On Jul 31, 5:00*pm, 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?

Organic meat comes from animals that are fed their "natural" diet with
no antibiotics or hormones. Natural for a cow or sheep would be grass
fed, not finished off with corn and soy. It's a bit riskier for the
farmer who grows the animals, since illness will cull his herd and can
sometimes wipe them out, but the animals are healthier and need less
meds if they are not cooped up in a feed lot or forced to grow
rapidly. E coli is less of a concern as well, since the animals have
not been standing knee deep in manure for their last few weeks.

maxine in ri