Yes, but it appears that not eating fresh vegetables has a bigger impact on our health than eating them from conventional farming methods. That is what people should take away from this article.....don't stop buying lean proteins and fresh vegetables just because there is no, or can't afford an organic alternative.

Ridiculous conclusion, obbviously someone is paying them for this "study."

It defies logic, reason and common sense to suggest eating hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and other chemical treatments is somehow NOT unhealthy for kids... because there is no proof.

Silly, if you believe this you are a sucker. It's already been proven scientifically that increased exposure to antibiotics causes increased risk of antibiotic resistant disease. It's proven that exposure to pesticides causes increased risk of cancer.

Outrageous claims, doctors leave the science to the scientists and stop selling out to the food industrial complex.

It does matter buddy. Sorry, but you can eat your frankenfruit all you want. We all die, but something tells me you're going to go sooner than those of us who can do the math:

Pesticides + Hormones + Fertilizer = Bio-Accumulation (Cells within fruit taking in the toxins, making them unwashable)

All these recnet STUDIES and opinions about organics are a joke. To any parent who thinks serving up the latest chemical cocktail from the agribusiness is a great idea for your children.... please surrender then to CPS.

LOL all the nutbags are out in full force.

I think this study, as well as the one from Stanford, is horrible. Their methodology for the conclusion is ridiculous. So, because no long term study has even been done to judge the effects of the chemicals, we must conclude that the chemicals are safe and organic is a waste of time. 10 years from now, there will be a lot of PO'ed parents at the AAoP. It is atrocious that they published this garbage. We have increasingly high levels of cancer in our society with no known source, that affects absolutely everyone. There has to be a few main culprits involved that everyone is exposed to. Chemicals sprayed all over our foods seems like a good candidate to be one of those culprits.

Re: polarwarssz,... Sit back, have smoke and a donut, and leave the thinking to the adults in the room.

I don't care for donuts with my cig. I see a bunch of deranged posts by people who can't think logically. Avoid chemicals that are everywhere and cannot be avoided...yup..

What about tertiary exposure?

Do you think if I go and live on the moon, I will be absolutely safe from any n-th degree exposure to pesticides?

Can't live on the moon now can you? Come back down to Earth

If the woman in the photo is an advertisement for organic foods, I'll take the pesticides every time. She looks like she's about to drop dead.

The last time they put one of these "studies" online that supports industries claims that their chemical coated food was just as good for you as organic it wasn't a week later that we found out monsanto had acutally funded the study. As I have said a million times before, if you conservative wingnuts want to eat this garbage then please do so, in fact I beg you to eat mass quatitiies of dairy products from cow injected with Bovien Growth Hormone, Genetically modified fruits and vegetables and cows and pigs fed with genetically modifed corn and soy, as well as diet soda filled with aspertame. You wingnuts need to stand up for these products, the corporation that is behind them is run by a good christian wingnut and we liberals are boycotting them, so do what you did for Chick-fil-a and line up to consume as much of this poison as you can stuff into your fat over-fed faces, I will even give you money to buy it if your unemployment check or welfare check is late. Please eat all you can.

It is atrocious that they published this garbage. We have increasingly high levels of cancer in our society with no known source

A) This is untrue. Most cancer rates have been generally flat or declining since the 30's with the exception of a huge increase in lung cancer in the 80's and 90's (although that still due to more accurate diagnoses).

B) There are two sources: increased diagnosis and old age. People have been dying from cancer since the beginning of time. The difference is now we know that's why people are dying. It hasn't been that long since we've known about things like prostate cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, and leukemia, and it's been even less time since we've been able to reliably diagnose them. Additionally, with people living longer and being protected from dying from things like the flu, polio, smallpox, etc., eventually they're going to get cancer.

It's all in how you word it, this is concerning nutritional value not toxicity. The headline seems inaccurate because I didn't see where the study shows organics are as toxic as conventional.

@ SEC Insider "If the woman in the photo is an advertisement for organic foods, I'll take the pesticides every time. She looks like she's about to drop dead."

Why, because she doesn't weigh 300 lbs from eating french fries and Twinkies??

Study from France regarding genetically modified corn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAg&feature=player_embedded

Organic food is no better for kids...

...just more expensive!

If you only knew what went into non-organics, you'd question buying any of it!

Hormone, insecticides, etc can't possibly be good for you

It's a hypocritical lifestyle really and newsflash for people everywhere WE WILL ALL DIE....yes, you too there with the face mask.

The inevitability of death does not mean we should just sit back and do whatever the hell we want. Any reasonable and logical human being will take measures to extend one's life--there is nothing hypocritical about limiting your exposure to pesticides, chemicals, and hormones. By your logic, we should all just kill ourselves now. Here's your gun, you go first.

JS in SD

Other comments I've seen you make leads me to believe you farm, or gerw up on a farm so you should know that virtually ALL animal wastes get put back on farm land. This includes feed lots, large scale hog operations, confinement layer operations that be 4 million hens or more, and large scale dairies - many of them over 1,000 cows. Conventional farmers often spread manure raw, releasing large amounts of ammonia into the air and releasing any pathogen still alive in the manure. Organic farmers can only spread well composted manure which, even if not done completely, greatly reduces pathogens. Manure run-off contamination is a convenmtional farming issue, not much of an organic one.

I hate stories like these: a big headline saying organic fruits and vegetables are no better than conventionally farmed products, and then paragraph after paragraph talking about the lack of data. Why publish a story that offers nothing of value to anyone who reads it.

Ah, the kicker is the first line: If you're buying organic food for your kids because you think it is more nutritious..." Well, most people are buying it to avoid the hormones, pesticides and antibiotics, thank you kindly. Those are the things that keep you awake at night. I don't know anything about nutrition, but I do know the organic chicken I had in Australia was the best tasting bird I'd eaten since I was a little kid over 50 years ago. All that American commercial agriculture breeds now are good-looking fakes with dangerous side effects.

That's just it...they don't know and this is only their opinion as a doctor. Let's not forget they are the same doctors/people that write and promote all the prescriptions out there that are killing everyone. According to them, the doctors, the experts, big pharma is good too. Go figure.

More important is getting food grown locally. The further the distance the food has to travel the less nutritious it will be. Many times fruit and vegetables are harvested before they're ripe, so they can ripen during shipping. Fresh local food tastes better and is healthier. Organic is not a big deal.

JS... get the FACTS ! NO organic grower uses RAW manure you dolt. Any manure has been COMPOSTED at temperatures that kill any pathenogens. God I can't stand how IGNORANT people are. 99% of you that regurgitate the Food/Industrial/Big Pharma/Medical complex PROPAGANDA don't have a frigging CLUE as to what you're talking about and know NOTHING about organic agriculture. So do us all a favor and ZIP your pie holes !!

Oh.. and for the other idiots... the STANFORD STUDY was DEBUNKED as being BIASED and FRAUDULENT not long after it was released. It was paid for by BIG FOOD/AG.

Buy locally and get off the whole organic craze. Organic food is nothing more than a bunch of hoopla.

@gemini618

Show me one credible scientific counter study of the Stanford article. All I could find where a bunch of organic pro website just given their opining on the study. I could not find one single reputable counter claim on the matter.

JS in SD-

You are missing a lot in your argument. First of all, reducing your exposure to chemicals and pesticides by ingesting foods that don't have as high of a concentration is nothing but good for you. Second, the more organic farming we have, fewer chemicals are being introduced into the environment, the land and the groundwater. Third, when people buy organic food, they are "voting" with their wallet. More farmers will be encouraged to farm using organic methods, if they can make money doing it.

Additionally, as you state, if there are already chemicals that you cannot avoid, it makes even MORE sense to reduce them in every other aspect of your life that you can control.

S. Williams is the only other person who picked up on the fact that the study was about nutrition. They aren't saying it wasn't worth it to buy organics, just that organics don't offer any added nutrition. Of course they don't. You don't add vitamins to an apple by not spraying it with chemicals, but you do lower your risk of cancer. This article is presented in a twisted way to get you to think that organics are not better. They may not be better nutritionally, but there are other ways to be better, and this study was not about praising any of those other ways.

"Children are hitting puberty earlier and earlier, and everybody is fat ... we are putting hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides into all of our food and we can't figure out what's wrong!"

To the person that says all organic growers use composted manure, you are wrong when it involves organic dairies. Their manure is spread organically out the back end of the dairy cow fresh as fresh can be, i am pretty sure it is not composted as it is coming out of their back ends. I say this with over 20 years expirience working with organic dairies.

@ kamity

"Children are hitting puberty earlier and earlier, and everybody is fat ... we are putting hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides into all of our food and we can't figure out what's wrong!"

While it may be possible that the puberty issue is related to hormones and such in our food, (don't know one way or the other on this), obesity has nothing t do with the hormones, antibiotic, pesticides, etc. That problem is primarily one of sedentary lifestyles, combined with overeating, and over processed food diets. If you don't exercise, eat too much and eat nothing but high fat foods with little nutritional value, you're gonna get fat, simple as that. It's no big secret.

Interestingly enough, it has been found that a large percentage of the "organic" foods available on the market are no more "organically grown" than any other product available. Whole Foods was recently exposed for selling supposed "organic" foods that were imported from China. I trust China to supply quality "organic" foods and vitamins, don't you?? I'm not saying organic foods are any better for you on not but I am saying that the niche market is nearly as big a scam as any other market out there. People believe they are getting higher quality foods when in reality they very often are not.

organic food = just an excuse to charge more and nothing else. anyone who believes otherwise is an ignorant fool

i get oragnic cuz i want real food not gentically modified food. as for meat, humanly treated and fed natual is a must. im not gona buy tyson or other shady companies. also fresh food is a must. i dont want processed food. i want to live a real life. life is more important then money. most other countries ban gmo and have real food but corporations dominate america and monsanto is more powerful then our president and supreme court combined. monsanto is the most powerful ppl in the world. other countries basically are organic besides the pesticides part and thier food is cheap. organics in america cost so much cuz the non organic food is also to expesive considering its not real food. america you need money to live. after all it is the country of jobs but if you dont have a job, its a struggle. its a struggle being homeless.

The kids in this article aren't at risk from non-organic food, but with names like Noam, Cato, and Griffin, they are at risk for getting their asses kicked a lot in high school!

Studies focusing on the nutritional value of organic food vs conventional are a waste of time. The issue is not the nutrition of the fruit. People should be more concerned about the "additives". The fertilizers and pesticides that are residue on produce and leech into groundwater and rivers.

Funny you should mention Whole Foods. Wife and I strolled into this place to get some coffee. (Only supermarket in the area). We were just laughing at all these yuppie hipster parents, (They all had at least one kid with them) buying this overpriced bland looking food with shrunken under-grown fruits and veggies in their carts with their little kids sipping soy milk from a juice box. They all looked like they were malnourished and starving. No thanks. I'll have a nice big juicy factory grown lime in my Rum and Coke. I figure the large quantities of alcohol will burn off any pesticides.

Apparently this study is being funded by the FDA. When are people going to start thinking for themselves? Chemicals are NEVER good for your body - children or adults. We are all walking around pickled and genetically modified. Don't we owe our children the best we can give them? I will agree, it is difficult to go totally organic and natural, but every effort makes a difference. .

Yes, as many people realize, this is totally bogus. Nutrition wise, no difference. As far as chemical toxins and poisons - a major difference. Again, our government and their wealthy masters the corporations are trying to pull a fast one using the State run media!!!

This one story is further proof that the media is no longer a check on our government and corporations and a resource to educate the masses, but instead has become a producer of lies and falsehoods/deceptions to boost the income of the wealthy.

@ Conservative Mind-3257826:

Really? That phony old study? If you had bothered to do any kind of search regarding scientific reviews of that particular study, you would find no fewer than 6 reviews of the 2007 Criigen study, which found no support for Criigens claims based on the data. Here is one example:

Expert Panel evaluation of 2007 CRIIGEN study

A panel of experts from the US, Germany, UK and Canada was commissioned to evaluate CRIIGEN's new conclusions from the original Monsanto rat feeding toxicity data^[17] and funded by Monsanto. The panel objected to CRIIGEN's findings on the grounds that it "...failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time, association with other relevant changes (e.g., histopathology), occurrence in both sexes, difference outside the normal range of variation, or biological plausibility with respect to cause-and-effect."

Criigen did another study in 2009, with similar results and similar contradictory findings by many other reviews. Also, the independence of the authors was questioned:

French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee opinion on 2009 study

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) reviewed the 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."^[24][25] The HCB also questioned the author's independence. They noted that, in 2010, the CRIIGEN web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed.

Biased study by biased scientists. I can't say much about the long term effects of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food, but as far as these "scary GMO's" are concerned, people overreact because they do not understand the difference between genetic modification and chemical residue.

I can afford locally grown organic produce and if it limits even a tiny bit of my exposure to pesticides for me and my family that is fine by me.

You can google the new findings on GMO and cancer or the study out of oxford on childhood leukemia and pesticides----or you can ignore it. I don't care. What I do care about it doing what I think is best for my family.

For once I think Europe is one up on us by refusing to sell GMO to its citizens

In science, the absence of proof does not constitute any "proof" on its own. That is just the way that science works. But many "science-agnostics" (my term) seem to believe than an absence of proof is proof of everything from a vast conspiracy to denial of "common sense."

The majority of so-called "organic" foods are grow by the same people that grow "non-organic" foods. ConAgra and ADM wrote the actual definitions of "organic" used by the USDA and they wrote them so as to classify virtually all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc as "organic." The "loophole" they use is that virtually all of these chemicals are derived from so-called "natural" sources. Pesticides, for example, are made from chemicals found in marigolds and chrysanthemums, so all the chemicals that were refined and developed from them are perfectly okay to use on "organic" foods. If you look carefully at these chemicals, you will see that scientists look to plants to see what chemical weapons they use to repel insects or diseases and then develop chemical look-alikes to duplicate their function --- organically. So your "organic" food from Trader Joes has been sprayed with "organic" pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, etc, but there is no requirement to label them because they are "organic."

These things have been studied to death. And studied with sophisticated study design that is intended to find even tiny statistical differencess. And there has been no proof found. What that means is twofold: 1) the liklihood of finding something harmful is very small and while it might be there, it will be difficult to find, and 2) tiny risks cause tiny effects on the population and are often so tiny that the results are impossible to translate intoi individual risk.

The only difference in food that has been found that can be duplicated and is significant is the nutritiousness of food. Food grown on high-density "factory" farms is less nutritious overall than the same food, grown in identical conditions, on less dense farms. The problem is that a given amount of sunlight and soil nutrients will only produce a given amount of nutrition. That nutrition is spread across the whole crop. So the more crop per acre you grown, past a given point, the less nutrition per individual tomato or ear of corn.

If you want "organic" food, you are going to have to grow it yourself or you are going to have to form a personal relationship with a hobby farmer who grows his own and does not use chemicals. Otherwise, you take the risk right along with the rest of us. (I grow my own garden, but for taste and not nutrition or to be "organic.")

And for all those who point to one obscure study (that has never been replicated) or another to prove their point --- all you are proving is the "Uncle Ben's Paradox." The UBP says that if you throw a handful of rice into the air that it will land on the floor in a statistical uniform distribution. Unfortunately, if you really throw a handful of rice in the air, you will see that there are clumps and places with few grains and actually very few patches of uniform distribution. If you study anything long enough you can find those clumps and thin patches, but these tell you absolutely nothing about the overall distribution of rice on the floor.

These are very complex subjects and very worthy of attention by scientists. But I will choose to ignore people who post their opinions and claim them to be facts, or their "common sense" that argues with science, or even their "beliefs" and trust evidence-based science.

These are very complex subjects and very worthy of attention by scientists. But I will choose to ignore people who post their opinions and claim them to be facts, or their "common sense" that argues with science, or even their "beliefs" and trust evidence-based science.

Eloquently put. There's plenty of emotional bias floating around here, fueled by the naturalistic fallacy and the fallacy of composition.

I would like to point out that science is also ever evolving, this is why after numerous studies a medication or substance is put out as safe, then pulled off the market months or years later after more studies. Theories are proven and disproven the next day. Yes, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4, (I know that's math, but I am tryin to prove a point here), that you can not just say well if "science" proved it than it must be true.

Other countries are far ahead of us where this is concerned, they do not allow GMO, in some you can not have certain food dyes, ( they use things like beet juice to color certain foods red instead of a checmical cooked up in a lab), they banned BPA long ago, and so on and so on.....

We need to look to other countries on some of these things. Why are they banned? Wha is their basis for it? What does their research say? We as consumers should questions these things.

Also know that organic does not necessarily mean non GMO. Be an informed consumer. I can't beleive that I see some organic frozen produce that is a product of China in my grocery store. China, really? They send all this lead ladden crap here all the time and I am supposed to beleive that the spinach they grow is really organic? I'm not so sure if I believe that. The USDA has a hard enough time regulating our USA grown crops, neverthless ones from other countries.

@jessica,

This is not science "evolving." The reason why a drug might be approved one day and then later taken off the market is a function of capitalism and not science. Science would never have allowed the drugs in the first place. The problem with drugs is unique in that drug companies are allowed to suppress as many studies as they want so long as they can produce TWO that show the druig to be safe and effective. What you are seeing is the Law of Large Numbers --- a math FACT --- at work, not science.

Other countries are not "ahead" of us by banning GMO's over the objections of their own scientists. Most European countries (the only ones really doing the banning) are under extremely political pressure from smallhold farmers who carry incredible political clout (similar to that in this country in the 1890's.) Eventually GMO will win the battle because it is the only way in which to feed the dramatically increasing population of the world. There were only about 2 billion people in the world when I was born and about 7 million alive now. That's an increase of 5 billion mouths to feed in just my lifetime and my life expectancy would allow me to see another billion or so added to the requirement. Someone has to feed these people and today's crop methods will not hack it, even with GMO. Right now all that is happening because of Europe's GMO restrictions is that food prices in Europe are being driven through the roof, benefitting those very farmers who are so against GMOs.

You really don't have much of an option to be an informed consumer on so-called "organic" foods. That battle has been lost. ConAgra and ADM were allowed to write the USDA rules that define what is legally "organic" and "not organic." And the rules permit over 80% of the "non-organic" fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc that are in use to be used on "organic" crops without any further disclosure except to call them organic. And that's not science either. It's just how capitalism works --- both in this country and in China as well.

Yeah, I believe that.

because you are a whackjob?

This story is a pile of what comes-out of your cat's rear end!

No, I leave the whackiness to the crazy "eco food" nuts like you. I come from a family where we generally live into our 90's. There were several centarinarians in our past couple of generations. My children are all very healthy and well under their weight. Sure, we exercise a lot and have a healthy lifestyles but we don't follow every crazy health fad like the organic crazed nutters permeating these boards. But go ahead, waste your money if you like buying "organic" food some guy bought from WalMart then repackaged for you suckers. WalMart has its own "organic" food so cut out the middle man and at least save some money buying it direct from the Wallie. Hopefully, you won't drop dead from some pathogen brought to your food by an "organic" farmer who used manure as fertilizer like the one that killed scads in Europe a while back.

Because your cat is on drugs.

If true, why will my cat try to bury store bought beef and beg for our home raised beef?

You seem to have answered your own question here. ;)

Well, if you're smart, you're either raising "heirloom" cattle or bison. Cattle that is raised these days are largely GENETICALLY MODIFIED through selective breeding to have a certain lean to fat ratio and be more heavily muscled than the "heirloom" breeds that today's cattle came from. Bison is closer to the actual genetic makeup of what USED to be beef and is better for your body in terms of cholesterol deposited into your blood stream.

If you ask your cardiologist, they'll tell you that bison, venison, elk and moose are all better for your body than BEEF. And bison even has a taste that is very close to beef in terms of roasts or ground meat. Unfortunately, unless you live near areas where you're allowed to hunt bison, it's incredibly expensive to buy. My family does live in an area where we have a bison farm close by, but it's still a lot more expensive than beef. Luckily, my husband is a responsible hunter and we can get venison most years to put in our freezer (and I have a meat grinder attachment for my blender so we use as much of the meat as we can get off the animal). The use of bison and/or ground venison and venison roasts has helped my cholesterol numbers to become lower.

Those people who insist on organic fruits and veggies need to look at which ones are more likely to retain pesticides etc. and buy SMARTLY. Not everything needs to be organic to avoid the pesticides. We don't buy ANY organics and my child is "disgustingly healthy" at 6 according to his pediatrician.

There is a major difference in taste in both the milk and meat of cattle raised on different feed. True grass fed always tastes best to me.

Cat....you're yet ANOTHER clueless person who doesn't know the difference between GENETIC MODIFICATION and SELECTIVE HYBRIDIZATION. You are INCORRECT in your description. GM is splicing the DNA of OTHER SPECIES into a fruit, vegetable, plant or animal.... and to our DETRIMENT because studies have PROVEN that GM altered foods to indeed cause tumors, cancer, deformities and death. Selective hybridization is the science of isolating and encouraging the production of dominant or preferred traits WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES. Your conventional doctor is also a propagandist for the Industrial Food / Medical complex so I would take what he/she says with a grain of salt. Especially when your kid has some neurological, immune, endocrine, reproductive or other disease caused by the accumulation of all those chemicals.. not only from the FOOD you're feeding him but their interaction and accumulative effects of all the other TOXINS that I'm sure your house, personal care, cleaning and other products are LOADED with. Better to be on the side of caution than of ignorance.

@gemini:

You are using big words there, but you clearly don't understand the central dogma of biology. What happens when your body encounters foreign DNA in the food you ingest? Nothing. It is broken down in the stomach. What happens when your body encounters foreign DNA that has been genetically modified? Nothing. It is denatured exactly the same way. There is no difference to your body between the most mutated piece of DNA imaginable in your food and 'regular' ingested foreign DNA.

If you take the 'vitamin x' gene from species 'A' and put it into species 'B', 'vitamin x' is still produced. It may affect the recipient organism unusually, but if you eat that recipient organism (the GMO food) you do not experience changes to your DNA, you only get a different nutritional value because that organism you just ate is now producing different proteins. True, you could modify the organism to produce proteins harmful to a consumer, but if you put a naturally occurring 'safe' gene from a common crop into another crop, you still end up with a natural 'safe' protein product.

That study you referred to basically tried to say otherwise, that inserting gene 'a' will magically give you protein 'B', which behaves differently than the normal 'A' protein. I believe the study you are referring to is this: Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS (May 2007). "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity". Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52 (4): 596–602)

If you check out reviews of the study, you will quickly find many of them, virtually all of which found no support for Criigens claims based on the data. Here is one example:

Expert Panel evaluation of 2007 CRIIGEN study

A panel of experts from the US, Germany, UK and Canada was commissioned to evaluate CRIIGEN's new conclusions from the original Monsanto rat feeding toxicity data^[17] and funded by Monsanto. The panel objected to CRIIGEN's findings on the grounds that it "...failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time, association with other relevant changes (e.g., histopathology), occurrence in both sexes, difference outside the normal range of variation, or biological plausibility with respect to cause-and-effect."

Criigen did another study in 2009, with similar results and similar contradictory findings by many other reviews. Also, the independence of the authors was questioned:

French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee opinion on 2009 study

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) reviewed the 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."^[24][25] The HCB also questioned the author's independence. They noted that, in 2010, the CRIIGEN web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed.

Another similar study by CRIIGEN was just published last month, but has also been highly criticized for misinterpretation of data and other just plain silly conclusions. For instance, the rats used only lived two years, and during that time 86% of the males and 72% of the females developed cancer naturally. Bad, biased science. Fortunately peer-review is an important part of modern science. Unfortunately, the media and general population care more about sensational scientific conclusions than supported scientific conclusions.

Exactly my thoughts.

Litterally hundreds of posts on these boards in the past praised organics as more tasty, more nutritious and safer. Of course, after about the third or fourth study saying there was no nutritional difference you started getting posts like yours saying that had never been claimed. It will probably take a few more fatalities from "organic" vegetables to finally get off the safer kick. That will leave the true believers with the taste claim but we know that is crud because a significant amount of the food bought as organic isn't and the buyer still lauds its better taste. There is no accounting for the fervor of the "true believer".....

All foods have risk of contamination and the ignorant crowd suggesting this makes organic food unhealthy doesn't change the facts.

Eating pesticides is bad, if you want to eat them go ahead but I choose not to do so. I have eaten organic products for many years and have not had any food poisoning. Clearly big-agriculture wants people to believe their pesticides (now using DDT again by the way) are harmless but anyone with a brain knows this is hogwash. Profit motive is the reason these companies want you to continue ingesting poisons they spray on your food - again, so they can profit even more.

See, the dirty little secret is that companies like Monsanto and Dow Chemical produce GMO crops that have pesticide resistance genes inserted in them so the same company can sell farmers the corresponding pesticide to use on the GMO crop. Of course it takes increasingly more and more pesticide to have the same effect because of genetic resistance. This means we are pouring more and more and more pesticides onto food crops across the country and are poisoning our water and air in the process.

Wake up people, not everything for profit is good for you.

The story keeps getting replayed because of the upcoming vote on Proposition 37 in CA for mandatory GM labeling, and Monsanto owns the media.

I have eaten organic products for many years and have not had any food poisoning.

Neither have I but neither have I ever had cancer. In fact cancer is extremely rare in my family despite the fact we don't bother with organics. Look up the term analogy, yours proves nothing.

The story keeps getting replayed because of the upcoming vote on Proposition 37 in CA for mandatory GM labeling, and Monsanto owns the media.

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite!

Eating pesticides is bad, if you want to eat them go ahead but I choose not to do so.

Hate to break it to you. Organic food contains the same amount of pesticides and herbicides, if not more, than non-organic food. It's just that the pesticides and herbicides selected for organic food are considered "natural." One of the most favorite organic pesticides is Bt toxin, the same toxin as those produced by GM crops. Look it up if you don't believe me. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's harmless. Snake bite will kill you dead or make you lose digits or appendages. 100% all natural.

Clearly big-agriculture wants people to believe their pesticides (now using DDT again by the way) are harmless but anyone with a brain knows this is hogwash.

I guess I have no brain. DDT is not allowed to be used in this country. But the reason is not because it is harmful to humans. That it was so harmless to humans, such a potent insecticide, and cheap is why it was so widely used. The reason it was banned is because it was thinning the egg shells of birds. When they sat on them to incubate them, they crushed their eggs. That severely reduced the numbers of the Bald Eagle and would have surely lead to its extinction. It was the genesis of the mainstream environmental movement. And not a single human was harmed.

See, the dirty little secret is that companies like Monsanto and Dow Chemical produce GMO crops that have pesticide resistance genes inserted in them so the same company can sell farmers the corresponding pesticide to use on the GMO crop.

You're confused. There's GMO crops that produce a pesticide so none need be applied. Then there's GMO crops that are resistant to Monsanto brand herbicides. That way farmers can spray willy nilly without harming their crops. Where Monsanto gets evil is when they file a lawsuit against a neighboring farmer who happened to have some of the GMO crop blow onto his farm. Monstanto calls it patent infringement or some such nonsense.

Of course it takes increasingly more and more pesticide to have the same effect because of genetic resistance.

I'm a biologist and I can tell you that this is not how resistance works at all. A GMO crop is just resistant. A weed that evolves resistance on its own won't be killed by more herbicide. A pest that evolves resistance won't be killed by more pesticide. Once it is resistant, that's the end of the story.

This means we are pouring more and more and more pesticides onto food crops across the country and are poisoning our water and air in the process.

Not quite right.

Look, you eat organic because the farming methods are generally considered sustainable practices. Natural herbicides and pesticides don't require petroleum to produce. Same for fertilizers. That's a 100% organic guarantee. Any other reason for eating organic is just a belief, not necessarily grounded in reality.

Mike L. -- Exactly. Here we go again. And they're rehashing the bogus Stanford study and trying to get all the mileage they can out of it. Anyone with any common sense realizes people choose organic to reduce exposure to toxins. I've heard many times that potato farmers won't eat their own produce because they know first hand how much pesticide is used, potatoes being one of the most pesticide-laden crops there are. If these "researchers" want to do something that will actually help, they should check into alternative pesticides and alternative fertilizers that won't deplete the soil and in turn WILL make crops more nutrititious and less toxic, more like it used to be before agribusiness took over. But research money is tight these days and researchers will accept grant money wherever they can find it, I guess. And stanmrak, above has an interesting comment also, which makes sense.

Pragamatic -- I don't believe for a second that truly organic food has more toxic pesticides than non-organic. Which would you rather eat -- produce treated with pesticides labeled "harmful or fatal if swallowed" or pesticides labeled "safe to use around humans and pets"?

Pragmatic, what a very pragmatic post!

Pragamatic -- I don't believe for a second that truly organic food has more toxic pesticides than non-organic.

Believe it! About half of the organic pesticides used are carcinogenic, meaning they cause cancer. Among the non-organic pesticides, about half of them are carcinogenic.

Which would you rather eat -- produce treated with pesticides labeled "harmful or fatal if swallowed" or pesticides labeled "safe to use around humans and pets"?

I'd rather eat the one that's safe to use around humans and pets. However, not all organic pesticides are safe! One of the organic pesticides that is used is sulfur. Harmful to the lungs, eyes, and skin.

Pragmatic -- I know what carcinogenic means. Now do a detailed breakdown of what's in "conventional" pesticides used on potatoes, strawberries and other heavily pesticide-laden produce. Now list the other safe, organic pesticides/fungicides that you ignored in your comment.

What you're ignoring (purposely?) is that there are safer alternatives to what Monsanto, agribusiness, etc., have gotten away with for so long and the public is finding out about it. This article (funded by who?) is trying to move the clock back about 40 years.

Do I want my produce treated with a pesticide that isn't that toxic in the first place, will do the job it's intended for, and break down with little to no impact on my health and the environment? Or do I want a pesticide labeled toxic or fatal and that will have a negative impact on health and the environment indefinitely?

The point is that the article is testing the wrong hypothesis and most people get it. I think you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. It's not natural vs man-made, it's safe versus toxic.

Hate to break it to you. Organic food contains the same amount of pesticides and herbicides, if not more, than non-organic food.

Before you go on rambling, you're going to have to provide a citation for that claim. Thank you.

What you're ignoring (purposely?) is that there are safer alternatives to what Monsanto, agribusiness, etc., have gotten away with for so long and the public is finding out about it. This article (funded by who?) is trying to move the clock back about 40 years.

Nobody puts a gun to farmers' heads and makes them buy these things. Monsanto et al "get away" with it because farmers buy it. It makes their life easier, and when their lives are easier, food is cheaper. A safer alternative should actually be safe.

What you're deliberately ignoring is that organic doesn't mean pesticide-free and harm-free. Then you accuse the authors of receiving money with an interest. The reality is probably much more boring, but I'm not about to speak for the internal affairs of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I just know that such an accusation wouldn't be leveled by me if the AAP came out with a decision of "organics only for kids."

Do I want my produce treated with a pesticide that isn't that toxic in the first place, will do the job it's intended for, and break down with little to no impact on my health and the environment?

Mineral oil is a commonly used organic pesticide that has an enormous environmental impact. It needs to be used in huge amounts and impacts many other parts of the ecosystem. I honestly didn't know that before I started conversing with you. Do a little searching.

The point is obvious that the article is testing the wrong hypothesis and most people get it. I think you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I'm pointing out that all natural isn't all harmless. I could provide a list of massively harmful all natural compounds, but quite frankly, I want to sleep tonight. The list is enormous. Natural pesticides aren't automatically harmless and there is information out there if you're willing to seek it. There is not a lot of information out there because most people, like you, automatically assume that natural means harmless. There isn't an appetite for that information. Organic farmers are mum about it, for obvious reasons.

If there is an issue of food safety, of course I will do the right thing for myself or my family. But frankly, the data aren't there. I'm a scientist, I need convincing with evidence. Anecdotes I hear from people lack rigor and controls and seem tainted by emotion. The same way a person may justify the purchase of a new car a bit beyond what they need.

The fundamental problem with the reasoning employed is the argument that simultaneously claims the use of conventional pesticides being so widespread and the huge level of harm that they do. The data do not support the second half of that assertion. Widespread use of something very harmful would lead to widespread harm. We don't hear about it.

Rob,

Before you go on rambling, you're going to have to provide a citation for that claim. Thank you.

I'll cite a specific example I'm familiar with. You need 2 applications of a synthetic called imidan to get the same effectiveness of 7 applications of the organic pesticide rotinone-pyrethrin.

Since there are vegetables/fruits/meat treated with an assortment of dyes, chemicals, etc., I normally wash them as well as I can. I simply cannot buy expensive organics, plus they don't look that good most of the time.

I remember a time when mosquito trucks used to drive through neighborhoods spraying pesticides, which we all inhaled (not on purpose!). I'm currently in my 60s, don't have any major health issues, exercise and keep active. I, also, keep up to date on my immunizations, flu, pneumonia and shingles shots.

As long as you do your best to eat healthy, exercise, avoid ingesting pure pesticides/toxins and have regular checkups...plus, be aware of any changes in your body...then there's no reason to speculate, worry yourself into a heart attack. Next thing you know, using tree leaves and bushes to wipe your butt will be the next "natural" movement (jk). Just move on with your life already!

Pragmatic My family has been farming organically for about 40 years now long before it became the popular thing to do and i have never even heard of bt toxin. The only pesticides that we use is a mix of hot peppers, garlic and a few other veggies that bugs don't like. This along with companion planting and a mix of certain types of flowers in the garden and you very rarely have to worry about pest destroying your garden. Even if a few get by and eat a few things I don't really care because we all have to eat even bugs. Plus my guineas take care of most of the rest of the bugs anyway.

Unless Pragmatic can provide evidence of of Pragmatic's claims then I suggest Pragmatic should be ignored.

I'm a biologist and I can tell you that this is not how resistance works at all. A GMO crop is just resistant. A weed that evolves resistance on its own won't be killed by more herbicide. A pest that evolves resistance won't be killed by more pesticide. Once it is resistant, that's the end of the story.

It looks llike Pragmatic is Monsanto/academia trained just like has been predicted. Poor thing doesn't even know it.

Pragmatic My family has been farming organically for about 40 years now long before it became the popular thing to do and i have never even heard of bt toxin.

It isn't universally used. It isn't generally used by family owned farms. But it is widely used by corporate organic farms.

It looks llike Pragmatic is Monsanto/academia trained just like has been predicted. Poor thing doesn't even know it.

Anti-intellectualism isn't something to be proud of.

Robert. I looked at several of your recent posts. Almost all of them are one-liner and/or ad hominem attacks. Pragmatic has thoughtful, reasoned comments regardless of their validity, and you can only make comments such as suggesting Pragmatic is some Monsanto stooge. You might as well just be saying, "Nuh uhh".

I hope you don't bash on people who deny climate change science. You are effectively doing the same thing by only accepting science that supports your preconceived notions. Nice.

Umm ok, no, I don't feel organic are more "nutritious" but I did just see an in depth news report (on CBS news Sunday Morning program, not saying that it's gospel, just pointing that out because someone on here will acuse me of reading some random internet report). The report said the GMO corn & crops that were made to be resistant to Round Up weed killer and therefore round up was sprayed on those crops to control weeds have now produced "super weeds" that are resistant to round up. Those weeds are in return growing an inch a day! And the farmers are at a loss for what to do becasue they have never had thought of any other way of weed control. And of course both the GMO seeds and Round Up are manufactured by Monsanto, go figure! So just as bacteria and germs are smart enough to morph into antibiotic resistant, the weeds are as well.

Mess with mother nature (and God) and you'll get no so good things in return which is why I am opposed to Mansanto and ALL GMO foods! Sometimes the natural order of things needs to be cherished.

The report said the GMO corn & crops that were made to be resistant to Round Up weed killer and therefore round up was sprayed on those crops to control weeds have now produced "super weeds" that are resistant to round up.

Now there is a good reason and you're 100% correct. When you spray 100,000 plants with round-up, one or two might survive. Unless you go pull those plants up, the next 100,000 you spray 20 or so will survive. Eventually it just stops being worth the time and money. It also happens with insects and insecticides that we use. DDT, before it was banned, was losing its potency through overuse. As usual, the best approach is the most robust. Relying on a single solution just leads to a bigger problem later.

And of course both the GMO seeds and Round Up are manufactured by Monsanto, go figure!

But of course. It is no coincidence. Why sell you one thing when they can sell you two things for twice the price?

So just as bacteria and germs are smart enough to morph into antibiotic resistant, the weeds are as well.

Scientists call it "evolution." And it can be a real pain in the lower backside when you try to work against it! Life does what's best for the bacteria/plant/insect species, not what's best for the humans.

Exactly why we need to change our thinking across the board, we take the easiest cheapest route no matter what. hence the overuse of antibiotics. There are many times that our bodies can fight the sniffles we end up at the doctors office for. But we want a drug. Same with farming and anything else, it needs to be a multi system approach.

Monsanto is like every large greedy company!

@jessica

You're right for the part about round-up resistance emerging. I grew up on a farm and still help my dad out a lot, and I remember that same situation happening. What you are wrong about is the increase in weed growth rate. If anything, they grow more slowly now from what I've seen (the weeds in areas that have been sprayed for years). This is normal for any kind of resistance. You trade off efficiency for the ability to survive. I did a quick search for studies on the fitness of glyphosate resistant plants, and it appears that this resistance does indeed lower the plants fitness (basically overall health and growth rate). Here is the study, although I read the abstract only as I didn't want to pay for the whole article- Resistance to glyphosate from altered herbicide translocation patterns, C Preston, AM Wakelin - Pest management science, 2007 - Wiley Online Library

As for 'no other way to control them', I never personally witnessed such a thing. There are many herbicides out there, and many companies make herbicides specifically designed to replace/complement other herbicides. It's pricey, and nobody likes paying all that extra, but what can I say? Its business and so far it has provided a new alternative every time some resistance pops up. I am only familiar with resistance among wheat though.

As pragmatic pointed out (excellent comments by the way), bacteria, weeds, and other things do not 'think' their way to achieve resistance. It is simply a matter of statistics that out of millions of weeds, bacteria, or whatever you are observing, some will have spontaneous mutations encoding resistance to the herbicide/pesticide/antibiotic, whatever.

The increase in resistant weeds is and was expected. Don't let anybody fool you. Monsanto might act as though it is an unfortunate development, and anti-GMO people might laud it as the bane of genetic modification, but it was frankly quite obvious that it was going to happen from the beginning. It doesn't have much to do with a failure of science so much as it does with success of business. They got their money. They still get money. They are making even more money as farmers now add in extra herbicide complements. Greedy? Yes. Whacky, dangerous science? No.

Although I might not be able to convince you, GMO's are not that bad. There is tweaking to be done for sure, but I don't see a realistic alternative with our growing population.

Realstic alternative? So you mean to tell me that other countries that have banned the use of GMO's are somehow going to run out of food since they don't use GMO seeds? Just grow normal food, it does not seem that difficult to me.

Cancer has always been around, it isn't new. Diabetes is rampant because people are fatter. People are fatter because we are richer and people don't have to work as hard as in the past. Heart disease is also related to obesity. I bet you don't give your kids immunizations either?

I am pretty sure you meant:

One of the reasons that Americans are so sick with diet-related illnesses such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, obesity is because our doctors Americans are not trained in nutrition and/or wellness and they hardly equate what you put into your digestive tract with your health. Please. Do not listen to these misguided glorified drug dealers we call doctors Internet Commentators in our society- not when it comes to matters of food or nutrition anyhow. anything.

Agree, asking a doctor about nutrition is like asking a literature major about geology because they took a class on geology of national parks (like me.)

Doctors learn about pathology and how to kill organisms.

Anyway, the headline is dangerous. Babies should not be fed poison.

you don't think we are fatter & diabetic because of what we are eating? Everything is processed crap! eat whole foods, poeple, with ingredients you can pronounce.

This is about nutrition. And by the way, organic food has pesticides on it too.

BULLS HIT. I grow organically and use organic herbicides and pesticides around my home. Not ONE of them has toxic ingredients unless next you're gonna tell me that NEEM OIL, SOYBEAN OIL, PEPPERMINT OIL, WHITE VINEGAR, CASTILE SOAP, BORAX and FOOD GRADE DIATOMACEOUS EARTH are now toxic. What a load of crap.. you can CONSUME every one of these ( w/exception of the Borax).

gemini618 -- Pragmatic keeps telling us that some natural substances are toxic. Yes, natural substances like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc. are very toxic. All of those substances were used in the past for commercial products and due to consumer vigilance have now been replaced by other less toxic substances. Most of us get it, and we get the fact that the study's hypothesis is irrelevant because pro-organic consumers know that lack of pesticides doesn't mean increased vitamin content. It's about replacing the current generation of toxins with healthier alternatives and rewarding the farmers who do that.

I'll bet you $10,000 ( a la Myth RMoney ) that ole PRAG is a rightwinger too. They live in a constant state of denial in a parallel universe.

They always seem to miss the point, too. And maybe he doesn't want to see his Monsanto stock go down.

I grow organically and use organic herbicides and pesticides around my home. Not ONE of them has toxic ingredients

That's great and I applaud your efforts. But you can't speak for the stuff others buy in the supermarket. Unless it is specified on the packaging, you don't know what organic pesticides are being used.

It's about replacing the current generation of toxins with healthier alternatives and rewarding the farmers who do that.

And part of what people like me are doing is emphasizing that we don't replace something toxic for something else toxic but call it okay because it's "natural."

I'll bet you $10,000 ( a la Myth RMoney ) that ole PRAG is a rightwinger too. They live in a constant state of denial in a parallel universe.

They always seem to miss the point, too. And maybe he doesn't want to see his Monsanto stock go down.

No Monsanto stock, long time left-leaning, and an Obama supporter for 2012. Sorry guys.

You don't listen when I say buy whatever you want. You don't listen when I tell you there may be toxic things in organic produce. You won't seek information that doesn't confirm your own emotional bias and will accuse those who challenge that bias of shilling. You're completely missing the point. You're pulling the wool over your eyes and sticking your finger in your ears. I've been nothing but cordial to everybody, providing information you all didn't have (or want to have), and you haven't shown me an ounce of respect in return.

Organic farming isn't always the local farmer whom you can converse with anymore. It's a billion dollar industry. If you care about what you consume (and it is obvious you do) you shouldn't be shy about asking questions. Just because some big company slaps a green label on a box doesn't mean it is going to be better for you. You're paying a premium for the kind of food you buy, you ought to make sure you're getting your money's worth. End rant.

Additional rant:

If you do ingest something toxic, it won't check your feelings or beliefs before it harms you. Your only defense is information. If you won't let information penetrate your emotional beliefs, you're only putting yourself at risk. Shouting "BOO! MONSANTO SHILL!" will protect your feelings but won't protect your body.

to E. Webster - "...foods soaked in pesticides." Please provide substantive evidence for your "soaking" comment. Personally, I find it rather ridiculous and unwarranted hyperbole that eschews reality. In your life have you ever farmed to produce food? I sincerely doubt it.

Organic food is soaked in pesticides too. That's just a silly notion. One of them is Bt toxin, the same kind that is produced by GMO crops.

Pragmatic -- You say you're a biologist. The fact you won't even consider conventional pesticides as dangerous and think it's safe to eat Monsanto-engineered do-it-yourself-pesticide frankenfood tells us who pays your salary.

It's also a fact that doctors receive almost no training in nutrition in medical school but they get plenty of training in pharmacology and how treat symptoms instead of preventing disease in the first place. They're also exposed to drug company sales people on a regular basis and indoctrinated that anything engineered by a science lab is better than anything natural.

You say you're a biologist. The fact you won't even consider conventional pesticides as dangerous

I'll consider some as harmful, but I won't commit the fallacy of composition. That is "some pesticides are harmful therefore all pesticides are harmful." That's not sound reasoning.

think it's safe to eat Monsanto-engineered do-it-yourself-pesticide frankenfood tells us who pays your salary.

Take off your tin foil hat. Why drag my employer (a small start-up not even in the business of agriculture) into it unless you're emotionally wrapped up in the type of food you buy? I'm not accusing you of being a part of "big organic" which is far bigger than most consumers are willing to consider. I also don't care if you buy organic. I'm just trying to tell you if you're getting it for any reason but helping the Earth, you're only pulling the wool over your own eyes.

The jury isn't in on GMO, either. In fact, as time goes by, there are more studies coming out questioning the safety of GMO.

I don't have a tin-foil hat, just an open mind, and I'm suspicious of any study that refutes the obvious, doesn't list who funded it, comes out at election time, and at the same helps agribusiness/corporations make even more money.

The jury is NOT "still out " on GMOs . Where were you when the studies were released a few weeks ago with ABSOLUTE PROOF that GMOS cause cancer, tumors and organ failure ? I suggest you read the article and then watch the ACTUAL DOCUMENTARY of the actual study.

http://truththeory.com/2012/09/21/gmos-cause-cancer-french-study-shows-horrific-result-of-gmo-consumption/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeW5yUSqdhY

In agreement,

The jury isn't in on GMO, either. In fact, as time goes by, there are more studies coming out questioning the safety of GMO.

So which is the unsafe part, the DNA or the organic pesticide it produces? I know from my work that the humans eat DNA every day without an issue. Any time you eat anything that was once alive. So that excludes salt and sterile water.

I don't have a tin-foil hat, just an open mind, and I'm suspicious of any study that refutes the obvious, doesn't list who funded it, comes out at election time, and at the same helps agribusiness/corporations make even more money.

You're also suspicious of anybody who does their research. I'm all for some healthy informed skepticism too, by the way. Which is why I'm skeptical of anybody who promotes organic food as healthier/more nutritious/better tasting/whatever else. I call it what it is: food grown under a different set of conditions that costs more. Nothing more, nothing less.

gemini,

Where were you when the studies were released a few weeks ago with ABSOLUTE PROOF that GMOS cause cancer, tumors and organ failure ?

I'll repeat something I said earlier here because it is relevant. A thing can't cause cancer, cancer (tumors), organ failure, and be so widespread. You'd know several people who this happened to. And it's worth again pointing out that the pesticide produced by GMO crops is considered organic when it's sprayed on by a farmer.

Thought you both might like to know that the dominant insecticide sprayed on crops are a class of chemical called pyrethrin. It can be synthetic or naturally extracted from flowers. The extract is used on organic food. The synthetic on non-organic food. The synthetic has the potential to be more toxic, but the whole class of compounds is easy broken up by stomach acid. Something to Google if you're curious.

gemini618 -- I'm with you on this one. I avoid GMOs and think they're partially responsible for the obesity epidemic as well, especially GMO wheat and corn. The way I worded it was downplayed a little. You got the point across better than I did.

Better safe than sorry. There is simply no reason to ingest foods treated with pesticides, growth hormones, or anythng not naturally present. It is that simple.

End of argument.

Better safe than sorry. There is simply no reason to ingest foods treated with pesticides, growth hormones, or anythng not naturally present. It is that simple.

Natural things cause cancer and harm you. The number one cause of skin cancer is the sun. 100% natural. Once again, you need to make sure that whatever harmful thing you're substituting isn't also harmful. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's harmless.

If you're playing it safe with organics, I'm suggesting you ask more questions.

"Organic" is just a buzz word for a niche industry. They charge higher prices, use similar pesticides (yes they may be organic, but organic pesticides are still poisons to people and cause various cancers), have a lower cost to yield ratio which makes their business model less sustainable. This leads to people making uninformed decisions, adds new layers of inefficiency to the supply chain, and pushes up the cost of food all across the board. The packaging is misleading, the way organic is defined is disingenuousness, and most of the larger "organic" producers are owned and operated or subsidiaries of big corporate players - not small local growers as many people seem to think.

Plain and simple, the use of the word "organic" is nothing more than a well played marketing gimmick.

Im 68 and I remember when I was a kid,both of my grandfathers use to spray there crops with DDT.We would WASH the veggies and fruit and eat them.My grandparants lived close to 90 and NEVER had organic!My family and I NEVER buy organic either! Some organic is a RIPOFF!! No way could pestisides penitrate banana skins or corn husks to contaminate the fruit and seeds!Even nuts are protected by the hard shell and the fruit! People on organics and all those SUPPLAMENT CRAP think they will live forever or at least longer than us non organic. That's bullcrap!!

Big Ag is also a leading cause of Americans being so doggone fat !

No one has claimed Organic food is more nutritious.

Oh yes they have. Also out there is that it is tastier (a subjective experience), free of pesticides (not true), free of herbicides (not true), free of fertilizers (not true), free of hormones (true), free of genetic modification (true).

I'm grateful to live in a nation where we can be picky about our food and fret over getting cancer at an old age. I don't have to worry about some preventable disease killing me before I turn 6.

People are fatter and food allergies continue to rise.

People are fatter because they're eating more food and doing less. A soda used to be an occasional thing, not a staple of every meal. And it used to be 8 oz, not 20 oz. Food allergies are rising but it's been linked to natural proteins, not GMO ingredients. A little knowledge will set you free.

Consume organic food all you like. But do it to support local agriculture (which most organic food is not any more) and support sustainable farming practices. That's the reason to eat organic. Not for the false reasons.

I believe that pesticides, etc., are a recent development. Remind me which start up company you have so I'll be sure not to get involved nor support it in anyway. Anyone who believes all this sh-- that these chemicals that pharma/chemical companies sells, produces, etc. are good for you, just listen or read the side effects.

This country is drug crazy, pesticide use also, although many people are trying to change that. I guess the "farmers", who didn't used to use pesticides, but now do are out in full force, supporting their poison. As far as family history living into their 90's, yeah, they didn't used to use these pesticides. Anyone who believes the Monsanto story must also know about their complete hardball tactics of intimidation and lawsuits to "keep people in line".

So now you have giant, rip-off, drug addict pharma, with its side effects of stroke, heart attack, etc.,and giant agri farms, putting profit over health; what's new. Yeah, this "study" came out before, it's amazingly bad that's it's here again. I'll buy organic, because it's a return to when food was grown essentially without these poisons, and I'll try to stay away from any designer drugs as they keep showing up on class-actions for death, disability, and afflictions.

The U.S. has the 7th highest cancer rate in the world. Pesticides are poison, duh.

"Hey Boss, these veggies look done for; should I send 'em over to the soup kitchen?' "No ...just label them organic...yuppies will buy them."

How can food that the authors admit “may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria” also be no more or less healthy than foods that don’t?

Because you're starting from the premise that pesticides or antibiotic resistant bacteria are automatically harmful. Not all bacteria are harmful. Not all pesticides are harmful.

How did Stanford miss this? By misspelling a critical class of nutrients found in produce that changed the results of the research: flavonols.

Every journal article I read says that flavonols are non-nutritive. Indeed, if you follow the metabolism in the body, it's just broken down for energy. Vitamin C, on the other hand, has a nutritive purpose and is not utilized for energy. I think Stanford scientists probably know a bit more about what they are doing than you do, no offense.

But the truth is this: organic farming is better for the earth and better for us.

You're half right. It's better for the Earth.

How can I help but accept the word of an "expert"!

Then, if you have so much faith in what you read, you eat the pesticides and let me know how that works out for you when you turn 50 or 60 years of age.

Better yet, encourage your family members to eat those foods as you are so sure it's safe to eat!

How can I help but accept the word of an "expert"!

Accept it or don't. I'm not in control of what you think. I'm trying to give you the information you lack.

Better yet, encourage your family members to eat those foods as you are so sure it's safe to eat!

My 97 year old grandmother has slight hearing loss but is otherwise able to get around, is sharp as a whip, and going strong. My parents, both in their 60's, are doing just fine. Thanks for asking. All of these folks have been eating food since before there were such a thing as "organic food." And even after it was a consumer option, they opted not to buy it because it was more expensive or unavailable.

Your 97 year old grandmother did not have to buy organic food because when she was young, food was grown on family farms and in back yards, and pesticides did not exist. The "expensive" argument holds little water. You can easily afford organic "whole" food if you pass on the stuff in cans and boxes and prepare your own.

Your 97 year old grandmother did not have to buy organic food because when she was young, food was grown on family farms and in back yards, and pesticides did not exist.

Let me excerpt Wikipedia on this one.

By the 15th century, toxic chemicals such as arsenic, mercury and lead were being applied to crops to kill pests. In the 17th century, nicotine sulfate was extracted from tobacco leaves for use as an insecticide. The 19th century saw the introduction of two more natural pesticides, pyrethrum, which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone, which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables.^[64] Until the 1950s, arsenic-based pesticides were dominant.

I think we're better off now than we were 97 years ago, even with non-organic pesticides. No nicotine or arsenic is definitely a good thing.

How much money does Stanford get from Monsanto and what possible qualification do you have to judge competency of Tobacco-industry scientists?

"Inserted DNA" does not contain any pesticides. Go back to school and get your GED before writing garbage!

Joe,

Your incorrect, the inserted DNA is not a pesticide it causes the organism to produce a chemical that kills the insects that eat it. If this is not a pesticide then what is? You need better education, I already have mine and probably a lot more than you.

Monsanto is the true evil empire. Seriously, some of the things they are responsible for are reprehensible. And politicians from both side of the aisle are in their pocket.

You can take that statement to the bank...I've been a certified organic producer for years...it all boils down to this...to eat the toxins, or not to eat the toxins. Seems like a no brainer to me............

I've searched all over for research that supports that toxins, pesticides, insecticides and all other chemicals are a benefit to health.. so far I haven't one ounce of research that state that those things are better for you than not having them.

Of course that's because a moron believes it's better to eat chemicals than to not eat them.

Maureen, do you use Bt toxin? That's what a lot of GMO crops make with their new DNA.

Steve, quite right. Grow your own food and don't put anything on it. That's the only way to avoid any pesticide, even organic pesticides.

These "pediatricians" should be arrested for crimes against humanity. This article is pure propaganda. Conventionally grown foods are more likely to contain genetically modified organisms, that have been shown in study after study throughout the world to be harmful. Have these "doctors" not reviewed the exponential increases in childhood cancers, food allergies and chronic diseases that are killing our children???

This propaganda should be seen for what it is, a crime.

Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that "conventionally grown foods" contain less nutrients than they did 25 yrs ago? That's because the pesticides, and modified genetic makeup disrupts the plants ability to absorb them from the soil. So when you it that garbage, you think you are getting something "nutritious" but in fact, you are slowly starving yourself to death.

Saw this on the Bill Maher show the other day.

Lets get out there and vote my people.

Damn,as a new user I could not post a link.

This was a short discussion with Gary Hirshberg on GMO labeling,prop 37,

just google it,very disturbing stuff.