Organic food benefits a 'myth'

Off Topic discussion. Use this board to discuss general, non PsyTrance related topics.
29 posts Page 1 of 2
psywise
Posts: 504
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:01 pm


I'm sure hippies will disagree, but it's good to see yet another study confirming this.

Food grown without pesticides or herbicides should not be promoted as healthier because there’s no evidence to show that it contains more nutrients than conventionally grown food, claims a major University of Sydney study.

According to the author of the study, conducted by the School of Molecular Bioscience, consumers should stick with commercially grown fruit and vegetables because they are cheaper and, therefore, people could eat more of them.

To reach the conclusion, the study surveyed the international literature on organic produce, conducted laboratory analyses of Australian foods and surveyed Australian health professionals about organics.

The results will be published in the international science journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.

"We conclude from the analysis that the nutrient composition differs very little between foods that are produced by organic and conventional methods," the report’s author, Associate Professor Samir Samman, told The Sunday Telegraph.

"Some health professionals believe that organic foods have more nutrients and elicit favourable effects on health. This advice is given despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it."


link
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


consumers should stick with commercially grown fruit and vegetables because they are cheaper and, therefore, people could eat more of them.


People don't eat enough fresh fruit and vegetables. Some is better than none. Unless you're rich spend less time worrying about organic bollocks and more time cooking yourself and your kids fresh produce.
FRACAS
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:16 pm


Food grown without pesticides or herbicides should not be promoted as healthier because there’s no evidence to show that it contains more nutrients than conventionally grown food, claims a major University of Sydney study.

They may not contain more nutrients, but they dont contain the fertilizers/pesticides that non-organic foods contain... article is a bit of a bum steer...
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


FRACAS wrote :
They may not contain more nutrients, but they dont contain the fertilizers/pesticides that non-organic foods contain... article is a bit of a bum steer...


True, but they are also prohibitively expensive for the majority of the population. It is better for people to eat more non-organic fruit and vegetables than it is for them to eat less f&v which is organic. From a public health perspective it is really bad if someone chooses to eat one organic apple a week instead of 7 non-organic apples a week. Obesity is now the leading cause of death in Australia.
psywise
Posts: 504
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:01 pm


FRACAS wrote :
Food grown without pesticides or herbicides should not be promoted as healthier because there’s no evidence to show that it contains more nutrients than conventionally grown food, claims a major University of Sydney study.

They may not contain more nutrients, but they dont contain the fertilizers/pesticides that non-organic foods contain... article is a bit of a bum steer...


I have never heard of anyone experiencing health problems due to fertilizers/pesticides*, and even if so it is nothing compared to the benefits of actually eating fresh food.

Edit to mention: I mean anyone in Australia, I know there has been some isolated cases overseas.
FRACAS
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:16 pm


psywise wrote :
I have never heard of anyone experiencing health problems due to fertilizers/pesticides*, and even if so it is nothing compared to the benefits of actually eating fresh food.

Edit to mention: I mean anyone in Australia, I know there has been some isolated cases overseas.


Try google....ddt is a good one to start with (banned now in australia, but used on food production for years), im sure their are current pesticides that are not so great either(maybe i will google them??), not even to get started on hormones, and traits being inbred into the gene pool of GM modified plants..

You are what you eat... and of course eating fresh vege is good, just better when someone hasn't covered it in deadly chemical pesticide...
psywise
Posts: 504
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:01 pm


FRACAS wrote :
Try google


http://www.google.com.au/search?q=proof+elvis+is+still+alive

You're being lazy in your argument.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Sweet jesus, its not rocket science. Modern soils are an inert sponge which farmers spray monsanto fertilizer onto which creates a harvest and a generation of crops that are genetically dependent on the compounds contained in said fertilizer. Aside from creating unsustainable farming practices that sterilize the soil from natural nutrients it also creates a false resource base that heaven forbid might develop a few hiccups along the way to true genetic perfection. Heres the kicker too... one hopes that plant pathogens don't evolve faster than our ability to create pesticides.

^^ Whoops, sorry... ElvisReptillianGMOConspiracyROFLMAOWTF??!??!


Fucking crackheads.
Last edited by ionized on Mon May 03, 2010 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
susan
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 5:29 pm


FRACAS wrote :
psywise wrote :
I have never heard of anyone experiencing health problems due to fertilizers/pesticides*, and even if so it is nothing compared to the benefits of actually eating fresh food.

Edit to mention: I mean anyone in Australia, I know there has been some isolated cases overseas.


Try google....ddt is a good one to start with (banned now in australia, but used on food production for years), im sure their are current pesticides that are not so great either(maybe i will google them??), not even to get started on hormones, and traits being inbred into the gene pool of GM modified plants..

You are what you eat... and of course eating fresh vege is good, just better when someone hasn't covered it in deadly chemical pesticide...


Exactly Fracas, I agree entirely with what you say here. The overspray too travels miles on even the slightest breeze, often has a long life and is the known cause of secondary ill-effects on the natural world. The shells of many egg laying animals are thinned by our pesticides and this is scientifically thought to be the sole cause of the demise of some species.

Ionized is on to it too, so true.

Psywise just because you haven't personally known, or known of, anyone affected by pesticides/ chemicals in the atmosphere doesn't mean there isn't anyone. There is, and perhaps many more to come. Once upon a time asbestos too was thought to be safe.
Last edited by susan on Mon May 03, 2010 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


susan wrote :
The shells of many egg laying animals are thinned by our pesticides and this is scientifically thought to be the sole cause of the demise of some species.


What. Like the bees perhaps?
susan
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 5:29 pm


'"Bioconcentration" of pesticides in birds high on food chains occurs not only because there is usually reduced biomass at each step in those chains, but also because predatory birds tend to live a long time. They may take in only a little DDT per day, but they keep most of what they get, and they live many days.

The insidious aspect of this phenomenon is that large concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons do not usually kill the bird outright. Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.

Shell-thinning resulted in the decimation of the Brown Pelican populations in much of North America and the extermination the Peregrine Falcon in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada. Shell-thinning caused lesser declines in populations of Golden and Bald Eagles and White Pelicans, among others. Similar declines took place in the British Isles. Fortunately, the cause of the breeding failures was identified in time, and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.'


source: http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordb ... Birds.html
FRACAS
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:16 pm


psywise wrote :
FRACAS wrote :
Try google


http://www.google.com.au/search?q=proof+elvis+is+still+alive

You're being lazy in your argument.


Or you are being lazy in your baiting(..... forum topic) technique?? As i said the article is a bit of a bum steer.
If eating organicly grown food makes me a conspiracy nut count me in * tin foil hat on*!!!
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


The insidious aspect of this phenomenon is that large concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons do not usually kill the bird outright. Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.

Shell-thinning resulted in the decimation of the Brown Pelican populations in much of North America and the extermination the Peregrine Falcon in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada. Shell-thinning caused lesser declines in populations of Golden and Bald Eagles and White Pelicans, among others. Similar declines took place in the British Isles. Fortunately, the cause of the breeding failures was identified in time, and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.'



Oh come on Susan, surely we can lay waste to a few dozen species of birds that have only taken millions of years to evolve? Hardly worth the mention is it, as long as we get a cheaper price for corn at the supermarket?!

My personal "told you so, you tinfoil labeling dumb fuck" moment is hinging on the bees. The poetic justice that will be ours as bees stop pollination the very crops we are trying to save from insects. Now THAT, oh my... that is divine irony.


http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/04/12/new-study-finds-widespread-pesticide-contamination-of-beehives/

While Einstein may not have uttered these words, the point nonetheless remains valid: losing bees would have serious adverse repercussions throughout the food supply chain. Many already fear that we are not too far from this scenario pointing to the unprecedented bee die-offs caused by the Colony Collapse Disorder (”CCD”). Recently, adding more evidence to conclusion that CCD is triggered by overuse of pesticides, a new study conducted by Penn State University, published in the Public Library of Science, found widespread and “remarkably high” level of pesticide and other toxicant contamination of bee hives and food and that “exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness.”

According to an analysis by Beyond Pesticides, the study found 121 different types of pesticides within 887 wax, pollen, bee and hive sampled from 23 states. The top 10 most frequently detected pesticides are fluvalinate and coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, amitraz, pendamethalin, endosulfan, fenpropathrin, esfenvalerate and atrazine. Miticides are the most common contaminant in the wax and bees, and fungicides are the most common contaminant of pollen.



pesticideGMOnaziUFOelvisJFKconspiracyOMGWTFKTHXbai!!!!
susan
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 5:29 pm


but.... but i love the birds
they make me so happy
when they fly :wink:
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Is it too much to ask that people actually read?

Clearly pesticides and other chemicals used in modern farming are harmful to humans, animals, insects, plants, soil, air, and so on.

Clearly eating produce that is not treated with such chemicals is better for the consumer and the environment.

Clearly promoting farming practices that steer clear of GM and chemical pesticides is a positive thing.

None of these things are debated in the article.

What it does say (if you can read) is that as there are no significant nutritional benefits to eating organic produce, in that an organically farmed apple has the same amount of nutrients as an apple that comes from a standard commercial farm, it is misleading to promote or advertise them as healthier.

Why this is an issue is that currently Australians are a) not eating enough fresh fruit and vegetables and b) dying from diet-related illnesses at a higher rate than any ther disease.

If people who aren't currently eating enough fresh fruit and vegetables decide to purchase organic produce (because it is being advertised as 'healthier') at a higher price and purchase less of them then their intake of fresh fruit and vegetables will decrease, and their chances of suffering a diet-related illness will substantially increase.

It is about adjusting marketing and advertising to ensure consumers are not being mislead in a way which will have a significant detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing (and on the public health care system which pays for the medical costs which they incur funded by your taxes).

PS the scientific evidence regarding the detrimental effects of pesticides is public knowledge, it is not a conspiracy.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


OP needed wider scope due to cherry picking a broader issue which may, or may not, contain traces of tinfoil.

Intellectum?
Kratonic
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 pm


Be fair - it was not the OP that did the cherry picking! He cited what the study was actually about, which was human health. It was not about environmental issues.

On the environmental side, citing a bunch of outdated studies on the effects of DDT which has not been used for many years in many countries is not really a reasonable argument either BTW. Go find some information on OC/OP compounds and you will be closer to current (but also note the lesser half lives compared to things like DDT).
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Kratonic wrote :
Be fair - it was not the OP that did the cherry picking! He cited what the study was actually about, which was human health. It was not about environmental issues.

On the environmental side, citing a bunch of outdated studies on the effects of DDT which has not been used for many years in many countries is not really a reasonable argument either BTW. Go find some information on OC/OP compounds and you will be closer to current (but also note the lesser half lives compared to things like DDT).


I don't really care that some fat fuck dies because he couldn't afford organic or that cancer rates are up 1% due to GM foods. Fucking with the genes in food crops is an utterly shit idea as it is well rooting the worlds ecosystems as well as creating an unsustainable basis for world population. Thats pretty much the scope of it and thats pretty much the 'human and natural ecology' argument. Not which compound is actually doing the dirty work. Thats more 'chemistry masturbation'

The fact that this process funnels the technology of basic food generation into the hands of private corporations could be considered a 'legal' or even 'moral' argument so maybe that deserves a thread of its own.

Yeah, real big picture stuff I know... but shhh..., apparently thats not what this thread is about. So excuse me while I just sit back and lol at the 'science'. :lol:
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


ionized wrote :
I don't really care that some fat fuck dies because he couldn't afford organic or that cancer rates are up 1% due to GM foods.


Do you care that your taxes will increase to fund the health care of aforementioned 'fat fucks'?
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Are you fucking serious?

Am I concerned about the amount of tax that will be taken from me due to death rates increased due to fat fucks not being able to afford organic tomatoes?

No Venatrix.

Start a thread on sugar and/or exercise. Maybe you'll have a point.
Kratonic
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 pm


ionized wrote :
apparently thats not what this thread is about. So excuse me while I just sit back and lol at the 'science'. :lol:


You are correct! It is not what the thread was about at all. :bounce:
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Yeah i just said that you fucking genius, now get on with your science debate so i can LOL quietly from the sidelines. :drink:
Kratonic
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 pm


ionized wrote :
Yeah i just said that you fucking genius, now get on with your science debate so i can LOL quietly from the sidelines. :drink:


:lol: I do like that emoticon though - never noticed it before.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


I think I might start a thread about rich assholes who eat takeaway for every single meal because they're lazy and loaded with cash and then sit on their high horse heaping shit on everyone else for not eating organic fruit and vegetables, even though they haven't been near a supermarket in months.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Kratonic wrote :

:lol: I do like that emoticon though - never noticed it before.


Fucking killer icon isn't it?

venatrix wrote :
I think I might start a thread about rich assholes who eat takeaway for every single meal because they're lazy and loaded with cash and then sit on their high horse heaping shit on everyone else for not eating organic fruit and vegetables, even though they haven't been near a supermarket in months.


Good idea V. I look forward to contributing to your latest masterpiece of critical analysis.
29 posts Page 1 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests