Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

[raja]

For those who want to believe that organic food is no healthier than commercial, here's a news story for you!

Organic No More Nutritional than Conventional Foods
By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today. July 30, 2009. Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
"A review of more than 50 studies found no difference in nutrient content -- including vitamin C, calcium, potassium, and zinc -- between organic and commercially grown food, Alan Dangour, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, and colleagues reported."

Whew! Now we don't have to listen to the health nuts raving about the benefits of organic food . . . .

Uh Oh! Wait a minute :eek: . . . the article further states:

. . . . "the researchers did not include an analysis of contaminants or chemical residues used in the food products."

"Niyati Parekh, PhD, professor of nutrition at New York University who was not involved in the study, said the findings regarding nutritional content are not surprising. The larger concern with organic versus nonorganic foods is chemical content."

"Chemical fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides may also affect the chemical content of foods, they said, and the organic foods may have an advantage because of their controlled use of chemicals and medicines. That warrants further study, the researchers said."

Maria Romano, MS, RD, clinical nutritionist for adult oncology (cancer medicine) at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said ". . . . We know pesticides pose a risk to human health even in small doses, or those considered safe by industry . . . . They can have toxic effects and in the long term can contribute to cancer."

And there seems to be some disagreement about the study's conclusion about nutrient differences:

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, an expert on nutrition and food studies at New York University, disputed the scope of the findings. "Plenty of studies have shown organics to have higher levels of nutrients," she said. "Nutrient levels ought to be higher in plants grown on better soils."

Also, the study actually says that there were nutritional differences after all:

. . . . there were differences in nitrogen and phosphorous content

US News and World Report had the same type of headline dismissive of organics:

"Organic' May Not Mean Healthier -- British study finds no better nutrient value than in conventionally produced foods"
Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and past president of the American Dietetic Association: "This report provides confirmation for consumers that if they choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs."

Hey . . . President of the American Dietetic Association . . . she must know what she's talking about

But this article also had some interesting details . . . .

Sheah Rarback, director of nutrition at the Mailman Center for Child Development at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said, "You have to also look at what you're not getting with organic foods. Maybe it's not a big difference nutritionally, but conventional products may have more pesticides. We know that young children are getting the nutrition, whatever choice they make, but we also have to look at the pesticide issue. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that children eating conventionally grown fruit had pesticide residue in their urine, which decreased after just five days on an organic diet."

"The Oregon-based Organic Center, which promotes organic food, conducted a similar review of the literature. That study yielded results similar to those in the British study, but it also found higher levels of healthy antioxidants and polyphenols in organic foods. 'Given that some of the most significant differences favoring organic foods were for key antioxidant nutrients that most Americans do not get enough of on most days, we concluded that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, in particular, offered significant health benefits, roughly equivalent to an additional serving of a moderately nutrient dense fruit or vegetable on an average day,' according to Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Center."

So, what does all this have to do with iTulip and the economic situation?

Spiralling health care costs . . . .

If you want to lower health care costs, improve people's diets by encouraging them to eat organic foods high in antioxidants and low in pesticides.

Antioxidants: Preventing Diseases, Naturally
ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2007) — When it comes to boosting antioxidant intake, recent research indicates there’s little benefit from taking diet supplements. A better way, according to a report in the September issue of Mayo Clinic Health Letter, is eating a diet rich in antioxidant-containing foods. Antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotene, lycopene, lutein and many other substances may play a role in helping to prevent diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease and macular degeneration.

Regards the pesticide issue, the "experts" say there is low risk. Do you trust them?
One cause for concern is that their studies usually examine pesticides used singly, rather than taking into consideration multiple pesticide use -- how they are often applied in the real world -- and the possible interactive or additive effects from this practice.

I posted this in Rant and Rave, since the consensus opinion here is probably that I'm ranting and raving . . . but I think it belongs in News.

links: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryC...utrition/15303
http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...healthier.html

[GRG55]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

...So, what does all this have to do with iTulip and the economic situation?

Spiralling health care costs . . . .

If you want to lower health care costs, improve people's diets by encouraging them to eat organic foods high in antioxidants and low in pesticides.

Antioxidants: Preventing Diseases, Naturally
ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2007) — When it comes to boosting antioxidant intake, recent research indicates there’s little benefit from taking diet supplements. A better way, according to a report in the September issue of Mayo Clinic Health Letter, is eating a diet rich in antioxidant-containing foods. Antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotene, lycopene, lutein and many other substances may play a role in helping to prevent diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease and macular degeneration.

Regards the pesticide issue, the "experts" say there is low risk. Do you trust them?
One cause for concern is that their studies usually examine pesticides used singly, rather than taking into consideration multiple pesticide use -- how they are often applied in the real world -- and the possible interactive or additive effects from this practice.

I posted this in Rant and Rave, since the consensus opinion here is probably that I'm ranting and raving . . . but I think it belongs in News.

links: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryC...utrition/15303
http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...healthier.html

I don't disagree, but frankly if the USA wants to improve the health of its population just getting people eating more vegetables and fruit [even if it is "non-organic"] and getting off the prepared food & fast-food diet would make a huge difference.

[don]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

For those who want to believe that organic food is no healthier than commercial, here's a news story for you!

Organic No More Nutritional than Conventional Foods
By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today. July 30, 2009. Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
"A review of more than 50 studies found no difference in nutrient content -- including vitamin C, calcium, potassium, and zinc -- between organic and commercially grown food, Alan Dangour, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine, and colleagues reported."

Whew! Now we don't have to listen to the health nuts raving about the benefits of organic food . . . .

Uh Oh! Wait a minute :eek: . . . the article further states:

. . . . "the researchers did not include an analysis of contaminants or chemical residues used in the food products."

"Niyati Parekh, PhD, professor of nutrition at New York University who was not involved in the study, said the findings regarding nutritional content are not surprising. The larger concern with organic versus nonorganic foods is chemical content."

"Chemical fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides may also affect the chemical content of foods, they said, and the organic foods may have an advantage because of their controlled use of chemicals and medicines. That warrants further study, the researchers said."

Maria Romano, MS, RD, clinical nutritionist for adult oncology (cancer medicine) at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said ". . . . We know pesticides pose a risk to human health even in small doses, or those considered safe by industry . . . . They can have toxic effects and in the long term can contribute to cancer."

And there seems to be some disagreement about the study's conclusion about nutrient differences:

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, an expert on nutrition and food studies at New York University, disputed the scope of the findings. "Plenty of studies have shown organics to have higher levels of nutrients," she said. "Nutrient levels ought to be higher in plants grown on better soils."

Also, the study actually says that there were nutritional differences after all:

. . . . there were differences in nitrogen and phosphorous content

US News and World Report had the same type of headline dismissive of organics:

"Organic' May Not Mean Healthier -- British study finds no better nutrient value than in conventionally produced foods"
Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and past president of the American Dietetic Association: "This report provides confirmation for consumers that if they choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs."

Hey . . . President of the American Dietetic Association . . . she must know what she's talking about

But this article also had some interesting details . . . .

Sheah Rarback, director of nutrition at the Mailman Center for Child Development at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said, "You have to also look at what you're not getting with organic foods. Maybe it's not a big difference nutritionally, but conventional products may have more pesticides. We know that young children are getting the nutrition, whatever choice they make, but we also have to look at the pesticide issue. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that children eating conventionally grown fruit had pesticide residue in their urine, which decreased after just five days on an organic diet."

"The Oregon-based Organic Center, which promotes organic food, conducted a similar review of the literature. That study yielded results similar to those in the British study, but it also found higher levels of healthy antioxidants and polyphenols in organic foods. 'Given that some of the most significant differences favoring organic foods were for key antioxidant nutrients that most Americans do not get enough of on most days, we concluded that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, in particular, offered significant health benefits, roughly equivalent to an additional serving of a moderately nutrient dense fruit or vegetable on an average day,' according to Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Center."

So, what does all this have to do with iTulip and the economic situation?

Spiralling health care costs . . . .

If you want to lower health care costs, improve people's diets by encouraging them to eat organic foods high in antioxidants and low in pesticides.

Antioxidants: Preventing Diseases, Naturally
ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2007) — When it comes to boosting antioxidant intake, recent research indicates there’s little benefit from taking diet supplements. A better way, according to a report in the September issue of Mayo Clinic Health Letter, is eating a diet rich in antioxidant-containing foods. Antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotene, lycopene, lutein and many other substances may play a role in helping to prevent diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease and macular degeneration.

Regards the pesticide issue, the "experts" say there is low risk. Do you trust them?
One cause for concern is that their studies usually examine pesticides used singly, rather than taking into consideration multiple pesticide use -- how they are often applied in the real world -- and the possible interactive or additive effects from this practice.

I posted this in Rant and Rave, since the consensus opinion here is probably that I'm ranting and raving . . . but I think it belongs in News.

links: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryC...utrition/15303
http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...healthier.html

Thanks for posting that, Raja. My wife and I get an organic vegetable box delivered every two weeks from a local organization. We enjoy its local, its fresh, its seasonal, its challenging at times, but the main reason we order it is to avoid eating things like strawberries soaked in pesticides and herbicides. Seems like common sense to us.

[swgprop]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

I don't disagree, but frankly if the USA wants to improve the health of its population just getting people eating more vegetables and fruit [even if it is "non-organic"] and getting off the prepared food & fast-food diet would make a huge difference.

Spot on. But then, who is "the USA" in this instance? And would they recommend the right things? And would anyone listen?

[a warren]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

I posted this in Rant and Rave, since the consensus opinion here is probably that I'm ranting and raving . . . but I think it belongs in News.

links: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryC...utrition/15303
http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...healthier.html

Not at all.

My vegetable garden, orchards, chickens, pigs and sheep (of course) suffer no chemical contamination. And nor does the land they are on and thats the most important thing of all.

[Finster]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

Okay, so out of the many thousands of molecules in food, select a few known to be essential, and extrapolate your analysis to the rest?

It's already been pointed out that various processes may add things to your food that you didn't want and that might be bad for you. In addition, organic food is not gene-spliced or irradiated, processes known to chemically alter the composition of food. Fat molecules may be oxidized, protein molecules cross-linked, literally thousands of chemical changes take place.

The pertinent question is not whether organic is proven better than the altered stuff, but whether the altered stuff is proven to be as good. The latter is a whole different ball game. Nutritional history is littered with experiments in processing that passed muster under the first standard but which were later found to be deleterious. When milled wheat flour first became mass-produced, there was no proof that whole wheat flour was any better. But later after people died from nutritional deficiency diseases caused by lack of certain B vitamins found in the bran and germ of wheat, the government then began to require that milled flour be "fortified" with these vitamins. And now, about a hundred years later, people are being told they should get more fiber in their diets - something else that was lost in the milling of wheat.

Another example is the hydrogenation of fats. When this started about a hundred years ago, of course there was similarly no proof that natural fats were superior. So it became widespread; that's how oleomargarine was made. It wasn't until the 1970s - several decades after people had been eating the stuff - that the first evidence began to emerge that the so-called trans fats that this process produced might actually be bad for you. And then another twenty or thirty years before the government finally began to require that foods containing these trans fats be labeled to warn consumers of their existence. A quick label check will verify this.

We know that genetically engineered and irradiated foods are different from their natural counterparts. The question is who has the burden of proof? Must the natural food prove that it is superior? Or ought the industry that wants to mass experiment with your health with cheaper substitutes bear the burden of proof?

I know what the corn or wheat or whatever that our ancestors have eaten for hundreds or thousands of years is. I do not know what effects foreign molecules may have on my health or my children's health after many years of eating them. So my choice is clear.

Unfortunately, however, big business and government do not want you to even have a choice. Not only was there opposition to labeling irradiated or gene-spliced foods to indicate that's what they were, but to labeling the non-irradiated and non-gene-spliced foods to indicate what they were not. Whatever it is that they're doing to your food, they clearly do not want you to know about it.

[jk]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

to bring this back to itulip's economic focus, i want to point out that the agriculture bill, written by agriculture committees dominated by representatives and senators from agricultural states, is a HEALTH bill, or rather an ILLNESS bill, since one of its main thrusts is to promote the production of corn, processed foods, high fructose corn syrup, grain-fed animals which are given antibiotics and hormones to maximize growth on their unnatural diets, and so on. because of these subsidies, the cheapest calories available are among the least healthy.

when they do healthcare, are they also going to rewrite the crop supports?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Organic Food -- You're Off the Hook Now

to bring this back to itulip's economic focus, i want to point out that the agriculture bill, written by agriculture committees dominated by representatives and senators from agricultural states, is a HEALTH bill, or rather an ILLNESS bill, since one of its main thrusts is to promote the production of corn, processed foods, high fructose corn syrup, grain-fed animals which are given antibiotics and hormones to maximize growth on their unnatural diets, and so on. because of these subsidies, the cheapest calories available are among the least healthy.

when they do healthcare, are they also going to rewrite the crop supports?

Just finished Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food.
In 1960 Americans spent 15 % of their income on food and 5 % on health care. Now the numbers are reversed. An American born in 2000 has a 1 in 3 chance of becoming diabetic.

"80 % of type 2 diabetes could be prevented with changes in diet and exericse...but the smart money is on the creation of a vast new diabetes industry...At the supermarket checkout, you can thumb through copies of a new lifestyle magazine, Diabetic Living."