Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
The following is an excerpt from MaxCondition Newsletter
"Question: Do conventional foods have higher levels of pesticides than organic foods?
Answer: The studies I have investigated have shown higher levels of pesticides in conventional foods. But are these levels high enough to cause negative impacts on health?
The following is an excerpt from Scientific Status Summary- Organic Foods. Journal of food Science- vol. 71, Nr.9, 2006
The FDA actually conducts its own market basket survey, the total diet study, which involves a market basket of 285 distinct foods analyzed for pesticide residues at the time the foods are ready for consumption. While the results for the total diet study have consistently shown low levels of pesticide residues in food samples, the FDA discontinued estimating dietary exposure to specific pesticides after 1991. From the 1991 total diet study, the highest daily average pesticide intake among different population subgroups (6- to 11- month old infants, 14- to 16 yr old men, and 60- to 65- y-old women) was compared directly with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization/ WHO ADI values for 38 pesticides. Estimated exposures were less than 1% of the ADI values for 34 of the, with the remaining 4 pesticides contributing 1%, 1.8%, 2.7%, and 4.8% of the ADI values. To put such values in perspective, the ADI typically represents a value 100 times lower than the highest level of exposure to a pesticide given to the most sensitive animal species on a daily basis throughout it’s lifetime that has not caused any noticeable toxicological effect. A typical human exposure at 1% of the ADI represents an exposure 10000 times lower than levels that do not cause toxicity in animals. Such findings suggest that typical dietary exposure to pesticide residues in foods poses minimal risks to humans. From a practical standpoint, the marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be insignificant.”
Well that sounds good. However, I still deal with what I assume are allergic reactions to some foods, so I wonder how insignificant these amounts really are. It's certiainly possible that I have allergic reactions to the "non-organic" elements in regular milk, green peppers and apples. Are the chemicals used in these three products similar in some way? The organic versions sit fine with me.
But I wonder because I know so many people with allergic reactions or intestinal issues with different vegetables, fruits and milk. Most seem to be fine with the organic versions. The term "allergy" sounds better than "poisonous", but when so many people have these issues, when does it become a legit problem? Perhaps blood samples may not show toxicity, but if the esophogus and digestive tract are inflamed, isn't this also a legit health issue?
Do you have any Primary Research Data that validates people that consume conventional foods relative to organic foods have more allergic reactions to the food.
What exactly is your point, coach? If Ian feels that he is doing better with organic produce then your "science" doesn't mean shit. This is a personal decision. Personally I buy organic meats and produce every chance I get. I don't see any reason for dumping some foreign chemical into my system when I am eating, and I will aviod it.
Looking over your study, since there is no difference when consumed then let's get rid of all pesticides so everything is "organic".
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
What exactly is your point, coach? If Ian feels that he is doing better with organic produce then your "science" doesn't mean shit. This is a personal decision. Personally I buy organic meats and produce every chance I get. I don't see any reason for dumping some foreign chemical into my system when I am eating, and I will aviod it.
Looking over your study, since there is no difference when consumed then let's get rid of all pesticides so everything is "organic".
There's a nice little 2006 case study in Internal Medicine where investigators determined the subject's death (heart failure from hemoglobin suppression via hookwoom infestation) was due to a history strictly pesticide-free organic food consumption. Moral of the story: if you ditch the pesticides, you invite the pests.
Hmm, no, I don't have any scientific studies to back me up. I wasn't trying to refute yours, either. And I'd say I've spoken to at least a dozen other people that have had this allergic reaction to some non-organic, and then found no reaction when trying the organic version. This includes family, friends and clients. It's not a big number in terms of studies, but out in day-to-day life, you tend to wonder when 12 unrelated people all say something similar.
That's why I'm asking if, while pesticides may not cause long-term health problems, there might in fact be many cases in which a person would be better off switching to organic for allergy reasons.
There may be plenty of food allergies all around, but if there are a significant number of people with pesticide allergies, could this be jusitification for the value of organics? And when I say "significant" number, I don't mean scientifically. But if enough people find that in actuality they feel different (itching/no-itching/ intestinal difficulties or not) then I think it could be significant.
Interesting story on the buggers. I haven't thought in those terms. And if it's only the one guy, I won't worry too much. As long as there is no penis-shrinkage, that is.
By the way, I'm not some Green-Organic-Granola freak or anything. I eat plenty of non-organic foods. But fewer chemicals + less itching + less intestinal issues seems like a good thing to me.
It's a case study, take it for what you will, completely dismiss it if you want to. I personally think it raises a provocative point.
It is provocative. But I believe OG and I aren't satisfied with something simply because it was done "officially" or "scientifically". That's not a knock on you, Alan, just a suggestion of where we might be coming from in response to that study.
And I certainly don't know Coach Hale very well, but his response to mine is a little awkward. I know where he is coming from : "Don't knock my numbers without your own". I get it. But I'm not trying to knock his facts. I'm just explaining what I've seen/heard/experienced. I'm not going to dismiss the "real life" (sorry, terrible term, but you know what I mean) experiences of myself and 12 other people simply because I can't report any "Primary Research Data" (capitalized :p). I'm also not going to come to any definite conclusions about it either. That's why I brought it up in here, to see if there is any evidence of the importance of allergies.
It is provocative. But I believe OG and I aren't satisfied with something simply because it was done "officially" or "scientifically". That's not a knock on you, Alan, just a suggestion of where we might be coming from in response to that study.
And I certainly don't know Coach Hale very well, but his response to mine is a little awkward. I know where he is coming from : "Don't knock my numbers without your own". I get it. But I'm not trying to knock his facts. I'm just explaining what I've seen/heard/experienced. I'm not going to dismiss the "real life" (sorry, terrible term, but you know what I mean) experiences of myself and 12 other people simply because I can't report any "Primary Research Data" (capitalized :p). I'm also not going to come to any definite conclusions about it either. That's why I brought it up in here, to see if there is any evidence of the importance of allergies.
This to me boils down to defining the parameters of the discussion. Are we sharing personal anecdotes? If so, then cool. Are we discussing research? If so, then cool, let's pick it apart and discuss its strengths & limitations. The tendency for guys like myself & Jamie is to presume that when the original topic is research-based, then so should the ensuing discussion. It's very common in exchanges like this for folks in opposition to present their personal experience, but in the end, personal testimony is still more subject to uncontrolled variables than research. Therefore, it can't be considered as Objective (capitalized for emphasis ).
This to me boils down to defining the parameters of the discussion. Are we sharing personal anecdotes? If so, then cool. Are we discussing research? If so, then cool, let's pick it apart and discuss its strengths & limitations. The tendency for guys like myself & Jamie is to presume that when the original topic is research-based, then so should the ensuing discussion. It's very common in exchanges like this for folks in opposition to present their personal experience, but in the end, personal experience is still more subject to uncontrolled variables than research. Therefore, it can't be considered as Objective (capitalized for emphasis ).
That's understandable. I'm awful at hunting down/linking research.
But like I said before, I wasn't trying to tear down his initial post. I was just presenting a different angle, ableit an anecdotal one.
Perhaps a better first post from me might have been:
"Is there a similar study about allergens in non-organic vs. organic foods? The long-term 'toxicity' issue may be answered, but how about short-term inflammation? Several people I know - including myself - have found that certain non-organic foods cause a negative reaction (throat itching, intestinal difficulties), while their organic counterparts do not. Is there anything out there that addresses this?"
And if there isn't, is that supposed to mean that the personal experiences of people who literally just substitute an organic food for a conventional --same species of food, but a difference of reaction levels?
I mean, we're not talking about much else being involved here necessarily to somehow negate the personal experiences/anecdotes of people other than no Official Science Dude writing the stuff down.
And if there isn't, is that supposed to mean that the personal experiences of people who literally just substitute an organic food for a conventional --same species of food, but a difference of reaction levels?
I mean, we're not talking about much else being involved here necessarily to somehow negate the personal experiences/anecdotes of people other than no Official Science Dude writing the stuff down.
Well, sometimes studies can identify a pattern. Who knows, maybe something out there will be able to tell someone with itchy throat that "If you have a reaction to x, then you will likely have it to y"... or even "people that get itchy throats from x seem to be deficient in z". Hell, I dunno. I just like to have some kind of answer (or at least a suggested plan of action) for people when they ask me what's going on.
There's a nice little 2006 case study in Internal Medicine where investigators determined the subject's death (heart failure from hemoglobin suppression via hookwoom infestation) was due to a history strictly pesticide-free organic food consumption. Moral of the story: if you ditch the pesticides, you invite the pests.
I'm no nutritionist, but a lot of people (my long time customers and work friends who've seen me drop and keep the weight off) ask me nutrition questions/opinions. Organic foods, raw milk, etc. come up a lot. And, it's obvious that people forget why we have pesticides and pasteurization. Granted we know a lot more about these things now, so we can compensate, but still. Going organic might shift us from long term damage from the pesticides to short term damage from infections and parasites. But at least we have antibiotics to cure that stuff. Oh wait. Those are bad, too.
Jamie's an easy going guy, I'm sure he'd be happy to define the purpose of his original post. As for hookworm stuff, here's the case study I alluded to:
Well, sometimes studies can identify a pattern. Who knows, maybe something out there will be able to tell someone with itchy throat that "If you have a reaction to x, then you will likely have it to y"... or even "people that get itchy throats from x seem to be deficient in z". Hell, I dunno. I just like to have some kind of answer (or at least a suggested plan of action) for people when they ask me what's going on.
I understand that.
I guess my point was more... Just because something hasn't been studied by Miss Science Girl doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing to it, just that The Science Peeps haven't gotten to it yet or don't know about it. Hell, my sister thought she was the only one. Obviously not, right? Why? Who knows. But there does seem to be some correlation there, perhaps eventually it'll be worth it to Suzie Science Gal to take a looksee...
I mean, there are plenty of things out that that seem fine... till there's a build up in the system or some other factor... *shrug*
But at least we have antibiotics to cure that stuff. Oh wait. Those are bad, too.
That's not a statement that should be taken lightly. Right now a local town not far from me is dealing with an outbreak of ear infections that can't be treated with any existing antibiotics. Of course they don't know exactly why this strain appeared but it is generally believed that heavy antibiotic use, coupled with a new vaccine enabled this critter to emerge. An ear infection in a child is not only painful but can lead to deafness (serious stuff).
Along the same lines I think everyone has become aware of the risks of over-using antibiotics but in my mind its not a far jump to see significant long-term risks of over-using pesticides for the same reason.
[soap box]
I generally buy organic and local simply for the fact that it is better for our environment. If everyone who could afford it did the same we'd be a healthier place -- oh and give up those god damn gas guzzling SUVs while were at it.
[/soap box]
That's not a statement that should be taken lightly. Right now a local town not far from me is dealing with an outbreak of ear infections that can't be treated with any existing antibiotics. Of course they don't know exactly why this strain appeared but it is generally believed that heavy antibiotic use, coupled with a new vaccine enabled this critter to emerge. An ear infection in a child is not only painful but can lead to deafness (serious stuff).
Along the same lines I think everyone has become aware of the risks of over-using antibiotics but in my mind its not a far jump to see significant long-term risks of over-using pesticides for the same reason.
[soap box]
I generally buy organic and local simply for the fact that it is better for our environment. If everyone who could afford it did the same we'd be a healthier place -- oh and give up those god damn gas guzzling SUVs while were at it.
[/soap box]
Agreed. I was merely throwing out that it's a viscous circle of cause and effect that we don't every fully have a handle on.
Jamie's an easy going guy, I'm sure he'd be happy to define the purpose of his original post. As for hookworm stuff, here's the case study I alluded to:
Purpose of the post was simple. In accordance with the Primary Reserach Data there is no indication of increased health problems when consuming conventional foods versus organic due to higher pesticide levels found in conventional food versus lower levels found in organic food (different classification systems for organic food)
Is it possible the higher pesticide levels could increase allergic responses to that particular food? Of course? But here is where the logical fallacy comes into play. It is called shifting the burden of proof. It is the claimants job to prove the statement being made. Not up to others to disprove.
If this was a simple question yes it is possible. But is most definitely has not been proven at this point.
Purpose of the post was simple. In accordance with the Primary Reserach Data there is no indication of increased health problems when consuming conventional foods versus organic due to higher pesticide levels found in conventional food versus lower levels found in organic food (different classification systems for organic food)
Is it possible the higher pesticide levels could increase allergic responses to that particular food? Of course? But here is where the logical fallacy comes into play. It is called shifting the burden of proof. It is the claimants job to prove the statement being made. Not up to others to disprove.
If this was a simple question yes it is possible. But is most definitely has not been proven at this point.
Well, real-life experience is proof enough for me, but I was wondering if there was any data to further explain it. I guess that's what I'm saying: I know it's the case, but I was wondering if anyone's done any studies to show why, or how to deal with it, or if it means anything more than itchy throats!
It's good to know that the pesticides aren't causing any long-term damage though!
Well that sounds good. However, I still deal with what I assume are allergic reactions to some foods, so I wonder how insignificant these amounts really are. It's certiainly possible that I have allergic reactions to the "non-organic" elements in regular milk, green peppers and apples. Are the chemicals used in these three products similar in some way? The organic versions sit fine with me.
But I wonder because I know so many people with allergic reactions or intestinal issues with different vegetables, fruits and milk. Most seem to be fine with the organic versions. The term "allergy" sounds better than "poisonous", but when so many people have these issues, when does it become a legit problem? Perhaps blood samples may not show toxicity, but if the esophogus and digestive tract are inflamed, isn't this also a legit health issue?
Here is some good info for you guys. Pesticides do not have the same effect on all produce. There are some produce that tend to absorb more pesticides than others. Two of the worst being the exact ones that Ian has issues with, Peppers and Apples. A(one of many) top 10 list can be found here CHEC Lists: 10 Fruits and Vegetables to Buy Organic. Many people have the same type of reactions to these types of produce as Ian does which is why many people recommend that you buy these particular produce organic.
Some people do not have allergic reactions, so they are in the clear right? I'm not going to make one claim or another but let me give you some insight as to what happens with pesticides as you consume them. Pesticides, like most chemicals, are toxins to the body and the body's natural defense to containing these toxins is to store them in your fat cells. So even if you are consuming pesticides in what the FDA says is a small amount, that small amount can build up over time and one can end up with a much larger amount of toxins stored in their fat cells.
So what happens from there? As one becomes leaner, the body uses its stores of fat for energy and in the process, has to release these toxins back into the body at which time the body won't be storing as much fat therefore the body will try other means to evacuate the toxins from your body(sweat, urine, BM). Toxins do their damage to your body when they are free and not contained within the fat cells.
So whats the point? Even though you may not notice any effects of pesticides now, they will most likely be stored in your fat cells until those fat cells are consumed for energy at a later date in which you can feel the effects. This is especially prevalent in obese people who have large amounts of stored fat. If they lose weight very rapidly, then many of these toxins are released at once and the body has a hard time dealing with them and the result is that the person shows signs of illness. Also, think about many of the people who were big into chemical drugs. Many of those people go through a detox many years later and end up getting the same high during the process because their body is releasing all of the chemicals that it had stored long ago.
If you are healthy and don't store much fat then your body will probably try to rid itself of these toxins, as stated before, and won't store much in fat cells. But to say that these free toxins in your body have no ill effects on the efficiency of your bodily functions would be a bold statement. If your body has to put effort into getting rid of these toxins, then that is less effort it can put somewhere else. The same principle is used when you are truly sick and your body is trying to get over the illness. You usually have low energy levels coupled with other symptoms.
Lets set pesticides aside for a second and look at nutritional value. As I know most of you respect John Berardi and his work, even he promotes the use of organic produce due to the fact that it contains a much higher nutritional value than conventional produce. So in a sense, you have to eat much more conventional produce to get the same nutritional value from the same organic produce. There are no ifs ands or buts here.
I should also note that many people are allergic to certain things but do not realize it. For instance, a common sign of a food allergy can be a runny nose or an overproduction of mucus/snot. I don't know of many people that actually look that closely at their bodies. John Berardi has also stated that many people are allergic to the protein powder they use.
I have done a lot of research in this area and have actually seen some of these effects. I have seen very ill people remain very ill while eating conventional produce and then becoming much better by merely switching to organic(no drugs involved). When your immune system is already shot, things like this can have a drastic effect on your health.
For many of the reasons stated above, I choose to eat organic produce. I also believe that you cannot trump mother nature. So to say that pesticides are not bad for you is one thing, but to say that organic foods are bad is just ridiculous.
Quote:
There's a nice little 2006 case study in Internal Medicine where investigators determined the subject's death (heart failure from hemoglobin suppression via hookwoom infestation) was due to a history strictly pesticide-free organic food consumption. Moral of the story: if you ditch the pesticides, you invite the pests.
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.
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.
Let's re-quote a critical portion of Jamie's research-based post that's getting glossed over:
"Estimated exposures were less than 1% of the ADI values for 34 of them, with the remaining 4 pesticides contributing 1%, 1.8%, 2.7%, and 4.8% of the ADI values. To put such values in perspective, the ADI typically represents a value 100 times lower than the highest level of exposure to a pesticide given to the most sensitive animal species on a daily basis throughout it’s lifetime that has not caused any noticeable toxicological effect. A typical human exposure at 1% of the ADI represents an exposure 10000 times lower than levels that do not cause toxicity in animals."
This part interests me the most. What sources lead to this claim? Thanks!
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.
pesticides: organic and conventional foods
).
Those are bad, too.
Linear Mode
