(Ed) Is "organic" better for you?

[Darat]

A new report is being reported by the media that organic food is better for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7067100.stm

...snip...

found a general trend showing organic food contained more antioxidants and less fatty acids.


...snip...


They found levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50% and 80% higher than normal milk.

Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 20% and 40% more nutrients.

But the study, which is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, also showed there were significant variations.

...snip...

Should be interesting to see if it makes it through the peer review process with the same conclusions.

 

[dacium2007]

So by organic food they mean food produced with out pesticides, manufactured fertilizers etc. But are all other factors actually equal? It is certainly interesting, but not unexpected, I'd expect the chemicals to have a negetive effect rather than a positive one.

As for the animals... not sure what they mean by organic. Do they mean they only eat living vegitation? This was pretty much proven to provide better health in cattle along time ago when they compared grass vs corn feed vs grain feed.

 

[mummymonkey]

Does the good professor use the word "baddies" in his paper?

 

[kellyb]

I can see how crop rotation would result in higher trace mineral content and things like that.
I always wonder about the "puny" looking organic produce, though. A lot of times the organic produce at the store just looks...kinda sickly. Spinach that's sort of a pale yellowish green, carrots that are peach colored....
I think buying bright, healthy looking produce regardless of farming style will generally be your best bet.

 

[Mashuna]

As for the animals... not sure what they mean by organic. Do they mean they only eat living vegitation? This was pretty much proven to provide better health in cattle along time ago when they compared grass vs corn feed vs grain feed.

There are a number of rules for organic cattle, for example. It's to do with the number of (antibiotic) treatments they're allowed to have per year, vaccinations, length of time between the last antibiotic treatment and slaughter. I know a couple of local vets who tell me the organic farm animals look the least healthy, as the farmers don't treat for parasitic infections as standard. I'm sure some of the vets on the board have more detail, and can correct any misunderstanding I have, as all my knowledge on the subject comes from talking to friends down the pub.

 

[pdw709]

Organic crops are still grown using "pesticides", its only that certain "pesticides" are deemed organic and therefore used.......therein lies the problem. Last time I looked, copper sulphate was allowable, yet copper does NOT occur naturally in this form and therefore has to be manufactured - hardly a natural pesticide then. Not also forgetting that it is extremely poisoness and can be lethal - we all know that "natural" does not mean safe as nature harnesses the worlds deadliest poisons......

Personally I'm not a believer in the organic revolution, judging by the prices someone is making a small fortune and I can bet its not the farmer.

Phil

 

[El Greco]

Organic crops are still grown using "pesticides", its only that certain "pesticides" are deemed organic and therefore used.......therein lies the problem. Last time I looked, copper sulphate was allowable, yet copper does NOT occur naturally in this form and therefore has to be manufactured - hardly a natural pesticide then.

That's my problem too: I don't doubt that "natural" would be better, but I doubt that what is labelled as "organic" is actually "natural". All in all, I don't trust the producers.

 

[Rolfe]

Antioxidants? Do we actually know that more of these is good for you anyway?

20% to 40% more "nutrients"? Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells. (I suspect this is some new definition of "nutrient" that doesn't include carbohydrates, fats and proteins.)

I have deep suspicions whether like was actually compared with like, here.

Still hoping the CPD meeting I've signed up for on "Animal Health Management in Organic Farming" goes ahead (so far, too few vets are registered for it to be viable).

Rolfe.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's my problem too: I don't doubt that "natural" would be better, but I doubt that what is labelled as "organic" is actually "natural". All in all, I don't trust the producers.

Rye ergot is natural. Blight, weevils, rats, and locusts are natural, too. "Natural" means nothing, especially not in regards to the cultivation of domesticated plants that have been bred to be freakishly proportioned in relation to the plants they are descended from. There's nothing natural about broccoli, there's nothing natural about plowing furrows, and there's nothing natural about farming in general.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Is it better for you to eat food that has lower trace amounts of pesticides? Probably.

Do "organic" have lower traces of pesticides? Somewhat debatable.

Do "organic" foods have more "nutrients"? Why should they?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it better for you to eat food that has lower trace amounts of pesticides? Probably.

Do "organic" have lower traces of pesticides? Somewhat debatable.

Do "organic" foods have more "nutrients"? Why should they?

Are more "nutrients" better for you? This seems to be part of the whole mega dose vitamins idiocy.

 

[fuelair]

So by organic food they mean food produced with out pesticides, manufactured fertilizers etc. But are all other factors actually equal? It is certainly interesting, but not unexpected, I'd expect the chemicals to have a negetive effect rather than a positive one.

As for the animals... not sure what they mean by organic. Do they mean they only eat living vegitation? This was pretty much proven to provide better health in cattle along time ago when they compared grass vs corn feed vs grain feed.

The factors are highly variable, no pesticides almost guarantees insect damages (unless all the area around your organic farm has farms that use pesticides - at least naturally occuring ones (to maintain the organic thing). Natural fertilizers have variable assays/amounts of the component elements so may be great or not. Basically, organic products can be fine and can take their farmer under depending on their exact composition.

 

[Jorghnassen]

The factors are highly variable, no pesticides almost guarantees insect damages

I don't know, but last time I had local "organic" strawberries, at least a month before season, they were pretty much perfect in every way. Of course, insect damage is less likely if you grow your "organic" crops inside a controlled environment...

But I just love it when the media reports study results that are yet to be peer-reviewed and published in a proper journal.

 

[Z]

I take all that 'organic' labelling with a grain of salt. One of the first thing that Bush's administration did after the takeover was to remove restrictions on what could and could not be called 'organic'. Our local woo store, Wild Oats, made a huge point of comparing the pre-Bush regulations to the present ones, to keep customers informed.

And even with all that, there's no telling if 'organic' foods are really better for you or not. IF you're particularly sensitive to pesticides or steroids, or whatever, then maybe you need to worry. I tend to buy one brand of organic carrots, only because they taste sweeter than other brands (and I don't chalk that up to being 'organic', but rather to using good soil). And I've had to buy 'organic' apples from some stores, whose regular apples were sprayed with food dyes (my kids are sensitive to petroleum-based food products). But most of the time, I could care less. Manufacture my tomatoes in a lab molecule by molecule - if it tastes, smells, and feels the same, that's fine with me.

 

[Michael C]

Is it better for you to eat food that has lower trace amounts of pesticides? Probably.

Do "organic" have lower traces of pesticides? Somewhat debatable.

All studies that I have seen show that food grown "organically" (in accordance with European guidelines) has considerably lower pesticide levels than non-organically grown food. The difference is most important for anything that grows above ground, and less important for root vegetables. What may be debatable is how much effect these pesticides actually have on our health.

Do "organic" foods have more "nutrients"? Why should they?

I understand "nutrients" to mean all the different substances I need to eat in order to stay healthy: carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins and certain minerals. I've seen few studies of this: I think it's very hard to find comparable samples. The proportions of nutrients probably depend much more on such factors as amount of sunlight, temperature variation, amount of water or ambient humidity than on whether or not "organic" principles were followed. The few studies I've seen show little difference between the nutritive value of organic and non-organic fruits and vegetables.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Pesticide kills pests.
I'm not a pest.
Therefore...

 

[tkingdoll]

What the hell are these people doing issuing a press release before the paper has been published? This is a health issue; organic food is much more expensive to produce and to buy, and consumer choice should be informed. Given how many people are poor, this study has massive implications, not just economically but socially. They are irresponsible to the extreme if they have issued a release before being accepted for publication.

I might email the researchers, I suppose it's possible they've been accepted for publication but the story doesn't imply that at all.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

This is complete and utter bull. It's true that pastasides can cause problems, which is why producers are supposed to wash foods thoroughly and (one reason) why people should wash them. But so can horse crap and other "organic" stuff that "Organic" farmers put on their food.

The idea that "unnatural" food is "full of toxins" is not supported by the facts and in some ways is dangerous. The Green Revolution is what we have in the western world to thank for plentiful foods. That means fertelizers, insectasides and motorized farm equipment. "Natural" food is a luxury item that you could not feed the world with. If modern farming falls out of favor we stand the real risk of famin if a bad year or an extreme overpopulation of crop-eating insects should happen.

 

[Jorghnassen]

This is a health issue; organic food is much more expensive to produce and to buy, and consumer choice should be informed. Given how many people are poor, this study has massive implications, not just economically but socially. They are irresponsible to the extreme if they have issued a release before being accepted for publication.

Gee, don't you think you're overreacting. It's not the first time media have reported that "organic food is better", with "scientific" backup or not. And it's not going to affect poor people's generally unhealthy diet (or savings/spending) one bit.

 

[shadron]

I can see how crop rotation would result in higher trace mineral content and things like that.
I always wonder about the "puny" looking organic produce, though. A lot of times the organic produce at the store just looks...kinda sickly. Spinach that's sort of a pale yellowish green, carrots that are peach colored....
I think buying bright, healthy looking produce regardless of farming style will generally be your best bet.

Two reasons: Normal farm produce is often "spiffied-up" by the distributor/grocer to make it look better - thus, apples are waxed, the common bluish cast of fresh milk is whited out and so on. Secondly, organic growth implies (by law) the non-use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, which actually do have a positive effect on growing things, believe it or not. A radish grown with fertilizer and another without will show a definite difference, and the organic will be at a distinct disadvantage in a beauty contest - perhaps even a nutrition contest.