UK's FSA Finds No Health Benefits To Organic Food 921
blackbeak writes "The UK Food Standards Agency's 'Independant Organic Review' results were just released, and the BBC rushed to publish the findings in the shockingly titled article, 'No Health Benefits to Organic Food.' From the article, 'There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.' A peek into the research at Postpeakpublishing provides a slightly deeper look."
from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
says it all really.
Re:from TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
They ignored the "weight of evidence" (Score:4, Interesting)
Weight of evidence (WoE) is a phrase used to describe the type of consideration made in a situation where there is uncertainty, and which is used to ascertain whether the evidence or information supporting one side of a cause or argument is greater than that supporting the other side. We all frequently make personal WoE decisions in our daily lives, but more-formal WoE approaches are used in many different kinds of circumstance â" for example, in commercial, educational, health, legal and scientific contexts
The weight of scientific evidence against the use of pesticides is quite frankly, frighting. For a decent condensed summary of many scientific papers from many fields demonstrating the effects of pesticides, (especially on the endocrine system [wikipedia.org]) check out the book/collection of scientific reports Our Stolen Future [ourstolenfuture.org]. In 1995 worldwide pesticide sales were around 30 billion. Who knows what they are today?
Re:They ignored the "weight of evidence" (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1567/organic-food-exposed?page=0%2C2 [cosmosmagazine.com]
Re:They ignored the "weight of evidence" (Score:4, Interesting)
The average high production farm looks more like a highly toxic chemical factory than anything else these days. Huge piles of super phosphate, sheds full of 44 gallon drums of insecticides, vaccines and drenches all marked with skull and cross bones due to their toxicity to humans.
I come from a long line of farmers and have spent a lot of time on farms big and small, I really don't think city people are aware of what's happening to their food at every stage of the process. There's still a romantisised notion in peoples minds that farming is generally still done like it used to be. This is still true in small pockets but if you buy your food in a supermarket, you aren't buying small farm produce.
My biggest concern right now is feedlot beef, I have a cousin who works in an abattoir and he's gone right off eating beef that's been raised in feedlots due to what he sees when he cuts them (mongoloid internal organs for a starters and quite a bit of disease). Not to mention I have a natural aversion to eating "meat product" grown in a factory part owned by the Mitsubishi Corporation.
It's only the last 15 years that the factory farm has really taken off, so we're the first generation to really bear the brunt of it. Who knows what the sort of problems we're going to be dealing with in 20 or 30 years.
It's a worry but there are ways around it if you care. For example my family all combined and bought a whole grass fed cow off a small old school farm outside of the city here and had it butchered by the local butcher. It ended up costing $6 a kilo and we each got 6 months worth of meat. And good god it tastes good, I can never go back to supermarket (or most butchered meat) again.
We're all growing our own veges again as well.
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
You are dead right. I for one would call "not being poisoned by organophosphorus residues" a health benefit. I wonder who paid for this study and then chose the report's title.
If you follow the links (yes, I know, this is /.) you will find that it covered overall health effects, not just nutrition. You will also find that it was paid for by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA). I don't know who chose the report's title ("Organic Health Effects Review"). Presumably the FSA chose the title of the press release ("Organic Review Published"). Why? Do you find those titles biased or controversial?
However, the FSA press release doesn't seem to match the content of the report. The report was on a study of studies, looking at existing work rather than doing any new research. It found that the "because of the limited and highly variable data available, and concerns over the reliability of some reported findings, there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs". That is not the same as the FSA's claim that "there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food" as the FSA say on the press release. The study showed that we don't know whether there are any health benefits, not that there are no health benefits. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This suggests at least incompetence on the part of whoever did the press release, and possibly malice.
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
"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."
I think thats more of an apt summary which doesn't imply a bias based on data which lies outside the scope of thier research.
They were comparing values of vitamins in one to the other, let those facts stand on thier own. There is no nutritional value in sustainability, pesticide use or ecologically sound farming practices nor should any imply as such.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There were claims publicised in the UK that while organic and non-organic food had the same levels of major nutrients, organic food had higher amounts of trace nutrients -- the things you only need micrograms of (selenium was one, I think).
I haven't read the report, but my assumption from the summary is that these claims have been found to be false.
(I don't often buy organic food. I do try and buy properly produced food, e.g. the cheap and normal tomatoes in UK supermarkets have been artificially ripened, a
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
As for environmental impact of organic farming, from what I know, in order to get the same amounts of produce we'd need to expand existing farms much more because organic farms give lower yields. If people ate less, that might help the situation and others, but that's unfortunately unrealistic. Instead given our track record, if we all switched to organic, we'd just destroy some forests. The other alternative is shrinking the human population quite a lot, but I do not like that idea at all.
I think that many people who champion organic have some crazy superstitious assumption beneath many of their claims, and that this assumption is that nature is benevolent, some kind of caring mother, probably called Gaia. Unfortunately nature is not benevolent, and our lives are so much better now because we've managed to subdue much of nature. During all the time we've been evolving we've had to adapt to fit in with nature. We've finally, in the last hundred years or so, been able to change things and make nature fit in with us instead. Though there are still many natural events that we can't control.
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
No need to expand anything. People just need to eat less meat. There's a conversion factor of around 8 to 15 converting plant-based food into any kind of meat. You loose around 90% of your nutrional energy by that conversion. We could easily feed the world if the industrial nations wouldn't insist on their daily hamburgers and steaks.
Re:from TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
I've heard this so many times and it is just plain wrong. Here's why:
The digestive track of a cow has evolved to extract caloric value from plant cellulose, ours is not. It is not as simple as saying a cow gets 10% of the energy from the sun via grass and we get 10% of that energy therefore we should just eat grass. No matter how much grass we eat our digestive tracks will not be able to cope -- wasting resources in the process.
Do what nature intended you to do and eat meat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard your response many times as well - and it's wrong too.
Cows in feedlots (which is where they gain over 60% of the final weight) don't eat grass, they eat grain. They don't gain weight from plant cellulose, they gain weight from starches and sugars.
The grain they eat is grown on farming land that could be used to raise food directly for people, and consumes water that could be used to raise food directly for people. Which means rather than getting full value from that land and water - we get less than 10%.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We could easily feed the world if sociopathic dictators didn't use starvation to control their populace.
Fixed that for you. We easily grow enough food to feed everyone in the world. The problem is getting it to people who live in Zimbabwe and North Korea around their genocidal leaders.
Yeah but I really like hamburgers.. (Score:4, Funny)
We could easily feed the world if the industrial nations wouldn't insist on their daily hamburgers and steaks.
If some jackass in India or China can take my job by bidding below me, they can starve. At least while I'm unemployed I can hit the dollar menu and enjoy a tasty hamburger because we Americans have enough land to feed ourselves. If they can't overseas, well, its not my problem. They take my job, I take their food. Screw them.
Re:from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem, as I see it, is a lack of guns. Instead of shipping food aid to these starving people, we should be shipping crates full of small arms and ammunition. Then, they can control their own destiny, instead of being slaves to their dictators.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but also they do not say whether the review looked at pesticides in the food itself. They may have the same nutritional value, but organic food will probably always carry less harmful substances. (ex. a recent study on grape fruits showed they were highly contaminated with pesticides. Not the organic ones...)
Kind of a huge health benefit I think !
I usually eat organic food, I think it is better for environment. But I also give it to my baby, and for he
Re:from TFA - it tastes better too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly,
I eat organic for 2 reasons, one is I don't want my body filled with the left over amounts of pesticides (in the case of fruit and veg) and antibiotics and hormones (in the case of meat). I especially don't want my 1 year old son's body being subjected to those if I can avoid it.
But to be honest the main reason I do it is because it tastes so much better. Carrots actually test of carrot rather than crunchy water taste you get from a standard supermarket carrot.
We get organic veg delivered to our door from a local farm and it last much longer due to shorter pick to delivery time scales. There is also the added bonus of getting a wider variety of veg.
As a result I eat a wider range of vegetables, it tastes nicer, and because of the longer shelf life I throw less away. This means that it costs me the same or less than buying normal super market veg. Couple that with the convenience of it delivered to my door it is a no-brainer really!
Re:from TFA - it tastes better too. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:from TFA - it tastes better too. (Score:5, Funny)
Recently I was forced to live without a refrigerator. I bought a few heads of lettuce from the local supermarket; and I bought a few from the local organic farmers' market. Stored under my bed, 80 degree temperatures. Supermarket lasted one day before it was mush; local+organic, nearly a full week.
When I got up this morning, the last thing I expected to read about was someone storing lettuce under his bed. Guess I can get to work now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are deluding yourself if you think organic == no pesticides, or if you think pesticides == cancer:
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice going troll!
It's not a matter of being a conspiracy theorist. Consider the facts: The study focuses on the nutritional value exclusively; not overall health benefits, of which nutritional value would be a factor. I don't know about you, but when I hear people talking about organic food, I've never heard it mentioned that one of their discriminating criteria is because it has a higher content of nutrients. Even advertisments and propaganda literature that promote organic products typically mention the fact that they contain no chemical enhancers or additional growth hormones, which can affect our metabolisms. It seems to me rather strange that these are precisely the factors that the study did not address.
If you have a large population of people clamoring for organic products on the basis of their lack of pesticides and growth hormones, and you want to fund a study to put an end to the debate once and for all and see whether the benefits are real or not; why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Moreover, if you read the article, it has a slight cynical slant towards organic products and their consumers, starting from the headline "Organic 'has no health benefits'". I don't claim there was a conspiracy involved, but obviously the article (and the study) were composed to generate a negative impact against organically grown products.
To be sure, I don't think the study is wrong--I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods. I only have a problem with its narrow focus (and the consequences of it taken at a simplistic face value); it should be taken in context with other studies which consider other potential health benefits apart from nutritional value alone.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How convenient, to quote my words out of their context. Why the four paragraphs preceding it? for precisely the reason I mentioned on the sentence following the very statement you quoted:
"To be sure, I don't think the study is wrong--I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods. I only have a problem with its narrow focus (and the consequences of it taken at a simplistic face value); it should be taken in context with other studies which consider other potential health benefits apart from nutritional value alone."
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is not with the article or the study but from morons like yourself who extrapolate meaning outside the scope of the study and determine that because the study found there was the same nutritional value from organic and conventional foods that they were stating that conventionally produced food was just as healthy as organic.
Actually, that's what the article claimed. The title of the BBC article was "Organic 'has no health benefits'", not "Organic 'has no better nutritional value'". Furthermore
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the hypoxic zone in the Gulf Mexico [carleton.edu], and tell me organic food is not more healthy.
Look at the meat-packing plants that moved away from large urban centres like Chicago and to small towns (and thus away from large city media and scrutiny), where illegal aliens are used as slave labour (and even recruited by company brass [ucdavis.edu]) mass slaughtering cattle sickened by corn on CAFOs [ecosalon.com]), and tell me organic food is not more healthy.
The arguments against organic food are legion; it's a shame that this study lacks
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point behind organic food is that it's better for the environment, not healthier to eat. But thanks for the useless study, UK!
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
But its not always sold as such. I know plenty of people who think that organic is healthier. Organic food advertising and stores actively push that myth.
Re:so? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between "no nutritional difference" and "no health benefits": sometimes the lack of a thing (ie. antibiotics in milk) can be healthier than the alternative.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
But "nutritionally better for you" is one of the ways organics have been sold. Less so in recent years as more and more studies have shown it actually wasn't though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tastes better, too.
I get lots of vegetables, olive oil and pork from my folks. They are retired, live in the country and farm for fun. After eating a tomato from them, you'll never want to buy tomatoes at the supermarket again. And olive oil is so expensive, I get the best, 100% pure olive oil in the world for free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. No it's not. Organic Food Exposed [cosmosmagazine.com]Contrary to popular belief, organic farming, due to it's inherent inefficiencies, is not even close to being sustainable. They need far more land than the Earth can provide, and far more organic material for fertilizer.
And you are absolutely delusion if you believe that organic food is not being billed as being healthier to eat -- they are most certainly doing this, despit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html [skepdic.com]
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019 [skeptoid.com]
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1190/news_detail.asp [acsh.org]
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162 [skeptoid.com]
I don't buy organic food for health reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
And really, organic food has never been about health. It's more about sustainable practices and all that jazz. Organic food is more an environmental concept than a health concept.
That said, when and if I buy organic foods, it's usually fruits, vegetables, or nuts; and I do so because they are of noticably better quality than standard supermarket faire. For me, it has nothing to do with health OR environmentalism... Organic produce simply tends to be better quality from a culinary standpoint.
Not surprised, however... (Score:5, Insightful)
The report specifically doesn't look into the main reasons why I tend to buy organic - which aren't do to with health issues primarily, but to do with environmental and animal husbandry factors.
In the UK at least, organic farmers do practice lower intensive farming, leaving hedgerows in and wider strips for wildlife to flourish, they're not allowed to use antibiotics to promote growth in cattle (though they can use antibiotics to treat disease).
I've never taken the health issues seriously, but I do take biodiversity (and antibiotic resistance) very seriously and I'm more than willing to pay a little more to farmers who take additional care to help protect the country's wildlife.
There is one exception to this: I do buy organic carrots with health mind. Various studies have shown that carrot skins do retain a fair amount of insecticide and other pesticide residue. I'm a lazy bugger who likes to eat carrots raw without peeling them and so feel marginally happier choosing organic.
Re:Not surprised, however... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do human beings ever come into play while considering these "animal husbandry" factors?
Organic Alchemy [reason.com]
Re:Not surprised, however... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. As I pointed out in my original message, antibiotic resistance is a real problem when they are used to promote growth rather than to fight disease. The use in agriculture is implicated in resistance in human pathogens too.
As for John Emsley's analysis. The man takes things to extremes. Am I suggesting that organic methods be foisted on sub-Saharan Africa to retain biodiversity? No (although they do get higher export prices for export crops) I'm explaining why there are ratioanal reasons in the UK to favour UK organic farmers. I hope that helps your comprehension.
Damn! (Score:5, Funny)
Sad to say, Australians are still permitted to import V*g*m*te.
Breaking news ! (Score:5, Insightful)
A [name insitution here] study has determined that using electric cars does not get you from point A to point B any faster than combustion engine powered cars..
Doh !
--Ivan
Title misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace "Health Benefits" with "Nutritional Benefits" and it's ok. You certainly won't starve eating non-organic food. And you'll get pretty much the same level of basic nutritional elements (vitamins etc.).
But you will get more pesticide contamination, more genetically modified food, more additives and a few other nasty bits and pieces. And you will create more impact on the environment.
And keep in mind that this was a meta-study, just looking at existing publications. Their selection criteria pretty much guaranteed the domination of conventional food studies carried out by the industry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other thing authors like Michael Pollan have been busy pointing out is that we don't know all the micro-nutrients in whole foods, so we actually can't know whether the contents of, say, organic lettuce, actually matches the contents of a conventionally grown lettuce because we simply don't know what all to look for. And those micro-nutrients make a big difference, as well as making the food taste much better.
Bad summary (Score:4, Informative)
conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review", and it's not quoted text from the linked article.
The report was commissioned by the FDA, but actually produced by the London School of Economics; that's what makes it independent.
There's no need to go to postpeakpublishing (or Database Error as they seem to be called today) for a deeper look as you can read the whole report at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
Why I buy "organic" foods.... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a great grocery store near my house called Sprouts (imagine a Whole Foods Market without all the near iPod level smug and pretentiousness). It focuses on two things.
a) Getting foods from local sources, or farms as nearby as possible.
b) Getting more organic produce whenever possible.
Now, this place consistently has better looking, fresher, and better tasting produce than any of the other grocery stores around. Maybe it's because of column a), maybe it's column b) , maybe it's a little from both. Either way, for a reasonably small price increase we get far better produce so the wife and I make it a habit to shop there.
Is there an alternative (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think there is a lot of nutrition in inorganic food...
Misleading (Score:3, Informative)
OK, after reading comments I actually went back to read the fine article. Some points that struck me:
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
Continuing the Mellchett quote: "Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
Like the guy says... (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA says about testing non tainted foods, well that includes foods that have used pesticides etc...so the one reason to grow organic foods to begin with, is something they have taken out of the equation...of course now their is almost no difference between the 2, it was never about the nutrients inside, more the fact about the poisons on the outside!
Arseholes!
Being a farmer myself (Score:5, Informative)
I can say a few of things. First I'm totally in favor of organic food because it lets farmers make more money without having to do much of anything differently (a tax on the gullible). Interestingly enough, I doubt most organic food connoisseurs really know what makes organic food "organic." It's not quite as simple as just "no chemicals," although that's a key part.
Secondly the unwashed masses have pretty much demanded pesticides on fruits and veggies since blemished fruit doesn't sell (except in organic markets where blemishes and insect infestations are "features). Until we can convince people that it's okay for your apple to not be a perfect shade of red, there will continue to be unnecessary pesticide use.
Thirdly, in the realm of weed control, years of over-tillage and over-use of herbicides have led us to a situation where herbicide resistance is a massive problem. Ironically this means that we're now more dependant than ever on new herbicides. But compared to pesticides, herbicides are quite benign. Most of them are not toxic after they touch the soil and break down into their constituent organic parts. Herbicides work in different ways. Some grow the plant to death. Others target photosynthesis, or stop plant growth. Personally I hate handling any chemicals. I'd love to be able to farm without them. But with weeds if you don't use herbicides the next year has an order of magnitude more weeds. So I think if they are used wisely we can get the food we need without harming the environment.
Despite what people say about sustainable agriculture, "organic" farming as many people would like to see, is actually quite harmful (without controlling weeds) and certainly not sustainable as a food source for the whole world. Entropy and the principles of chaos rule this world, I'm afraid. Weeds thrive when we remove the native plants that previously held them at bay, for the sake of farming.
As an aside, if people really understood how the food supply works in the developed world, they'd immediately stock up on food, at least a few months' worth. Our system is completely "just-in-time." All it would take is massive hemisphere crop failures from climate change or a volcano causing a cold spell,a nd we'd all be out of food. in just 3 or 4 months. Just like that. And massive crop failures have happened before (particularly in the southern hemisphere). I read once that the world wheat supply at any given time is about 3 months. Scary stuff.
Re:World improves (Score:5, Funny)
Re:World improves (Score:4, Informative)
Don't eat mushrooms then. They're not only made in cow dung, they're basically made entirely from cow dung.
Organic foods have no poisons like insecticides. (Score:4, Informative)
There is no claim that organic foods are more nutritious. Organic foods are intended to be free of poisons like insecticides.
The idea is not that eating foods with traces of insecticides and other poisons would cause immediate sickness. The idea has been that, over time, avoiding poisons would be good for health. Testing that theory would take many years.
This is a comment posted to this Los Angeles Times article, Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown, review finds [latimes.com]: "I don't buy organic because I believe it has "extra" nutrients! I buy it because of the things it DOESN"T contain!!! Look at all the food recalls just this year."
Another comment: "I have a friend who lives near several farms. He and his wife are both dying of cancer. The health department checked their well water and found it with high levels of farm pesticides. THAT is the cost of conventional farming in addition to the pesticide residue that you consume each time you eat conventionally grown produce."
Another mis-leading Slashdot summary (Score:4, Interesting)
That's wrong in two ways. It was the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine [lshtm.ac.uk] that did this study: Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review [ajcn.org].
That abstract says NOTHING about the effect of traces of poisons in conventional food. It is ONLY concerned with nutritional differences: "Objective: We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs."
Also, the abstract says, "The analyses were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients."
Re:Organic foods have no poisons like insecticides (Score:4, Insightful)
e.g.: Rotenone: An effective organic pesticide and breaks down quickly, but is toxic to humans. Has possibly been linked to Parkinson's. Nicotine is natural but extremely toxic.
Just because something is organic or natural doesn't mean it's not deadly. Do a search, plenty of scientific papers detailing these results. FWIW many organic farmers try not to use pesticides
Re:World improves (Score:5, Interesting)
That, I think, is really the true damage that tech has done to food. They left it flavorless.
Hell, no wonder people get obese these days, junk food has more flavor than natural foods. Tomatoes are my pet peeve. I no longer can stand to buy tomatoes at a grocery store, especially for something like home made salsa. They are bred for transport only I think...and picked so early, they don't mature enough on the vine. I remember back when I was a kid, and tomatoes had GREAT flavor, they really let you know summer was here.
Not long back, I went to a tomato type 'festival' where they had all these heirloom varieties raised by people (not corporations), and it took me back to the old days. FLAVOR!! They were good...and I'd forgotten, real tomatoes aren't perfectly round, they are often knarled up, blemished, and sometimes weird colors other than bland dull red colored.
About the only way to get a good one is to grow them yourself. I learned to can so that I can grow some, and have that fresh flavor also during the winter months.
I won't even go into how the fscking jalapeno has had the heat bred out of it, and you can't tell in the store what the heat level of a jalapeno is....I now still 100% to serrano chiles...at least they haven't fucked with those yet.
Produce...we've killed the flavor of it. Then, there's meat. I remember what a good steak tasted like. Even today, if I lay out cash to get a prime grade cut...it barely has the flavor of the old days. They've bred out the marbling, the little flecks of fat within the meat fibers that is where the flavor comes from. I saw the other day, a picture they used to use like in the late 50's early 60's to grade prime beef...compared to one today. What a difference, the old ones had meat that was downright almost pink in color due to the fat content in it. That was flavor.
I'd rather have that every once in awhile, that 100% lean and flavorless every day.
I still love to cook, and I buy when I can at farmer's mkts to support the local economy and get quality produce...but, when I have to used grocery store bought stuff, I really have to season things higher to bring out what hidden flavors remain in today's corporate farmed produce and meats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may already know this, but you wrote "I think" so I get an opening. Most tomatoes you buy in supermarkets are picked green and reddened with Ethlyene gas. That turns them bright red but doesn't change them structurally so they are still somewhat hard and transport well. They also don't develop as much fructose and taste like crap.
With beef the Angus craze gives me a laugh. Advertising has led people to think that as long as you buy Black Angus beef you are getting the best steak around. But the benefits
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because there are no people that incorporate their farm business, or work for farmers who have incorporated their business. Incorporated businesses are Teh Evil!
So, when a husband and wife farming couple raise tomatoes you like, that's good. And when the same husband and wife hire a local teenager to help them pull weeds and water the plants, that's probably still OK with you, right? How about when the same husband and wif
Re:World improves (Score:5, Informative)
>>>but for the last 3 or so months that you were in the womb, you were floating in your own excrement.
No your not. A baby's bottom is "plugged" with a semi-solid material that doesn't come-out until the first bowel movement (after birth). So no solid poop floating around. And all liquid waste material aka urea is removed directly from the baby's bloodstream by the umbilical cord.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:World improves (Score:4, Informative)
This study just showed that Organic food doesn't have significant more nutrients than non-organic.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
I'll modify their quote so it makes sense:
Really? I can give you two apples that have the same nutritional value but one has cyanide in it. Are you going to trust the study that doesn't look into the affects of poison in the food?
Utter Ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to popular belief, Organic food does use pesticides and fertilizers. They are just limited in which ones they are allowed to use. The pesticides are of older categories, derived from other plants, hence being acceptable as "organic". However, they are not as effective as the newer ones (which is why we use the newer ones in the first place) and in order to work effectively require much higher application rates (lbs/acre) and more frequent applications (10-12 times/season instead of 3-6).
Even with the use of these "Organic" pesticides and fertlizers, they cannot produce the same number of bushels/acre. That means that they need to use more acres to grow the same amount of corn or soy. Never mind all of the diesel fuel consumed by running the tractor over more land more frequently in a given season.
When it comes to animal agriculture it's even worse. Chickens have a Huge dietary requirement for the amino acid Methionine, but grains are poor sources of Methionine. In order to meet the requirement without doubling the number of days to market (from 7 to 14 weeks) all conventional, as well as all "Organic" broiler chicken diets contain a source of synthetic Methionine activity. All regulations governing organic animal production allow for a Methionine Exception.
Without these exceptions, producers would be forced to either double days to market or achieve adequate Methionine levels by dramatically over feeding crude protein (~30% vs. the normal of ~20%). The excess amino acids that make up the Crude Protein would be catabolized and stored as fat, with their associated Nitrogen groups excreted as waste. Excess waste Nitrogen is a Huge environmental issue because Nitrogen is usually the rate limiting nutrient in saltwater environments. Excess Nitrogen from fields and composting poultry litter can end up getting into local water and causing Eutrophication.
Alternatively in "Modern" broiler chicken diets you can actually feed diets containing as little as 12% Crude Protien, with extensive use of synthetic amino acids. This results in identical or occationally superior performance on the part of the growing birds, and Dramatically Reduced levels of Nitrogen in the animals waste. This also saves money for the producer, limits the potential for negative environmental impact, and is practically required if you are going to stay on the right side of environmental regulations here in the US.
There is nothing "Environmentall Friendly" about Organic food. Organic food and Sustainability are actually antithetical to each other. I would say that buying organic food is financial masterbation, except that's not fair to masterbation. They both make you feel good, but only Organic food is actually bad for the environment.
Re:Utter Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)
In order to actually be organic, they have to spend a lot of time and money getting approval from the USDA.
This is inaccurate. To be certified organic, they would need to spend this effort. I find the whole "certified organic" thing to be dubious at best. I know some of the farmers I buy from. Many of them grow using the best practices of organic farming. They do not go through any effort to be "certified organic" because they don't market their produce through main stream grocery store chains. Word of mouth on the quality of their produce is good enough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
What they did not look at was the effect of using herbicides and pesticides on health.
Or how about the impact of herbicides and pesticides on the land on and around the farm where the food is grown? It isn't just about the food itself; personally I think that food that isn't making the surrounding environment toxic is healthy for me and my kids too.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Insightful)
Spot on. I've never been under any impression that (properly-prepared) organic food is healthier than non-organic, but by buying organic, you're supporting a sustainable practice that doesn't contribute to water table pollution, among other things.
If organics aren't in someone's budget, fine, but if you can spring for them, it's a good way to promote sustainable practices, and is a lot more direct than nebulous "carbon offsets."
Re:World improves (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah.
And the fact that industrial farming destroys land and consumes hydrocarbons at an alarming rate. It is destructive to biodiversity - defining itself in producing exclusive monocultures.
Michael Pollan's work is considered, even toned, and alarming. on these points, and others. I'd go after both The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food.
"For more than a century now, scientists have known that whenever a people take up Western habits of eating, the so-called Western diseases follow. The best-known examples include obesity, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, and cancer, but the list also includes appendicitis, diverticulitis, tooth decay, varicose veins, ulcers, and hemorrhoids. All of these diseases are extremely rare in populations that still eat as their ancestors did for centuries."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"For more than a century now, scientists have known that whenever a people take up Western habits of eating, the so-called Western diseases follow. The best-known examples include obesity, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, and cancer, but the list also includes appendicitis, diverticulitis, tooth decay, varicose veins, ulcers, and hemorrhoids. All of these diseases are extremely rare in populations that still eat as their ancestors did for centuries."
Probably because they are dying too early of other things like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, measles, tetanus, and respiratory infections to live long enough to get the above mentioned "decadence diseases". In some countries, being obese would be the ultimate status symbol. I would say that is more a reflection of medical standards and technology than eating habits in some cases.
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
Your short response is so pregnant with errors of thought, that I wonder if it were not meant merely to goad.
Let us suppose that your monoculture becomes the opportune host for a parasite, and eliminates 80% of all strawberries on earth - as there are no other lines to introduce for survival. This has already happened once, to the Banana. The chalky item eaten today, a "Cavendish" is very different from the fruit of my early childhood. That's because those "Big Mike" variety went extinct in the '60's from Panama disease. The replacement was discovered in Asia after many years - and was transplanted in Central America. Trust me, youngster: it's a poor replacement.
Your proposition says the particular choices that we are making at this point in economic, climatic and political history are near-perfect, and without genetic diversity, will serve nearly all circumstances into perpetuity. Not bloody likely.
You also assume that lines are chosen for their "tastiness". This is almost NEVER the case! They are chosen for pest/pesticide hardiness, storage and shipping convenience - and... their suitability to industrial-scale monoculture methods!
For my point, try eating an heirloom apple sometime. Do so, while also sampling that tasteless Fuji from you favorite grocers.
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind that using "Organic" agricultural practices exclusively would lead to massive starvation all around the glob. The only reason that we have enough to feed the global population now is the use of "Modern" agricultural practices that grew out of the "Green Revolution".
Mass-producing cheap food is good. Mass-producing cheap food that isn't healthy is...?
Mass-production tends to specialize since specialization is very efficient. In the US, we mass produce food by specialized on corn, soy, and something else that I can't remember. However, our bodies may not be able to handle an over-specialized diet. For example, we get certain nutrients more efficiently when eating certain food combinations. There's also evidence that things like high fructose corn is really unhealthy since we never evolved to eat it. Go read the omnivore's diet and in defense of food books for more details. Diet and food production is a very non-trivial subject.
So, the real question is: can we mass produce cheap, healthy food? The really nasty question is, what do we do if we can't mass-produce enough cheap healthy food to support future (or even current) population growth? Do we trust evolution to select humans that can live on cheap unhealthy food? Do we start producing healthier but more expensive food and let the have-nots die or eat unhealthy food? Do we find a way to create cheap healthy mass-produced food without going bankrupt?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier."
Utter Horsepuckey.
So because technological improvement has helped us get where we are now, it can do no wrong at all?
What nonsense. Look at the whole trans-fat thing for an example. Carcinogens added technologically as a preservative.
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your point is - in my opinion - that in the area of food, technological advancements are either scams or used to sell us processed cheap shit.
Our national consumer protection organisation recently published a list of what some "food" items really are made of. Technology is used to get away with as little of the original ingredients as possible and add as much cheap filler (corn, soy, cheap oils) as possible. How can technologically engineered food with 20% real ingredients for taste and 80% cheap filler be good?
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't agree more.
That and all the chemically dependant "fast-grow, high-yield" fruits and vegetables taste like arse compared to the more traditional ones.
Going for higher, cheaper yield is not always good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Species variation is completely different to "organic" foods.
Using land that's already been raped by chemical fertilizers and pesticides doesn't tend to have the same value as virgin land when you want to go "organic". Thinking you can fix the salinity levels, lack of nutrients, etc by shoveling cow shit on it is just a joke. Sustainable practices like crop rotation are still not used by these "organic" farmers, they think they can still treat the land with the same contempt that chemical farmers do. It doe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That and all the chemically dependant "fast-grow, high-yield" fruits and vegetables taste like arse compared to the more traditional ones.
Going for higher, cheaper yield is not always good.
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
I challenge you to find cheaper food than the organic produce grown within a few miles of my home. If people would focus on buying locally produced veggies and meat, it would cut a huge chunk of transportation cost (and waste) out of the system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:World improves (Score:5, Funny)
Illegal immigrants?
Re:World improves (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, twostix, there is this literary device known as a "rhetorical question". This literary device is used when the writer/speaker knows that the answer is obvious, and will be automatically arrived at by the audience just in the asking of the question. See also: Socratic method.
I find it even more amusing that your answer, while partially correct, is actually not even accurate. Certainly, machinery has been a huge factor, but the answer was "technology" in general, rather than specifically JUST machinery. We have better fertilizers and irrigation technologies. From our knowledge in genetics and biology, we have been able to figure out better crop rotations, breeding methods, and in some cases, how to directly manipulate the genes of plants to bring about a better yield. Technology has given us better ways to preserve the food, so that we don't need everything directly from the market within a few days of being harvested, allowing farmers to greatly increase yield. We have MUCH better transportation systems as well, so that farming needs to be less localized. There are many, many other factors involved in this equation, but I think my point is clear.
F-, twosticks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No I think you'll find that machinery (specifically the tractor, combine, header and truck) is the reason that it doesn't take 80% of the population to work the land anymore. Everything else you list gives insignificant increases in output by comparison.
My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have.
Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it.
I should remember I dun know nuthing about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... pardon me but WTF are you talking about? Sure, food preservation was in existence in 1850, as it was thousands of years before. Are you really going to suggest that food preservation hasn't improved drastically since 1850? I mean, how about that little thing called refrigeration?
"My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But organic food processing is a technology and not always and necessarily an old one.
There is an attitude among many people that if it is distributed, divers, and non-destructive it's not technology and if it involves large companies, big industries and has fatal side effects it's technology. I think that this attitude is utterly wrong.
In the end technology just means instruments and procedure that assist you getting things done, and their instrumental character defines a good technology, not whether o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Soo..
- Plants that are more disease resistant, resulting in less failed crops.
- Plants that are more resistant to insects, resulting in less use of pesticides and a lower cost of production.
- Plants that produce more "fruit" (IE: more apples, oranges, ears of corn, wheat kernels, etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good old appeal for the children and class warfare.
This study [cornell.edu] indicates that your blanket statement isn't quite true. The link indicates that in the first few years organic output does tend to be markedly lower. With proper organic techniques, however, the yields increased in those areas, and in some cases exceeded the conventional farming technique.
Organic farming, IMHO, has its place. In fact [sciencedaily.com], your statement that "You cannot be against world hunger and for organic foods" is just plain wrong. In the th
Re:World improves (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with McDonald's food is not primarily the fat. It's the flavour enhancer.
Our body is pretty well able to regulate how much of our intake it actually processes, unless, of course, it is swamped with it. And therein lies the problem: Flavour enhancers override our senses and let us eat beyond what we need as sustenance.
From personal experience I know that I eat less the more unprocessed ingredients are used in food preparation. I'm less in a hurry to shovel it into my mouth, thus giving my stomach the time to process the stuff and tell me when it's enough.
The biggest problem we have nowadays is stress. Not only at work or in personal matters, but also when eating. We eat faster and thus more. So in my opinion, the less additives food has, the better you're off all around.
We do not live longer all that much, by the way. The problem is that in those statistics all the children and mothers that died at birth were included. Since these problems have lessened due to higher levels of hygiene during child birthing, our statistics have, of course, vastly improved.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Insightful)
Another problem is the unusual mixes of things. You can eat a lot more fat (without gagging) if you mix in a heap of salt. Fatty salty foods are not too common in the wild, but modern food mixes them together, which messes up our instincts about how much to eat.
Also, Coke has far too much sugar to taste good, but the added food acid makes it palatable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Human/cow shit or oil and war. Your choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
And hell, I rather eat food thats *NOT* made in cow shit just because its "natural" based on human history and was the only way to make it at the time.
Jeez. It has fuck all to do with naturalness, but nitrates, phosphates and potassium (NPK).
If you keep taking them out of the soil as you grow crops, the soil degrades till it's no use any more. So you've taken all these nitrates out and you've eaten them. Where do you think they end up? They end up in your shit and piss and they have to be dealt with by the sewage treatment plants. Or dumped in the rivers and oceans, causing algal blooms. That's just dumb.
The other alternative is that you manufacture nitrates. That is called the Haber Bosch process and it involves burning a shit load of fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen and energy required convert the nitrogen in the atmosphere to ammonia. The phosphates and potassium are usually mined. All of which require vast amounts of energy and leave big holes in the ground. As long as energy is plentiful and cheap you can just about get away with this.
Is this like magic or something? The miraculous Walmart magic food onto their shelves? The evil miners and chemical producers dig big holes and burn fossil fuels solely to anger the woolly headed (but nice) environmentalists? America goes to war with *iraq* despite the terrorists being *Saudi* and the supposed terrorist ring being resident in *Afghanistan* and *Pakistan*.
Re:World improves (Score:5, Insightful)
"That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier."
Of course, the welfare and quality of life of the animals that make up our food is of no concern to you? Or the effect on the environment? Just that the food is not "risky" to your health?
I'm not a vegetarian, but frankly, the shit that we're doing to our animals to mass produce meat cheaply is disgusting.
And define "risky", because from here I'm sitting, there are a large number of direct and indirect risks we suffer thanks to mechanisation and industrialisation of our food supply. Environmental destruction, such as poisoning our water supply, the earth, and the air. Increased risks of diseases, too. IMO, things like swine flu are direct results of the mechanisation and industrialisation of our food process.
It is no coincidence that La Gloria (which is suspected of being ground zero for Swine Flu) just happened to have a huge hog farm operated by Granjas Carroll (50% owned by Smithfield Foods). Their hog operations generate lagoons of waste stuffed with antibiotics, ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorous, nitrates, heavy metals - all sorts of shit that isn't shit.
Slashdot won't let me C&P the URL properly, so combine it together: http://www.rollingstone.com/ [rollingstone.com] /politics/story/12840743 /porks_dirty_secret_
the_nations_top_
hog_producer_is_
also_one_of_
americas_worst_polluters
It's not just our meat, either. Chlorine being used to wash "ready to eat" foods? Growth hormones, antibiotics and all sorts of shit in milk? What about pesticides? Just recently saw a report that suggests the cocktail of pesticides could be behind Colony Collapse Disorder. Carcinogenic ingredients being added to food?
Again, IMO, the incidents of cancer that we're seeing these days are directly linked with what we're doing to our food supply.
Technology's a great thing, except when it gets in the hands of greedy, unethical bastards who couldn't give a shit except to their bottom line.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, IMO, the incidents of cancer that we're seeing these days are directly linked with what we're doing to our food supply.
You're absolutely right.
-We have access to plentiful and cheap food today.
-We don't die of starvation.
-We live long enough to get cancer.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing against the killing of animals (although I do respect those who take a stand against it). I said quite clearly, I'm not a vegetarian. I don't mind people eating meat.
The point is that we torture them for their entire, short, miserable lives. Lions don't imprison 823 million impala [independent.co.uk] in huge concentrations, artificially increasing their weight to grow abnormally fast in shorter time spans and thereby crippling some 27% them, keeping them in their own shit for so long that they suffer burns on their legs.
And unless you consider humans to be just dumb beasts that simply cannot make ethical choices, saying it's "nature" is a cop out. We can change things. Compassion in World Farming [ciwf.org.uk] is a good place to start.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Informative)
True. And we have diseases which were completely unheard of 30,000 years ago. Is there a point?
Sheer nonsense. First off, most of the food you eat has been genetically modified. It's just that silly buggers who don't know anything tend to get more upset about those eeeevil scientists in their crazy white coats than they do about farmer bob and his descendants selectively breeding plants for their own purposes. Anyone who eats seedless fruit while complaining about "GM food" is a fucking idiot.
And, second, the idea that all food which has been scientifically modified - regardless of what changes were made - is "bad for the environment" is so silly that it shouldn't really warrant a response.
Switch from Smarties to M&Ms (Score:3, Informative)
Yellow Smarties have same health qualities as red Smarties..
Put down the Smarties, pick up the M&Ms and eat the blue ones: http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/07/why-migraines-could-leave-you-blue-in-the-face.html [typepad.com]
Re:Main benefits are to the environment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Personal experience with milk says article's BS (Score:5, Informative)
Check the milk you are drinking and you will probably find that it is lactose free. Alot of organic milks are this way because it is cheaper to throw everything into the same container than have multiple version. Organic milks are also ultrapasturized because they need the longer shelf life.
organic effect or homogenization effect? (Score:4, Informative)
It's quite simple, when i drink standard milk i get horrible stomach cramps and other nasty digestive effects. When I drink organic milk (NOT SOY) I have none of that.
By the term "standard milk", do you mean homogenized milk? Homogenization breaks the suspended particles (typically fats with proteins) into much smaller sizes, greatly increasing the surface area presented per gram of solids. If you have a sensitivity to some substance in the suspended solids of cow-milk (e.g. a particular protein, sugar, or fat), then homogenization is likely to exacerbate your reaction to it. This effect will occur whether the milk is organic or not, but since organic milk is likely to be unhomogenized, it may appear to be an organic vs non-organic issue.
I also speak from personal experience. I can consume reasonable quantities of whole milk, but can tolerate only small quantities of homogenized milk before digestive problems occur.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Organic farming is clearly defined if you (in your infinite knowledge of all thing agriculture) cared to look it up.
When I was about 12 I was helping my uncle drench sheep - basically giving them a chemical shower. The chemical we were using caused me and my cousin to both have explosive diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea the instant we caught a decent whiff of the overspray. "You'll get used to it" was my uncles advice to us.
There's areas on farms where sheep dips stood that are now officially poisoned g
Let me help you out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Organic means that shit loads of chemicals that damage soil, groundwater supply, and cause dead zones hundreds of square miles in size in the Gulf of Mexico are not used. This is a good idea, because it takes into account the fact that you probably want to eat in ten years as well as today, and you'll need soil that supports vegetable life in order to do so.
Organic means you don't stuff a cow full of antibiotics that cause it to be ill, infecting it's milk production with blood and puss, just so Monsanto ca