On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:00:40 -0500, FliedLice > wrote:

>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?

Basically, Yes.
http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/OrganicBeef.html

Ross.