I don't see the correlation between your references and the OP. I don't have any clinical trials to link but I'm pretty sure it's safe to eat organic produce.

... seems to be suggesting that the primary benefit of organic food is the presence of antioxidants.

There does not seem to be any benefit to eating antioxidants. In fact, it's contraindicated for lung cancer victims.

I won't argue with the idea that a pesticide which isn't safe for human consumption shouldn't be on your food. I just don't like the buzz around anti-oxidants. The large, well conducted studies on the matter have found no health benefit.

... when you consume them in food.

Do you have a study like that?

I assume you have google too.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9698642
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/145/1/33.short
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/4/923.short
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/5/391.short
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np9904509
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/2/362.short
http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/3/218.short
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/3/223.short

Almost everyone one of them uses that phrase.

"Food consumption during the previous year was estimated using a dietary history interview"

That means that they ask you what you ate at the end of the year, or the the three year period. These studies have been shown to be problematic.

"... was assessed from seven day household food inventories ... "

Also problematic. People throw food away. That's how we were overestimated saturated fat intake and (possibly incorrectly) blamed it for heart problems. People were trimming away the way and discarding it, but "food inventory" said that people were averaging a lot of fat intake.

The lycopene study showed that eating tomatoes reduced prostate cancer risk. That was a well done study, but doesn't mention anti-oxidants generally.

One of the studies is comparing flavonoid intake to cardiovascular risk, not anti-oxidants to cancer risk.

The second link's abstract:
Intakes of beta-carotene, vitamins C and E, and flavonoids were not inversely associated with cognitive impairment or decline. This study raises the possibility that high linoleic acid intake is positively associated with cognitive impairment and high fish consumption inversely associated with cognitive impairment.

Correlations have been, sort of, vaguely, indicated. Studies where we specifically alter people's diets and find out if that improves things have not been as successful.

I am not stating that there is rock solid evidence that flavenoids are beneficial. But one of the linked articles seems to have found compelling evidence of such, and I am referring to the nature of your refutation of that article. Your implication seems to be that since the benefit being discussed is cardiovascular risk rather than cancer, the article is outside the subject area of this discussion. However that makes no sense; flavenoids are one of the compounds mentioned in the original news article. No claim is made as to the nature of the health benefit that they may provide.

In your first post (I believe), *you* referenced a link to antioxidant substances and cancer benefits--or rather the lack thereof, but that does not preclude other health benefits, nor does it constrain the ability of others to point out evidence for those benefits. As such, I'm not sure why you added to your otherwise seemingly logical illumination of the above studies' limitations, the irrelevant point that one of the studies referenced addressed cardiovascular risk rather than cancer risk. No one asserted that effects on cancer risks were the only effects being discussed, and as I recall cardiovascular problems cause more deaths than cancers do. If flavenoids can be shown to have a positive effect on cardiovascular risk, and if flavenoids are more prevalent in certain organic foods, then there public health case to be made for their consumption.

If they are healthier, that's just an added benefit.

Quick! Where's a snarky comment or smilie I can post!?

Huh?


Obligatory note to jury: this is obvious sarcasm.

If they are healthier, it's an added benefit. Is the better taste is only in our heads? Who cares? Our garden looks like a weed patch, but the tomatoes, lettuce and cucumbers taste great.

even when a vegetable is tweaked to raise the sugar content (corn, tomatoes - In those cases, I have to believe that the sugar is replacing something that is better for you!)

Think about it - taste and smell are our methods of detecting chemicals. It seems to me that we've evolved to prefer more flavor, which is why we use so many spices that themselves have health benefits.

When we measure nutritional values, all we are doing is measuring the levels of chemicals that we know about. For example, if we don't actively measure Vitamin C levels, we'd have no idea that oranges have a higher level than ice cream.

The vitamins and minerals we know enough about to look for were generally found as a result of acute diseases brought about by a total absence (pellagra, beriberi). Now we are finding entire classes of chemicals (Omege-3, Omega 6)which have long term effects on health. It's an area of active research and there is a lot of controversy out there. It may never be possible to isolate each chemical and determine its role simply because of the complexity and expense involved (not to mention the interplay among chemicals)!

For now, eat lots of plants, eat moderately, avoid processed foods.

But in my local supermarket, a dozen eggs were $1.49 for conventional and $3.99 for cage-free, organic.

THat markup is insane.

I have a strict $40/week grocery budget and organic does not fit it.

if the study was to try to convince the non-believers that eating food grown without toxic chemicals is better than food grown with toxic chemicals, it failed because you aren't going to change anyone's mind that doesn't already think that organic food is better. And Faux news will probably tell them the opposite.

Organics is anti science. Some one already wrote an article that organics don't offer any benefits over conventional food. Also the study is flawed because it is not done by Monsanto.

I have yet to find any benefits that GMO offer that organics don't, apart from cost.

And if everyone started planting organically, the supply would go up and the costs come down. Costs are always more expensive on 'niche' items.

but organic food is definitely safer for insects that consume it.

analyze the cost. Unless one grows their own, all organic food is usually a third more expensive than non, and only a small part of the population can afford organic foods.

But that does not change what the OP is saying. Has nothing to do with it.

but the salient point is: people can't afford the food the OP is touting. It's a moot point for a lot of people. That's what it had to do with OP. Like a lot of people, "yes, it is a problem" does not lower cost for the people who can really benefit, children and poorer folks. Better off folks, 1%ers and the upper middle class wannabe's could give a damn less that poorer folks are stuck in the cycle of monsanto grown foods, mcDonalds and burger king.

is pointing out that it is better. If this fact is not publicized, nothing will be done about the cost and availability and the GMO's win - sort of like presidential candidates, it is better than the alternative - in this case, starving.
I can't afford much in the way of organic food - I am living on social security. But I feel that if enough people know to try and buy organic, maybe costs will come down. And, really, now that I am attempting to buy organic or at least non-GMO, no corn, no soy, no wheat, no processed crap - I skip buying a lot of absolute crap and maybe I was spending too much on food I did not need.

We can't get out of the cycle if we say or do nothing. Maybe stores will stock more organic stuff, higher demand, more growers, lower prices. Might as well at least try!

Heh, maybe Monsanto et. al. will go organic!

for decades.

From the study:

"detected significantly higher concentrations of total carbohydrates and significantly lower concentrations of proteins, amino acids and fibre in organic crops/crop-based compound foods"

It must have less protein because it's real and natural.

What on earth are the poor sheeple consumers to do other than go back to
the good old GM-enhanced, factory-farmed, antibiotic-rich crap that makes
so much money for all those honest corporations?

for my organics. Always knew it tastes better that's for sure.

Right wing- "If the science doesn't agree with (our interpretation of) the Bible, it's a hoax/satanic/communist/nazi!"

Left wing-"If the science doesn't agree with 'Natural News,' it's Monsanto/corporate shill/nazi!"

foods section?

Hmm...