On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT), maxine >
wrote:

>On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>
>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>
>I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
>conventional. It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
>fertilizers involved in their growth that make me consider organic
>the more interesting of the two options.
>
>maxine in ri

Agreed. As a small farmer who uses no insecticides, I think the
greatest reason to urge organic is that the enormous fields of crop
that are routinely sprayed with nasty pesticides are really ruinous to
the earth---for a really long time. I admit I don't always buy
organic, but if it's about the same cost, I do. (COSTCO has some
really good organic hamburger- in one pound sizes, that I do prefer,
and when I see it, I buy plenty.)

So organic is good for the soil, more so apparently than it is for
human nutrition.

aloha,
Cea