On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:49:35 -1000, pure kona > wrote:

>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 you're saying the beef was organic? Did the farmer not inoculate his herd
from diseases?