Organic Foods

I know some people think they're better for you but their are no scientific basis for organic food being better for you. In fact the pesticides they use (which they do use by the way) are actually WORSE for you than the pesticides they use on the unorganic food. Their are more things I can say but I just woke up lol so if anyone has any arguments I'll use them then.

Uh, yeah. Since there is no evidence supporting your cause, I'll cite the ridiculous study that was completed recently and ironically was heavily backed by a huge conventional food industry.

It may be rather surprising to hear that conventional food industries may say that there's no benefit to organic foods so that the public feels good about biting into their chemically washed hormone enhanced food, and so companies don't have to switch from the awful practices that they're using now.

It's the same propaganda that was in the environment video I watched in eighth grade, which proclaimed that haliburton were the leaders in finding environment solutions to the problems that THEY were causing. Big business is always going to put up a fight against cleaning up the crap that they're dropping all over the place.

And I don't know why you think that the organic pesticides are worse for you. The fact is that while pesticides are still needed, they're used in a much smaller and safer amount than conventional foods. Since you stated there's no scientific basis for organic foods being healthier and then provided no scientific basis supporting your own arguments, I'll give you several scientific studies to ponder.

Several studies have found that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does.
[Consumers Union Press Release, Environmental Science & Technology, Report On Pesticides, Agricultural Chemicals, Environmental Pollutants and Other Impurities in Agri-Food Commodities of Plant Origin]

And, in a study by the National research council in 1993, it was determined that infants and children's highest exposure of pesticide was from conventional foods, Meditating upon that though, we turn to a recent study in 2006 when 23 schoolchildren switched to an organic diet, it was found that the children's pesticide exposure dropped dramatically when they switched to an organic diet. (I think that could be considered scientific basis for organic foods being healthier than conventional.)

Obviously, pesticide exposure is way lower in an organic diet.

From my own personal perspective, my mom switched our family to an organic diet three years ago, and it's obvious that the food is much healthier for you. The milk she found is the best I've ever had in my life (even though it's one percent!). What's also obvious and has been throughout history is that companies are going to tell consumers what they want to hear so that they don't have to change their awful practices. (It's always going to be more difficult and expensive to do what's right.)

As for me, I'm going to continue to enjoy my healthier organic foods.

There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published today in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to-date been no systematic review of the available published literature.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focussed on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.

Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigour the quality of each article was assessed. To be graded as satisfactory quality, the studies had to provide information on the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analysed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. 55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality, and analysis was conducted comparing the content in organically and conventionally produced foods of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories.

The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant differences between production methods in nutrient content. Differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use (nitrogen, phosphorus), and ripeness at harvest (acidity), and it is unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.

Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, comments: 'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'.


###


Like I said I made this topic when I woke up, not exactly in an evidence finding mood at that pont.

And if the world were to switch to a full organic diet it would only be enough to feed 4 billion people, and last time I checked we have 7 billion people on the planet.

JakeTheSnake wrote:There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published today in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to-date been no systematic review of the available published literature.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focussed on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.

Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigour the quality of each article was assessed. To be graded as satisfactory quality, the studies had to provide information on the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analysed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. 55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality, and analysis was conducted comparing the content in organically and conventionally produced foods of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories.

The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant differences between production methods in nutrient content. Differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use (nitrogen, phosphorus), and ripeness at harvest (acidity), and it is unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.

Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, comments: 'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs'.


###


Like I said I made this topic when I woke up, not exactly in an evidence finding mood at that pont.

Okay, for one you just did a copypasta directly from the study.

Let's dissect this article for a minute

First, you didn't challenge any of my claims whatsoever. You completely dropped the argument on pesticides and moved to nutritional content. Which isn't even the point of organic foods, the point is having no pesticides being washed all over it.


Also, this entire article doesn't even support any of your pesticide claims you made in your first post. So basically now let's consider conventional foods to be worse for you because of the pesticides sense it was disproven with my previous response. (And was never responded to)


And three-This is the exact government funded source I mentioned in my first paragraph. Let's take a look at an article by Graham Hill, writer for the huffington post, published yesterday

Science Fails to State the Obvious: Organic is Healthier

Portions of the Web were abuzz with Alan Dangour and his team's review of 50 years of studies regarding nutrient content of organic foods versus conventionally-produced foods, funded by the U.K.'s Food Standards Agency (FSA).

"We have concluded that there's no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health based on the nutrient content," says Dangour in a Guardian article.

Okay. The researchers were looking to review the studies out there to determine whether certain nutrients were higher in organic or non-organic food. They found that, for example, vitamin C, potassium, and calcium weren't significantly higher in organic foods. They found that flavanoids and the minerals zinc and magnesium were significantly higher in organic crops (nitrogen was higher in conventional crops).

So Dangour et al. are saying regarding nutrient content, there isn't a vast difference.

But come on -- the review did not at all address contaminant content (pesticide, herbicide, fungicide) in organic versus conventional, nor did it address environmental impacts of organic versus conventional.

A four-year E.U. wide study from 2007, involving 31 research and university institutes, came to a different conclusion: levels of nutritionally desirable compounds, such as antioxidants and vitamins, are higher in organic crops, it said, while levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as toxic chemicals, mycotoxins and metals such as cadmium and nickel, are lower in organic crops.

Again, that source you cited was the exact propaganda I was speaking of in my first response. Just Big Business Telling the consumer what we want to hear.

In the End, we're just going to have to use our common sense

Ok you got me on Pesticides, if I had the link to Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on Organic Foods I would use that but for now you absolutly win this round. But you didn't address my point on the whole population deal.

I've always thought that organic foods were just some way to get people to spend more money on "healthier" stuff, that aren't any better than processed foods. I've tried some of the granola snack bars that they have and it tastes like cardboard and chocolate.

JakeTheSnake wrote:Ok you got me on Pesticides, if I had the link to Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on Organic Foods I would use that but for now you absolutly win this round. But you didn't address my point on the whole population deal.

Indeed I didn't, I didn't read it when I quoted you in my last response. I guess I would contend that we're not exactly feeding all 7 Billion people in the world now, and the only way we can will be done by neither conventional or organic practices, but rather the processes of biotechnology. Which ideally would fortify foods in vitamins for people in the third world.

In the end, organic foods are probably never going to be the food that everybody in the world will be consuming, but thats not the point. The point is that organic foods will always be available for people who are seeking a healthier lifestyle.

Paradigm wrote:I've always thought that organic foods were just some way to get people to spend more money on "healthier" stuff, that aren't any better than processed foods. I've tried some of the granola snack bars that they have and it tastes like cardboard and chocolate.

You should try the produce, or the dairy.

I suppose another reason to buy organic is if you don't believe in genetically modified organisms. Some of the everyday produce we eat has been genetically modified.

JakeTheSnake wrote:And if the world were to switch to a full organic diet it would only be enough to feed 4 billion people, and last time I checked we have 7 billion people on the planet.

Go vegan!

One acre of quality land can produce 4,536 kilograms of green beans, 13,608 kilograms of carrots, or 22,680 kilograms of tomatoes but only 113 kilograms of beef.

Drop your addiction to meat products and then there will be PLENTY of room to feed everyone.

Don't forget, the average cow eats 45 pounds of feed and drinks 136 liters of water today. That's a lot of food that could be used to feed others, you know.

So, producing a single hamburger uses enough fossil fuels to drive a small car 20 miles and enough water for 17 showers.

Besides, A lifelong veggie will save the lives of approximately 760 chickens, 5 cows, 20 pigs, 29 sheep, 46 turkeys and half a tonne of fish.

/end random vegan promotion.

I'm all for organic foods.

But I don't buy them because I, personally, don't have the choice.

I'm already straight edge. I don't want any poisons in my body, that includes on the food that I eat.

Sorry, Jake, but I totally support Ben for this one :p

Spishnittlestick wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:And if the world were to switch to a full organic diet it would only be enough to feed 4 billion people, and last time I checked we have 7 billion people on the planet.

Go vegan!

One acre of quality land can produce 4,536 kilograms of green beans, 13,608 kilograms of carrots, or 22,680 kilograms of tomatoes but only 113 kilograms of beef.

Drop your addiction to meat products and then there will be PLENTY of room to feed everyone.

Don't forget, the average cow eats 45 pounds of feed and drinks 136 liters of water today. That's a lot of food that could be used to feed others, you know.

So, producing a single hamburger uses enough fossil fuels to drive a small car 20 miles and enough water for 17 showers.

Besides, A lifelong veggie will save the lives of approximately 760 chickens, 5 cows, 20 pigs, 29 sheep, 46 turkeys and half a tonne of fish.

/end random vegan promotion.

I'm all for organic foods.

But I don't buy them because I, personally, don't have the choice.

I'm already straight edge. I don't want any poisons in my body, that includes on the food that I eat.

Sorry, Jake, but I totally support Ben for this one :p

Meat addiction...you act like I'm saying EAT ONLY MEAT ALL THE TIME NOTHING BUT THE STUFF. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that organic foods are a scam to get you to pay more for the exact same fruits and vegitables. Most of what I eat is fruits anyways, if I could switch to eating nothing but fruits and be healthy I would.

JakeTheSnake wrote:

Spishnittlestick wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:And if the world were to switch to a full organic diet it would only be enough to feed 4 billion people, and last time I checked we have 7 billion people on the planet.

Go vegan!

One acre of quality land can produce 4,536 kilograms of green beans, 13,608 kilograms of carrots, or 22,680 kilograms of tomatoes but only 113 kilograms of beef.

Drop your addiction to meat products and then there will be PLENTY of room to feed everyone.

Don't forget, the average cow eats 45 pounds of feed and drinks 136 liters of water today. That's a lot of food that could be used to feed others, you know.

So, producing a single hamburger uses enough fossil fuels to drive a small car 20 miles and enough water for 17 showers.

Besides, A lifelong veggie will save the lives of approximately 760 chickens, 5 cows, 20 pigs, 29 sheep, 46 turkeys and half a tonne of fish.

/end random vegan promotion.

I'm all for organic foods.

But I don't buy them because I, personally, don't have the choice.

I'm already straight edge. I don't want any poisons in my body, that includes on the food that I eat.

Sorry, Jake, but I totally support Ben for this one :p

Meat addiction...you act like I'm saying EAT ONLY MEAT ALL THE TIME NOTHING BUT THE STUFF. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that organic foods are a scam to get you to pay more for the exact same fruits and vegitables. Most of what I eat is fruits anyways, if I could switch to eating nothing but fruits and be healthy I would.

I really fail to understand how its a scam if you want food which doesn't have harmful pesticides all over it..

lol, Americans do have an addiction to meat.

That's why so many eat it once per meal.

Or even once per day. Truly it's only "safe" once per week or so, but it can be done without, altogether

And fruit is a great step, but veggies and grains are close behind

Back on topic -->

Our whole food industry is practically corrupt and poorly regulated, but I still choose organic over "normal" when given the option :p

lol, Americans do have an addiction to meat.

That's why so many eat it once per meal.

Or even once per day. Truly it's only "safe" once per week or so, but it can be done without, altogether

And fruit is a great step, but veggies and grains are close behind

Back on topic -->

Our whole food industry is practically corrupt and poorly regulated, but I still choose organic over "normal" when given the option :p

Donald Williams wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:

Spishnittlestick wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:And if the world were to switch to a full organic diet it would only be enough to feed 4 billion people, and last time I checked we have 7 billion people on the planet.

Go vegan!

One acre of quality land can produce 4,536 kilograms of green beans, 13,608 kilograms of carrots, or 22,680 kilograms of tomatoes but only 113 kilograms of beef.

Drop your addiction to meat products and then there will be PLENTY of room to feed everyone.

Don't forget, the average cow eats 45 pounds of feed and drinks 136 liters of water today. That's a lot of food that could be used to feed others, you know.

So, producing a single hamburger uses enough fossil fuels to drive a small car 20 miles and enough water for 17 showers.

Besides, A lifelong veggie will save the lives of approximately 760 chickens, 5 cows, 20 pigs, 29 sheep, 46 turkeys and half a tonne of fish.

/end random vegan promotion.

I'm all for organic foods.

But I don't buy them because I, personally, don't have the choice.

I'm already straight edge. I don't want any poisons in my body, that includes on the food that I eat.

Sorry, Jake, but I totally support Ben for this one :p

Meat addiction...you act like I'm saying EAT ONLY MEAT ALL THE TIME NOTHING BUT THE STUFF. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that organic foods are a scam to get you to pay more for the exact same fruits and vegitables. Most of what I eat is fruits anyways, if I could switch to eating nothing but fruits and be healthy I would.

I really fail to understand how its a scam if you want food which doesn't have harmful pesticides all over it..

I know no one is going to agree with me on this but in my opinion, organic foods are just as corrupt in buisness practices as the regular food industry. You still don't know FOR SURE whether or not they used pesticides because it's a big buisness we're talking about here. The only way to maintain whether or not your food is healthy is to grow it youself.

Here's another one of the dreaded copypastas that agree with my point.

Many "organic" proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [12].

To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in foods and conducts frequent "market basket" studies wherein foods from regions throughout the United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997 tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables had no detectable pesticides and only about 1.2% of domestic and 1.6% of imported foods had violative levels [13]. Its annual Total Diet Study has always found that America's dietary intakes are well within international and Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Most studies conducted since the early 1970s have found that the pesticide levels in foods designated organic were similar to those that were not. In 1997, Consumer Reports purchased about a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides. Traces were detected in 77% of conventional foods and 25% of organically labeled foods, but only one sample of each exceeded the federal limit [14].

Pesticides can locate on the surface of foods as well as beneath the surface. The amounts that washing can remove depends on their location, the amount and temperature of the rinse water, and whether detergent is used. Most people rinse their fruits and vegetables with plain water before eating them. In fact, Consumer Reports on Health has recommended this [15].Consumer Reports stated that it did not do so because the FDA tests unwashed products. The amount of pesticide removed by simple rinsing has not been scientifically studied but is probably small. Consumer Reports missed a golden opportunity to assess this.

Do pesticides found in conventional foods pose a health threat? Does the difference in pesticide content warrant buying "organic" foods? Consumer Reports equivocates: "For consumers in general, the unsettling truth is that no one really knows what a lifetime of consuming the tiny quantities of foods might do to a person. The effect, if any, is likely to be small for most individuals—but may be significant for the population at large." But the editors also advise, "No one should avoid fruits and vegetables for fear of pesticides; the health benefits of these foods overwhelm any possible risk."

Manfred Kroger, Ph.D., Quackwatch consultant and Professor of Food Science at The Pennsylvania State University, has put the matter more bluntly:

Scientific agriculture has provided Americans with the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. Agricultural chemicals are needed to maintain this supply. The risk from pesticide residue, if any, is minuscule, is not worth worrying about, and does not warrant paying higher prices.

Sorry for the triple post but I know no matter what I post or say I'm not trying to be preachy or change anybodies lifestyle and the fact of the matter is I know I'm going to change anyones opinion on this and the only reason I'm still posting in here is because I'm pretty sure people think I'm stupid or something but their's always been something that bothered me about these foods. I honestly don't care if you eat the food or not. If you hate pesticides go ahead and eat them. But their seems to be an attitude by some (no one in here thankfully) that by eating organic foods that somehow makes you better than people who don't and that is also unfounded and stupid.

It just comes down to everyone's choice in lifestyle. I concede that organic foods may be corrupt in some of their practices, however, saying that's the entire justification for abandoning organic foods is comparable to saying that shopping at target is just as bad as shopping at wal-mart because target is also corrupt in some areas. Even though wal-mart is easily the greater of the two evils.

Now, In that last article saying pesticides are needed, I'm going to contend that they are not needed, seeing as Organic foods grow just as well without many of those harmful pesticides.

I will now address this claim

You still don't know FOR SURE whether or not they used pesticides because it's a big buisness we're talking about here.

Actually, I do know for sure, how? by the myriad of studies I cited on the last page.

Several studies have found that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does.
[Consumers Union Press Release, Environmental Science & Technology, Report On Pesticides, Agricultural Chemicals, Environmental Pollutants and Other Impurities in Agri-Food Commodities of Plant Origin]

And, I find it ironic that you are the one citing big business when you are so adamantly defending the big business that is sending out the propaganda that you so generously posted on the last page. Since you have provided no evidence that organic corporations are corrupt. (And I have proven that general foods are, See my article on the last page) You can't pull the big business argument when you have been disproved not only by my evidence to the contrary, but by the big business that you are defending.

At worst, Organic corporations are just as corrupt as Conventional, but even if they are, organic foods are still healthier.

In the end, I want to give my money to a good cause, not to a corporation who will continuously use these toxic practices and send out propaganda that taints the minds of the consumers. I want to stand for something right, and in the end, I don't want harmful pesticides passing through my body.

Which is why I am always going to eat organic foods.

I didn't notice that article was from big buisness until I reread it and it has propogandic overtones. I still think growing your own food is the healthiest way.

JakeTheSnake wrote:I didn't notice that article was from big buisness until I reread it and it has propogandic overtones. I still think growing your own food is the healthiest way.

haha, That I will definitely agree with.