2010 8:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
WTF? Why has Lord666 been modded down? Whoever did the modding needs to go buy a dozen fresh eggs from a farmer. There is a huge difference in taste and appearance, the yolks are usually bright orange. Crack one after a few weeks and you get the familiar yellow yolk. While your buying your eggs buy a tomato from the farmer that has been ripened on the vine by the sun, then eat one that has been ripened by ethylene gas. If you say you cannot tell the difference then you are a liar.

By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2010 9:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
WTF? Why has Lord666 been modded down?

Cause he's full of it?

By Lord 666 on 9/8/2010 8:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, because most ignorant people on DT rate people up and down on emotion versus actual logic. There is a noticeable difference in the taste of food items I listed. I'll try the milk test, but we only have organic milk in the house at the moment for the kids.

Tmouse agrees with what I posted; there is a difference in the quality of food. However, he disagreed with the terms "organic" versus "inorganic" and attributed the possible freshness difference to smaller quantities of food in the organic distribution pipeline. Eventually, he surmised that "organic" is for the privelaged. To a degree, I can see his point but bottom line there is a difference.

Personally refuse to compromise on taste or quality for the sake of saving .30 a pound.

By JediJeb on 9/8/2010 2:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
An even bigger difference you will find is in hybride versus heirloom(native genetics) vegitables. Try heriloom tomatos and see if they are not better than hybrids, I think you will be surprised. But don't expect nice perfect round tomatos from the heirloom plants, most are wrinkly and unsymetrical and most would not sell at all in large chain stores since the bulk of the population have been taught that a good tomato is one that is nice and round and smooth. Round smooth tomatos did not exist until the big companies needed them because they can be processed through their machines better than the irregular shaped ones. Also doesn't matter as much if orgainc or conventional growing practices are employed, the heirloom varieties taste better.

Just pure garbage
By tmouse on 9/7/2010 8:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
"Studies" like this are just plain garbage. A real study would entail taking multiple cultivars from the same source of strawberries and growing them under "organic" or standard conditions in the same area. Then allowing them to ripen the same number of days and harvesting them at the same time. Then you give the end products for blind chemical analysis and multiple rounds or randomized tastings. Just selecting 13 "organic" and 13 standard end products is a total waste of time and is totally unscientific. Were they both the exact strains? Since only one "tasted consistently better" I highly doubt it. Were they all just picked or were the standard just gotten off the shelf? The real conclusion of this "study" is could be fresh is better than old, stop the pressed and line up the Nobel committee.

RE: Just pure garbage
By jbartabas on 9/7/2010 10:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
[...] To determine if differences in food and soil quality exist, we sampled repeatedly harvested strawberry varieties (‘Diamante’,‘San Juan’, and ‘Lanai’) and soils at multiple sampling times in 2004 and 2005 from 13 pairs of adjacent organic and conventional fields from commercial farms. Each organic/conventional field pair had the same soil type and the same strawberry variety
planted at similar times. [...]

RE: Just pure garbage
By JediJeb on 9/7/2010 6:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just selecting 13 "organic" and 13 standard end products is a total waste of time and is totally unscientific. Were they both the exact strains? Since only one "tasted consistently better"

Actually if you read through the report you will find that each was a comparison of the same variety grown in an organic field beside a conventional field, so yes this is probably even better than doing it in a lab since you are also comparing the different farm methods side by side with the same variety and soil types.

But, and the big but here lies in looking at the first graph. They compare nutrient levels from organic versus conventional and if you look closely you will see that the organic variety is different from the conventional variety. That is a big no no in this type of report. And some of the differences they call significant are really not. To say a difference of something like 207ppm Iron versus 214ppm Iron is significant is not true. Honestly I run tests like this every day and that small difference can come just from the analytical process itself, not to mention the non-homogeneous nature of natural products.

Also look closely at the +/- error in the testing for all graphs, in several though the differences look significant they fall within the +/- error range for the other value. That essentially means the values do not differ in a measurable fashion.

unless the produce was synthetically made
By jconan on 9/6/2010 6:22:15 PM , Rating: 3
Does this mean the produce in the supermarket are synthetically made rather than organic? Organically grown is a total misnomer.

By Jeffk464 on 9/6/2010 7:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think it has to do with people being nervous about all the pesticides and herbicides that are used. There has been a definite link proven between parkinsons and pesticides in farm workers who get a lot of exposure. Don't kid yourself, we weren't meant to handle all of these chemicals.

How is this TECH?
By sleepeeg3 on 9/7/2010 12:28:46 AM , Rating: 3
Strawberries? Siriusllly??

Hippie tree-huggers do realize that in order for people to use all organic crops, we would have to find more arable land to make up for the losses from insects, most likely by mowing down the rainforest? It also leads to fewer crops, higher costs and starvation. You know, cause and effect, that whole shebang? ...or is economics not required for environmental science? Don't answer that.

I imagine the thought process goes something like this:
organic = good
trees = good
oxygen = good
solar/wind = good
Starbucks = good

pesticides = bad
climate change = bad
carbon = bad
nuclear = bad
Waffle House = bad

Anytime someone introduces evidence that would totally shatter any of these brain brandings, their minds are like the Far Side cartoon on what we say to cats vs what they hear.

I leave you with these mind benders:
-Trees are made of carbon.
-Oxygen also kills us.
-World has 10x less CO2 than it did during the Jurassic and it is only 0-2°C cooler.
-Solar/wind cost 3x as much money as nuclear. Money takes work. Work requires input. Input comes from CO2 producing people. Input costs increase 3x. People compete with other people and lose jobs/lives, because of costs.

RE: How is this TECH?
By nstott on 9/7/2010 1:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to inlcude the mind bender that organic chemicals include benzene, dioxin, and all pesticides.

I'm rolling my eyes
By Bruneauinfo on 9/6/2010 8:27:23 AM , Rating: 2

and that smiley too.

RE: I'm rolling my eyes
By Runiteshark on 9/6/2010 9:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm so glad she put a source on that image.

Just cause, you know.

By Malhavoc on 9/6/2010 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 3
I worked on a review a few years ago of literature in the organic vs conventional debate and included nutrition as well as environmental and other factors.

As far as nutrition was concerned, differences were minor and not statistically significant. The other reviews that I read which brought together several studies each, didn't critically analyze their content and had problems when being compared due to others due to regional, variety and handling differences.

While this study takes into account those problems on some level and has had more recent research to fall back on, repetition is very important when dealing with nutritional studies. There is still alot of contradicting research out there and one study does not wipe out everything that comes before it. It is unfortunate that the media(here DailyTech) latches on to a recent study and touts their results as fact with only a single opposing study from last year.

Seriously DailyTech, stick to tech related science. This article was published 5 days ago. Now that it is published, I'm more interested in the review by peers.

P.S. I wonder if anyone else looked at the chemicals used on these organic strawberries.

By someguy123 on 9/6/2010 3:06:07 PM , Rating: 3
I think you should spend more time searching for decent tech news and less time actively seeking pro-environmental/healthnut news.

All of your blog posts and this news story are only vaguely related to technology and focus on nothing but the environmental or health aspects. It would've been great if you could've included some information about the genetic engineering process and why it may or may not reduce nutrients.

So What?
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/6/2010 5:32:24 PM , Rating: 3
If all of the arable land on the planet was cultivated with organic crops, the total food output would be able to sustain 2-3 billion people. Buying organic food is like buying carbon credits; it's a feel-good luxury for the armchair environmentalist, that comes at the expense of the rest of humanity.

no #$#*
By Murloc on 9/6/2010 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
this is no news.
People buy non-organic strawberries because they are cheap.

sorry no
By shin0bi272 on 9/6/2010 2:30:04 PM , Rating: 2

50 years of research says you're wrong.

By bman on 9/6/2010 4:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not organic fruit offers more nutrition I think misses the point. I would argue most people (myself included) do not eat enough fruits and vegetables as is. The benefit of simply increasing ones intake of fruits and vegetables vastly out weighs the marginal benefit (if any at all) from moving to organic produce. This is especially true for anyone on a limited budget since carbohydrates are much cheaper than fresh produce, i.e. if buying organic means that a person can only afford to have 10% food intake come from produce vs 15% for standard produce the person is much better off buying non-organic certified.

By foolsgambit11 on 9/6/2010 5:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I worked for an Agricultural Extension Unit of Washington State University as a teenager. But my office doesn't seem to have been involved in this study. Oh well.

organic strawberry
By Hans Gruber on 9/6/2010 6:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Washington State University has a very good agricultural program. It's sad to see the University would accept a research grant that corrupts common knowledge regarding soil, water, sunlight and the use of herbicides and pesticides. By not finding the benefits of organic strawberries vs. standard strawberries, Washington State University would certainly not be awarded future grants. This study will certainly lead to future grants paid for by the organic fruit industry explicitly looking for research that show the benefit of organic foods.

Organic produce costs 2x-4x more than standard produced treated with herbicides and pesticides. I would challenge anybody to grow an organic strawberry or tomato plant vs. one treated with non organic soil and miracle grow. Considering the fertilizer business has been very competitive. These results are so obvious in my own garden that I would compare the organic food business to a snake oil salesman. There's nothing wrong with organic foods. The price premium they charge for the organic produce is the criminal act. People are voting with their wallets now that the economy is crippled. The organic industry needs some fear and guilt to compel the American consumer to buy organic.

I'm not drinking the cool-aid.

Too Obvious
By nstott on 9/7/2010 1:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
I can always tell a Tiffany post just by reading the headline. I never thought that DT could actually come up with a writer that makes Jason Mick look good. Anyway, I can't wait for her upcoming post on the science of dowsing.

Bad Choice
By Ammohunt on 9/7/2010 2:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
I purposefully avoid organic produce organic doesn’t mean healthier organic growers still use pesticides like copper based pesticides that persist in the environment much longer than synthetic petroleum based insecticides. If there is a nutritional difference you can make up any by being able to afford more non-organically grown produce and eating more of it from the price difference. It’s a personal choice; I trust the decades of good chemistry that goes into pesticides/herbicides/fungicides that protect the produce I eat.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki