Organic Woo?

[Rolfe]

Can you substantiate the assertion that "factory farmed" eggs are "low in nutritive content"? (I'm not sure whether you're saying that brown eggs are low in nutritive content - is "nutritive" a word? - compared to white eggs or not, your post seems to contradict itself on that.)

Rolfe.

 

[tkingdoll]

Can you substantiate the assertion that "factory farmed" eggs are "low in nutritive content"? (I'm not sure whether you're saying that brown eggs are low in nutritive content - is "nutritive" a word? - compared to white eggs or not, your post seems to contradict itself on that.)

Rolfe.

I was confused about that but then re-read it as white and brown factory farmed eggs are low in nutritive content. But I would also like to see some evidence for that claim (which I imagine will be based on the respective diets of factory-farmed and free-range birds).

 

[Rolfe]

I was confused about that but then re-read it as white and brown factory farmed eggs are low in nutritive content. But I would also like to see some evidence for that claim (which I imagine will be based on the respective diets of factory-farmed and free-range birds).

Yes, I think that's what the poster meant. Though it's not what is actually said.

I would like some evidence that "factory-farmed .... eggs .... are .... low in nutritive content".

Rolfe.

 

[Jorghnassen]

I was confused about that but then re-read it as white and brown factory farmed eggs are low in nutritive content. But I would also like to see some evidence for that claim (which I imagine will be based on the respective diets of factory-farmed and free-range birds).

A quick regular google search produced, as expected, mostly garbage (material from advocacy groups, usually vegan or pro-"natural" stuff), but the one, not peer-reviewed test I saw , did measure nutrient content in the eggs directly (for their own eggs, they just took the factory-raised eggs numbers from the USDA). No big surprise, they disagree with the American Egg Board's claims that nutrient content is not affected by free-range vs floor vs cage raised. I do believe the "MotherEarthNews" people misinterpret those claims, as I imagine, the amount of freedom of movement each chicken gets should not affect nutrient content in eggs significantly, but I do believe a difference in diet could make a difference there; though the American Egg Board's claim does not touch this issue.

The one thing I am curious about is whether the egg laying regiment of factory-raised hens affects nutrient content in any significant way.

 

[tkingdoll]

A quick regular google search produced, as expected, mostly garbage (material from advocacy groups, usually vegan or pro-"natural" stuff), but the one, not peer-reviewed test I saw , did measure nutrient content in the eggs directly (for their own eggs, they just took the factory-raised eggs numbers from the USDA). No big surprise, they disagree with the American Egg Board's claims that nutrient content is not affected by free-range vs floor vs cage raised. I do believe the "MotherEarthNews" people misinterpret those claims, as I imagine, the amount of freedom of movement each chicken gets should not affect nutrient content in eggs significantly, but I do believe a difference in diet could make a difference there; though the American Egg Board's claim does not touch this issue.

The one thing I am curious about is whether the egg laying regiment of factory-raised hens affects nutrient content in any significant way.

I think the major point for clarification (from luchog) is between factory-farmed eggs having low nutritive content, and factory-farmed eggs having lower nutritive content than free-range. That would still allow for them having high nutritive content. I'm not sure which luchog is claiming.

 

[Cuddles]

Apparently there is a new study soon to be published which shows organic tomatoes really are better than inorganic ones. http://environment.newscientist.com...-organic-tomatoes-have-more-antioxidants.html

Unfortunately there is one bit of the article that really caught my attention:

It's the kind of evidence that pro-organic groups have been desperate to dig up, as most studies have suggested otherwise.

Hmm. One study is positive, lots are negative. Interesting, but what's the bet that this is paraded around as the ultimate proof that organic proponents were right all along?

 

[Pipirr]

Apparently there is a new study soon to be published which shows organic tomatoes really are better than inorganic ones. http://environment.newscientist.com...-organic-tomatoes-have-more-antioxidants.html

The crux of the story:

Flavonoids are produced as a defence mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency. The inorganic nitrogen in conventional fertiliser is easily available to plants and so, the team suggests, the lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by overfertilisation.

For the statement that "organic tomatoes have more flavonoids" to be true, organic tomato farms need to be consistently N deficient, and conventional tomato farms need to be consistently N sufficient.

This will not always be the case. Some organic growers can produce tomatoes with N sufficiency, and some conventional growers will produce N deficient tomatoes. The flavonoid levels may vary accordingly.

Which comes back to the fundamental problem with organic: it is a process standard, not a product standard.

It's entirely plausible that an efficient, competent organic grower can consistently produce N sufficient, flavonoid-poor tomatoes. In which case, his organic tomatoes won't be anything special - but his productivity will be high.

So where's the benefit?

 

[Jorghnassen]

So where's the benefit?

Who cares? I'm growing my own tomatoes for the first time, I just hope they'll be tasty!

/just bought some standard tomato fertilizer
//but didn't use any pesticides
///I guess that makes them semi-"organic"

 

[robinson]

One of the benefits of "organic" produce, if it is really is local, is it taste better. The local organic farm here is 15 minutes away from the Co-op that sells it. Tomatoes are picked ripe, and you can buy them within an hour of harvest, which is a huge advantage over buying tomatoes that were picked hard and green in California, (3,000 miles away), transported on a train, gassed with sulfur to ripen them, and delivered a month after they were harvested.

Organic pesticides are non-toxic, and wash off with water. I don't care that much about fertilizers, but toxic pesticides are not worth taking a chance on. I've seen the signs posted after they spray with them. You don't want to eat even a few molecules of some of that stuff.

I know the owner of the organic farm, and he had to jump through a lot of hoops to get certified. There is a huge market for organic produce here, (Central Florida). A lot of them are well educated people with high income jobs. We don't mind paying more for produce that is vine/tree ripened, and taste better.

It wouldn't matter if somebody actually tested everything and found no difference in nutrints. The taste makes it worth it.

Knowing you are not consuming any petrochemicals, or Organophosphates, is one of those peace of mind benefits, especially when it comes to young children.

I find it funny that some people think before the chemical industry it was impossible to grow food. Farmers discovered a long time ago how to kill bugs, and protect crops, without any nerve agents or oil based fertilizer.

The biggest danger from pesticides is to the poor dude spraying it. Trace amounts in food won't kill you, but a lung full in the field is sometimes fatal.

 

[Pipirr]

One of the benefits of "organic" produce, if it is really is local, is it taste better.

So it tastes better because it’s local? Conventional growers also produce and sell locally. Local doesn’t mean organic. As for organic meaning better taste, sure about that?

Organic pesticides are non-toxic, and wash off with water

Sure about that? All of them?

toxic pesticides are not worth taking a chance on. I've seen the signs posted after they spray with them. You don't want to eat even a few molecules of some of that stuff.

And a few molecules will do what to me, exactly? Ohnoes the molecules!

There is a huge market for organic produce here, (Central Florida). A lot of them are well educated people with high income jobs.

Good for them. Good for the organic industry, too. There has to be someone willing to pay the premium prices.

I find it funny that some people think before the chemical industry it was impossible to grow food. Farmers discovered a long time ago how to kill bugs, and protect crops, without any nerve agents or oil based fertilizer.

Yes, it is funny if people really think that. But it’s not any of the farmers that I know.

The biggest danger from pesticides is to the poor dude spraying it. Trace amounts in food won't kill you, but a lung full in the field is sometimes fatal

The dose makes the poison. Spray safe.

 

[Mongrel]

One of the benefits of "organic" produce, if it is really is local, is it taste better. The local organic farm here is 15 minutes away from the Co-op that sells it. Tomatoes are picked ripe, and you can buy them within an hour of harvest, which is a huge advantage over buying tomatoes that were picked hard and green in California, (3,000 miles away), transported on a train, gassed with sulfur to ripen them, and delivered a month after they were harvested.

I'm all for buying local produce, it does taste better. What I (and I believe most people in this thread) have a problem is the big supermarkets promoting 'organic' food. It's still the same bland, tasteless, bred for conformity and longevity varieties just farmed organically. End result - same tasteless crap that you pay more for.

Organic pesticides are non-toxic, and wash off with water. I don't care that much about fertilizers, but toxic pesticides are not worth taking a chance on. I've seen the signs posted after they spray with them. You don't want to eat even a few molecules of some of that stuff.

Many, but not all, pesticides are water soluble. A couple of days of rain will wash it off and even then produce is washed thoroughly before packing and shipping. Oh and the fertilisers that you're not worried about include pig slurry, stored and fermented pig s***, water will wash off the crud but it won't touch the bacteria

I know the owner of the organic farm, and he had to jump through a lot of hoops to get certified. There is a huge market for organic produce here, (Central Florida). A lot of them are well educated people with high income jobs. We don't mind paying more for produce that is vine/tree ripened, and taste better.

It wouldn't matter if somebody actually tested everything and found no difference in nutrints. The taste makes it worth it.

Yep - tree\vine\plant ripened stuff does taste better, no doubt about that but there's a bit of a fallacy in the "well educated people with high income jobs". I know well educated people with high income jobs who always read the horoscopes - doesn't mean it's right

Knowing you are not consuming any petrochemicals, or Organophosphates, is one of those peace of mind benefits, especially when it comes to young children.

Whilst I'm not a lover of big industry I don't believe they'd be intentionally buying produce from suppliers who go over the "nasty chemicals" threshold as laid down by your countries relevant department (All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…. Paracelsus)

I find it funny that some people think before the chemical industry it was impossible to grow food. Farmers discovered a long time ago how to kill bugs, and protect crops, without any nerve agents or oil based fertilizer.

No, most rational people realise that without chemical fertilizers, modern pesticides and genetically engineered crops the human race couldn't support itself. As pointed out quite nicely in the Bulls*** episode, it only seems to be the rich, industrialised nations that worry about the source of their food.

 

[Zamzara]

Apparently there is a new study soon to be published which shows organic tomatoes really are better than inorganic ones. http://environment.newscientist.com...-organic-tomatoes-have-more-antioxidants.html

Even that one positive study is really scraping the barrel for an obscure and questionable benefit.

 

[Pipirr]

Even that one positive study is really scraping the barrel for an obscure and questionable benefit.

The Soil Association is all over it already.

The Soil Association is now pressing the Food Standards Agency to review its guidance on the merits of organic as opposed to conventional fruit and vegetables. Peter Melchett, its policy director, said that there was now a rapidly growing body of evidence which showed significant differences between the nutritional composition of organic and nonorganic food.

Melchett never misses a chance to promote organic woo.

 

[zombiebex]

What about organic milk?

I've heard claims that kids are reaching puberty earlier and earlier these days because of all the hormones in milk.

 

[tabitha]

I'm all for buying local produce, it does taste better. What I (and I believe most people in this thread) have a problem is the big supermarkets promoting 'organic' food. It's still the same bland, tasteless, bred for conformity and longevity varieties just farmed organically. End result - same tasteless crap that you pay more for. <snip>

I agree with this. I don't understand why people buy organic food from supermarkets - as a result of it (normally) being shipped from the other side of the world, it it tastless, has far less nutrients and is more expensive!

I have to admit I do buy some things organic, but never from a supermarket. Only if it is grown/ lived locally. I think organic (or free range) chicken tastes a whole lot better than battery chickens. It is white to start with where as battery chicken seem to have a pink colour. Organic chicken breasts are also normally far bigger. I also buy organic milk. My main reason for doing so is it comes in a plastic bag which uses 70% less packaging than conventional milk and it does have slightly more omega-3. Anything else, I would probably buy organic if they they were both local. If not, I would choose non-organic local anyday.

 

[Mongrel]

I also buy organic milk. My main reason for doing so is it comes in a plastic bag which uses 70% less packaging than conventional milk and it does have slightly more omega-3.

Well at least the 70% less packaging is still noble

Meanwhile a study proclaiming that organic milk had higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids failed to convince the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA), which pointed out that these short-chained fatty acids do not have the health-promoting benefits offered by long-chained omega-3 oils.

(link)

 

[Pipirr]

What about organic milk?

I've heard claims that kids are reaching puberty earlier and earlier these days because of all the hormones in milk.

Which hormones? Bovine somatotrophin? BST is found in all milk, and so far as I understand it, rBST, the synthetic form, is chemically indistinguishable.

If there is a link between milk consumption and early puberty, it would be hard to tease out, because most everybody drinks milk and ingests cow hormones. BST, rBST, or whatever. With milk being the product of a lactating animal, it contains far more than just calcium and good-with-Oreos goodness.

Personally, I don't like the idea of milk from cows that have had their milk production over-stimulated with rBST. I don't fear the hormones, but rather that type of production system makes me slightly uncomfortable.

So what to do? Dairies that use rBST can see a 10% increase in milk production. If they didn't use it, they can take a financial hit. Consumers can pay a premium for milk produced without rBST, and milk can be labelled as such:

existing FDA interpretation of law permits producers to indicate that milk comes from cows not treated with rBST if labels are also qualified to clarify that no significant difference has been shown between milk from rBST- and non-rBST-treated cattle.

Look out for it on your grocery store shelves.

In Europe, rBST isn't used in milk production. What benefit of organic, then?

 

[Rolfe]

Zip, so far as I can see. And a threat to the health of the cows, if they are denied proper healthcare because of a prohibition on "chemicals" or "drugs".

Rofe.

 

[Pipirr]

I also buy organic milk. My main reason for doing so is it comes in a plastic bag which uses 70% less packaging than conventional milk and it does have slightly more omega-3. Anything else, I would probably buy organic if they they were both local. If not, I would choose non-organic local anyday.

This is worth going into.

Milk from cows that are fed grass will contain more omega 3.

Milk from cows that are fed grains will contain less omega 3.

Milk from cows on an organic farm, fed on grass, will contain more omega 3.

Milk from cows on a conventional farm, fed on grass, will contain more omega 3.

There's nothing magical about organic farming that imparts omega 3 to the milk. It's the result of the food that the cows are fed.

Does the organic milk that you purchase contain more omega 3? To the best of my knowledge, there's no guarantee. Organic farms can feed organic cows organic grains and produce organic milk, that will be low in omega 3. Seeing as grass doesn't grow all year round in a lot of places, that's almost inevitable.

And even if the milk did contain more omega 3, is there a known human health benefit?

So...what benefit organic? ....




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7905466&dopt=Abstract

 

[farmermike]

What about organic milk?

I've heard claims that kids are reaching puberty earlier and earlier these days because of all the hormones in milk.

As a dairy farmer and a skeptic,I've got to wade in on this one.Bottom line is that ther is no lab test that can differetiate milk from my farm and milk from an organic dairy farm.What adds insult to injury if we're talking "carbon footprint" is that organic milk is being picked up in the same tanker truck as my milk,but in another compartment to avoid cross contamination.The whole load is then transported many extra miles to a dairy that handles organic milk.Because of the premium price it fetches on the store shelves the added costs of maintaining this parallel system can be recouped.I use antibiotics when I have to and withdrawl times have to be strictly followed.Evey load is tested for minute residues that can be traced back to the farmer.The farmer is then responsible for the tankerload of milk that has to be disposed of ~25000$.In Canada we don't use bst,but it is a protein that is already naturally occuring in milk and the level is no higher in treated cows.