pesticides: organic and conventional foods

[tbrim20]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

That claim is false - it's rooted in hope, assumption, and just plain ol' ignorance.

The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) sets the regulations for the use of the term "organic" on the labeling of foods. Let me quote the AMS directly:

"USDA makes no claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food."

Tons more $$$$ could be made if the USDA could claim that organic food was safer & more nutritious, but the fact of the matter is, they'd get screwed for making unsubstantiated/unscientific claims.

Check out this Link for instance. If you google the subject, there are many articles relating. The Cornucopia Institute » Blog Archive » New Studies Show Organic Food has Higher Nutritional Quality

Here is another interesting read. Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts

Originally Posted by tbrim20 View Post
I also believe that you cannot trump mother nature.
Trichinosis, bubonic plague, heart worms, tape worms, etc.

It's just good to be aware of all that nature has to offer. Good and bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrim20 View Post
It wasn't until the 1940's that people started using synthetic pesticides and it wasn't like people were dying from eating produce prior to that. To think that you can actually improve on mother nature, I think, is pretty funny.
I think it's even funnier when people post alarmist conjecture without any evidence behind the claims.

I apologize that I didn't make this clearer in my original post. These statements are solely my opinion and I'm not trying to push them on anyone. I was merely stating my personal view. I'm in no way trying to sway your opinion. I'm just trying to shed some light for those who may not know much about this topic.

My entire point was that, all produce was "organic" prior to the use of synthetic pesticides in the 1940's. Pesticides were never designed to kill pests that might be harmful to humans but rather to kill the pests that were harmful(eating) to the produce.

I take it one step further. Before every meal I spray pesticides on my food.

If you're going to do it, might as well do it right.

[tbrim20]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Trichinosis, bubonic plague, heart worms, tape worms, etc.

It's just good to be aware of all that nature has to offer. Good and bad.

I completely agree with you Lost Dog.

I guess I was referring more to the effects of the things we do to mother nature and that when we try to get ahead of the game, we seems to find ourselves falling behind again.

For example, we use antibiotics to kill bacteria. Some say that antibiotics are overly prescribed. The results is that now there are bacteria resistant to our antibiotics, like MRSA which is killing over 19,000 people in the US each year(according to Men's Health).

That was what I was going for in my reference to "trumping mother nature".

[coach hale]

A suggestion from S. Barrett concerning testing for food allergies and intolerances.

Below is an excerpt from Allergies: Dubious diagnosis and treatment by Barrett (founder of Quackwatch Inc.)

“Proper Testing

The correct way to assess a suspected food allergy or intolerance is to begin with a careful record of food intake and symptoms over a period of several weeks. Symptoms such as swollen lips or eyes, hives, or skin rash may be allergy-related, particularly if they occur within a few minutes (up to two hours) after eating. Diarrhea may be related to a food intolerance. Vague symptoms such as dizziness, weakness, or fatigue are not food-related. The history-taking procedure should note the suspected foods, the amounts consumed, the length of time between ingestion and symptoms, whether there is a consistent pattern of symptoms after the food is consumed, and several other factors. Although nearly any food can cause an allergic reaction, a few foods account for about 90% of reactions. Among adults these foods are peanuts, nuts, fish, and shellfish. Among children, they are egg, milk, peanuts, soy, and wheat [14].

If significant symptoms occur, the next step should be to see whether avoiding suspected foods for several weeks prevents possible allergy-related symptoms from recurring. If so, the suspected foods could be reintroduced one at a time to see whether symptoms can be reproduced. However, if the symptoms include hives, vomiting, swollen throat, wheezing, or other difficulty in breathing, continued self-testing could be dangerous, so an allergist should be consulted.
Proper medical evaluation—done best by an allergist—will include careful review of your history and skin testing with food extracts (using a prick or puncture technique) to see whether an allergic mechanism is involved in your symptoms. In cases where skin testing might be dangerous, a radioactive allergy sensitivity test (RAST) may be appropriate. The RAST is a laboratory test in which the technician mixes a sample of the patient's blood with various food extracts to see whether antibodies to food proteins are present in the blood. It is not as reliable as skin testing and is more expensive. A negative prick or RAST test indicates a low probability of allergy to the test substance. Positive tests, however, have much less predictive value [1].

The only sure way to diagnose an allergy to a suspected food, food coloring, or other additive is challenge testing in which the patient ingests either the suspected food or a placebo [14]. This may be appropriate if the patient's history suggests a food allergy but the skin or RAST tests are negative. Because dangerous reactions can occur, challenge testing should be done in a hospital or office that is specially equipped for that purpose.”

Notice the distinction between food allergies and intolerances.

thanks
Coach Hale
www.maxcondition.com

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by tbrim20

I completely agree with you Lost Dog.

I guess I was referring more to the effects of the things we do to mother nature and that when we try to get ahead of the game, we seems to find ourselves falling behind again.

For example, we use antibiotics to kill bacteria. Some say that antibiotics are overly prescribed. The results is that now there are bacteria resistant to our antibiotics, like MRSA which is killing over 19,000 people in the US each year(according to Men's Health).

That was what I was going for in my reference to "trumping mother nature".

Agreed. All of these things are good and bad. We've been battling nature for thousands, if not millions, of years. But, only the past few hundred with any real sophistication (if you can call it that).

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by tbrim20

Check out this Link for instance. If you google the subject, there are many articles relating. The Cornucopia Institute » Blog Archive » New Studies Show Organic Food has Higher Nutritional Quality

These were merely papers presented at a pro-organic conference sponsored by Quality Low Input Food. They're not peer-reviewed, nor are they indexed in any of the recognized scientific databases such as medline.

Here is another interesting read. Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts

Articles such as this can be useful, especially when referenced. However, when you compile the peer-reviewed published primary research & research reviews, you'll see a resounding conclusion that there's no unanimous, compelling justification to believe going organic will unequivocally improve your health.

[tbrim20]

Obviously this is one of those debates that has research support for both sides and I won't say that the current research promotes one side or the other.

Produce is only as good as the soil it is grown in. That is where plants/produce gets all of their nutrients. It has been shown that pesticides kill off the beneficial microorganism necessary to break down organic soil matter into stable humus so that the plants can absorb the nutrients. In conventional farming, you can use all of the organic matter you want but when you kill off the microorganisms, then less and less nutrients make it to the plants. This is why you often hear conventional soil referred to as dead soil. This is also why the more you use conventional farming land, the more you deplete the soil. Organic farming land must maintain soil standards(microorganisms and all) in order to maintain the "organic" title.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by tbrim20

Obviously this is one of those debates that has research support for both sides and I won't say that the current research promotes one side or the other.

Produce is only as good as the soil it is grown in. That is where plants/produce gets all of their nutrients. It has been shown that pesticides kill off the beneficial microorganism necessary to break down organic soil matter into stable humus so that the plants can absorb the nutrients. In conventional farming, you can use all of the organic matter you want but when you kill off the microorganisms, then less and less nutrients make it to the plants. This is why you often hear conventional soil referred to as dead soil. This is also why the more you use conventional farming land, the more you deplete the soil. Organic farming land must maintain soil standards(microorganisms and all) in order to maintain the "organic" title.

But here's my point -- there's a lot of speculation, but no definitive evidence. This is why the USDA, an organization that stands to gain mucho bucks from the promotion of organic foods as safer & more nutritious, can't do it. You can choose to be optimistic about organic foods, or you can choose to be objective about it, based on the evidence as it stands currently.

[RobLL]

an organophosphate, chlorpyrifos, common brand name - Dursban. When I was doing pest control work this was the most highly recommended and generally considered safe chemical to use around and in households. I read as much material as possible to confirm this. I asked a friend who is an industrial hygienist what she could find. We could not find anything to dispute the industry supplied information that it was safe. AND WAS WRONG. It is now banned, and research indicates that at the levels it appears in the blood stream when used as directed it is/is closer to affecting humans and INFANTS than the manufacturer claimed.

Counterpoint: Life span and health in old age continues to go up, year after year, and the improvements are increasing, as I understand it.

Several of my favorite veggies are on the top ten most contaminated list. I really don't like to spend more for organic. So I assume (balancing the two previous comments) that the good they do is greater than the bad they do.

On the other hand I was shaken to discover how wrong I was regarding Dursban.

A difficult topic.

[coach hale]

"But here's my point -- there's a lot of speculation, but no definitive evidence. This is why the USDA, an organization that stands to gain mucho bucks from the promotion of organic foods as safer & more nutritious, can't do it. You can choose to be optimistic about organic foods, or you can choose to be objective about it, based on the evidence as it stands currently."

Nicely put

thanks
Coach hale
www.maxcondition.com

[tbrim20]

Originally Posted by Alan Aragon

But here's my point -- there's a lot of speculation, but no definitive evidence. This is why the USDA, an organization that stands to gain mucho bucks from the promotion of organic foods as safer & more nutritious, can't do it. You can choose to be optimistic about organic foods, or you can choose to be objective about it, based on the evidence as it stands currently.

Alan, here is where I have to agree with you(in part). I completely agree with you that there is a lot bureaucracy involved with different groups standing to profit and different groups standing to lose. I also believe that this is a big reason as to why these questions and research can't seem to come to a conclusion. Not only do certain people stand to gain much bucks for the promotion of organic foods if they were marketed as safer, there are a lot more people in the conventional business that stand to lose so much more. This is solely my personal view...that the bureaucracy trumps the science. You can practically take any scientific study/objective and make the data show what you want or to hide what you do not want.

Scientific research is not bias-free. It's not free of financial interests. It's not free of study design flaws, and it's not perfect. But it's the best tool that we have for getting closer to understanding the way the body works, the way that nature works.

You even say this yourself in your latest interview. Research is not bias-free. It's not free of financial interests. It has flaws and is not perfect.

I could not agree more which is why I would have to say that what I have encounter in my personal experience holds more power than any potentially flawed research study.

From what I have read about you, you specialize more in fitness nutrition as opposed to health care nutrition. I would not expect you to take an athlete or some other healthy individual and see direct results by feeding them an organic diet. However, I have seen the effects of an organic diet on people with serious health issues. Like I said before, I have seen people with severe digestive/health issues become much better simply by changing their diet to organic.

This is my personal experience and is not based on a single study but on many cases. This is how I have formed my opinion on the topic. I believe that you can learn more from making an unhealthy/sick person healthier than you can by making a healthy person healthier.

Just my 2 cents.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by tbrim20

This is my personal experience and is not based on a single study but on many cases.

Once again, you're entitled to form your own opinion based on personal experiences & observations, but in the end, it's opinion, not fact. All personal experience/observation - including my own, is subjective, not objective. Due to a lack of control of the confounding variables, you can't ascertain cause & effect from your observations, you can only speculate.

[Adam Campbell]

This was an interesting 60 Minutes report on bees, which may be negatively affected by some pesticides:
CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

The report is mostly observational and full of speculation, but offers another way of thinking about the organic vs conventional produce debate--it may not be the direct effect of pesticides on humans that we have to worry about.

Also, this came across the wire today: Organic food rated healthier | The Australian

Funny that they didn't mention where the study is published. I guess I'll have to dig it up. Hard to believe a reduction in antioxidants in conventional produce is a top factor in higher cancer rates, but what do I know.

[Ian Kay]

Originally Posted by Adam Campbell

Hard to believe a reduction in antioxidants in conventional produce is a top factor in higher cancer rates, but what do I know.

Impossible. People would have to be eating the vegetables for it to matter!

I almost smacked a client yesterday for telling me he "got his veggies in for today"... snow peas at lunch. Lucky for him he smiled after he said it.

[coach hale]

I would agree with Ian very people eat a substantial amount of vegs. Let me re-word that at least very few that I know.

Addressing the anti-oxidant issue sure ultra high levels of anti-oxidants are not healthy so yes you can consume too much (yet another topic covered in Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise)

Although i would not think many people eat too much produce to suggest hyper levels of antioxidant ingestion

thanks
coach hale
www.maxcondition.com

[tbrim20]

Originally Posted by Adam Campbell

This was an interesting 60 Minutes report on bees, which may be negatively affected by some pesticides:
CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

The report is mostly observational and full of speculation, but offers another way of thinking about the organic vs conventional produce debate--it may not be the direct effect of pesticides on humans that we have to worry about.

Also, this came across the wire today: Organic food rated healthier | The Australian

Funny that they didn't mention where the study is published. I guess I'll have to dig it up. Hard to believe a reduction in antioxidants in conventional produce is a top factor in higher cancer rates, but what do I know.

I'm sure the debate will continue and someone else will come out with another study in an attempt to say the opposite.

I just don't think people should accept modern science without any questions. If we were to stick with that mentality, then the earth would still be square.

Just about all of America accepted Dr. Ansel Keys concepts of why eating fat makes you fat. Where did that get us? We ended up with a nation of fat unhealthy people.

Why not test the science yourself? Try eating all organic for a month and then go back to conventional. If you try it with an unbiased opinion, I think you will be surprised.

But then again, Dr. Ansel Keys knows best, right?