|
08 Sep 12 - 10:24 AM (#3401642) Subject: Organic foods study From: Ed T ""Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?"" ""Stanford University scientists have weighed in on the "maybe not" side of the debate after an extensive examination of four decades of research comparing organic and conventional foods."" ""The media had heavy coverage raising doubt about organics. Organic study ""The lead statistian for the study was a Tobacco Institute Researcher in 1976.""Organic Food Debunker -Tobacco Institute Researcher There is strong evidence of "'the tobacco industry's participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use"" Should this information have been included in media reports as a factor to be considered in "weighing in on the study?"" Or, are researchers beyond bias, regardless of who they have worked for in the past?? |
|
08 Sep 12 - 10:26 AM (#3401643) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Oops, should be in BS. --------------Fixed. MudElf---------------- |
|
08 Sep 12 - 10:45 AM (#3401645) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T For some rodd reason one of the links does not seem to work The article can be found at Flesh and Stone http://www.fleshandstone.net/politics/decline-and-fall-collins/organic_food_debunker_was_tobacco_institute_researcher_in_1976.html |
|
08 Sep 12 - 01:35 PM (#3401697) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Tunesmith I wouldn't have expected organic foods to have any different nutrient values than non-organic produce, but I would expect organically produced products to have less nasty additives ( from what ever source). |
|
08 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM (#3401702) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: bobad The numbers for nutrient content as measured by the USDA are at variance with the results of this survey. They show that there has been a steady decline in the nutrient content of food since the 1950s which coincides with increased use of chemical fertilizers. Nutrient Decline in the Food Supply |
|
08 Sep 12 - 02:39 PM (#3401711) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T I would expect the type of soil and agricultural processes would have some impact on the resulting product. |
|
08 Sep 12 - 03:46 PM (#3401736) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Janie Listened to the the first NPR segment but was not able to listen to the subsequent broadcasts answering people's responses. For me, the issue is not so much about nutritional value. I also don't think that short-term studies focusing on USDA "safe" limits of pesticides and herbicides can say much scientifically about long term cumulative effects or effects on fetuses and very young developing children. I do think it is reasonable to have a very conscious attitude and awareness of the environmental impacts over time of organic vs. inorganic methods of food production. Also think it likely that over time, as the label "organic" is applied to foods based on what they are fertilized or treated with to control weeds and insects, consumers will need to be aware and informed about the difference between organic methods and organic philosophy. A field over-fertilized with sludge from a pig farm waste pond is going to leach as much harmful nitrogen into water resources as is a field over-fertilized products from I E Dupont. |
|
08 Sep 12 - 03:48 PM (#3401739) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Janie I do think the health impacts on farm workers who are exposed to high levels of pesticides and herbicides, far beyond what the consumer may be exposed to from consumption of veggies or meats inorganically produced, is a significant factor to weigh. |
|
08 Sep 12 - 04:39 PM (#3401763) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Industrial farmers generally use crop varieties that are likely different from those grown in smaller scale organic farms. I suspect that a valid scientific study to answer this question would have to compare similar soils, growing conditions and crop varieties under controlled organic and non organic growing practices. I doubt that many of the research projects included in this study did this? It is likely that many who choose "organic" products are more concerned with pesticide use, than marginal differences in nutrient values. I am not sure of the purpose of the study, or who funded it? But, it is likely being broadly "marketed" in the maedia to benefit large agricultural practices, rather than to provide useful information to the consumer. I found this interesting: organic and conventional farming practices impacts on nutrients |
|
08 Sep 12 - 05:00 PM (#3401772) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: gnu Let me try to post this for the FOURTH time.... "... but I would expect organically produced products to have less nasty additives..." And a much higher incidence of e-coli and other bacteria. Ain't that the shits? Ya can cook yer veggies as all humans should but ya can still get the shits... ya just won't die from them. I am stickin ta chemicals. |
|
08 Sep 12 - 05:01 PM (#3401773) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: pdq "...nutrient content of food since the 1950s which coincides with increased use of chemical fertilizers" Well, OK, but during the same time, the family farms dissapeared into bigger farms and the Big Agribusiness produced the great majority of the food. This was done with the support and help of our government. We need enormous amounts of food to conduct our foreign policy. Even Russia knew that they needed to be nice to us in case they had another crop failure and famine. The quality became less important and crops were devepled for huge yield and pest resistance. Taste and nutrition (per unit) became less important. The US feeds 20% of the World's people and they must be fed. We are actually working for then, since starving people riot and kill people. Tiger by the tail. |
|
08 Sep 12 - 05:22 PM (#3401787) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: ChanteyLass I will continue to eat foods grown without pesticides, antibiotics, genetic modifications, etc., whenever they are available and I can afford them. |
|
08 Sep 12 - 06:16 PM (#3401808) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Stilly River Sage And a much higher incidence of e-coli and other bacteria. Ain't that the shits? Ya can cook yer veggies as all humans should but ya can still get the shits... ya just won't die from them. That's just plain wrong, gnu. Why would there be a higher level of anything? The e-coli and bacteria problem comes from when operations are too close (like an animal farm and waste material near water sources to the crops) or from humans (like spreading disease in the handling of the crops on the way to market). There is absolutely nothing about organic gardening or farming that would contribute to any greater level of risk from those sources. The beauty of organic growing is that you're not ruining the soil with loads of chemicals or minerals that slow and stop healthy biological activity that is so critical to healthy plants and good growth. You're less likely to sicken humans or wildlife near the gardens because the toxicity of products used is either very specific (like the BT products to caterpillars and other larval worms) or very mild (like soap products or organic chemcials like spinosad or abumectin for specific pests). The goal isn't to kill all of the pests, it is to get rid of most of them and let the beneficial organisms or insects take care of the rest. SRS |
|
08 Sep 12 - 08:16 PM (#3401854) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Seems safe, if one has a concern, expect that any produce you bbuy be from a trusted or certified source. Grocery outlets would do that, if they offer such produce. E.coli facts |
|
09 Sep 12 - 07:29 AM (#3401952) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza I think flavour comes into it. We grow quite a few of our own vegetables, and I don't use any chemicals on them. The flavour is excellent. Could be because we pick them freshly just before eating them, but supermarket organically-grown stuff also seems to me to be flavourful. I firmly believe that chemical treatment of food increases the risk of cancer, which I definitely don't want! Also, most organicaly-produced meat and eggs come from animals which have a much better life in a more natural environment. Free-range methods and animal-welfare are important to me. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 08:43 AM (#3401963) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Steve Shaw Spuds, cabbages, purple sprouting broccoli, tomatoes, salad leaves, parsnips all manner of beans, onions - all taste incomparably better when I grow 'em and pick 'em fresh from my organic plot. If you grow everything on a small scale and all mixed together and let the nettles grow round the edges you hardly ever need pesticides. It's years since I used any insecticides or weedkillers. Damn slugs though. The hedgehogs are a bit slow this summer. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 10:16 AM (#3401980) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Stilly River Sage With the repeated reporting of that "study" - which is more a "review of literature" that may have been highly selective in certain directions - I have more and more doubts that it will hold up beyond a couple of more news cycles. There's just too much that is wrong with it. SRS |
|
09 Sep 12 - 11:14 AM (#3402004) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Regardless of the source, watch out for anything that is not cooked or peeled before eating, like bean sprouts berries and "greens". Ever see videos of the folks picking and handling this stuff and the sketchy hygene? |
|
09 Sep 12 - 01:06 PM (#3402061) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza We put quite tall canes around the two plots, with fine netting attached. (about shoulder height) with a 'door' between two of the canes to get in and out. I grow African marigolds around the edge of each plot, which seems to deter most insects. This system also keeps blessed woodpigeons off the young veggies, as they feel unsafe among the netting. We so far haven't had any problems with pests. I rotate stuff from year to year. I use compost from our own heap and bagged organic stuff as well. We've never had tummy troubles or sickness from our produce! I do wash salad stuff well, and of course one boils veggies. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 01:36 PM (#3402080) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: pdq ...from the University of Minnesota Extension: about using pet waste as fertilizer CONCLUSION: The health hazards associated with cat and dog manure are greater than the potential benefit from its fertilizer value. Cat and dog manure should be disposed of by flushing down the toilet, burying deep in the soil (six inches or more) or by placement in tight plastic bags for garbage collection. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 01:38 PM (#3402083) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: gnu SRS... not according to our province's chief medical officer. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 01:53 PM (#3402086) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Q (Frank Staplin) It seems no one bothers to go to the Stanford study and base their response on newspaper reports by reporters who are only interested in getting readers. The lead author of the paper in 'Annals of Internal Medicine, Sept. 4, is Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford University's Center for Health Policy. The co-author, C. Smith-Spangler of Stanford Univ., M.D. and member of General Medical Disciplines Dept., said in a summary in the "Stanford School of Medicine News": "Our goal was to shed light on what the evidence is. This is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations." She said people should aim for healthier diets overall, She emphasized the importance of eating fruits and vegetables, "however they are grown," noting that most Americans don't consume the recommended amount. In discussing limitations of the work, the researchers noted the heterogeneity of the studies reviewed due to differences in testing methods, physical factors such as weather and soiil type, and the great variation among organic farming practices. The researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination, but also that organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did not find lower levels of pesticide residues in urine of children on organic diets though the signifince of these findings on child health are unclear. Organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Organic milk has more of the Omega-3 fatty acids. Bravata said, "If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional." She listed taste, concerns about conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 02:01 PM (#3402089) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza I sometimes wonder what's in our tapwater in the chemical department. It's germ-free, but the nitrates and chlorine etc aren't removed. also I've read that there are oestrogens in it! We can't afford gallons of bottled water, but maybe the children in the above-mntioned study got their chemicals from the water? |
|
09 Sep 12 - 02:33 PM (#3402101) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T ""It seems no one bothers to go to the Stanford study and base their response on newspaper reports by reporters who are only interested in getting readers."" Sorry, I did bother to do that very thing. When I did, I found the research so broad and with so many confounding aspects (holes) that it does not seem to come anywhere close to meeting the stated studies goal - to provide useful information to make any decision, let alone shed any "new" light on anything at all. Based on the mediocre nature of the study, I wonder why media would give it any coverage at all, let alone the broad media coverage it seemed to have garnered? Maybe organic is a good choice for some, and not for others. But, I do not see any reasons to make any such decision based on this study. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 04:07 PM (#3402133) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Stilly River Sage That article about not using pet waste in the compost is a bunch of hooey. If you use it without composting then those hazards exist, but after a long time in the compost and it has all broken down to look just like soil there isn't the problem that one would encounter with fresh manure. I listened to a fairly extensive interview with a couple of the authors of that study, I didn't get my information from a sound byte or crawl across a television screen. I don't think they traveled out of their comfort zone of ag school research into the solid research that is being done in the Organic Farming (and Gardening) community. And they didn't seem to take into account the soil and environmental impacts of those herbicides and fertilizers that they found to have nominal effect on people who might eat them. SRS |
|
09 Sep 12 - 04:22 PM (#3402142) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Q (Frank Staplin) Eliza, contact your water department and ask to see the analyses, if they are not on line. Calgary tests for 150 parameters. Analyses are carried out constantly. Basic water chemistry: Color, hardness, pH, total dissolved solids, turbidity, temperature. Inorganic Substances: Amounts found, source and plant treatment. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, calcium, free chlirine residual, chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrite, nitrate, potassium, sodium, sulfate, zinc. Microbiological Analyses Coliforms Volatile Organics By-products of chlorination http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water-Documents/2011_Water_Report.pdf (I just googled Calgary, city water analysis) Ed T, I found the report useful. All research is ongoing, in science no results are clearcut and final. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 04:28 PM (#3402143) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Related blogs on the Huff Post website: Stanford Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics What the Stanford Study Missed |
|
09 Sep 12 - 04:42 PM (#3402148) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Q (Frank Staplin) Organic farming and gardening community? Outside of applying research results of trained agricultural scientists and sound principles of land husbandry, this community does little to contribute to the defining of safety parameters connected to foods. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 05:19 PM (#3402161) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Bobert Ain't about nutrition... It's about unwanted chemicals... B~ (organic gardening since the early 70s) |
|
09 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM (#3402223) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T ""Outside of applying research results of trained agricultural scientists and sound principles of land husbandry"" Sounds like a good contribution to society me. Let's not forget government science's historic (and continuing) role in defining the safety parameters connected to foods. What often seems like big foods contribution to this area is often more targeted at marketing, increasing market share and profit, or attempts to change (and, some may even go as far as to say "skirt") these established parameters. Many food additives have little to do with consumer safety at all. One example is the use of the soap additive Trisodium phosphate (TSP) in fish and meat products that puts consumers at some degree of health risk - with the main benefit of increasing product weight to increase profits. |
|
09 Sep 12 - 07:32 PM (#3402224) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: ragdall Re gnu's comment about E. coli. This article reports comments from "both sides". Organic farmer disputes E. coli concerns Epidemiologist says organic produce more susceptible to infectious bacteria http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/07/12/nb-e-coli-organic-source.html rags |
|
09 Sep 12 - 07:53 PM (#3402230) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T I saw that on line earlier, ragdall. I believe the case involved sprouts or salad ingredients, that have been known to be an issue? To me, the government epidemologist was speaking somewhat like a lawyer (best to completly avoid everything could possibly present a problem) and (again, IMO) his candid statements seem to be "at odds" with many other scientists. IMO, it seems much easier to make public statements when it involves a small industry sector (with little clout), rather than taking shots at a huge one - who will use various routes to "slap you around" with lawyers and complaints (and threats) to politicians. |
|
10 Sep 12 - 01:08 AM (#3402273) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Crowhugger I can't say with any authority whether gnu's province's chief medical officer is more or less correct than Stilly. But it certainly seems from all I've read over the years that Agriculture Canada and provincial ag. ministries serve agribusiness and petrochemical industries, not consumers, not soil health, certainly not water or air quality and certainly not biodiversity or animal welfare. Just how it looks to me. |
|
10 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM (#3402312) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza Thank you Q, a very good idea. |
|
10 Sep 12 - 05:10 AM (#3402313) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza By the way, I have to confess to using an insecticide spray on our hanging baskets to kill off the greenfly. But we don't eat flowers, and the baskets are at the front of the house, not anywhere near the vegetable plots! But I do realise I could be inhaling carcinogens with every squirt. Oh dear! |
|
10 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM (#3402492) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Stilly River Sage Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There IS a lot of research into organics, but it goes under-reported. Texas Organic Research Center is one such place that has been around for a while. SRS |
|
10 Sep 12 - 06:41 PM (#3402506) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: gnu "agribusiness" Yup. And when someone can sell a tenth of the weight for more money they sell, sell, sell... even if it don't (MAYbe in each case) make no nevermind. I'll stay with chemicals for a lot less money and more piece of mind... at MY age... >;-) |
|
11 Sep 12 - 04:34 AM (#3402668) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,CS Are organic strawberries more likely to sprout wings and fly away than non-organic strawberries? Seems like someone's knocking down a straw man here. |
|
11 Sep 12 - 05:50 AM (#3402682) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza I would never ever put faecal matter (pet litter etc) on a compost heap. Neither would I put meat waste on it. Only plant material, ie small twigs, leaves, grass cuttings, dead annuals, weeds and those sort of things. It's very dodgy to try to compost faeces of any sort. |
|
11 Sep 12 - 06:30 AM (#3402696) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,CS "Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Bobert Date: 09 Sep 12 - 05:19 PM Ain't about nutrition... It's about unwanted chemicals... B~ (organic gardening since the early 70s)" Precisely! Hence my straw man comment. The issues are being fudged here. No-body so far as I know has claimed organics are significantly higher in vitamins (minerals possibly?). What is claimed (and is true) is that organics are significantly lower in some nasty chemical residues. than non-organics |
|
11 Sep 12 - 01:34 PM (#3402885) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,leeneia But some organic foods are higher in nasty residues like salmonella and E. coli. I'll take my chances with the inorganic chemicals before I'll handle and eat food with manure on it. One day I tried to find out what "organic fertilizer" actually is. The only info I could find on the Internet was a list published by some gov't department in Arkansas. The list, which included animal wastes and by-products of slaughtering, would turn your stomach. When I checked again months later, even the Arkansas list was gone. ======= A couple years ago, I took a friend to the "natural" foods supermarket. She had been in a rehab place for a long time and needed to stock up as she returned home. She filled a big grocery basket, but there was only one piece of meat (the most expensive food) in it. The rest was bread, flour, canned beans, etc. The bill for that basket was either $240 or $270, I forget which. Ridiculous price-gouging for food which has no real benefit to offer. Please tell my why they charge MORE MONEY for food which supposedly is SIMPLER to produce. (I'll tell you why. They make more money on both ends.) My newspaper tells me that the Whole Foods chain is sarcastically referred to as "Whole Paycheck" by people trying to make ends meet. |
|
12 Sep 12 - 01:23 PM (#3403443) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,CS Leeneia, I agree that much of the health foods and organics market is focused at selling pricey premium products to the affluent. It's really quite sad that the marketing people got their paws into the wholefood sector. Wasn't always the case of course, I can still recall being taken by my Da to a bulk wholefoods supplier. Everything (nuts, seeds, rice, beans, lentils, spices, herbs) was stocked in huge tubs and measured out into weighing scales before being simply packaged in brown paper bags. Sadly the days of wholefood shops like that are more or less gone and in their stead we have fancy shmancy places full of expensive supplements, though there is a stall on our local market where you can buy wholefoods (including organics) at affordable prices. Nowadays I shop online, and I can get bulk bags of organic wholefoods at lower cost than the non-organic kind. Still, you do have to actually want to eat the way I do and eat stuff like brown rice, beans and lentils as staples most days, in order to benefit from the lower prices that buying in bulk provides. As for vegetables, I never buy organic - organic really does push up the price of veg. So we've started dabbling in growing our own this summer. Though the garden is pretty (meaning very!) messy right now, we've grown broad beans, onions, spring onions, runner beans, yellow dwarf beans, lettuce, pumpkins (huge), spinach (lots), rainbow chard, bok choi, beetroot (still immature), radishes, numerous herbs. Peppers, tomatoes and courgettes have all suffered from crappy UK Summer. But overall, we're quite pleased. Next year we'll try being more organised! And it's poop all the way from now on too. |
|
13 Sep 12 - 02:11 AM (#3403713) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Stilly River Sage Eliza, you're wasting a resource and contributing more than you need to the landfill. Meat, droppings, it all breaks down in the compost - you're missing perfectly good compost materials if you eschew poop. I have three compost piles in my back yard. The one I'm working on building this year (it gets turned and watered every so often), the one from last year that is still sitting there decaying (possibly turned a time or two, but it doesn't need it), and the three year old one - that I'm digging up to put in my gardens. It's dark brown/black, rich, earthy and smells like dirt. The only recognizable things in it are peach pits if I forgot and threw them in the kitchen waste (I usually trash those because they can make the dogs sick if they dig them out of the compost). That's all. Perfectly healthy despite having dog droppings mixed in with table scraps (to keep the dogs out of the compost and the table scraps). Seriously - that "no poop or meat" - it's an old wives tale. SRS |
|
13 Sep 12 - 04:23 AM (#3403728) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Keith A of Hertford No pesticide residues, no antibiotics, and humane husbandry. Daily Telegraph By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent 8:44PM BST 27 May 2008 Scientists found higher levels of vitamins, antioxidants and "healthy" fat in milk from organically farmed animals. The researchers believe that letting cows graze on fresh grass boosts the nutritional value of their milk. The benefits could include a lower risk of cancer and heart disease. The study, which analysed produce from 25 farms, found that organic milk contained 67 per cent more antioxidants and vitamins than ordinary milk. Scientists at Newcastle University also found organic milk contained 60 per cent more of a healthy fatty acid called conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA9, which tests have shown can shrink tumours. Similar levels of vaccenic acid, which has been linked to a reduced risk of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, were also found. Organic milk contained 39 per cent more of the fatty acid Omega-3, which has been shown to cut the risk of heart disease, and 32 per cent the levels of the less healthy Omega-6. |
|
13 Sep 12 - 07:28 AM (#3403777) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T ""I'll take my chances with the inorganic chemicals before I'll handle and eat food with manure on it."" I believe that most white button mushrooms found in supermarkets have been grown in manure for generations with few problems (if any) that I am aware of. Quite often the compost is from local horse manure. |
|
13 Sep 12 - 07:47 AM (#3403783) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: bobad Nearly 200 million farmers in China, India, Vietnam, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America harvest grains and vegetables from fields that use untreated human waste. Ten percent of the world's population relies on such foods, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Our grocery stores sell produce from those countries. |
|
13 Sep 12 - 07:51 AM (#3403785) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Keith A of Hertford Only go back just one generation and it was 100% natural fertiliser. Thats 10 000 years of safe eating since agriculture began. |
|
13 Sep 12 - 09:09 AM (#3403820) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Bobert One does have to wonder who is behind this meaningless study... I'd guess that it's Big-Ag... They don't like the fact that folks are seeking out local grown organic products... But it's not just ordinary folks... There are restaurants that buy local organic foods... And there is a wave of "farmers markets" cropping (pun intended) in just about every town in America... So that is my theory as no one that I know who grows organic crops has ever stated that they are more nutritious... B~ |
|
13 Sep 12 - 11:53 AM (#3403933) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza Stilly River Sage, I go by the UK Government website guidelines for recycling and composting. There's a list on there of stuff one should never put in the compost, including cat & dog faeces, meat or dairy products, nappies (diapers) human faeces etc. There are many organisms which aren't killed by the composting process, eg prions, E Coli, toxoplasmosis, BSE, the list is long. I myself wouldn't risk it. |
|
13 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM (#3404115) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T If you are worried about E-Coli and bacteria on food's surface, you should be more concerned about how personal hygene (and who) handled (and picked) the foodstuff and under what conditions it was shipped and stored and how you handle it at home. From a Canadian food inspection website: ""Extensive testing by university and government food scientists has shown no difference in nutritional quality or safety between organic produce and that grown by traditional methods. Regardless of the production method, all food must meet the same inspection and food safety standards"". |
|
13 Sep 12 - 04:59 PM (#3404138) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Sorry, my last quote source was from Manitoba government Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives publication on food safety (not the Canadian gov't). Here is another section: Hormones Increase Beef Quality Hormones are produced naturally by all plants and animals including humans. Growth promotants contain estrogen-like hormones which add to the animal's own natural hormone production. The hormones increase beef quality by directing growth towards muscle and away from fat, allowing feed to be converted more efficiently to meat. Hormone implants are placed under the skin of the ear, an inedible part of the carcass. The pellets dissolve slowly over a period of time and add to the amount of hormone naturally present. There is no need to be concerned about hormone residues in meat as only tiny quantities remain. For example, a 100 gram (3½ oz.) serving of steak from a steer treated with growth hormones contains about 1.9 nanograms of estrogen. (A nanogram is one-billionth of a gram.) The same amount of steak from an untreated steer contains 1.2 nanograms - a difference of only 0.7 billionth of a gram! Compare this to a 100 gram (3½ oz.) serving of cabbage which can contain up to 2,400 nanograms of naturally occurring estrogen, 1200 times more than that serving of beef. Synthetic growth hormones are not allowed to be used in raising hogs, poultry and dairy animals. However, these animals do contain natural estrogen (as do some vegetables). Antibiotics Help Sick Animals and Protect Consumers Antibiotics are permitted for use in cattle, pork and poultry production: •To treat sick animals and birds •To control and/or to prevent disease during times of stress •To promote increased feed efficiency or growth rates Consumers have voiced concern, that people who are allergic to antibiotics and sulfa drugs may be exposed to them from residue in food. There is also concern that the use of these drugs at low doses creates drug-resistant food-borne bacteria, thus making bacterial food poisoning more difficult to treat. In actual fact, allergic reaction from residues in food is rare and all food-borne bacteria are killed by adequate cooking, whether they are resistant to antibiotics or not. Facts About Food Safety |
|
14 Sep 12 - 02:54 AM (#3404357) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Keith A of Hertford Antibiotics should not be given "•To promote increased feed efficiency or growth rates" It leads to resistant bacteria. Hormones can have unpredicted effects in minute concentrations. We should not have them in our food. |
|
14 Sep 12 - 05:52 AM (#3404419) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: GUEST,Eliza You're right, Keith. I watched a disturbing TV programme a few nights ago about superbugs and what is producing them. Random and irresponsible use of antibiotics is the reason. An experiment showed very graphically how quickly these things mutate and survive antibiotic attack. We're barely one step ahead of them at the moment. |
|
14 Sep 12 - 01:05 PM (#3404603) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Stilly River Sage I think the most important part of keeping the food supply healthy isn't the compost (where we will have to agree to disagree - e coli, etc aren't going to "survive" after 2 or 3 years in the compost, they just aren't) - it's to wash the produce that has been handled in the grocery store. By multiple people, from the produce clerk to random customers to the checkout clerk and the bagging person, if there is one. I often give produce a quick swish through the dishwater and rinse it well. SRS |
|
14 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM (#3404824) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: bobad "Scientists question the review's design, findings and interpretation -- including an alleged downplay of the higher levels of omega-3's, as well as lower levels of pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in organic compared to conventional foods. There are also suspicions that Stanford downplayed the benefits of organic foods because they had received large donations from conventional agriculture giant Cargill." Stanford Organics Study: Have Faulty Methods, Political Motivations Threatened Kids' Health? |
|
16 Sep 12 - 08:32 PM (#3405891) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Ed T Chicken Vaccines Combine to Produce Deadly Virus |
|
17 Sep 12 - 09:44 AM (#3406139) Subject: RE: Organic foods study From: Kampervan Also bear in mind that you can deal with bacteria on food by washing it, cooking it peeling it etc. And if a few bugs are left then we have evolved an immune system to be able to cope with many of them. Chemicals such as pesticides, fungicides however are much more difficult to deal with, especially the systemic ones, you can't wash them off or denature them by cooking. And we certainly haven't evolved a way to deal with many of the bio accumulators. I'd rather take my chances with a few E coli, (which are crawling all over us all anyway). |