Organic Foods Not Tastier/Healthier
ada
Wed May 1, 2:42 PM ET
WELLINGTON (Reuters) - A review of international studies found no
convincing evidence to back claims that organically grown foods were
healthier or tastier than those grown using chemicals, New Zealand
researchers said on Wednesday.
Diane Bourn, a food science lecturer at Otago University, said the
bulk of around 100 reviewed studies--mainly from Europe, but with some
from the United States and Australia--were poorly done.
The nutritional value of food was influenced by the time of harvest,
freshness, storage and weather, but many studies claiming organic food
had more vitamins and minerals did not take proper account of these
factors, she said.
"To date, I feel there's no evidence that organic food is
nutritionally superior," she said. "When you look at those studies in
detail, they're actually pretty awful...they're not really strong
enough to be able to say that convincingly."
The organic food sector has grown massively in recent years,
accelerated by food scares, especially in Europe and Japan. The sector
was recently valued by a new London-based organic produce exchange at
$30 billion-plus a year, with organic produce usually commanding a
premium in shops.
Organic producers avoid the use of artificial pesticides, fertilizers
and herbicides. There are no fixed standards although a number of
certification agencies monitor produce and some food authorities set
organic produce rules.
Otago University was commissioned by state-owned science agency Crop &
Food Research to carry out the study.
While there was a lot of anecdotal evidence about organic food tasting
better than conventionally grown food, the studies reviewed could not
conclusively back-up those claims, Bourn said.
However, she added, there were clear environmental benefits from
growing organically and reduced pesticide residues in organics
supported claims of improved food safety.
New Zealand food exports total $6 billion a year, the bulk of its
total exports. Only a small fraction of the food exports are promoted
as organic.
$Lucky Charms$
<DeMan[53]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Organic Foods are *not* required for good health.
May I respectfully ask how you reached this conclusion?
Gaines Not
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200205\CUL20020501b.html
Organic Farming Would 'Level Most of Our Forests,' Critic Charges
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 01, 2002
Washington (CNSNews.com) - The expansion of organic farming would mean the eventual destruction of
most of the world's forests, according to a Nobel Prize winning scientist.
Dr. Norman Borlaug, awarded the Nobel prize for his work as a plant geneticist, joined agricultural
policy experts Tuesday in arguing that high yield farming and genetically modified foods are the key
to saving the wilderness and feeding poor people in the developing world.
"We can use all the organic that is available, but we aren't going to feed six billion people with
organic fertilizer and we would level most of our forests," Borlaug said.
Dr. Borlaug maintained that switching all food production to organic, (farming without synthetic
chemicals), would lower crop yields. "If we try to go back to low yield agriculture, we would have
no option but to clear more land," he explained.
Tuesday's news conference in Washington was sponsored by the Center for Global Food Issues, and was
billed as the "Declaration in Support of Protecting Nature with High-Yield Farming and Forestry."
Among those signing the declaration were former U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.) and James
Lovelock, the scientist who many environmentalists consider a pioneer of the green movement.
Dennis Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues, a free market food advocacy group, said
the latest research shows organic food yields are nearly 50 percent lower per acre than modern
methods. Avery said if Europe were to switch to exclusively organic farming methods, the cropland
needed to produce the resulting lower yields would equal "all the forest area in Germany, France,
Denmark and the UK (United Kingdom)."
"How many people in Western Europe would vote for organic farming if it was put in terms of clearing
all their forests?" Avery asked.
Patrick Moore, head of the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit, and a former founding member of
Greenpeace, was also on hand to promote the joint declaration on high yield agriculture and
forestry.
Moore, who left Greenpeace in the 1980s after becoming disillusioned with what he considered the
group's radical approach to environmental concerns, said genetically modified food (GM) helps boost
yields.
ada
> May I respectfully ask how you reached this conclusion?
I didn't do the research; this article was taken from:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&594&e=13&u=/nm/20020501/hl_nm/food_organic_1
However, I thought it to be the case for many years and therefore buy
my produce in supermarkets as well as HFS (health food stores) based
on freshness.
Few years ago John Stussel from ABC's 20/20, did a survey regarding
bacteria load in produce bought from HFS vs. supermarkets. Samples
were submitted all to an independent lab for bacterial check. Produce
from HFS was found to have substantial more bacteria than produce from
supermarkets, which was explained by the usage of organic fertilizers.
Just in case you worry about it: this survey wasn't included in the
study ;~0
regards,
ada
Craig Health
do is taste an organic carrot and an insectiside and herbicide sprayed
carrot. The organic carrot has absolutely no bitter aftertaste from
the chemicals. I do agree with her statement, "However, she added,
there were clear environmental benefits from growing organically and
reduced pesticide residues in organics
supported claims of improved food safety."
article:
Vegetables Without Vitamins
Imagine the surprise of going online and discovering that the vitamin
and mineral content of vegetables has drastically dropped.
That’s what happened to nutritionist, Alex Jack, when he went to
check out the latest US Department of Agriculture food tables. The
stunning revelation came after Jack compared recently published
nutrient values with an old USDA handbook he had lying around. Some of
the differences in vitamin and mineral content were enormous-a 50%
drop in the amount of calcium in broccoli, for example. Watercress
down 88% in iron content; cauliflower down 40% in vitamin C
content-all since 1975.
Jack took his findings to the USDA, hoping for a reasonable
explanation. That was two years ago. He’s still waiting. So is
Organic Gardening magazine, which published an open letter, seeking an
explanation from Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture. Glickman
didn’t respond, but USDA employee, Phyllis E. Johnson did.
Johnson (who is head of the Beltsville area office), suggested to
Organic Gardening that the nutrient drain should be put in context.
According to her, the 78% decrease in calcium content of corn is not
significant because no one eats corn for calcium. She further explains
that the problem may not even exist at all; that the apparent nutrient
dips could be due to the testing procedures. For example,
“changes in the public’s perception of what the edible
portion is may determine what parts have been analyzed over
time.” In other words, back when the old food tables were made
up, people may have been eating the cobb too, so they got more
nutrients.
The vitamin drain
We decided to look into this further. Jack had used a 1975 version of
the food tables for his research. We dredged up a 1963 version. After
comparing the nutrient values for over a dozen fruits and vegetables,
it was clear that the nutrient value of many foods has dropped, in
some cases drastically. For example, the amount of vitamin C in sweet
peppers has plummeted from 128 mg to 89 mg.= The vitamin A in apples
has dropped from 90 mg to 53 mg. The fall-offs seem to be limited
mostly to vegetables, and some fruits.
Some vegetables appear to be gaining vitamins-at least vitamin A.
Carrots, for example, have more of the vitamin now than they did in
1963. Why is a mystery. But the phenomenon has apparently occurred
just in the nick of time. The National Academy of Sciences has issued
an alert that it takes twice as many vegetables to get the daily
requirement of vitamin A as previously thought. Carrots and pumpkin
are exempt from the caveat.
Despite the apparent increase of vitamin A in carrots, most vegetables
are losing their vitamins and minerals. Nearly half the calcium and
vitamin A in broccoli, for example, have disappeared. Collards are not
the greens they used to be. If you're eating them for minerals and
vitamin A, be aware that the vitamin A content has fallen from 6500
IUs to 3800 IUs. Their potassium has dropped from from 400 mg to 170
mg. Magnesium has fallen sharply-57 mg to 9. Cauliflower has lost
almost half its vitamin C, along with its thiamin and riboflavin. Most
of the calcium in pineapple is gone-from 17 mg (per 100 grams raw) to
7. And the list goes on and on.
The USDA refuses to act
What’s the deal on this nutrient drain? We decided to ask USDA
ourselves, so we contacted the head of the USDA Agricultural Research
Service, whose job it is to track the vitamins in food, among other
things. Mr. Edward B. Knipling responded to our inquiry with a
restatement of Ms. Johnson’s letter to Organic Gardening
magazine. So we pressed for a better answer. Isn’t the agency
concerned that Americans may not be
getting the vitamins they think they are? What about the food pyramid?
Won’t a nutrient drain upset the pyramid? Already the National
Academy of Sciences is telling us our vegetables don't have as many
vitamins as they're supposed to. Will the USDA double the required
servings of vegetables to make up for the vitamin loss? So far, no
answer from the agency.
The question is, what is the nature and extent of the problem?
Vegetables are a major source of nutrition. Without them, humans miss
out on important vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. Many nutrients
(such as folate) weren’t measured in the past. If they are also
disappearing, the extent is unknown. What about more exotic nutrients
such as flavonoids, or compounds like I3C? These aren’t tracked
by the USDA. Are they disappearing also?
“90% of women and 71% of men get less than the RDA for vitamin
B6.” Dietary vitamin B-6 intake and food sources in the US
population: NHANES II, 1976-1980. Kant AK, et al. 1990.
“Men with the lowest amount of vitamin C have a 62% increased
risk of cancer and a 57% increased risk of dying from any
cause.“ Vitamin C status and mortality in US adults. Loria CM,
et al. Am J Clin Nutr 72:139-45, 2000.
“Lutein and zeaxanthin reduce the incidence of cataract by
22%.” A prospective study of carotenoid and vitamin A intakes
and risk of cataract extraction in US women. Chasan-Taber L, et al. Am
J Clin Nutr 70:509-16, 1999.
“People with low levels of retinol, beta-carotene, vitamin E and
selenium are more likely to get cancer.” Serum retinol,
beta-carotene, vitamin E and selenium as related to subsequent cancer
of specific sites. Comstock GW, et al. Am J Epidemiol 135:115-21,
1992.
“Supplemental vitamin D reduces the risk of colon cancer by half
compared to dietary vitamin D which reduces it 12%.” Calcium,
vitamin D, and dairy foods and the occurrence of colon cancer in men.
Kearney J, et al. Am J Epidemiol 143:907-17, 1996.
“The area of China with the lowest micronutrient intake has the
highest rate of cancer. Supplementation with vitamin E, selenium and
beta-carotene lowers the rate.” Vitamin/mineral supplementation
and cancer risk: internationaal chemoprevention trials. Blot WJ. Proc
Soc Exp Biol Med 216:291-6, 1997.
“American children have inadequate levels of vitamin E.“
Vitamin E status of US children. Bendich A. J Am Coll Nutr 11:441-4,
1992.
“Flavonoids protect against stroke.” Dietary flavnoids,
antioxidant vitamins, and incidence of stroke: the Zutphen study. Keli
SO, et al. Arch Intern Med 156:637-42, 1996.
What’s for dinner
The USDA advises that we should be eating 3 to 5 servings of
vegetables plus 2 to 4 servings of fruit a day to maintain health. (A
serving is one cup of something raw and leafy or one-half a cup of
something either not leafy or cooked-or 3/4 cup of vegetable juice).
That is potentially 9 cups of vegetables and fruit a day. That’s
a lot of lettuce. Are people doing this?
Harry Balzer is vice president of NPD Group, a firm that gathers
information on the eating habits of Americans. His data says no way.
According to him, the preferred American meal is one-dish, already
prepared. Unless a vegetable can be squirted out of a bottle,
it’s a nonentity. Why? We’re in a hurry. Vegetables are
considered side dishes, and Americans don’t have time for such
frivolity. The decline is relentless. Within the last 15 years, the
percentage of all dinners including a vegetable (other than salad or
potatoes) dropped 10%. It’s now 41%.
This raises a big question. If people are not eating their vegetables,
how are they getting their vitamins? The answer is they’re not.
Study-after-study show that Americans don’t meet the RDAs for
many nutrients. That’s not good considering that RDAs are
probably too low to keep most people in optimal health to begin with.
Americans know what they should be eating. They’re just not
doing it. And they’re not likely to. According to Balzer, for
example, pizza is one of America’s favorite meals. It fulfills,
he says, the American ideal of being easy and fast, liked by old and
young, and easy to clean up. If you blot it with a paper towel, throw
on some pineapple, and use your imagination, it even seems to fit with
the food pyramid. What else are people eating? Bread, doughnuts,
pasta, cheese, beef and milk. Without fortified cereal, Americans
would not come close to meeting RDAs.
Yes, but what about the produce section? Isn’t it filled with
resealable bags full of wholesome, scrubbed little carrots, prewashed
salad greens and spinach? Somebody must be buying them, or they
wouldn’t be there, right? According to Balzer, those puppies are
highly successful, raking in a billion dollars in sales ($100M is
considered successful for a new food product). But the fact that
people are buying them doesn’t mean they’re eating them.
The reality is that onions are most-often served vegetable in America.
Tomatoes (including ketchup) are second.
According to one study, less than one-third of Americans get the
minimum five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, let alone the
recommended nine. According to Balzer’s data, the percentage of
Americans who buy healthy groceries is about 10%. The other 90% relies
on ketchup, onions, fat-free snacks, ice cream, cheese and Sweet
Tarts™ as their source of nutrition. Now we find out that even
if a person accidentally eats a vegetable, it may not contain the
nutrients it’s supposed to. What can a person do?
Vitamin supplements work
"...the nutritional content of produce is not as important as things
like appearance and big yield. In other words, the view of commercial
growers is that food is a product in the same way that running shoes
are a product. Looks are more important than substance."
Supplements have proven their worth in scientific studies. Cancer,
heart attacks, bone loss, stroke and macular degeneration-most any
degenerative disease you can think of can either be prevented by, or
ameliorated by, the right nutrients given in supplement form. Over the
long term, the benefits can really add up. For example, nurses who
took multi-vitamins containing folic acid for fifteen years slashed
their risk of colon cancer by 75%. Folate from food didn’t work
as well. No one knows why, although bioavailability problems may be to
blame. It’s estimated that about 90% of the population gets less
folate per day than necessary for health (400 micrograms).
In the same study, nurses who took multi-vitamins containing vitamin
B6 reduced their risk of heart disease by 30%. The more B6 they took,
the lower the risk. Could a high potency, high quality supplement
reduce risk even more? We don’t know, but a study from Norway
shows that a combination of vitamin B6 and folate reduces homocysteine
32% within five weeks in healthy individuals. This has the potential
to significantly lower the risk of heart attack and stroke. Other
studies show that for every decade of life, plasma concentrations of
B6 decrease, and that people who take supplements have a much greater
chance of meeting RDAs than those who don’t.
There are good reasons to take supplements. The bioavailability of the
nutrients in supplements (assuming you buy high-quality) is 100%
compared to food which is very unpredictible when it comes to
bioavailability. Nutrient content also appears unpredictible. If the
vitamin drain is confirmed, it will mean that people cannot count on
vegetables and fruit to be the packages of concentrated nutrients
they’re supposed to be. In a time when most people aren’t
coming close to getting five, let alone nine, servings of fruits and
vegetables, it seems pointless to ask them to eat more to get the same
nutrients.
The USDA is apparently unconcerned and not interested in the vitamin
drain, despite its mandate to ensure high quality safe foods. In her
letter to Organic Gardening, Ms. Johnson said that the nutritional
content of produce is not as important as things like appearance and
big yield. In other words, Ms. Johnson espouses the view of commercial
growers that food is a product in the same way that running shoes are
a product. Looks are more important than substance. That view of
vegetables and fruits reduces your spinach salad to pretty roughage,
and your chances of meeting RDAs to slim.
The USDA can be accessed at www.usda.gov. The food tables are
available online.
The folks who do the food testing are in the Agricultural Research
Service which can be accessed at www.ars.usda.gov.
*1963 values have been set at 100%
References
Cleveland LE, et al. 2000. Dietary intake of whole grains. J Am Coll
Nutr 19 (3 Suppl):331S-38S.
Composition of Foods (Raw, Processed, Prepared): Agriculture Handbook
No. 8. USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1963.
Cuskelly GJ, et al. 1996. Effect of increasing dietary folate on
red-cell folate: implications for prevention of neural tube defects.
Lancet 347:657-9.
Giovannucci E, et al. 1998. Multivitamin use, folate and colon cancer
in women in the nurses’ health study. Ann Intern Med 129:517-24.
Manore MM, et al. 1989. Plasma pyridoxal 5’-phosphate
concentration and dietary vitamin B-6 intake in free-living,
low-income elderly people. Am J Clin Nutr 50:339-45.
Mansoor MA, et al. 1999. Plasma total homocysteine response to oral
doses of folic acid and pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6) in
healthy individuals. Oral doses of vitamin B6 reduce concentrations of
serum folate. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 59:139-46.
NPD Group, Inc. has a website at www.npd.com. Highlights from the 15th
Annual Report on Eating Patterns in America are available online.
Organic Gardening’s letter to Dan Glickman, and the response of
Phyllis E. Johnson of the USDA - see www.organicgardening.com.
Rimm EB, et al. 1998. Folate and Vitamin B6 from diet and supplements
in relation to risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA
279:359-64.
Rose CS, et al. 1976. Age differences in vitamin B6 status of 617 men.
Am J Clin Nutr 29:847-53.
Subar AF, et al. 1998. Dietary sources of nutrients among US adults,
1989 to 1991. J Am Diet Assoc 98:537-47.
Subar AF, et al. 1989. Folate intake and food sources in the US
population. Am J Clin Nutr 50:508-16.
ben...@hotmail.com (ada) wrote in message news:<37621b2e.02050...@posting.google.com>...
ada
studies in the media on the same day (let alone May 1st) ought to
raise a lot of suspicion.
ada
"Gaines Not" <f...@phen.com> wrote in message news:<ar3A8.10258$816.131...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
ada
studies in the media on the same day (let alone May 1st) ought to
raise a lot of suspicion.
ada
"Gaines Not" <f...@phen.com> wrote in message news:<ar3A8.10258$816.131...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
slenon
second rate institution to say so.
>John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate
This is in keeping with the new age belief that a lack of clinical education
and minimal grasp of bizspeak, psycho-babble, and buzz words make one an
authority on health matters. Post your degrees, gohde.
--
Stev
Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line is patients not
profit
Save a cow, eat a PETA member
sle...@tampabay.rr.com
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
slenon
>I did a Google search of my website. The term is used only in one place.
Did it tell you what educational background and degrees you might have?
$Lucky Charms$
wrote:
>gohde:
>>I did a Google search of my website. The term is used only in one place.
>
>Did it tell you what educational background and degrees you might have?
Do you really think that this response is somehow helpful?
Do yourself a favor and forget about Gohde. Go back to enjoying life.
slenon
I've never stopped enjoying life!
Jean P Nance
to the vitamins, minerals, protein, etc. it provides. But it is not loaded
with herbidicides and pesticides, which may be worth the extra expense to
many. It is frequently tastier merely because it is usually fresher.
And if you can afford it, you may value knowing that raising your food is
not contributing to the deterioration of our environment.
We don't buy much organic food, at ages 81 and 88 we figure we have to
die sometime anyway. If I had children, I would bemuch more apt to make
the extra investment. We recently found that while it is almost impossible
to buy oranges in our market that have been picked at the proper time,
and not dried out from long storage, our natural food store has organic
oranges, quite expensive, but good!
Actually, I should have said organically raised oranges. The opposite
of organic is inorganic, and there is no such thing as an inorganic
orange. But some of the "food" in little packets comes darned close to be
being inorganic. :-)
slenon
second rate institution to say so. John Gohde,
> Patient Empowerment Advocate
Must be because you have no degree from any institution. Buzz words like
empowerment cost nothing in terms of study and provide nothing in terms of
effect.
Alpha Male
"ada" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
> Few years ago John Stussel from ABC's 20/20, did a survey regarding
> bacteria load in produce bought from HFS vs. supermarkets. Samples
> were submitted all to an independent lab for bacterial check. Produce
> from HFS was found to have substantial more bacteria than produce from
> supermarkets, which was explained by the usage of organic fertilizers.
> Just in case you worry about it: this survey wasn't included in the
> study ;~0
You may be referring to his now infamous organic-bashing show. The whole
thing was faked, they never tested any produce. Basically, he Lied, pure and
simple. (they did test chickens, but the results came out "wrong"...so it
was not included in the broadcast.....organic chicks had no pesticide
residues)
Btw, his ABC-News superiors were informed of his intentions to "fabricate"
testing, but nothing came of it. ABC sez John $to$$el (corporate hooker) is
not technically a journalist...so he doesn't have to adhere to journalistic
standards (lol)
Give Me a Fake:
http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/givemeafake/stossel.html
ada
It took me two minutes to figure out the wacko nature of the site that
you plugged here. BTW to which organization/s on this list do you
belong to: http://www.naciente.com/kooks.htm ?
Alpha Male
"ada" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37621b2e.02050...@posting.google.com...
Well....it only took about 30-seconds to arouse my sympathy for you.
Right. Never let the facts get in the way of your "beliefs". Must be a
function of old age,(see book; "Smart Fats" avail- at library) Unlike you, I
don't need a website to list for me who the kooks or quacks are.
So, what was factually incorrect in that article...hmmm????
From the Georgetown U lab:
Dr. Doyle stated that his laboratory had conducted no pesticide analyses for
ABC News-none whatsoever-adding that he could not say how 20/20 had reached
its conclusion about pesticide residues on produce, because to his knowledge
no such tests were conducted for the investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Apology
abcnews: 08-11-2000
By John Stossel
<snipped>
However, I also made a comment about pesticides on produce. I said our
tests found no pesticide residues on either conventional or organic produce.
That was just wrong. The labs we used never tested the produce for
pesticides.
<snipped>
http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000811_stossel_apology_feature.htm
l