Food Standards, eh?

July 31, 2009

The Food Standards Agency wants to help you make an “informed choice” about your food. They’ve put together a study, comparing the nutritional value of organic versus non-organic food. Of course, calling it a study is a little misleading. They’ve read other people’s studies, and have parsed out the answer: there’s little nutritional benefit to organic food. Of course, “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences,” so it’s easy to see how they came to that conclusion.

Oh, and they didn’t think it was important to consider the effects of eating pesticides, many of which are carcinogenic. Thanks, Food Standards Agency; I could have made a terrible environmentally conscious decision if you hadn’t opened my eyes (again)! Eat on

Via BBC

Entry Filed under: Food. Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Leave a Comment

hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Tags

100 mile diet activism Apple Arts community Conservation consume less cow Craft design drought proof planting energy environment Ethical food fertilizer Food garden grass Green Grey Water Collection Harvest heros Inspiration Living London Ontario Organic peppers permaculture Pest Control philanthropy planting Plants science seed starting sheep Slow food solar Sustainability tomatoes Upcycling Urban Foraging Urban Homestead Water whitehouse

Craft Links

Food and Gardening

Friends and Allies