organic food

[philh 0]

Are we being ripped off on organic food? I had a bit of a google search and found this:

1
From uk gov food standard agency:
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2003/jun/cheltenham
In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which
concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food. The Consumers’ Association in its report in Which? magazine for May 2003 concludes that there is 'no consensus' on reports linking organic foods to health benefits.

2
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Evidence_of_the_benefits_of_organic_food

The potential health effects of minute quantities of pesticide residues described in the evidence of benefits section are subject to debate. Modern
analytical chemistry is capable of detecting such small quantities of a substance that the meaning of a positive result is difficult to interpret, and many scientists think that such residues are without effect.[31] Pesticides are subjected to a battery of tests before they can be approved by the EPA and "residue tolerances" are established above which produce containing these tolerances cannot be sold. It should also be kept in mind that all substances are toxic at some level.[32] In fact Professors Lois Swirsky Gold and Bruce Ames have shown that 50% of all natural chemicals in food gave a positive test as a carcinogen when tested in rodents, casting doubt on the validity of the test
methods.[33]The author Thomas DeGregori argues that at the heart of the organic food movement are feelings of anti-technology and anti-modern science[34] and points out that it is modern science, after all, that has increased the life expectancy of many people and helps to feed the world's growing population.


3

From a conference form the American Chemical Society http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pro.html?id=c373e9fe9f15cae18f6a17245d830100



Kava’s literature study revealed that neither organic nor conventional foods consistently won out in the nutrient content competition. Often, differences
were small compared with the recommended daily intake of a given nutrient. Small sample sizes often contributed to statistical uncertainty.



4
From the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/906530.stm



Independent scientific tests, commissioned by the BBC, found that onventionally grown carrots were free of pesticides. Scientists at the Eclipse Scientific Group laboratory in Cambridgeshire extensively tested carrots that they had bought anonymously from British supermarkets.

Three types were examined for pesticide and chemical residues. The carrots tested were: an organic British carrot, an organic carrot from abroad and a conventionally grown carrot.
The tests, for more than 40 different pesticide residues known to be associated with carrot production, were negative for all three. Nigel Gillis of the Eclipse Scientific Group said: "I think the public will be very surprised.
"Their perception of organic carrots is that they have no pesticides and conventional carrots are riddled with them.
"We've shown with this test that that's not the case."
Sir John added: "I think the organic industry relies on image and that image is one that many consumers clearly want to sign up to. "However, I do think they should be aware of what they're getting when they pay quite a substantial premium in the shops."

5 http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Ornamental%20Pesticide%20Bans-green0603.pdf

Compare the HERP INDEX(a measure of carcinogency) of caffeince in coffee with pesticicde

Caffeine in coffee: 0 .1

Difiocol ( a pesticide) .00002



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/258/5080/261



Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities

LS Gold, TH Slone, BR Stern, NB Manley, and BN Ames

Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, CA 94720.



The human diet contains an enormous background of natural chemicals, such as plant pesticides and the products of cooking, that have not been a focus of carcinogenicity testing. A broadened perspective that includes these natural chemicals is necessary. A comparison of possible hazards for 80 daily
exposures to rodent carcinogens from a variety of sources is presented, using an index (HERP) that relates human exposure to carcinogenic potency in
rodents. A similar ordering would be expected with the use of standard risk assessment methodology for the same human exposure values. Results indicate that, when viewed against the large background of naturally occurring carcinogens in typical portions of common foods, the residues of synthetic pesticides or environmental pollutants rank low. A similar result is obtained in a separate comparison of 32 average daily exposures to natural
pesticides and synthetic pesticide residues in the diet. Although the findings do not indicate that these natural dietary carcinogens are important in human cancer, they cast doubt on the relative importance for human cancer of low-dose exposures to synthetic chemicals.



6.

From the NEW SCIENTIST http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19225744.900-theres-not-much-thats-special-in-organic-wheat.html



If organic food really is healthier for you, it almost certainly has nothing to do with its nutritional content. A study comparing wheat grown
organically and conventionally found that chemically they were virtually indistinguishable.
"Out of 55 metabolites, only five were statistically different in content," says Christian Zörb of the Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food in
Detmold, Germany, who led the study team. "Even for those, the difference was less than double between the organic and conventional wheat, and none is known to alter taste or nutritional quality."





.

[wmw999 2,532]

One thing I'm sure of is that organic food is less likely to cause downstream rivers to end up toxic. I don't buy everything organic, but I am trying to up my quotient for exactly that reason. Just as I try to buy free range eggs and meat whenever possible.

I can imagine that carrots, being a root vegetable, wouldn't show a whole lot of influence of pesticides . Kind of like saying that rain isn't a problem because people indoors are dry. Or something like that.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SpeedRacer 1]

I don't remember anyone claiming that organically-grown food is more nutritious, so I don't think anyone's getting "ripped off."

Regarding carcinogens, there are plenty of these in the natural environment. Some trees for example, secrete herbicides to prevent other plants growing near them & sucking up nutrients. And these natural herbicides can be just as carcinogenic as the "artificial" ones.

People live longer nowadays, so they're more likely to die of cancer than say, dysentery or respiratory disease (the most common causes of death in previous centuries) In spite of this trend, there is one type of cancer that has gone steadily DOWN over the last century: Stomach Cancer. Which is still common in 3rd world countries, but much less common in developed countries.

Improvements in food cleanliness, storage, and refrigeration have actually rendered the modern food supply LESS carcinogenic than ever in history.

But it isn't the politically-trendy thing to say nowadays.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[philh 0]

I wonder if the toxicity levels you mention are actually significant or not. After all the impression is definitley created that organic food is better for you and that seems to be wrong. I agree abut buying free range eggs but thats so chickens have better conditons. Im a veggie so think its best not to eat meat at all.

As regards the carrots, that was just one example the same is repeated amongst many other food groups, I think that implies a consistent trend.

[billvon 3,067]

1) Organic food is not "more nutritious" or anything. No one ever claimed it was.

2) Organic food typically has fewer pesticides, antibiotics and artificial hormones in it.

3) Organic food causes much less impact to the environment near where the food is grown/raised.

If 2) and 3) are important to you, then it might be a good choice. If not, keep buying whatever you're buying now.

[philh 0]

On 1) ive been on several web sites that exactly claim that organic food is better for you. I can dig up the links if you want. Or just google top 10 reasons to buy organic and you will find several web sites claiming that.
With respect to pesticides I think the point is the carcinogenic content of the pesticicde is lower than most people believe and that the advantage is therefore negligible. Aritificial hormones are not somehting I overly keen on but I believe its perfectly possible to avoid these without requiring organics.
As regards to the enviroment impact, I would like to see some real data on that. It may be true but even if it is the lower yields on organic farming may well outweigh that. With an expanding population and reduced space for natural habitats the world does nto need to be switching to a food source that has no health ebnefit and massivley reduced crop yields.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

On 1) ive been on several web sites that exactly claim that organic food is better for you.

it tends to be, but not because it is more nutricious. It tends to be better for you because it has less pesticides and chemicals in it.

[billvon 3,067]

>On 1) ive been on several web sites that exactly claim that organic
>food is better for you.

In many cases it IS better for you. See point 2). "Better for you" does NOT equal "more nutritious." Water is better for you than Coke - but strictly speaking Coke is more nutritious.

>With respect to pesticides I think the point is the carcinogenic
> content of the pesticicde is lower than most people believe and that
> the advantage is therefore negligible.

I think it's relatively low, but the risk is NOT zero. Organophosphates (common insecticides) build up over time, are secreted in breast milk, and high levels can lead to developmental delays, behavioral disorders and motor dysfunction. Growers/food preparers do a pretty good job of keeping pesticides off the final product, but some traces do remain - and they accumulate in human bodies.

>Aritificial hormones are not somehting I overly keen on but I believe
>its perfectly possible to avoid these without requiring organics.

?? No one's discussing requiring organics. "Organically grown" is just a good way to ensure that hormones (like rBGH) and antibiotics are not present in the food you eat. There are other ways; some non-organic milk is rBST-free as well, although you have to look for it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

there's no such thing as zero-risk food.

I'm not sure the benefits of eating "organic" food are negligible or not.

Overall, I find that the way most of the public views health risks is like that old joke about the woman who goes into an ice cream parlor & orders a triple hot fudge sundae with whipped cream & marshmallow sauce. The waiter asks her, "Do you want a cherry on top?" and she says, "Oh, no! I'm on a diet!"

It's like that with people too. You'll get some overweight guy puffing on a cigarette eating junk food in front of the TV all day, complaining about a few nanograms of additives in his food.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

One thing I'm sure of is that organic food is less likely to cause downstream rivers to end up toxic. I don't buy everything organic, but I am trying to up my quotient for exactly that reason. Just as I try to buy free range eggs and meat whenever possible.

I can imagine that carrots, being a root vegetable, wouldn't show a whole lot of influence of pesticides . Kind of like saying that rain isn't a problem because people indoors are dry. Or something like that.

I view it exactly as you stated above.

To take it further, I definitely live by the theory that the less un-natural things I put in my body the better. On the other hand, if I have a virus, I will most definitely opt for antibiotics. But there's a big difference, imo, between pesticides & prescriptions.


I will say this; I rarely get sick. The last time I had so much as a common cold was more than 4 years ago . I attribute that, be it accurately or not, to an overall healthy lifestyle that includes many organic foods.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,067]

>It's like that with people too. You'll get some overweight guy puffing on
>a cigarette eating junk food in front of the TV all day, complaining about a
>few nanograms of additives in his food.

Those aren't, generally, the people who care about rBGH, antibiotic resistance and organophosphate loads. You don't see them shopping in Whole Foods or ordering organic stuff in restaraunts. Generally, people who smoke and eat junk food all day want junk food, not organic chicken.

Besides which, if they want to improve their lives, the smoking and the inaction are much better things to tackle before they start worrying about organophosphates.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I have a virus, I will most definitely opt for antibiotics.

Why?

[PLFXpert 0]

To feel better, silly.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,067]

Uh, you do know that antibiotics don't do a thing if you have a virus, right?

[wmw999 2,532]

Antibiotics go against bacteria. They treat bacterial infections, not symptoms. Best treatment for viral infections is either antivirals (not available for colds and flu) or symptomatic.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PLFXpert 0]

I see...so he was messing with me for saying "antibiotic" instead of "antiviral" or such.

Geez, ya'll get what I meant.

I had three majors--none were science. Though, ironically all three of my degrees were classified as a "Bachelor's of Science" (even Mass-Comm)

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[hungarianchick 0]

Quote

Uh, you do know that antibiotics don't do a thing if you have a virus, right?

No, but the invasion of a virus causes increased mucus production which creates prime conditions for bacteria to grow. Now you have a bona fide bacterial infection. How do you think pneumonia and ear infection occur? The two usually go hand in hand.

Sorry for the drift

"I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food."

[billvon 3,067]

>No, but the invasion of a virus causes increased mucus production
> which creates prime conditions for bacteria to grow.

Nope. That's part of the general immune response which makes it MORE difficult for infections to take hold. Some parts of the general response:

-Increased mucus flows to flush living (and dead) bacteria from sinuses and lungs

-Inflammatory response to increase circulation to infected areas

-Increases in lymphocyte production

-Fever, which increases effectiveness of the specific response and slows the growth of some pathogens

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Sorry for the drift

Don't be...b/c I would have bet $500 that what I said wasn't necessarily incorrect. I once had what was described to me by a doctor as a virus and he prescribed me an antibiotic. Of course, he prescribed me something else too, and I forget what now; probably an anti-viral.

I can't even remember what I had as it was a long time ago. It was a really, really bad cold and I lost my voice.

I know I was given an antibiotic. I just know it.

Regardless...this is not my area of expertise. And as mentioned I rarely get sick, so the # of times I've actually been prescribed something are minimal. Ordinarily, when I'd receive a response like SkyDekker's I'd do some research before replying as it did occur to me when he said that I might have used the term incorrectly. But I was busy and like I said: I would have bet $500.

On another drift, Billy and I routinely bet each other $500. The same $500 goes back and forth all the time. Right now he's got it. I bet him $500 the other day a stop light had been there since we've lived here. He insisted it was new and he called the city right then, put the woman on speaker phone and explained he had a bet with his girlfriend about that light and knew it was a silly question, but he had to know when it was put in. He won. It had only been put in about a month ago.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[hungarianchick 0]

I didn't make it up Scroll down to viruses.

http://www.reutershealth.com/wellconnected/doc64.html

"I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food."

[billvon 3,067]

>I didn't make it up . . . .

Not saying you did. But that misconception is one reason parents are always demanding (and, sadly, often getting) antibiotics for their kid's runny noses.

A weakened immune system is indeed a problem, and opens the door to dangerous opportunistic infections. Most people do NOT have weakened immune systems; indeed, when you're fighting off your run-of-the-mill virus, your immune system is more active than normal, and it's harder for opportunistic infections to take hold.

But if someone's immune system is compromised - say, they're very old, or they have an immune system disorder, or they've been fighting some other serious disease - then they can be at risk for opportunistic infections of all sorts. These are the people who may need antibiotic prophylaxis, and the people most at risk for antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria (which is precisely why it's so important to NOT give the kid with the runny nose antibiotics.)

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

(which is precisely why it's so important to NOT give the kid with the runny nose antibiotics.)

Now, minus the terminology (antibiotics, viral, whatever) I would agree. One thing that highly interested me was biology & particularly bio-technology. I've come to realize why it's so important to be choosy to whom one prescribes various medicine to, and also why it's so important to continue taking the prescription as recommended--even if you feel better the next day.
I actually do know a lot about nutrition and supplements and various drugs. Disease is another subject all-together and quite frankly a scary one--so easily mutated and often as a result from human misunderstanding.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[diverdad 0]

Quote

Are we being ripped off on organic food?


Simple answer. YES. But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about spending the extra money then by all means spend away.


Scott

• Quote

[Nightingale 0]

I buy organic because it's better for the environment, but mostly because it tastes better. Put an organic tomato next to a regular grocery store tomato, and you can usually actually see a difference.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Bill you do know there is rBST in all milk don't you? It is naturally occurring and it's leavels are undetectable. Also many farms don't use rBST and if they do it is only on there best cows.

And as for weather or not organic is better for the environment or not can really be argued. No-till and minimum tillage farming can not exist without modern herbicides. Both minimum and no-till farming dramaticly reduce erosian and save as much as 3/4 the fuel used to produce many crops, as well as in some cases increasing yields.

Another thing I have a real problem with about organic is there total resistance to genetic modification. I'll use BT corn for example. Corn can now be raised with NO insecticides because of the implanted defense in the plant protecting it from corn boars and root worms as well as several other insects.

Just something for everyone to think about.