Going Organic

[JeffN]

Organic doesn't guarantee GMO free

In Health
Jeff

[noelalexis2000]

Organic doesn't guarantee GMO free

In Health
Jeff

Well, maybe not but that is what that green certification on the package is suppose to mean. Are you saying that isn't true?

[noelalexis2000]

Noelalexis2000, having worked for WhoFo for more than long enough, I can tell you they will drop any product they can't get from one of the huge, regional distributors. Saves on labor in terms of ordering and also on shipping cost to WFM and so shaves pennies from their bottom line. Definitely worth it from the corporate perspective but...

So true. I see it in my co-op. I mean wasn't the whole idea of cooperatives to support the small businesses. Now I have a hard time getting anything that isn't owned by the big guys. So I make sure I buy my tomatoes fresh or buy Eden Organics. All their sales are from the big companies that have bought out the small ones. So I am very choosey about the sale items I buy. Hate to sound obsessed but I HATE being manipulated.

[JeffN]

The EWG just came out with their newest "Shoppers Guide To Pesticides" and their updated Dirty Dozen.

NPR featured this response below (and no, he is not a Monsanto guy).

However, it highlights why organic is more of a secondary (or even tertiary) health issue, at best

I have included a link to the recent study that is mentioned in the article, which concluded

“We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic” [1], but our findings do not indicate that substituting organic forms of the “Dirty Dozen” commodities for conventional forms will lead to any measurable consumer health benefit."

In addition, here is a link to my article on the "Flaw in the Dirty Dozen."

https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeff-nov ... 2679241818

Here is the NPR article

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/0 ... in-produce

The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit health advocacy organization, says you should be concerned about pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables, but not so concerned that you stop eating these foods.

That's the mixed message delivered in the eighth edition of EWG's annual Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce released today.

The guide begins by telling readers to "eat your fruits and vegetables." Then it offers a detailed list of every pesticide found along the produce aisle, as well as reminders that "some pesticides pose health dangers to people."

So what's a consumer to do?

Look beyond the fearful rhetoric, says Joseph Schwarcz, director of the Office for Science and Society at McGill University in Montreal.

Take apples, Schwarcz says. They occupy the top spot on EWG's "dirty
dozen" list of the most contaminated fruits and vegetables (followed by celery and red peppers). The group notes that nearly all apples contain detectable levels of pesticide residues.

But it's a mistake to "equate the presence of a chemical with the
presence of risk," Schwarcz says. "Where is the evidence that these
trace residues are dangerous?"

There just isn't much there, he says.

And a look at the government database EWG used to compile the guide doesn't turn up anything very alarming, he adds.

The database, maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shows that just 1 of 744 apple samples it tested had a pesticide residue level higher than the government limit. And most were far below the permissible level.

Results were similar for fruits and vegetables in baby foods, which were tested by the USDA for the first time this year.

The agency found traces of pesticide residues in baby foods containing green beans and pears. But the amounts were extremely small, and no baby food samples exceeded permissible levels of pesticides.

Despite the USDA results, the EWG shopper's guide urges consumers to buy organic fruits and vegetables, which generally have lower levels of pesticides, but are not necessarily pesticide-free, as we've reported
before.

By eating organic products, consumers can lower their exposure to
pesticides, the guide says.

That's a much more general and modest claim than the group made back in 2010, when it said consumers could reduce pesticide exposure by 80 percent if they avoided conventionally grown products on the "dirty dozen" list.

A 2011 study by two food scientists from the University of California,
Davis found that swapping organics for conventional produce wouldn't make people any healthier.

The study, published in the Journal of Toxicology, also stated: "Our
findings do not indicate that substituting organic forms of the 'Dirty
Dozen' commodities for conventional forms will lead to any measurable consumer health benefit."

Regardless, says Alex Formuzis of the Environmental Working Group, "the people who consult our list are people who are committed to eating fruits and veggies, and would like to do so while reducing their
pesticide intake." The guide gives them a way to "arm themselves with
the information they need," he says.

EWG and the scientists do agree on one thing: No one should stop eating fruits and vegetables because of fears about pesticides.

Here is the study mentioned

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135239/

Its conclusion

In summary, findings conclusively demonstrate that consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG's “Dirty Dozen” commodity list are at negligible levels and that the EWG methodology is insufficient to allow any meaningful rankings among commodities. We concur with EWG President Kenneth Cook who maintains that “We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic” [1], but our findings do not indicate that substituting organic forms of the “Dirty Dozen” commodities for conventional forms will lead to any measurable consumer health benefit.

In Health
Jeff

[mike at the river]

yes, Farmer's markets are the way to go. Our small town in AZ has one ev Sat. Hard to grow in AZ, but some are dedicated. Most small gardeners cannot afford an "official" USDA organic label, but will put up a small sign saying organically grown or local, unsprayed. As these people are friends and neighbors, we can visit them and know they are honest people (hard to visit a giant corporation). Often they tell you varieties, how to cook, and the fact that they picked them that morning!....Plant strong!....Mike

[JeffN]

This is not uncommon.... even small local farmers are going to do what they have to do to make a living as they are not exempt from market and economic pressures. Maybe it is more common amongst big companies but small farmers trying to etch out a living get caught up in it too.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 77594.html

In Health
Jeff

[Mober]

I was surprised a year go to see packaged berries and lettuce at the "farmers market", the same I can get at Dominicks or Jewel!

But its not really uncommon for good things to get invaded. The farmers market is going the way of the local festival! There's a ton of festivals at towns and villages around Chicago area which I am sure started out celebrating the topic of the festival ... Strawberry Festival for example. And today, yes there are strawberries, but mostly its just an excuse to put up a brat stand or sell elephant ears. When I first cycled through some of the fesitvals way back when, it was funny, it looked like the same vendors were moving their food stands from place to place and I felt like a "deadhead" following them around!

I really appreciate the way Jeff helps us sort through the claims to get to the facts. One thing I havent see a lot of though is the macro affect of organic on the food chain, even the watered down organic. Seems like a small positive affect at say Walmart or the industrial farms adds up to be big, even if the benefit to individuals like ourselves (by watering down organic rules) is diminished or not what we think it should be. And maybe an example of a small step is organic fertilizers that actually break down in the environment versus petrochemical based ...

[JeffN]

One thing I havent see a lot of though is the macro affect of organic on the food chain, even the watered down organic. Seems like a small positive affect at say Walmart or the industrial farms adds up to be big, even if the benefit to individuals like ourselves (by watering down organic rules) is diminished or not what we think it should be. And maybe an example of a small step is organic fertilizers that actually break down in the environment versus petrochemical based ...

I agree that the main benefit of organic is most likely related to its impact on the environment.

When CSPI recently reviewed organic foods and the organic industy, they agreed too and said probably the biggest positive is its "potential" benefit to the environment.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

In Health
Jeff

[Mober]

Ask (Jeff) and ye shall receive!

[noelalexis2000]

What about potatoes? I read that they are heavily sprayed and shipped across country and that it was better to buy organic for that reason. What is your opinion on potatoes, Jeff? Thanks!

[noelalexis2000]

And grapes is another one that I was told they are so heavily sprayed and shipped in from other countries that we should only eat organic.

[JeffN]

My opinion stands as clearly expressed in this thread!

In Health
Jeff

[noelalexis2000]

Okay, so that must mean that you group them with everything else. Thank you!

[JeffN]

Okay, so that must mean that you group them with everything else. Thank you!

My perspective & response is from a larger perspective which does not change based on which individual item.

Here are some more thoughts which I recently wrote in response to a similar question on another message board....

I do agree with you 100% that we are all better off to do what we can to eat the safest foods when we can within our budget and would like to think that most all of my efforts are directed at how to help everyone best accomplish that. However, where we may disagree somewhat is in regard to the role organic food plays in those efforts, though I think you will see that we are much closer than you may think. (As an FYI, I was one of the early adopters in regard to organic food movement. I first got involved in the mid 70's and ran an organic food co-op from my home in the mid 80's and sold organic produce at the local market on the weekends for several years.)

However, the organic industry has changed dramatically since the early days, as have the definitions, regulations and guidelines surrounding it. And, the food industry has filled the shelves of stores and health food stores with products that are organic and promoted as such, but are nothing more than highly processed, highly refined junk foods. They are still junk, regardless of whether they are organic or not.

So, while we may hear of the "growth" of the organic industry and organic foods, the categories that have experienced the highest growth in the organic industry are the areas of meat/fish/poultry first, sauces/condiments second, dairy third and then, packaged/prepared foods and snack foods all of which are the same categories we are being asked to consume less of. Fruits and vegetables, the categories we are being asked to consume more of, have experienced the smallest growth. So, while the growth of foods labeled organic has grown tremendously over the last few decades, the growth of the healthiest foods has not and these "healthiest" foods (fruits & veggies) actually make of a smaller part of our daily intake than they did just a few decades ago.

You said, " The lobby supporting the mainstream food industry is way more powerful than the organic or whole food movement."

However, the reality is that today, the mainstream food industry and the organic food movement are actually one and the same and have been since around 1997. You can read more about this here...

http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicdistributors.html

http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html

One other issue relevant to our discussion in regard to organic food is the belief that organic food is pesticide free. While some studies have shown organic food to have less pesticides, this is always not true across the board and today's lowered standards for organic food actually allow chemicals, including non organic substances to be used in the production of the food and in the food and still allow the food to be called organic. You can read more about these at the official website of the organic program and the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances


https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulati ... substances

which will include the details of...

1) § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/su ... on-205.601

2) § 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/su ... on-205.603

3) § 205.605 Non agricultural (non organic) substances allowed as ingredient

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/su ... on-205.605

For most people, the most important dietary changes they can make to improve their health is to reduce the consumption of high fat animal products, increase their intake of unrefined unprocessed plant foods, and eliminate all the processed refined junk foods regardless of whether these foods are organic or not. Not only is this in line with all the recommendations of every reputable health organization it will also help to significantly reduce any exposure to toxins we may have for 2 reasons, 1) we will be eating much lower on the food chain which will automatically and significantly reduce the impact of any toxins due to bio-accumulation and 2) plant foods are the richest source of fiber and phytochemicals, which help to neutralize and remove any toxic chemicals that we may ingest through food, air or water.

The WHO has said by making a few simple changes to our diet and lifestyle, we could eliminate 80-90% of heart disease, stroke and diabetes and up to 70% of cancers which would eliminate 65-70% of the premature death from preventable chronic diseases (which account for 51 million people a year). This would also remove about 70% of the cost burden on health care. However, as discussed, if the current American diet was just converted 100% from conventional food to organic food, it would have little to any impact on any of the above.

In 2010, the American Heart Association came out with Life's Simple Seven, which are seven health criteria that would guarantee us "ideal cardiovascular health" if we were to meet them. They were 1) no smoking 2) BMI of 24.9 or less 3) 150 minutes a week of activity 4) healthy diet 5) Cholesterol of 200 or less 6) Blood Pressure of 120/80 or less and 7) blood sugar of 100 or less. Now, as an FYI, these are the minimal criteria, as we know we can do more and be healthier. However, out of 18K Americans, only 213 (~1%) met the criteria for 6 of the 7 and only two (.01%) met the criteria for all seven.

In regard to diet, only 89 (.5%) met the criteria of a healthy diet. And, amongst 5,547 adolescents aged 12-19 yrs., not one met the standards for diet.

Not one.

Each and every day we are all exposed to many risks that we have to deal with in regard to our health. In listening to the news every day, it sounds overwhelming with almost everything from plastic, to aluminum to water to cans to register receipts, and from apples, to potatoes to coffee, to rice etc etc being toxic. The only sane and logical way to approach this dilemma is to prioritize these risks and our efforts in dealing with them based on the best available science to date. That is what I am trying to do and help others approach it from the same perspective and as we outlined in our newsletter, "Prioritizing Our Health Efforts."

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7875

The program we are recommending has to been shown to completely reverse heart disease, diabetes, hypertension etc. in about 90% of the cases, even amongst those who are seriously ill, and slow and even stop the growth rate of cancers and has done so without insisting and of the food be organic. Following such a program however, is very difficult in our current society, as it is not set up to support such a diet and lifestyle. Therefore, adding in additional criteria to it (organic non-gmo, etc.), that only make it harder and more expensive and has not yet been proven to show additional benefit, is not required. Optional but not required, as we have to direct our energies to the behaviors that have been shown to be the most effective.

However, we are not discouraging the choice of organic food and provided the list of those believed to have the highest residues so for those who want, they can make an informed decision. However, this list must also be put into proper perspective.

https://www.drmcdougallforums.com/viewt ... en#p302360

Again, thanks for your email. Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.

In Health


PS. I have included a few other articles you may enjoy reading and a few other references.


The Organic Myth: Pastoral ideals are getting trampled as organic food
goes mass market
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ganic-myth

Behind the Organic-Industrial Complex
Michael Pollan / New York Times 13 may 01
https://www.wesjones.com/pollan2.htm

Organic food exposed
Issue 16 of Cosmos, August 2007
by Elizabeth Finkel
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/plsc451 ... Finkel.pdf


Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Feb;61(1):19-24. Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?

Consumer concern regarding possible adverse health effects of foods produced using intensive farming methods has led to considerable interest in the health benefits of organically-produced crops and animal products. There appears to be widespread perception amongst consumers that such methods result in foods of higher nutritional quality. The present review concludes that evidence that can support or refute such perception is not available in the scientific literature. A limited number of studies have compared the nutrient compositions of organically- and conventionally-produced crops, with a very small number of studies that have compared animal products (meat, milk and dairy products) produced under the two agricultural systems. Very few compositional differences have been reported, although there are reasonably consistent findings for higher nitrate and lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables. Data concerning possible impacts on animal and human health of diets comprising organic or conventional produce are extremely sparse. Data from controlled studies in animal models, particularly within single species, are limited or poorly designed, and findings from these studies provide conflicting conclusions. There are no reports in the literature of controlled intervention studies in human subjects. Comparison of health outcomes in populations that habitually consume organically- or conventionally-produced foods are flawed by the large number of confounding factors that might contribute to any differences reported. If consumer perceptions regarding potential health benefits of organic foods are to be supported, more research of better quality is needed than that which is currently available. PMID: 12002790



Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2003 Sep;54(5):357-71.
Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A
review of the evidence.

Apparently, one of the primary reasons for purchasing organic food is the perception that it is more nutritious than conventional food. Given the increasing interest towards organic food products, it is imperative to review the existing literature concerning the nutritional value of the produce, and to determine to what extent are consumer expectations met. There are only few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison and, therefore, compilation of the results is difficult and generalisation of the conclusions should be made with caution. In spite of these limitations, however, some differences can be identified. Although there is little evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in respect to the concentrations of the various micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and trace elements), there seems to be a slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown leafy vegetables and potatoes. There is also a trend towards lower protein concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops. With respect to the rest of the nutrients and the other food groups, existing evidence is inadequate to allow for valid conclusions. Finally, animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed. A similar finding has not yet been identified in humans. Several important directions can be highlighted for future research; it seems, however, that despite any differences, a well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or conventional origin. PMID: 12907407




Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of
Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.
Authors: Magkos, Faidon, Arvaniti, Fotini, Zampelas,
Antonis

Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition
Jan 2006, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p23-56.

Abstract:
Consumer concern over the quality and safety of conventional food has intensified in recent years, and primarily drives the increasing demand for organically grown food, which is perceived as healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence, however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound. Although there is an urgent need for information related to health benefits and/or hazards of food products of both origins, generalized conclusions remain tentative in the absence of adequate comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, in as much as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional ones, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins. With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements. Also, results for mycotoxin contamination in cereal crops are variable and inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but what should be made clear is that 'organic' does not automatically equal 'safe.' Additional studies in this area of research are warranted. At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.




Scientific Status Summary
Organic Foods
Journal of Food Science
Volume 71 Issue 9 Page R117 -
November/December 2006

While many studies demonstrate these qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that either food system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition. Pesticide residues, naturally occurring toxins, nitrates, and polyphenolic compounds exert their health risks or benefits on a dose-related basis, and data do not yet exist to ascertain whether the differences in the levels of such chemicals between organic foods and conventional foods are of biological significance.



Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
Published July 29, 2009; doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041
Alan D Dangour, Sakhi K Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock, and Ricardo Uauy

ABSTRACT

Background: Despite growing consumer demand for organically produced foods, information based on a systematic review of their nutritional quality is lacking.

Objective: We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.

Design: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CAB Abstracts for a period of 50 y from 1 January 1958 to 29 February 2008, contacted subject experts, and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts in the analysis if they reported nutrient content comparisons between organic and conventional foodstuffs. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, quality, and data. The analyses were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients.

Results: From a total of 52,471 articles, we identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products); 55 were of satisfactory quality. In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed. Analysis of the more limited database on livestock products found no evidence of a difference in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products.

Conclusions: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.




Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review1,2,3,4
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269
Vol. 92, No. 1, 203-210, July 2010

Background: There is uncertainty over the nutrition-related benefits to health of consuming organic foods.

Objective: We sought to assess the strength of evidence that nutrition-related health benefits could be attributed to the consumption of foods produced under organic farming methods.

Design: We systematically searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and Embase between 1 January 1958 and 15 September 2008 (and updated until 10 March 2010); contacted subject experts; and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts if they reported a comparison of health outcomes that resulted from consumption of or exposure to organic compared with conventionally produced foodstuffs.

Results: From a total of 98,727 articles, we identified 12 relevant studies. A variety of different study designs were used; there were 8 reports (67%) of human studies, including 6 clinical trials, 1 cohort study, and 1 cross-sectional study, and 4 reports (33%) of studies in animals or human cell lines or serum. The results of the largest study suggested an association of reported consumption of strictly organic dairy products with a reduced risk of eczema in infants, but the majority of the remaining studies showed no evidence of differences in nutrition-related health outcomes that result from exposure to organic or conventionally produced foodstuffs. Given the paucity of available data, the heterogeneity of study designs used, exposures tested, and health outcomes investigated, no quantitative meta-analysis was justified.

Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.

[topsalud]

Jeff, thank you very much for showing us the results of your tireless research