Annotated Blog Posts 6 – 11

Annotated Source 6: “Comparing To Organic”

Judy Foreman. “COMPARING TO ORGANIC We’d like to think pesticide-free food is better for us, but scientific proof remains elusive. ” Boston Globe 10 Nov. 2008,ProQuest National Newspapers Premier, ProQuest. Web. 2 Mar. 2010.

In this article, Judy Foreman looks at the evidence on both sides of the organic food / pesticide argument and then makes an informed analysis on what scientists have discovered so far. She concludes that there has been evidence that organic food has more nutrients than conventional foods, but there is also evidence saying that there is little difference between organic and conventional foods. So it should be more like common sense to buy organic food, since there have been traces of pesticides found in people after they eat conventional foods.

I thought that this article was very informative. Judy Foreman did a great job explaining and analyzing the different viewpoints. The only problem I saw was that, although she argued that some scientists have found no significant difference nutritionally between organic and conventional foods, she fails to prove that conventional pesticide foods can be MORE nutritious than organic food.

Annotated Source 7: “Does It Pay To Buy Organic?”

Carol Marie Cropper. “Does It Pay To Buy Organic?;. ” Business Week 6 Sep. 2004: ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web.

This article was another well informed and well written piece of literature. Cropper argues that children and pregnant women should go organic whenever possible to avoid the generally accepted harmful effects of pesticides in food, especially for reproductive and cranial organs that are still developing in infants.

I found this to be a great article for my paper. It was very informative and I liked the fact that it was backed up by research. It is also a somewhat recent article (6 yrs old) so I’m sure it’s facts are definitely valid.

I would probably ask Cropper if she believes that eating organic food is important for men, and also women who aren’t pregnant.

Annotated Source 8: “Organic Food”

David Schardt. “ORGANIC FOOD. ” Nutrition Action Health Letter 1 Jul 2007: ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web.

This article, written in the Nutrition Action Health Letter, is a fairly long article with tons of information on whether or not organic food is “worth the price”. This article uses a buttload of sources to prove its points, which I really liked. The article started off by proving that pesticide exposure is indeed harmful, and stays in the environment it was introduced into for a very long time. However, a lot of the pesticides (“almost all”) are made to metabolize through your body quickly and are not stored by your body. Furthermore, organic foods aren’t necessarily pesticide-free. Pesticides can drift and still become apparent in organic foods. However, organic foods have been proven to contain a lot less pesticides than other foods. Yet, organic foods are vulnerable to the outside world, and can become infested with E. coli and bugs. Also, there’s no good evidence proving that organic food is more nutritious.

I thought that this article was amazing. It answered a lot of my questions, and I’m pretty sure it is a very valid source because of all the scholarly references used in the article.

One question I would ask Schardt now is if there has been any more recent research as to whether or not organic food is more nutritious than conventional foods.

Annotated Source 9: “Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops for Nutrition and Health”

Magaña-Gómez, Javier A, and Ana M Calderón de la Barca. “Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health.” Nutrition Reviews 67.1 (2009): 1-16. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. EBSCO. Web.

This article assessed the risk of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health. It overviewed various studies and assessed the results from them. It also assessed the risk of “round-up ready” crops to see if it hurt various animals, such as cows or rats. It finished by stating that current evidence is very controversial, and more research is required in order to assess the risk.

I really liked this article. It used 85 references and was very informative. Although the article did not take a side as to whether or not there is a risk, it stated, “The conclusions have varied from no alteration of the nutritional value of the GM food tested, to minimal detrimental effects on the nutritional value, to in vivo submicroscopic effects in different animal species.” It seems to me that there should be a problem if you spray round-up on your crops and they don’t die. Also, we are eating that food as well.

One question I might ask the author would be, “Why is there so much controversy on this issue, and why doesn’t the company that makes all of this (Monsanto) conduct its own tests, seeing that it’s their products on the line?” A lot of this just doesn’t make sense.

Annotated Source 10: “Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence”

Magkos, Faidon, Fotini Arvaniti, and Antonis Zampelas. “Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence.” International Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrition 54.5 (2003): 357. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. EBSCO. Web.

This 16-page article was a very well-written analysis of previous research done to see if organic food or conventional food is more nutritious. This article went all the way into analyzing the different minerals and what the trends were, if any. This article also talked about differences in animals and livestock when fed organic. Through the analysis, the authors found that although there were a few “significant” differences between the two, more evidence needs to be done in order to prove these statements.

I thought that this was definitely the most in-detail report I have found. There were graphs for each different mineral, showing the trend in both organic and conventional foods. I really liked it. The one part that I thought was missing was whether or not pesticides cause harm, and if organic foods have more or less pesticide residue than conventional foods.

One question I would ask the authors would be “What fueled such an in-depth review of the evidence pertaining to finding out this information?”

Annotated Source 11: “Comparison of Mineral Concentrations in Commercially Grown Organic and Conventional Crops”

Kelly, S. D., and A. S. Bateman. “Comparison of Mineral Concentrations in Commercially Grown Organic and Conventional Crops – Tomatoes (Lycopersicon Esculentum) and Lettuces (Lactuca Sativa).” Food Chemistry. 119. 2 (2010): 738-745.

This was a study done to see if there were major differences in mineral concentrations between commercially organic and conventional crops. The study found significant differences in tomatoes, but not very much in lettuces. This was a very in-depth review, and there were many minerals discussed.

This was another great article, and should be very helpful to my essay. From what I saw, I thought that the information was well-analyzed and written, and it should be a great addition for my essay.

I would ask the author “Why do you think that there were more differences found in tomatoes than lettuce?”

Leave a Reply