Organic Versus Conventional Produce - What Does The Science Say?

The BP diet recommends Organic produce over Conventional. I've held this as a belief myself, but, have recently been challenged on it by one of my clients. So want to look further into primary research sources to ensure I'm coming from an evidence based place and not from Dogma.


 


My clients assertion is that the science does not show any statistically significant differences in Vitamin/Mineral content for Organic versus Conventional. I've found a number of studies now on the topic some which point to a difference others which do not. Is this still an open question as far as the science is concerned? If so a strong recommendation for Organic over Conventional would seem premature.


 


The other area my client has challenged me on is soil quality of Organic versus Conventional. He claims Organic farming uses Copper Sulphate which is very bad for the soil and that there are also big issues with Tiling. Additionally, on the question of toxicity due to the chemicals used, he claims that Organic farming may use different chemicals to conventional, but, much of the stuff they use is old school chemicals and equally as toxic. I would be interested in finding some primary research which looks at soil health in Organic farming versus Conventional + also some research on a comparison of toxicity levels in produce from both methods. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Comments

  • steve001steve001
    edited August 2016

    If your wanting to avoid GMOs and glyphosate, choose organic. If you live outside the united states its less of an issue but there still is a risk.


  • kered9kered9
    edited August 2016

    'Science does not show' is a pretty poor assertion right alongside 'there is no scientific evidence'. I normally end a conversation when someone pulls that kind of line. Everythingis an open question as far as science is concerned, the only time you perceive science as having the answer is when the most influential people decide to support that result. Unfortunately the health of the peasants isn't always in mind when they make this choice.


     


    What you eat is what it eats. Minerals and Vitamins don't magikally appear in vegetables, the primary factor here is not organic vs GMO. The big bad guy to dodge is sterile soil I think. While organic may not always be what we think it is, it has a higher chance of having better soil quality.




  • 'Science does not show' is a pretty poor assertion right alongside 'there is no scientific evidence'. I normally end a conversation when someone pulls that kind of line. Everythingis an open question as far as science is concerned, the only time you perceive science as having the answer is when the most influential people decide to support that result. Unfortunately the health of the peasants isn't always in mind when they make this choice.


     


    What you eat is what it eats. Minerals and Vitamins don't magikally appear in vegetables, the primary factor here is not organic vs GMO. The big bad guy to dodge is sterile soil I think. While organic may not always be what we think it is, it has a higher chance of having better soil quality.




     


    Could you please back that statement up with empirical data? Im interested in this discussion.


     




    The BP diet recommends Organic produce over Conventional. I've held this as a belief myself, but, have recently been challenged on it by one of my clients. So want to look further into primary research sources to ensure I'm coming from an evidence based place and not from Dogma.


     


    My clients assertion is that the science does not show any statistically significant differences in Vitamin/Mineral content for Organic versus Conventional. I've found a number of studies now on the topic some which point to a difference others which do not. Is this still an open question as far as the science is concerned? If so a strong recommendation for Organic over Conventional would seem premature.


     


    The other area my client has challenged me on is soil quality of Organic versus Conventional. He claims Organic farming uses Copper Sulphate which is very bad for the soil and that there are also big issues with Tiling. Additionally, on the question of toxicity due to the chemicals used, he claims that Organic farming may use different chemicals to conventional, but, much of the stuff they use is old school chemicals and equally as toxic. I would be interested in finding some primary research which looks at soil health in Organic farming versus Conventional + also some research on a comparison of toxicity levels in produce from both methods. Any help would be greatly appreciated.





    Here is a good article on this subject of the copper sulphate being used -


     


    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/myths-busted-clearing-up-the-misunderstandings-about-organic-farming/

  • Sorn I don't understand your request.


     


    Are you asking for empirical data supporting the peer controlled nature of the scientific community, or for empirical data supporting my statement that the composition of vegetables isn't magikal? If either of these is what you seek, then no.


Sign In or Register to comment.