'Organic has no health benefits' - says study

[demoleft]

"There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".
...
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour."

here's the reply of the Soil Association:

"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review"

(source: BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm )

still, if i could choose (and i sometimes can for some products here) i choose organic, hoping that the enforced production standards are respected.

(here's from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food)

"Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States<3> and Australia) and any non-organically produced ingredients are subject to various agricultural requirements. Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients."

ciao DUers.

[ixion]

1. ya know, let those who want to eat processed 'food' product...I'm sticking

with real food.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. But in terms of health of the environment, I am sure there are definite benefits.

[Warpy]

12. That's rather the point of growing food organically

Instead of mining the soil, the emphasis is on building the soil. Organic producers have actually seen their yields increase once they've made the transition away from chemical farming methods.

While a tomato is a tomato and can't tell the difference between granulated chemical fertilizer and manure, fish emulsion, ashes, and compost, the soil sure as hell can.

Organic farming is sustainable. Chemical farming isn't.

[FarCenter]

30. Neither organic farming nor chemical farming are sustainable

The crops removed from the land contain proteins. Proteins contain large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, plus smaller amounts of sulfur and other elements.

Nitrogen is the only one of these elements that can be replaced by rotating crops with legumes which host nitrogen-fixing bacteria in their roots.

The other elements must be replaced from external sources, since most of those elements that are eaten by people are flushed down the rivers to the oceans. The use of animal manures only slows the net flow of phosphorous and potassium to the oceans by recycling part of those elements.

Organic farming, therefore results in fairly rapid depletion of phosphorous and potassium, while chemical farming replaces these. On the other hand, high-grade deposits of minerals containing these elements are finite, and will exhaust with time.

[Warpy]

33. Soil depletion is slowed and even reversed in organic farming

by judicious use of compost and things like wood ashes, which are quite high in postassium. Phosphorus is corrected by the addition of bone meal.

You really do need to research this stuff.

[FarCenter]

35. Wood ashes and bone meal just move nutrients, they do not create them

The wood ashes came from wood that was grown on some other land. So this just moves potassium from the forest to the field.

The bone came from an animal raised on some pasture or fed grain and hay in a feedlot. So the phosphorous came from the pasture, hay field or grain field. Again, there is no net input of new phosphorous.

The food removed from the organi fields and consumed by humans is a net loss of phosphorous and potassium since sewage is generally not recycled.

So long as this removal is greater than the release of those elements from the weathering of minerals or the addition of volcanic ash, dust from duststorms, etc,. the fields will deteriorate over time.

Note that some soils are now deficient in sulfur, since the emissions regulations on power plants now have reduced the amount of atmospheric sulfur raining onto the fields.

[yellowcanine]

59. Actually you need to research it. Organic farming can be harder on soils than conventional

farming. Particularly if a lot of tillage is done for weed control. And most organic farmers use manure to replenish potassium and phosphorus, not wood ashes and bone meal. If more K and P are needed they will often use greensand for K and rock phosphate for P. Wood Ashes would be hard to get for the average organic farmer and bone meal would be way too expensive for all but very limited applications.

[Warpy]

Not if it's done correctly

with mulch instead of tillage.

[yellowcanine]

78. Mulch is great. But in many cases it has to be transported in, unless you are growing your own in

the form of cover crops. Then you need to till to plant the cover crop and in some cases you need to till the cover crop under or it is going to compete with your crop. It is not as simple as you would make it out to be. 100% mulching without any tillage can only be done in the smallest back yard organic gardens. It is not practical for commercial organic farming unless one transports in tractor trailer loads of mulch and this is not sustainable.

[imdjh]

38. The missing link is that we aren't putting people and pets and their waste back into the farmland.

And I think there is a reason why we don't, though I don't know what it is.

[yellowcanine]

60. A friend of mine says he is going to start a people composting business. I haven't checked with him

lately to see how that is coming along. Maybe I should.

[AngryAmish]

111. Disease

There is some limited use of human sludge but actual human manure is very dangerous.

[yellowcanine]

79. Not a given. Depends on how much extra tillage comes with it.

More tillage = more erosion, less organic matter in soil and more sediment in surface water.

[Lorien]

80. People with Parkinson's disease have a high level of pesticides in their

systems. As a person with fibromyalgia myself, I notice a huge difference between eating conventional foods and eating "clean" organic foods.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Well duh.

[SPedigrees]

4. Organic foods/drinks typically do NOT contain HFCS.

Or other artificial sweeteners. They contain sugar. That's the primary reason we buy organic.

[FarCenter]

37. Sugar is an artificial sweetener

At least it is by the time it is in tiny white crystals or powder.

[SPedigrees]

43. Have you been to a sugar mill?

I have. All that is done to the sugar cane is a washing away process to extract the molasses and husk/chaff material of the cane. Sucrose is the pure and natural material that is left over. Sucrose is found abundantly in nature (sugar cane, sugar beets, maple syrup etc.)

[FarCenter]

53. See section on "sugar refining"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation

[SPedigrees]

57. This is the extraction process I referenced

although you provided a link to sugar from sugar beets, the process is similar to that of sugar cane. The lime bath attracts precipitates leaving sucrose syrup which is then crystallized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane

In a sugar refinery, or sugar mill, sugarcane is washed, chopped, and shredded by revolving knives. The shredded cane is repeatedly mixed with water and crushed between rollers; the collected juices (called garapa in Brazil) contain 10–15 percent sucrose, and the remaining fibrous solids, called bagasse, are burned for fuel. Bagasse makes a sugar mill more than self-sufficient in energy; the surplus bagasse can be used for animal feed, in paper manufacture, or burned to generate electricity for the local power grid.

The cane juice is next mixed with lime to adjust its pH to 7. This mixing arrests sucrose's decay into glucose and fructose, and precipitates out some impurities. The mixture then sits, allowing the lime and other suspended solids to settle out, and the clarified juice is concentrated in a multiple-effect evaporator to make a syrup about 60 percent by weight in sucrose. This syrup is further concentrated under vacuum until it becomes supersaturated, and then seeded with crystalline sugar. On cooling, sugar crystallizes out of the syrup. A centrifuge is used to separate the sugar from the remaining liquid, or molasses. Additional crystallizations may be performed to extract more sugar from the molasses; the molasses remaining after no more sugar can be extracted from it in a cost-effective fashion is called blackstrap.

[yellowcanine]

58. HFCS is just as "natural" as refined sugar. It is corn syrup treated with enzymes.

[orwell]

5. I would wager...

...the soil prefers organic.

[Xithras]

6. I don't buy organic for the health benefits.

I buy organic because it's more environmentally friendly, it's sustainable, it offers better financial support to small farmers, and because I don't have to worry about the long-term buildup of man made chemicals in my body from conventionally grown crips.

I didn't think it was a cure for cancer, or that it would make me live to 130.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. Color me crazy, I prefer to avoid ingesting pesticides and herbicides whenever possible.

I also think it's important to support environmentally responsible, sustainable agriculture whenever possible.

I'm just silly that way I guess.

[GoesTo11]

8. It's not about what's in organic, it's about what's not in it

I worry about the cumulative effect of a whole range of potentially carcinogenic pesticides, hormones and other additions along the way. I never thought there was more vitamin c in an organic orange. This report is just a smokescreen.

[cyberswede]

21. Exactly!

It doesn't need to be more nutritious - it just needs to have less of the bad stuff.

[Gormy Cuss]

31. It's also about what's in groundwater and the air near farms .

It's about soil tilth and erosion too.
Then there's the taste factor when produce comes from small scale farms, whether organic or not.

[yellowcanine]

63. Soil erosion is more of a problem with organic agriculture because more tillage is necessary.

No-till systems and minimum-till systems usually call for the use of herbicides. It is possible in a limited way to do organic no-till but it is difficult and not very predictable. There are only a handful of pesticides which are a threat to groundwater, and then only in certain kinds of soils. e.g., triazine herbicides in karst soils. Even then, proper attention to pesticide labeling can greatly reduce the risk.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. Yet the pesticides in use are threats to groundwater

and some studies (Teasdale, for one) show that the soil damage caused by tillage is mitigated by the incorporation of manure and cover crops by organic farmers. There are also studies suggesting that no-till organic farms can be successful using crop rotation (Creamer, NCSU.)

[yellowcanine]

83. Very few instances of pesticide threats to groundwater. I address it in another post.

The herbicides required to do no-till are no threat to groundwater. Yes, the effects of tillage can be mitigated with use of manure, organic mulches, and use of cover crops. But (1)you can do all of these in a no-till systems as well - in fact, cover crops incorporate into a no-till system much more effectively than in a till system. And (2) The more stuff you have to haul in, the less sustainable the system is and you are TAKING the materials from somewhere else (in the case of mulches).

[Gormy Cuss]

87. How much of the conventional farming acreage in the U.S. is no-till?

No till, or light till farming is best for the land but the argument was one of organic vs. conventional, not tillage vs. no-till. Is organic farming with tillage and organic amendments better at preserving soil structure than tilled conventional farm land relying on synthethic fertilizers?

It's true that hauling in materials is less sustainable. Manures and compost should be local. Locally grown cover crops can act as mulch.

[yellowcanine]

91. It isn't just no till vs organic. Virtually no conventional ag relies on tillage for weed control -

at least to the extent that organic production does. Even large vegetable production systems rarely do. They either use plastic mulch or they use herbicides. That is the real rub - particularly because it is not always possible to time weed control cultivations to avoid working the ground when it is too wet - which is a guaranteed way to destroy soil structure.

[Gormy Cuss]

95. Can you point to some literature discussing this?

I'm curious because I haven't found anything that asserts organic, tilled acreage is in worse shape than conventional fields (with or without tillage.)

[yellowcanine]

96. It is not a question of "worse" than conventional as that it is a real dilemma for

organic farmers and they are aware that it is a dilemma. Here is an article which discusses it and some possible solutions. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/organicmatters/conservationtillage.html

[Blasphemer]

52. Exactly

Of course, the nutritional value is the same. It's not the reason people go Organic.

[harun]

89. Agree, no one was claiming organic had health benefits. They

just claimed the other stuff had more harmful substances.

Very misleading reporting.

[yellowcanine]

99. No one? That has not been my experience. I have been talking to consumers and farmers for years

I have often been told that organic food is more nutritious, taste better, (even though when pressed, it appears this is more a function of other factors such as freshness, vine ripened or not, heirloom vs hybrid tomatoes, etc.) organic eggs have stronger shells, more yellow yolks, etc. No, organic producers and retailers cannot advertise their food as more nutritious - that would get them in trouble with the FDA and the FTC. But organic advocates sure imply it in their magazines and articles. The idea comes from somewhere and I would venture to say that everyone who has been paying attention has heard the claim.

[harun]

106. Interesting. I always just thought of it as how food was before we

had all the chemical companies and genetic companies.

[yellowcanine]

110. Some of the stuff before modern synthetic pesticides was worse - Lead arsenic on apples and

other fruits as an insecticide, for example. Remember, "don't eat the apple core?" I do. The reason for that admonition was that the lead arsenic collected in the ends of the core and did not get washed off. Most fungicides had mercury in them. And now we know that lead and mercury build up in fat tissue in your body. And of course before those oh so nasty organophosphates, such as malathion, most of which break down within hours after application, we had chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT), which stay around forever - and thus also build up in fat tissues. Yeah, life in the "good old days" was not so good sometimes. Nostalgia is great until one looks a little closer.

And without the "genetic companies" food would almost certainly cost twice or more what it does now - if you could get it.

[MgtPA]

116. I sure remember "don't eat the apple core", but that's because the seeds contain cyanide.

According to Grandma...

[yellowcanine]

118. That's another reason.

[Naturyl]

100. No one was claiming organic had health benefits?

Sorry, but that doesn't resemble the universe I live in. Almost *everyone* was claiming (or at least suggesting) it had health benefits - especially the marketing companies.

[smirkymonkey]

90. Also, it just tastes better.

That should count for something.

[yellowcanine]

101. Not a given actually - results of actual controlled taste tests are mixed.

http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/nutri/matter/2007-01.asp

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=7885EB2E4BC5984193B25E5AC3916134?contentType=Article&contentId=866175

[Heidi]

9. As always, I would like clearer food labeling, and I'm willing to pay for it.

Until someone convinces me otherwise, I'm gonna buy food derived from as few pesticides/insecticides, chemicals and genetically modified techniques. I don't really care whether our fruits and vegetables are "pretty" -- Î'm not nearly as offended by a blemished apple as I was a decade ago when I was US consumer. I'm more easily swayed by "safe" and -- in the instance of the workers hired to tend and harvest those crops -- "fair." I don't consume much meat, but "humane" plays into my shopping choices when I buy meat. :hi:

[demoleft]

15. well said.

:hi:

[bertman]

10. I agree with what every poster has said so far. Except, "Well duh".

[qb]

11. What a fucked up premise - they're only comparing nutritional content.

I buy organic to minimize our intake of carcinogens & other poisons.

[yellowcanine]

28. They are doing that because the claim is often made that "organic=more nutritious".

So it is a legitimate study topic. As is levels of pesticide residues on foods. The fact that one is a legitimate course of inquiry doesn't make the other "fucked up".

[Kittycat]

13. HFCS & GMO For Everyone!!!

Listen, it's not what the food is, it's how it's modified and tainted with chemicals that I have issue with. The result of eating one pesticide laced produce might not be 'harmful', but you can't tell me that the result of everything you eat being tainted like this is actually healthy. Especially after it's had years to build up in your system - not to mention the impact on your unborn children (btw - noticed the fertility problems lately?). Further, we know processed foods are harmful - look at the obesity rates. That's not from eating too many apples and carrots you know.

[Kadie]

14. Pesticides Linked To Child Cancer Cases

Pesticides Linked To Child Cancer Cases
ALL Patients More Likely To Have Chemicals In Urine

POSTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Researchers say that children with a form of cancer known as ALL -- which usually develops between the ages of 3 and 7 -- had a higher level of pesticides in their urine than is usually seen.

They said in a news release that the study did not show that the chemicals caused the cancer, only that they seem to be somehow related.

Lead investigator Offie Soldin said high levels were often also found in the mothers of kids with cancer. The study looked at 41 children with cancer and 41 healthy kids that were matched by age, sex and the county they lived in near Washington, D.C.

Pesticides were found in the urine of more than half of the children, but the levels were higher in children with ALL.

Also, mothers of children with cancer were 33 percent more likely to say they used pesticides at home.

more...
http://www.click2houston.com/news/20211689/detail.html

[yellowcanine]

39. But it doesn't tie cancer to pesticides used on food crops.

And if you read the article, the implication is that they focused on pesticides found in households.

[jpak]

16. What a stupid post

:rofl:

[SOS]

17. They compare Vitamin C content, but not pesticide residue?

What's the point?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. A lot of people think organic fruit has more nutrients.

They don't.

[kestrel91316]

19. Studies in the US have shown far higher levels of nutrients in vegetables

grown in healthy soils (organic farming) than in depleted soils (industrial agriculture). Even it that's NOT the case, the fact that fewer farm workers are exposed to harmful herbicides and pesticides, and wildlife/ecosystems are harmed less by same, is reason enough to lean organic.

But you just go right ahead eating your contaminated Cheetos and killing farm workers by proxy.

[yellowcanine]

22. It is actually more difficult to maintain healthy soils in an organic system than in a no-till

or minimum-till non organic system. This is because of the greater amount of tillage needed for weed control in an organic system. Tillage destroys organic matter in the upper part of the soil profile which is very important for maintaining soil structure, pH buffering, cationic exchange capacity (nutrient holding), and water holding capacity. The organic matter can be added back with organic mulches. But the point is, it is incorrect to equate organic agriculture with healthy soils and non-organic agriculture with depleted soils. It is a lot more complicated than that.

I would also like to ask, what studies in the U.S. show higher nutrition in organic vegetables? I am aware of no such studies and this is a topic I pay attention to as it is part of my work.

[kestrel91316]

34. I can't cite a link, but I am quite sure that such a study was reported

on within about the last 5 years.

No-till is a great idea, except for when it is donw in such a way as to result in excessive herbicide use. As part of a proper crop rotation scheme it can be really great for the soil.

Probably IPM/no till is optimal for soil health, all things considered. But organic doesn't HAVE to mean endless plowing and soil trauma.

[yellowcanine]

36. I doubtful any such study was reported - and you said "studies". Plural.

It is an important distinction. One study saying something that contradicts many other studies is not so important as several studies contradicting previous studies.

And note - The study in question was a review paper, so it included an analysis of results worldwide, meaning that U.S. studies were included. So the study you think you remember would very likely have been included in the analysis.

[kestrel91316]

40. Well, I know I recall seeing at least one such study, so you can go attack somebody else.

And you can go eat all the industrial "food" you want. Just don't try to make it difficult for me and people like me to eat what WE prefer to eat.

Just don't bitch about cancer rates or environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Because it's not the fault of organic farming.

[yellowcanine]

48. Asking for documentation of assertions is not attacking. Sorry you see it that way.

I trust documented scientific results, not "I recall seeing....." Deal with it.

[Spike89]

20. It is a smokescreen study but some reactions are odd

Everyone that pointed out that the real benefit of organic is what it doesn't have is absolutely right. I am puzzled and a bit alarmed that so many people do confuse "unprocessed" with organic. Refined sugar can be totally organic, as can high fructose corn syrup. Even those super-processed quasi-cheese slices can be organic. Of course there isn't much market for highly processed junk organic food, but the term organic has absolutely nothing to do with the level of processing or really the health benefits of the product.

I do think it is important to protect our food sources and I'm anything but anti-organic. However, I almost never hear real statistics on yields/acre (as an example). In a world still struggling to grow and distribute enough food, how neccessary are high-yield farming practices? In other words, can we support the current and near-future world population without commercial farming techniques?

I really don't know and I haven't heard credible discussion from either side on this.

[SPedigrees]

49. That was my point. I buy organic for the sole reason that it doesn't contain HFCS

even though it could and still retain the label "organic." If the mainstream "non-organic" food industry replaced the HFCS and other artificial sweeteners with sugar, I'd buy their products once again.

[yellowcanine]

56. HFCS is not an "artificial sweetener" It is a natural sugar extracted from corn.

Fructose also naturally occurs in most of the fruits you eat, organic or otherwise. The only difference is that in the case of HFCS they convert corn syrup glucose to fructose using enzymes, and then mix the fructose with more corn syrup glucose. By varying the percentage of fructose to glucose they can control the sweetness of the product. The big problem with HFCS is the calories it puts into foods which doesn't make it any worse or better than regular table sugar, sucrose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

[4lbs]

23. That's fine. I'm still willing to pay slightly more so that my fruits and vegetables are free from

pesticides and other chemicals.

If anyone has seen the labels on pesticides, they contain chemicals known to cause cancer, and can build up in the body over years.

[yellowcanine]

42. Depends on the pesticide. Known carcinogens are not cleared for use on food crops.

What chemicals were you referring to and which pesticides?

[4lbs]

47. Malathion. While the EPA hasn't been able to determine whether or not it is a carcinogen, I'll

take my produce malathion free.

So what if it means my lettuce or fruits contain a few aphids or an extra worm.

[yellowcanine]

54. Not confirmed as a carcinogen. And people get way more exposure to malathion

from head lice applications, mosquito control programs, and flea control on pets than they do from their food. Malathion is also infrequently used for Mediterranean Fruit Fly and other exotic pest outbreaks but these applications require public notification and strict use of measures to protect the public from exposure.

Malathion breaks down very rapidly in the environment as it is susceptible to UV radiation. That is why you are not likely to be exposed to it even if it were sprayed on the fruit you eat. Farmers don't go out and spray their crops right before they are going to harvest them. They are required to observe pre harvest intervals and use other application procedures which minimize exposure for both farm workers and the general public.

http://potency.berkeley.edu/chempages/MALATHION.html

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/health/mosquitoes/malathion4mosquitoes.htm

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts154.html#bookmark06

[4lbs]

82. Not where I live. There's an orange grove I drive by and several times a year, the

grove reeks of malathion as the trees and oranges are doused in it. They are trying to get rid of the white flies.

I can only imagine what it's doing to the oranges.

I'd rather they don't use any pesticides at all.

I'm willing to pay 25% more for fruit and vegetables that haven't been sprayed with pesticides.

[yellowcanine]

86. If it is malathion they are using it is quite unlikely that any of it is going to be on

the outside of the oranges when they are harvested, let alone on the inside.

[4lbs]

88. "quite unlikely". That is all I need to know, since it's not absolutely certain.

I don't want to take the chance.

I'll pay more for 'organic' pesticide-free produce.

[yellowcanine]

92. There always are risks. Even with organic, Higher rate of aflatoxins in organic grains

and legumes, for example. Sweet corn gets a worm in it and the chances of a pathogenic fungi getting in are increased. Yes the risk is small but so is the risk from malathion residue on oranges. You literally have to choose your poison.

[yellowcanine]

102. Organic peanut butter for example is more likely to contain aflatoxins

http://littlemebigyou.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/found-why-organic-peanut-butter-must-be-refrigerated/

[Pisces]

24. I'll stick with my common sense over 1 study. Chemicals in body = bad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Yes, chemicals are bad.

Have you heard about the dihydrogen monoxide they're putting in fruit juices these days?

[yellowcanine]

26. Silly statement. Your body doesn't function without chemicals.

You would be dead. And "common sense" is overrated. George W. Bush tried to govern by common sense and look where it got us.

[Pisces]

75. I guess some people are extremely literal. Monsato seeds, pesticide chemicals that kill bugs

etc, common sense says the build up of these chemicals would be bad. I will trust myself and self deductive reasoning over 1 study. There have been many studies in the past that proved to be false to our detriment.

[yellowcanine]

85. One person's "extremely literal" is another person's "accurate" The use of "chemical"

to mean "synthetic chemicals" is extremely misleading and confusing. And some of the "natural" pesticides which CAN be used in certified organic vegetable production, such as rotenone and nicotine - no they will not build up in your body, but they will make you very sick or even kill you right away if you get enough of them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. Ah, you're refering to Bt corn.

Of course, that uses a natural proteinaceous pesticide created by bacteria that kills bugs and is completely harmless to people.

Common sense says that if Bt corn were hurting anybody, they wouldn't be fucking using it, now would they?

[BlooInBloo]

29. Yah - stupid subjects like Organic Chemistry should be banned.

:rofl:

[KDFW]

50. Let me know if you find some food that isn't made of chemicals.

I'd love to patent it.

:D

[Odin2005]

61. LOL, our bodies are made out of odd chemicals.

But what do I know, I'm just a stupid Biotech student...

[yellowcanine]

65. "Odd chemicals?" What makes them odd?

[Odin2005]

72. "Odd" meaning chemically unusual and interesting.

[NickB79]

66. This is a review report of 162 studies, not just one. NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Makes Sense. I've Long Considered 'Organic' Labeling To Simply Be Marketing For Sucker.

More costly, same shit, takes advantage of people who get some irrelevant sense of self pride or righteousness from buying it. Overall, organic's a crock of shit.

[Zorra]

70. Yeah, those chemical pesticides they spray on food crops never hurt anyone

And I hear that the chemical herbicides are actually good for you!

[Pisces]

77. I agree that we should be asking for more chemicals to add to our chemical composition.

[Zorra]

125. And people should not be allowed to grow their own food unless they use chemical pesticides

and herbicides on their crops.

It's completely un-murican.

[Naturyl]

97. Holy crap, I'm going to agree with OMC?

Yep, looks like. There might be a few advantages in organic, but I never got past the idea of paying $8.00 for a bottle of grape juice.

Organic foods are totally out of reach to the poor, and to be honest, some of us don't feel too great about people paying those ridiculous prices to buy it while kids are starving in Africa.

[bridgit]

32. Over & above 'regular' produce minus all the shit & chems they pump & dump into the fields?

Yeah, that sounds about right

[yellowcanine]

45. Have you ever been on a working farm? It doesn't sound like it.

I have been on several hundred farms around the world, and I don't recognize your description.

[bridgit]

93. If you've been to several hundred farms round the world then you should know...

perhaps in particular :) The encroachment upon production, soil depletion and seed stocks by no-less than ADM/Monsanto, etc, here in the CentValley; yes, there are 'farms' but there are vast tracts tract after tract of BigAg...it's what we do, we monitor bulk seed stocks throughout NorCali and compile data that supports end-user demographics. Also position a vibrant organic line of seed that is expanding. I would think you'd be concerned as well as to organic farmers experiencing new challenges via cross-field pollination.

As for the kinds of things pumped & dumped into fields, however, refer to the E. coli outbreak in Salinas where it was learned they'd used a filler comprised of wine production slash (stocks, grape skins, etc) that was nonetheless able to provide the ferment-able elements that contributed, it has been suggested, to the incidence of E. coli occuring...stuff like that, as well the runoff from local concerns & process'...

Is a bowl of E. coli laced spinach better than a bowl of organic spinach? Not to my way of thinking


Attenuate in a forward thinking manner those impacts upon the growth cycle and the food chain, and the food moving through it becomes better

[yellowcanine]

119. The e coli spinach WAS organic. Earthbound Farms.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6084158


I was at a meeting where the speaker discussed the outbreak. The thinking is that the e coli came from wild pig poop in the field. Imagine that. You can't judge a book by its cover.

But on the bright side, at least the victims will not die from cancer 20 years later from eating pesticide laced conventionally farmed spinach.

[bridgit]

120. You're missing a component that feeds into OMC's "market sucker" post above...

There may be a market however niche @ Nugget out here, some other fine or gourmet grocery or dept near you, but it's very very difficult to maintain 'certified organic' being run-off-near to a slaughter house full of pig shit (or a GM test field for that matter) and all without having to consider it being run into a field in which has been mulched a ferment-able sugar based fruit slash that propagated the likelihood of E. coli's success. That was the "we're going to market an organic product, it's been my lifelong dream", if you will, in the midst of bloody pig shit and ADM - Which was my orig mention as to things "pumped and dumped" into the fields...at that time you said you what was it again - "and I don't recognize your description" well, I rather suspect you do.

As we view the architecture we're able to see the various levels of interaction people are able to access. As mentioned previous: by moderating the effects of some of these key interactions the structure of the food chain becomes more foundational; and that is put forward here without having to enter the cellular world, today however?

It's off to Red Bluff, Redding, Shasta, Eureka gotta go have a nice day

[yellowcanine]

121. I read your words but honestly I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Suspect all you want but I really don't get your point. I am supposed to read all of the posts before responding to an inaccurate assertion in a post directed to me? You made it sound as if organic and e coli in spinach were mutually exclusive in the post I responded to. I pointed out that they are not and provided the reference. That is all.

And as I understand it, the best evidence is that the e coli came from WILD pig shit, not runoff from a domestic pig production house.

[bridgit]

130. "the(re are) various levels of interaction people are able to access" ours...

your's and mine; would seem to be at different points in that process again though this time have a nice evening

[yellowcanine]

132. ???

[KDFW]

51. Well, shit is the best fertilizer.

:shrug:

[bridgit]

94. yup, some say sheep shit some say chicken shit others say fish emulsion...

though fish emulsion would *have* to be an acquired taste x( but it sure makes roses bloom :kick:

[rucky]

41. How can food with pesticide residue have a health risk attached

but removing that risk provides no health benefit?

[a kennedy]

44. should watch this movie.....regarding the whole food industry.....

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

[chaska]

46. How ridiculously human-centric to consider that our health is the only reason we eat organic.

Personally, I consider humans an infestation on the planet and the sooner that pandemic comes along to greatly thins our number the better for the planet. And the better I'll like it ... even if it, in it's infinite wisdom, takes me.

[Karenina]

62. Hear, hear!!!

:toast:

[skip fox]

55. The one thing we know for certain . . . that whatever we don't know is more.

I buy organic when I can. Twenty years from now they'll likely discover much we haven't yet even dreamed of. It's not a stretch to say some of these discoveries will uncover problems with our non-organic diets.

[Odin2005]

64. The "organic" label is a worthless excuse to jack up prices.

I'd rather buy locally-grown/raised non-organic food than buy organic food shipped in from half-way around the world.

[Union Yes]

67. Organic has no profit benefit to Health Insurance or Chemical corps.

How can Dow Chemical profit if they can't poison us and force us to become ill. Once ill we are forced to become a slave to the for profit death care system.

The 2 work together like big oil and the auto giants have for the past several decades.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. No profit benefit? It's a $50 billion industry.

And all based on the mistaken consumer belief that it's better for you.

[KittyWampus]

108. you missed "to Health Insurance or Chemical corps". But then you miss a lot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. New study:

"There's no nutritional difference between health insurance corps and organic food corps."

[TexasObserver]

71. One study doesn't affect my opinion very much.

And one study cannot know all the chemical impact of food produced through use of chemicals. The sad truth is that we often do not know the impact of chemicals until years, if not decades, after their use. They hide in tissue and do damage that may not show up for 20 years or more.

Unless and until major food manufacturers do not control the government agencies who allegedly regulate such industries, and unless and until the same food giants do not control the scholars who allegedly test their products, I'll not put much stock in such things.

Here's what we know for sure: Chemicals don't disappear. They remain. They attach. They make their way into our system, and once there tend to do some harm.

Organic foods and non organic foods may be similar nutritionally, but what about TASTE? What about latent problems?

Bug spray is bug spray, and it can't be good for us.

[yellowcanine]

112. It is actually not "one study". It is a review of 162 studies and a summary of all of them.

And as has been pointed out several times - both organic and conventional agriculture employ chemicals, including pesticides. Some of the "bug sprays" approved for organic production are actually quite toxic to humans - rotenone and nicotine sulfate, for examples.

[GreenTea]

73. Just taste a nice organic pot bud, then taste the same variety bud grown full of

chemical fertilizers and chemical insecticides, then you tell me which bud tastes & smells sweeter, and gives a you a finer cleaner natural high....

If you can't tell the difference then baby, you've been living in some polluted big city so long, your just too far gone - and all that chemical poison may just be what you & your body loves & craves....and you can have it....ALL...there's plenty to go around!!

I'll always take all the organic.

[ShamelessHussy]

74. Why do you think the MARKETING folk get the big $$$

:evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

76. Tricky wording. I don't buy organic b/c I feel it's nutritionally superior.

I do so because I feel that there is ample evidence, that the use of pesticides is harmful to individual and environmental health.

[WolverineDG]

81. Funny, I'm able to consume organic milk & cream

but break out in scaly red patches if I consume "regular" milk & cream....you might say I'm allergic to milk, but I'm also allergic to penicillin & I dare you to tell me they're not shooting up the cows with that......

dg

[defendandprotect]

84. Only chemicals are nutritious . . . who's going to believe this one -- !!!

[Naturyl]

98. Organic foods are almost totally unavailable to the poor.

So I'm actually glad to see this study.

I was always very skeptical anyway. What were ultra-pricey organic foods supposed to do that i couldn't do with a pack of hot dogs and a decent multivitamin?

[KittyWampus]

109. supply you with nutrients without helping put your immune system in overload.

[theophilus]

103. I am sure I heard of a study (studies?) not long ago that said that

modern fruits and vegetables have less vitamins and minerals that food had a few decades ago. Here is one reference:

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/15

Maybe someone can find something else on this......I feel in my "gut" that this UK study is incorrect. Oh, well. Homegrown still tastes better to me. I'll always prefer it.

[yellowcanine]

113. The UK "study" is not a study. It is a review of 162 studies. So it can't be "incorrect".

It merely summarizes other studies. Your gut is wrong. I prefer science to listening to my gut.

[iris27]

104. I've never heard anyone argue that organic food had more antioxidants or whatever...

the benefit is the lack of pesticide/herbicide residues, which have been shown to accumulate in fatty tissues, be transmitted in breast milk, etc.

[yellowcanine]

115. You may not have heard it but that argument is often made.

http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

[Resuscitated Ethics]

105. Modern western food is poison-- please see the food movie

Obesity and type2 diabetes from eating food-like products from the food industry.

Going organic is getting less expensive but most regular "food" has never been cheaper because of government subsidized corn. Corn is 75% of food in your grocery store.

Food scientists think that food is the sum of parts that they can isolate and remake. Take margarine: they called it healthier than animal fat for years until the lethality of the hydrogenation process was noticed and proven. Margarine was a killer until the hydrogenated process was sidestepped introducing a new health claim: "Now with un hydrogenated oils!"

Going organic means not eating so much of what the food scientists tell you is food. If food were really the sum of its parts they would have gotten baby formula right a long time ago. They are constantly discovering new things, links in complex systems, errors in judgment about food, etc.

Going organic is voting with your pocketbook against the nasty brutish corporate factory food system.

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php

http://www.amazon.com/Eric-Schlosser/e/B001IGNUIY/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

Striving for pure food rather than lab cultures of food products which are lethal in so many ways: from the new strains of e-coli to the bizarre fetishism of sweet-seeming items laced with high fructose-corn syrup. Everybody is turning into the humans of Wall-E and it's not funny.

The big drag is everybody gets protective of and defensive about their food ways so any discussion of oughttas and shouldas and well-I-dos always gets testy.

Please see the food movie even if you have to drive to another city.

If this sounds like a sermon, if you find yourself getting defensive, ask yourself if you know where your food comes from? Why does a post-McDonald's BM seem more like jell-o than real poo?

[denem]

107. "The review DID NOT LOOK AT PESTICIDES or the environmental impact

of different farming practices" WTF?

[endarkenment]

117. shh don't disturb them, they are having fun, pass the paraquat.

[yellowcanine]

124. The DEA used to spray pot fields with paraquat until they found out that

the pot farmers harvested and sold it anyway and then people were getting sick from the paraquat tainted pot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. That wasn't the purpose of the research.

As you can see from reading this thread, there are a lot of people who believe the myth that there's a difference in nutrition.

[PVnRT]

114. I would rather the focus shift from organic methods

which seem to vary depending on who you talk to, to securing food from primarily local sources. The carbon footprint to get some foods on the shelves (pineapples are a notorious example) is astronomical.

[LynneSin]

122. This story neglects the reason why we buy organic foods

I don't expect to get greater nutritional value with organic foods. I expect to get something that wasn't grown with excessive ammounts of grown hormones, steriods, pesticides and other non-natural farming chemicals & modifications.

THAT'S why we buy organic.

[killbotfactory]

123. hmmm

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.

"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods."

...

Yep, this matter is settled.

[and-justice-for-all]

126. The health benefit comes from the lack of chemicals used to grow the food...

the produce itself does not change...

[dysfunctional press]

131. obnoxious fuckstick & teller are doing organic food on the heritage foundation presents 'bullshit!'-

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do