Going Organic

[noelalexis2000]

Yes, thank you Jeff for posting all that information.

[JeffN]

Update..

Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Dec;50(12):4421-7. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.055. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
Estimation of cancer risks and benefits associated with a potential increased consumption of fruits and vegetables.


Abstract
The current paper provides an analysis of the potential number of cancer cases that might be prevented if half the U.S. population increased its fruit and vegetable consumption by one serving each per day. This number is contrasted with an upper-bound estimate of concomitant cancer cases that might be theoretically attributed to the intake of pesticide residues arising from the same additional fruit and vegetable consumption. The cancer prevention estimates were derived using a published meta-analysis of nutritional epidemiology studies. The cancer risks were estimated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods, cancer potency estimates from rodent bioassays, and pesticide residue sampling data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The resulting estimates are that approximately 20,000 cancer cases per year could be prevented by increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, while up to 10 cancer cases per year could be caused by the added pesticide consumption. These estimates have significant uncertainties (e.g., potential residual confounding in the fruit and vegetable epidemiologic studies and reliance on rodent bioassays for cancer risk). However, the overwhelming difference between benefit and risk estimates provides confidence that consumers should not be concerned about cancer risks from consuming conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables. PMID: 22981907


So, lets put this in even better perspective (using averages and rounding off to make the math easier)

There are an estimated 300 million people in the USA and around 580K deaths from all cancers per year.

Since we are dealing with half of the population than, thats 150 million people and around 290K deaths from all cancer per year.

If this half of the USA ate one more serving of fruits and veggies, we could prevent 20K of those cancer death which is about 6.89655% of the 290K. Not bad.

However, they are saying that if the fruit and vegetables were not organic, there may be 10 more cancer deaths per year. So, the total net cancer deaths prevented would be 19,990 (20,000 - 10 = 19,990)

So, lets look at the scenario this way..

About 290,000 people will die of cancer.

If we knew who they were and gave them all one more serving of organic fruit and veggies, we will prevent 20,000, so we have 270,000 deaths.

If the fruit and vegetables we gave them were not organic, we would prevent only 19,990, so we have 270,010.

Lets do the math

For Organic
20,000/290,000 = 6.89655%

For Non Organic
19,990/290,000 = 6.89310%

the difference is .00345%

Or look at it this way

the difference is 10, out of 290,000 who would die.

10/290,000 - .00345%

Or, since the increase of 10 deaths is really coming out of the half of the population that is not already dying of cancer,

10/150,000,000 = .00000667%

Clearly, the first priority is to eat more fruits and veggies, no matter what, regardless of whether they are organic or not.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

In one of my original posts on this topic, I made several points. These included...

Some "food for thought" on the topic.

2) big business got involved because they saw the growing market amongst aging baby boomers and the potential profits

3) The concept was eventually taken over by the food industry & big business about 5-7 years ago when the national standard was issued and watered down the original ideals.

4) no one in the original movement ever intended it to grow into a movement that had organic twinkies and organic junk food. It was originally only about whole, natural, unprocessed unrefined foods and making healthy food healthier. Not making junk foods appear healthy.

5) the small farmers are basically out because they cant meet the demand of the big distributors like whole foods and wild oats who need consistent product. So, the big farmers are now doing it all. Also, the small organic companies were all bought out by the big food companies (ie kellogs owns kashi)

8 ) the standards have been so watered down that organic doesnt even mean organic anymore.

9) the higher cost "could" be justified if the products were coming from small local farms and/or if there was a proven significant difference benefit. However, since neither one is true, the industry can not really justify its significant higher pricing other than to say it is just capitalizing on a current trend.

10 ) people are spending lots of extra money thinking they are buying health, when in reality, for many people and the products they buy, they are just buying another illusion.

This recent report, highlights the reality of the above points.

The press release

Why Consumers Pay More for Organic Foods?
Fear Sells and Marketers Know it.
Academics Review
Apr 07, 2014
https://academics-review.bonuseventus.o ... s-know-it/



Organic Marketing Report
The full report
https://academics-review.bonuseventus.o ... _Print.pdf

Academics Review
Testing popular claims against peer-reviewed science
A report commissioned by Academics Review, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.1 Reviewed by: Bruce Chassy, PhD 2; David Tribe, PhD 3; Graham Brookes, MA 4 and Drew Kershen, JD 5 Principal researcher: Joanna Schroeder

The global market for organic foods has reached $63 billion while the extended “natural” products marketplace exceeds $290 billion in the U.S. alone. The report explores the market research and corresponding industry strategies and factors behind the fastest growing consumer food and lifestyle trend in modern history.


CONCLUSION
This review of more than 100 published academic and market research studies clearly shows that food safety and health concerns are the primary drivers of consumer organic purchasing. Further, research reveals that other factors, such as sustainability, environ- mental claims and even organic certification, do not motivate general consumers to purchase organic products in the absence of health risk claims. Research by USDA, the organic industry and independent academic organizations also confirms that the use of the USDA Organic Seal is critical to conveying confidence in organic labeling claims, which the majority of consumers mistakenly believe to mean healthier and safer food products.

This research is well known and shared throughout the organic marketing industry via trade shows, market research publication, trade and mainstream media publications. Organic industry CEO’s, marketing directors and research consultants are quoted in sales presentations, financial analyst meetings and news interviews acknowledging consumer food scares and health risk concerns are key components to organic market growth. Some openly acknowledge that the industry should engage in fear-based marketing. Extensive, annually published trade and market research materials document the need to broaden organic sales growth to consumer segments for whom creating concerns about personal health and food safety are requirements to get them to switch from more affordable conventional to higher priced organic foods.

This research is translated into organic marketing campaigns that imply or directly assert food health and safety risks with foods produced using competing conventional practices. Our review of the top 50 organic food marketers finds these practices to be pervasive throughout the industry and not simply by a few bad actors. This disparagement marketing via absence claims with direct and implied health risk allegations is found on food packaging and labeling claims, in-store marketing displays, online campaigns, media relations, and extensive advertising in print, radio and television. Additionally, research reveals that anti-GMO and anti-pesticide advocacy groups promoting organic alternatives have combined annual budgets exceeding $2.5 billion annually and that organic industry funders are found among the major donors to these groups.

This review of published research, documented organic and natural produce industry practices and advocacy collaborations shows widespread, collaborative and pervasive industry marketing activities, both transparent and covert, disparaging competing conventional foods and agriculture practices. Further, these activities have contributed to false and misleading consumer health and safety perceptions influencing food purchase decisions. These findings suggest a widespread organic and natural products industry pat- tern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices that have generated hundreds of billions in revenues.

Finally, the findings strongly suggest that this multidecade public disinformation campaign has been conducted with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal in direct contradiction to U.S. government stated policy for use of said seal. USDA’s own research confirms that food safety and health risk concerns associated with conventional foods combined with consumer trust and confidence in the USDA Organic Seal are responsible for the significant growth and corresponding profits enjoyed by the organic industry since the seal’s launch in 2001. This use of the USDA Organic Seal to convey superior food nutrition, safety or qual- ity attributes of organic over conventional foods contradicts both the stated USDA intention for the National Organic Standards Program and the extensive body of published academic research which show conventional foods to be as safe and nutritious as higher priced organic products.

As a result, the American taxpayer funded national organic pro- gram is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing decisions based on false and misleading health, safety and quality claims. Further, U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Agriculture, which entrusted with the authority to enforce truthful, non-mislead- ing consumer protections against such abuses have either ignored or become complicit in these marketing abuses.

These combined marketing and advocacy expenditures disparaging conventional food health and safety by organic food marketers can be estimated to be in the billions of dollars annually. However, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a corresponding product disparagement campaign by conventional food industry competitors was run. It is likely any similar types of disparagement marketing and use of false or misleading health claims to increase conventional sales would result in condemning media headlines and editorials, mass tort litigation and congressional hearings.


In health
Jeff

PS If this report was on the dairy, beef or egg industry, everyone would be up in arms about this and furious. However, somehow, when it is the nut industry or the organic industry doing this, we seem to want to give them a free pass.

Integrity counts.

Regardless

[JeffN]

A few more of interest..

Mutation Research Frontiers
Paracelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction
Mutation Research 447 2000 3–13

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf

Abstract

Entering a new millennium seems a good time to challenge some old ideas, which in our view are implausible, have little supportive evidence, and might best be left behind. In this essay, we summarize a decade of work, raising four issues that involve toxicology, nutrition, public health, and government regulatory policy. (a) Paracelsus or parascience: the dose (trace) makes the poison. Half of all chemicals, whether natural or synthetic, are positive in high-dose rodent cancer tests. These results are unlikely to be relevant at the low doses of human exposure. (b) Even Rachel Carson was made of chemicals: natural vs. synthetic chemicals. Human exposure to naturally occurring rodent carcinogens is ubiquitous, and dwarfs the general public's exposure to synthetic rodent carcinogens. (c) Errors of omission: micronutrient inadequacy is genotoxic. The major causes of cancer (other than smoking) do not involve exogenous carcinogenic chemicals: dietary imbalances, hormonal factors, infection and inflammation, and genetic factors. Insufficiency of many micronutrients, which appears to mimic radiation, is a preventable source of DNA damage. (d) Damage by distraction: regulating low hypothetical risks. Putting huge amounts of money into minuscule hypothetical risks damages public health by diverting resources and distracting the public from major risks. PMID: 10686303



Misconceptions About the Causes of Cancer
Human and Environmental Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice
D. Paustenbach, ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1415-1460 (2002)

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/misconceptions.pdf

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/Paustenbach.pdf

Summary

The major causes of cancer are: 1) smoking, which accounts for 31% of U.S. cancer deaths and 87% of lung cancer deaths; 2) dietary imbalances which account for about another third, e.g., lack of sufficient amounts of dietary fruits and vegetables. 3) chronic infections, mostly in developing countries; and 4) hormonal factors, which are influenced primarily by lifestyle. There is no cancer epidemic except for cancer of the lung due to smoking. Cancer mortality rates have declined 19% since 1950 (excluding lung cancer). Regulatory policy that focuses on traces of synthetic chemicals is based on misconceptions about animal cancer tests. Recent research indicates that rodent carcinogens are not rare. Half of all chemicals tested in standard high-dose animal cancer tests, whether occurring naturally or produced synthetically, are “carcinogens”; there are high-dose effects in rodent cancer tests that are not relevant to low-dose human exposures and which contribute to the high proportion of chemicals that test positive. The focus of regulatory policy is on synthetic chemicals, although 99.9% of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. More than 1000 chemicals have been described in coffee: 30 have been tested and 21 are rodent carcinogens. Plants in the human diet contain thousands of natural “pesticides” produced by plants to protect themselves from insects and other predators: 71 have been tested and 37 are rodent carcinogens.

There is no convincing evidence that synthetic chemical pollutants are important as a cause of human cancer. Regulations targeted to eliminate low levels of synthetic chemicals are expensive. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that environmental regulations cost society $140 billion/year. Others have estimated that the median toxic control program costs 146 times more per hypothetical life-year saved than the median medical intervention. Attempting to reduce tiny hypothetical risks has other costs as well: if reducing synthetic pesticides makes fruits and vegetables more expensive, thereby decreasing consumption, then the cancer rate will increase, especially for the poor. The prevention of cancer will come from knowledge obtained from biomedical research, education of the public, and lifestyle changes made by individuals. A re-examination of priorities in cancer prevention, both public and private, seems called for.


In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

The Flaw In the Dirty Dozen, Again.

The EWG has just released their newest list of the Dirty Dozen.

http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php

A detailed article and analysis on why the list & analysis is flawed

http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/20 ... t.html?m=1

An earlier article I wrote, The Flaw in the Dirty Dozen

http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... Dozen.html

On Organic foods in general

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6229

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

My discussion on "ConsumerReports' comprehensive report on organic foods"

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=47772

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

Mass Media Article

Is organic food tastier? No, it's all in the mind: 'Moral satisfaction' of eating items produced in an ethical way means you're more likely to enjoy it
By Sean Poulter
Consumer Affairs Editor For The Daily Mail
22:56 23 Jun 2015, updated 00:03 24 Jun 2015

Supporters of ethically produced food appear to have skewed judgement
In flavour tests many people convince themselves organic tastes better
'Moral satisfaction’ associated with consuming food produced in an ethical way means people are more likely to enjoy it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -mind.html



Abstract

Savouring morality. Moral satisfaction renders food of ethical origin subjectively tastier. Appetite. 2015 Aug 1;91:137-49. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 Apr 9.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6315001452

Highlights

• Buying and consuming food of ethical origin brings about moral satisfaction.
• Moral satisfaction renders the taste of ethical food subjectively superior.
• This superior taste positively predicts intentions to buy ethical food.
• The enhanced tastiness may act as a reward mechanism for buying ethical food.

Abstract

Past research has shown that the experience of taste can be influenced by a range of external cues, especially when they concern food's quality. The present research examined whether food's ethicality - a cue typically unrelated to quality - can also influence taste. We hypothesised that moral satisfaction with the consumption of ethical food would positively influence taste expectations, which in turn will enhance the actual taste experience. This enhanced taste experience was further hypothesised to act as a possible reward mechanism reinforcing the purchase of ethical food. The resulting ethical food → moral satisfaction  → enhanced taste expectations and experience → stronger intentions to buy/willingness to pay model was validated across four studies: one large scale international survey (Study 1) and three experimental studies involving actual food consumption of different type of ethical origin - organic (Study 2), fair trade (Study 3a) and locally produced (Study 3b). Furthermore, endorsement of values relevant to the food's ethical origin moderated the effect of food's origin on moral satisfaction, suggesting that the model is primarily supported for people who endorse these values.
PMID 25865666

[JeffN]

An excellent article with some great links in it

Why You Shouldn't Buy Organic Based on the "Dirty Dozen" List
Beth Skwarecki
3/03/15

http://vitals.lifehacker.com/why-you-sh ... 1689190822

"Switching to organic apples because they top the "Dirty Dozen" list of produce with the most pesticides? You may want to reconsider. It turns out the "Dirty" foods are fairly clean, and organic foods aren't free of pesticides anyway.

The "Dirty Dozen" Rankings Aren't Connected to Safety

The "Dirty Dozen" list, which aims to rank the fruits with the most pesticide residue, comes from the Environmental Working Group, and they publish their methodology on the report's website. They basically download the test results from the USDA's Pesticide Data Program, which samples produce for pesticide residues, and come up with a ranking score for each fruit or vegetable based on six criteria relating to the number of different pesticide residues seen on produce of that type, the percentage of samples with pesticide residues, and the total amount of pesticide detected."

Read more...

http://vitals.lifehacker.com/why-you-sh ... 1689190822

(Beth is a science writer based in Pittsburgh, PA, With a degree in biology, Beth Skwarecki became a computer nerd along the way, and spent several years crunching data for a bioinformatics project at Cornell. Now, she writes about the life sciences, including molecular biology, human and veterinary health research, ecology, and computational biology, for such publications as Biomedical Computation Review)

[JeffN]

How Chipotle's Sustainability Hypocrisy Could Eclipse Its Food Poisoning Fiasco.

"Food poisoning with integrity

Chipotle's troubles have undermined its public claims that it uses safer and higher quality organic and local ingredients when available. Its chief financial officer John Hartung said during a recent call with analysts that the chain sources only about 10% of its ingredients within a few hundred miles of its restaurants. Those numbers are probably startling to most of its customers based on Chipotle's marketing assertions that it runs an ecological, sustainable business.

"When you go local, oftentimes these are very small farmers," Ron Cegnar, president of Lexington, Ky.-based supply chain company CEO Partners, told Nation's Restaurant News. "They may not have the treatment facilities on the water. Livestock may be getting into watering systems. They may not have the staff to do inspections. Plus you have a lot more points of supply. Instead of just three national suppliers, you have multiple local suppliers. So your risk probability goes up."

Full Article

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8862706

[JeffN]

Mass Media Article
"Researchers at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago wanted to know how the list influences our buying habits. They surveyed more than 500 low-income shoppers about their thoughts on organic and conventional vegetables and fruit, and published results in the journal Nutrition Today.

They found that specifically naming the “Dirty Dozen” resulted in shoppers being less likely to buy any vegetables and fruit. That’s right — it’s not just consumption of the top 12 pesticide-laden items that drops, it seems we buy and eat less of every vegetable and fruit. Misinformation about pesticides breeds fear and confusion, and many find it easier to skip fresh produce altogether."


Study
Low-Income Shoppers and Fruit and Vegetables: What Do They Think?
Nutrition Today: September/October 2016 - Volume 51 - Issue 5 - p 242–250
doi: 10.1097/NT.0000000000000176
Food and Nutrition

Full Text
http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayo ... hat.6.aspx

Abstract

We surveyed 510 low-income shoppers to learn about their attitudes about organic and conventional fruits and vegetables (FV) and what would happen if we provided them with information about organic and conventional growing practices from a variety of sources. In general, participants preferred organic FV; however, cost was a significant barrier to purchase them. Informational statements about organic and conventional FV did not increase participants' likelihood to purchase more FV. In contrast, messages naming specific FV with pesticides shifted participants toward “less likely” to purchase any type of FV regardless whether organically or conventionally grown. The results provide insight about how low-income people view FV and how communications may influence their purchase intention.

[JeffN]

From the 2018 AICR report on Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Cancer: A Global Perspective

A comprehensive analysis of the global research by independent experts from around the world and covers 17 cancer sites, including colorectal, breast, ovarian and prostate. Findings are based on the data of 51 million people, including 3.5 million cancer cases.

http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer- ... opics.html

On Organic Foods

Organic farming makes use of crop rotation, environmental management and good animal husbandry to control pests and diseases. This means that there are limited additives used in organic food production. Processed organic foods use ingredients that are produced organically, and for a food to be certified organic, at least 95% of the food must be made up of organic ingredients.

There are many different reasons why consumers choose to buy organic food, such as concern for the environment and animal welfare. Consumers may also choose to buy organic food because they believe it is safer and more nutritious than other food and that artificial fertilizers and pesticides may increase the risk of some diseases, including cancer.

However, there is currently no strong evidence to support the idea that organic foods offer added protection against cancer compared to conventionally grown produce. Research shows that eating a healthy diet, along with not smoking and keeping active, are very important in cancer prevention, but choosing fresh, frozen, canned, conventional or organic produce does not affect your cancer risk.

[JeffN]

Excellent article in the Huffington Post on this

In Health
Jeff

Is The ‘Dirty Dozen’ Food List Really So Dirty After All?
FOOD & DRINK 07/11/2018 05:48 am ET

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/di ... ea75428eee

The annual list scares us into buying organic produce, but are non-organic fruits and vegetables really that bad?

“Unfortunately, I’m not sure if anyone gets to the message to eat more produce, period,” Bodnar says, “considering that media coverage of the Shopper’s Guide rarely mentions it, instead focusing on the scary ‘facts.’” Individuals who can’t afford organic may simply eat less produce."

[JeffN]

In regard to the new study on organic foods lowering cancer risk...

First, it’s a self-reported online survey...  (which is a very weak type of study)

Second, from the study,

“Higher organic food scores were associated with a healthier diet rich in fiber, vegetable proteins, and micronutrients. Higher organic food scores were also associated with higher intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes and with lower intake of processed meat, other meat, poultry, and milk.

Higher organic food scores were positively associated with female sex, high occupational status or monthly income per household unit, postsecondary graduate educational level, physical activity, and former smoking status.”

Third, from the accompanying editorial...

“While the link between cancer risk and organic food intake is still uncertain, there is compelling evidence that improving other factors, such as body weight, physical activity, and diet, can lower cancer risk.10 For cancer prevention, the American Cancer Society10 recommends consuming a healthy diet that limits red and processed meat and added sugars, replaces refined grains with whole grains, and increases consumption of fruits and vegetables. For overall health, current evidence indicates that the benefits of consuming conventionally grown produce are likely to outweigh the possible risks from pesticide exposure. Concerns over pesticide risks should not discourage intake of conventional fruits and vegetables, especially because organic produce is often expensive and inaccessible to many populations. While more research is needed to examine the role of organic foods in cancer prevention, current recommendations should continue to focus on modifiable risk factors that are backed by solid evidence and encourage healthy dietary patterns, including higher intake of fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic.”

Fourth, even one of the authors said that some of the results just don’t make any sense due to effect size.

So, in the end, all this new survey showed “at best” was that some healthy people eating healthy diets seem to choose organic foods more often.

Fifth, somehow, the AICR/WCRF Report has missed this in all 3 of their comprehensive reports (1997, 2007, 2018)

From their recent 2018 report...

Organic food - ”Organic farming makes use of crop rotation, environmental management and good animal husbandry to control pests and diseases. This means that there are limited additives used in organic food production. Processed organic foods use ingredients that are produced organically, and for a food to be certified organic, at least 95% of the food must be made up of organic ingredients.

There are many different reasons why consumers choose to buy organic food, such as concern for the environment and animal welfare. Consumers may also choose to buy organic food because they believe it is safer and more nutritious than other food and that artificial fertilizers and pesticides may increase the risk of some diseases, including cancer.

However, there is currently no strong evidence to support the idea that organic foods offer added protection against cancer compared to conventionally grown produce. Research shows that eating a healthy diet, along with not smoking and keeping active, are very important in cancer prevention, but choosing fresh, frozen, canned, conventional or organic produce does not affect your cancer risk.”

Bottom line after many decades ... “focus on modifiable risk factors that are backed by solid evidence and encourage healthy dietary patterns, including higher intake of fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic.”

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

And, for the record, those high priced produce washes, have not been shown to do any better than water and elbow grease.

CR recently did a report on cleaning produce...

“To remove as much pesticide residue as you can, follow the method used by the USDA.

Wash all produce—even those that will be peeled—in cold running water for 15 to 20 seconds. For hard produce with tough skins, like apples and potatoes, use a vegetable brush or rub with your hands. You can time yourself by singing the "Happy Birthday" song twice or any 20-second refrain of a favorite song.

That’s it. There’s no evidence that special washes remove more pesticides.

And you should certainly avoid soap and especially bleach. Concerns about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic have led many people to think that using those cleaners on produce can help prevent the spread of the disease. But it’s far more likely that even after rinsing, soap or bleach left on food can make you sick.”

In health
Jeff

[JeffN]

I was contacted by someone writing a book, who has quoted me in several places and refers to my work.

One of the issues was my SNAP meals, and another was the price of organic foods. They were trying to show that organic does not cost "much" more. I said, based on the food we recommend, I would say 25-50% more.

So, I ran some actual numbers from the local grocery stores where I shop and using the products I bought this week.

Items/Reg Cost/Org Cost/% +/- Difference/ Measure

Gala Apples/ 1.56/ 2.39/ +50%/ (per lb)
Fuji Apples/ 1.59/. 2.39/ +50%/ (per lb)
Carrots/ .8/. 1.30/ +62%/ (per lb)
Canned Beans/ .69/ .99/ +43%/ (per can)
Rolled Oats/ 1.79/ 2.39/ +34%/ (per 18 oz)
Fresh Broccoli Florets/ .23/. .39/ +70%/ (per oz)
Frozen Broccoli Florets/ .16/ .20/ +25% (per oz)

On these 7 items that is an average increase of 47%

If someone was going to pay 47% more for something, I would hope there is some clear proven benefit.

In Health
Jeff