Organic food offers basically no health benefit, boffins find
US medical scientists reviewing the state of knowledge on organic food have come to the conclusion that the pricey old-school grub offers no appreciable health benefits. However consumers may still wish to buy it for the purpose of promoting organic farming methods. To be certified organic, food must be produced without the use …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: EH?! Seperate Nutrition and Health!
Umm actually I meant Ergot / ergotism not botulism, oops.
A natural problem common in the Middle Ages, avoided by proper checking and careful grain handling and processing.
However, older style methods can lead to outbreaks like in Ethiopia in 2001.
And the lead oxide thing was referring to bread or other food being adulterated in the 1800s,not in the 20th/21st century, where that would be checked for, and illegal, and ingredients have to be listed now.
http://www.duralabel.com/duranews/2012/may/02-chemical-labeling-is-arrives-at-a-turtles-pace.php
Re: EH?! Seperate Nutrition and Health!
Yes, we could do with more ergot. Ergotamine Tartrate isn't so easy to come by these days!
It all depends on what questions you ask
These two questions might have quite different answers -
Health benefits from organic vs industrialised?
Health risks from organic vs industrialised?
Properly conducted double-blind taste tests would also be interesting
Some of the commenters above decry organic as a denial of science and engineering. Yet Tom 7 asserts that he can empirically show better yields from traditional methods. So it may be that the science and engineering approach, applied to traditional methods and divorced from the goals of the agrichemical industry, is a valid 'third way'.
already use sh*t on normal farms
Human sewage is already used as fertiliser e.g. http://www.thereview.ca/story/concerns-over-sewage-sludge-being-spread-eastern-ontario-farmland , but not on organic farms though afaik (as it contains too many chemicals, and is also slightly radioactive).
In demark you can get organic potatoes from marocco, covered in soil. The funny thing is you cannot import dirty potatoes into the EU, so what happens is that they get a slight covering of Danish dirt put on them before they are put on the shelves. Because that makes them look more "organic". Its a strange planet we live on (not as strange as Lewis's brain, but bloody strange nonetheless)
Re: already use sh*t on normal farms
Is the no-importing dirt thing because of Colorado Beetles, perhaps? They used to have posters of it in the local cop shop when I was a kid (farming area), you know, "Wanted-Dead Or Alive" style mugshots ;)
Have you ever wondered
Where the soil originally came from that we grow our food in?
Anyone with a compost heap can tell you
Re: Have you ever wondered
Rotted leaves, plants, and decomposed rock mostly? I suppose the odd animal corpse or two. Not much poop though, unless from dogs or cats these days.
It's the sprays, stupid
The boffins clearly decided to ignore the skin of the fruit & veg. This is where all the actual minerals and vitamins are concentrated. Organic items should be spray free. Non organic will have synthetic pathogens sticking to the skin. I like to eat fruit & veg with skin.
Re: It's the sprays, stupid
Yes, they never thought of that. No doubt they had a nubile lady feeding them peeled grapes.
Re: It's the sprays, stupid
"Organic items should be spray free."
No. The rules for the 'organic' label allow plenty of spraying. Copper sulphate, hydrogen peroxide, boric acid ... the list varies from place to place. The 'organic' label just means that it fulfils a set of (arguably arbitrary) rules set down by a regulatory body. It doesn't mean it grew in an unadulterated Eden.
Re: It's the sprays, stupid
Yes, they are allowed non-biodegradeable, persistent stuff. I think the copper sulphate could be a longterm soil contamination problem. Plus, they are allowed to rumble on lumps of phosphate rock, but not purified phosphate rock derived powder in carefully controlled amounts ;)
You do know that a "pathogen" is what the general public calls a "germ", yes? Are synthetics pathogens things like Anthrax then? Darn it they were right, washing apples does nothing, where's me tinfoil hat!
Shock horror!!
This is a research for marketing/lobbying purposes only. Most people buy organic food because it is less likely to have pesticides, herbicides, added hormones, GM residues not because they think it is healthier in itself. My home grown tomatoes are delicious because I pick them 5 minutes before eating but I don't seriously expect them to be different nutritionally from the same seeds grown elsewhere and sprayed every week. I just expect them not to be covered in pesticides and preservatives.
This is a repeat of the GM research that says eating GM versions of food crops isn't bad for you (also done purely to provide marketing sound bites) . Big whoop - we have a couple of million years of evolution to stop us being damaged by odd DNA in food. What people worry about is GM crops that produce dangerous chemicals cross fertilising with food crops or GM plants with pesticide immunity cross fertilising with native weeds.
Re: Shock horror!!
Home grown tommies taste delicious because the average home gardener uses 3 times the level of fertiliser than farmed foods. Farmers are very precise in the amount of fertiliser they use (normally following Defra defined ratios) unlike home growers with their bags of growmore, tomorite, human urine, horse manure liquer, etc.
Re: Shock horror!!
Does that mean they basically have more sugar in them, I wouldn't be surprised .....
Re: Shock horror!!
"damaged by odd DNA in food"
Can somebody translate this into English for me?
I love people that rubbish the organic produce idea. I can only surmise they must be misers.
I mean, a litre of organic milk will keep at least a week longer than its non-organic cousin. An organic cauliflower tastes much better than its non-organic cousin. An organic chicken has doubtless had a far better life than a non-organic one. And organic eggs last forever too.
I hope you're being sarcastic, because this is complete bollox otherwise.
Really?
A litre of organic milk keeps a week longer than it's non organic variant? Really I doubt this very much.
Having grown up on a farm drinking raw milk (that's non pasteurised, non homogenised) you wouldn't want to drink it the next morning, as it turns really quick. Even now, I never use the best before date on a bottle of milk, my good old nose tells me if it's good or not.
Most of what we term 'organic' tastes better and/or lasts longer because it's much fresher due to being locally produced. But that's a difference about local produce, not organic produce.
Thanks JDX
I hadn't made the link between local/organic before. It's good to know.
I do buy some organic stuff simply because it tastes nicer, like tomatoes that actually have a flavour instead of tasting of water, but I'll not go out of my way to avoid GM or non-organic farming methods.
I also recognise that something that is listed as "organic" could also be GM, but I've no problem with that really, given the quantity of testing that's done (if the fucking hippies don't destroy the test fields)
I've actually thought the opposite was true about the length of time organic foods last, I think they don't last as long, but generally the stuff is all eaten before stuff goes off and there's not much waste in my house anyway.
Re: Really?
Yup, plus there are our old friends Brucellosis and TB, which is why milk is mostly pasteurised ..... unlike in Ye Goode Olde Days.
The thing is, it isn't bollocks at all. The milk and eggs do last longer and the cauliflower does taste better.
The chicken will also have had a better life.
It's a question of mass production and it's the same in ever sector (tobacco springs instantly to mind).
The same level of quality simply cannot be maintained when you're producing to the lowest price point.
I've seen how chickens are kept and I have absolutely no doubt that organic/free range chicken is a far more healthy option than caged, or even barn, hens.
The taste of cauliflower is subjective, however I have, on occasion, picked my own cauliflowers from the local farm. The hand-picked ones taste better than the store bought ones, but the organic ones taste better still.
If I keep barn eggs for say, a fortnight past their best before date, their yolks will almost certainly break, whereas I can still break an organic egg intact at least several weeks after their best before date.
I once left a bottle of organic milk in an outside fridge and forgot about it. When I came to pour it away (it was almost a month past its use by date), the constituents had not separated at all and the milk, in fact, smelled fresh and perfectly drinkable. I didn't take the risk of course, but non organic milk would have been in a far worse way by that point.
I'm sure you'll still disagree and that's fine with me, I'm not asking you to agree. But you can't tell me it's bollocks because I can see for myself it isn't.
I don't even need to read the author to know this opinionated piece is penned by Lewis (fukushima was triumph of engineering) Page
"That's not too surprising as organic grub is a huge money-spinning business, turning over $24.4bn in the US last year, and money like that tends to lead to a lot of ropey science and analysis"
Same is true about studies promoting agro chemicals such as growth hormones.
Lewis, stick to what you know.
And the bits Lewis kept out
Bravata and colleagues found organic fruits and vegetables are 30 per cent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than their conventional counterparts, although they were not necessarily 100 per cent free of pesticides.
They also found children on organic diets had lower levels of pesticides in their urine, compared to those on conventional diets
Tthey did find organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Re: And the bits Lewis kept out
"Bravata and colleagues found organic fruits and vegetables are 30 per cent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than their conventional counterparts, although they were not necessarily 100 per cent free of pesticides."
30 percent of what? If it's 30% of almost zero chance anyway, its not important.
"They also found children on organic diets had lower levels of pesticides in their urine, compared to those on conventional diets"
In their urine. Good. That's where the body puts stuff it doesn't want. Again, how much lower? Were the higher levels in any way harmful? Pffft.
"Tthey did find organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
'Appeared to reduce exposure' is hardly a ringing endorsement. All bacteria are dead if you cook it properly anyway - which you should always do - right kids? Again, a reduction without stating prior levels indicates nothing in terms of health benefit.
Re: "All bacteria are dead if you cook it properly anyway"
So the world is E.coli free then, so long as everything that needs cooking is properly cooked?
I'm not sure about that. Some stuff that carries E.coli (etc) doesn't need cooking when it reaches the end user.
The rest is just as bad.
Re: "All bacteria are dead if you cook it properly anyway"
"So the world is E.coli free then, so long as everything that needs cooking is properly cooked?"
No, you have billions of them swimming in your body at the moment, causing you no ill effect. If it carries (or has the potential to carry HARMFUL E.coli, then it needs cooking, organic or not, as the article states it just reduces the risk (from some small amount to some other slightly smaller amount).
If you don't cook it then you're accepting a small risk whether it's organic or not, so it's not relevant to this article in terms of health benefit, so long as you follow the far more imprtant precaution of cooking the damn chicken at home. it's like worrying about how clean the knife that just stabbed you was.
Re: "All bacteria are dead if you cook it properly anyway"
Cooking's not going to help with lettuce if you normally eat it raw. Washing doesn't help much either.
Re: "All bacteria are dead if you cook it properly anyway"
Oh, that changes things then. I'll only eat organic lettuce from now on so that I only have a 0.0000007% chance of getting E.coli poisoning from it rather than a 0.000001% chance or whatever. Praise be!
They already use human waste as fertiliser
Sewage sludge is already used as fertiliser. You just don't use human waste in its fresh form, and why would you want to?
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cr/wastewater/sewage-sludge-management/
Interesting snippet; you will normally see tomato plants growing on the sludge in summer, while it's waiting for collection from the works. The seeds pass through you, and the entire sewage plant, unharmed. In a really good summer you even get maize (sweetcorn).
Re: They already use human waste as fertiliser
Does anyone pick them?
Re: They already use human waste as fertiliser
Yeah, the same folks that go fishing in harbours :P
Re: They already use human waste as fertiliser
"I don' remember eatin' any corn!" (Fat Bastard)
Organic meat is better
1) It's tastier because it's been hung properly. I grant you that non-organic producers could do that, but, by and large, they don't.
2) Because antibiotics are not used as growth enhancers a) it's not promoting antibiotic resistance in the wild, and b) the beast was older when killed and consequently tastier. I grant you that producers don't need to be organic to refrain from antibiotics but, by and large, they don't.
What we want, for meat and eggs, is a legitimate marker for 'sensibly raised' which doesn't go the whole organic hog. And we could eat less, better, meat.
Re: Organic meat is better
I think there are already schemes that cover that - CoOp Freedom Food comes to mind for meat - better animal welfare if not completely organic, and there are certainly plenty of cereals etc which brag about their environmental credentials.
Quite often just buying local produce will do what you want. The beef in the local shops is made from the cows who share fields with my horse. I can see for myself how well they are looked after (although these actually are organic, to be fair).
Re: Properly raised and butchered meat is better
Well in the UK we do not add hormones and antibiotics are only used when necessary.
Sheep as mentioned before are only paperwork away from organic, pasture cows - no problem, pigs should have room to run about.
Chickens - as long as free range.
So get decently raised meat and a decent butcher - you get decent meat.
Supermarket cheap stuff has not hung at all.
Organic = better
...but not for the reasons you normally think off. Personally, I can't taste the difference, and don't really give a shit.
However, I do know that Organic farming uses far far less petro-chemicals in its production. This becomes important when talking about "peak oil" etc. We can replace oil as a fuel and even as a material (plastics) but we're not doing such a great job removing it from agriculture. Also, there is evidence to to show "soil fatigue" which is considerably reduced by going organic. The reduced yields could be compensated for by using high productivity GM crops.
So I say ignore the health bollox. Just go organic to go save money, reduce oil dependence and save the environment. Errr...sort of.
Efficiency vs Etthics
The argument of organic vs artificial is complete bollox, in comparible circumstances a tomato grown either way will have pretty well the same nutritional value. The key consideration to food production is the equation of energy input, amount of land used to produce your kilo of corn and the transport cost of getting that food to market. Organic production generally produces less acre and because of the lower croping density means that your transport costs are higher.
Organic farming is jolly nice on paper as somekind of pastoral utopia, but with 6+ billion people to feed it isn't terribly efficient.
The second related argument is the idiots who rail against GM crops, (which gets me even more mad!), ever since humans stopped chasing down mamoths for steaks and started farming, we have been GM'ing our food crops and animals, be it from selective breeding and cross polintation etc. GM is that 'selective breeding' at a greater precission. Once again, the reason why we selectively breed our food crops is to make the most efficient use of land & energy inputs.
Re: Efficiency vs Etthics
"ever since humans stopped chasing down mamoths for steaks and started farming, we have been GM'ing our food crops and animals, be it from selective breeding and cross polintation etc. GM is that 'selective breeding' at a greater precission"
Argue for or against GM crops whichever way you want (you'll notice that I elsewhere gave a long list of reasons that had little to do with health, btw), but please don't misrepesent science in order to try and bolster your case. No matter how many tens of thousands of years you selectively breed your cereal crop, it is unlikely to cross-breed with a caterpillar and acquire its genes for making toxins harmful to its predators (for example).
Re: Efficiency vs Etthics
You asserted that the key consideration is energy input. Others will disagree with you, and think things like pesticide loading or oil requirements are just as important. And your analysis is really incomplete: pesticides and artificial fertilisers are very energy-intensive, and they aren't used in organic food. And virtually any meat, under any system, costs a lot more in terms of energy than growing veg. So if your prime concern is cutting energy use, you should be railing about the necessity of adopting a wholly or mainly vegetarian diet, which would deliver large-scale savings especially in the West, not moaning about organic agriculture, which remains a tiny part of modern farming.
Re: Efficiency vs Etthics
Don't organic farms usually use tractor diesel? Like, a lot, because they have to till the land more due to using less weedkiller?
Re: Efficiency vs Etthics
They do, but tractor diesel is only a fraction of the total oil-based material used in agriculture. A lot of it actually goes on pesticides and fertilizers, neither of which are used in organic.
Note: I'm not claiming organic is better produce. Just that it uses less petro-chemical materials.
Re: Efficiency vs Etthics
haha, caught a live one, perhaps GM is getting a little off topic.
Obviously plants adapted & developed flowers independently for attracting insects to polinate them, rather than plants having a sentaint thought that hey lets make flowers cos they're awful pretty & cool (and perhaps in a million years an ape creature will like them....) .
Plants already incorporate defense mechanisms that deter predation by pests, these wheren't arrived at by 'accident' but by the selection and random chance of genetic mutation and trial & error over the millenia. Bacteria & viruses are clear vectors whereby plant & animal DNA may be exchanged. Plants & animals always have had and always will be swapping genes and working symbiotically.
Likewise if GM where able to implant the genes necessary for a plant to create a useful drug that could not be synthisised by traditional methods, would this be wrong? Is it wrong to dictate to an african farmer whos maize crop has just been ravaged by locusts or stunted by drought that they can't plant GM?
An anti-GM stance is illogical at best.
Hum, the difference is not in the vegetables but around... all the chemicals used by conventional agriculture.
Read the work of Pr Bourguignon and you will see that modern agriculture is killing the soil.
When the sage is pointing the moon, the industry argue about him having dirty fingernails...
J'Accuse!
You, monsieur, are made of chemicals! You may deny it if you wish, but we know the real story!
Re: J'Accuse!
What, I am made of _all_ chemicals?? I think I'm missing your point...
Where do I start with this? Talk about missing the point completely.
Rejecting hundreds of years of advancements? I think organic farmers are happy to use tractors and the like, but what they don't like to use is things like pesticides, which are known to damage insect life and therefore bird life, biodiversity and the local food chain in general around farms. Organic farmers also use techniques that *build up* soil nutrients and helpful microbes, rather than deplete them. Organic farming also uses better animal management practices , so your food creatures can have happier and more normal lives. And before you reactionary types pillory me for saying that, consider this: do you *really* want to eat a whole bunch of hormones and antibiotics in your meat? Do you really think they are doing you any good? (And why shouldn't we be nice to cows and chickens and goats and pigs anyway?)
But really, the biggest deal is that organic food TASTES better. A WHOLE LOT better, and you feel better after eating it. And that's not just some elitist smugness, it's a real phenomenon, at least in my experience - and believe me, I'm such a massive tightwad that I *want* there to be no discernable difference, in fact nothing better at all about organic food, then I could cheap out and happily buy the regular stuff. But it's just not so.
Re: Where do I start with this? Talk about missing the point completely.
"There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact" :P
This topic is closed for new posts.
