Organic food - evidence of health benefits?



Um I would stay away from inorganic food if I were you.

Organic means basically carbon based. That includes plants and animals
etc. You should eat that stuff. Non-organic is other stuff like iron,
uranium, asbestos, arsenic etc. Try not to see that as food.

Oh you mean food grown without the use of chemicals. Sorry.

I guess unless you are alergic to some of the pesticides etc it
wouldn't make much difference. Yes it would be nice if the bloody
plants would grow properly without fertalizer and if the bugs would
just stop eating them. But well?

But yeah it can be done. It just costs more. If we want to pay a bit
extra?

As to papers. Google is your friend.

You can find papers in favour of anything there.

But really with food variety is the thing. Not to much of any one
thing. A bit of meat, some fruit, some vegatables, some grains. About
three times a day in reasonable moderation. Then you won't care to much
about whether it's "organic" or not. It is though.

How about a tomato and cheese omlet? Some french toast? An apple or a
bannana? A taosted chicken sandwitch? Or my fave a roll with ham.
chicken, hot salami, cheese, beetroot (gotta have the beetroot) letuce,
tomato and cucumber. YUM!

Or you could have a Big Mack. But personally i might poke at one of
those with a stick.

But eat it? You gotta be kidding.

James
 
James wrote:
> Um I would stay away from inorganic food if I were you.
>
> Organic means basically carbon based. That includes plants and animals
> etc. You should eat that stuff. Non-organic is other stuff like iron,
> uranium, asbestos, arsenic etc. Try not to see that as food.
>
> Oh you mean food grown without the use of chemicals. Sorry.
>
> I guess unless you are alergic to some of the pesticides etc it
> wouldn't make much difference. Yes it would be nice if the bloody
> plants would grow properly without fertalizer and if the bugs would
> just stop eating them. But well?
>
> But yeah it can be done. It just costs more. If we want to pay a bit
> extra?
>
> As to papers. Google is your friend.
>
> You can find papers in favour of anything there.
>
> But really with food variety is the thing. Not to much of any one
> thing. A bit of meat, some fruit, some vegatables, some grains. About
> three times a day in reasonable moderation. Then you won't care to much
> about whether it's "organic" or not. It is though.
>
> How about a tomato and cheese omlet? Some french toast? An apple or a
> bannana? A taosted chicken sandwitch? Or my fave a roll with ham.
> chicken, hot salami, cheese, beetroot (gotta have the beetroot) letuce,
> tomato and cucumber. YUM!
>
> Or you could have a Big Mack. But personally i might poke at one of
> those with a stick.
>
> But eat it? You gotta be kidding.
>
> James

Thanks, but I already know the difference between organic/inorganic
chemistry... I also understand the difference between food that is
grown 'organically' and 'conventionally'. They all use fertilisers, by
the way, including organic food.

And you're wrong that Google can find papers in favour of anything - in
this case the request is for scientific papers, and no amount of
Googling is giving useful results. So, to repeat the question in the
hope of more enlightening answers - does anyone have pointers to
scientific evidence for the health benefits of organic food?
 
Buying organic foods is not a "sure fire" way to get more nutrition.
As you can see from this link:

http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/soundscience.html

if you try to turn a conventional farm field into an organic farm
field, you're going to get poor quality food.

Try using Google's advanced search feature to search just
westonaprice.org. When I did so, I found hundreds of pages that
contain the word "organic." Most people would think that organic foods
were automatically better, but that's not always the case.

Max.
 
Max C. wrote:
> Buying organic foods is not a "sure fire" way to get more nutrition.
> As you can see from this link:
>
> http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/soundscience.html
>
> if you try to turn a conventional farm field into an organic farm
> field, you're going to get poor quality food.
>
> Try using Google's advanced search feature to search just
> westonaprice.org. When I did so, I found hundreds of pages that
> contain the word "organic." Most people would think that organic foods
> were automatically better, but that's not always the case.
>
> Max.

Max, this isn't a scientific paper - in fact it's founded on an
explicit rejection of science...
 
NoNickName wrote:

> ... So, to repeat the question in the
> hope of more enlightening answers - does anyone have pointers to
> scientific evidence for the health benefits of organic food?

You're asking a biased question. The other part of the problem is that
the term "organic" is vague and subject to various interpretations.

The "organic" movement is an attempt to separate the process of raising
food from the big corporations and not primarily to make people
healthy.

Pesticides in the food supply, or even in the environment are bad
things to have, but are things that can be regulated without having to
be eliminated.

Pests in the food supply may be a great danger for peoples health. A
worm in an apple can cause the apple to rot causing toxins.

--
Ron
 
NoNickName wrote:

> Can anyone help with this appeal for papers on the evidence of health
> benefits to organic food?

and can somebody help me in relation to organic honey that I've seen on
supermarket shelves.

How do they get bees to collect only organic nectar?
 
I am looking for information on how to detox someone addicted to
Fentanyl (Antiq Lollypop Lozenges).

My friend is consuming 10-12 lollypops daily (1600 mcg) and also uses
Duragesic Patch (100 mcg/hr) for a spinal injury. He has attempted to
detox twice, both unsuccessfully.

I am looking for any information on patients that have successfully
detoxed from these drugs at a similar dosage level. Any help would be
appreciated.

thanks,
-greg
 
Ron Peterson wrote:
> NoNickName wrote:
>
> > ... So, to repeat the question in the
> > hope of more enlightening answers - does anyone have pointers to
> > scientific evidence for the health benefits of organic food?
>
> You're asking a biased question. The other part of the problem is that
> the term "organic" is vague and subject to various interpretations.
>
> The "organic" movement is an attempt to separate the process of raising
> food from the big corporations and not primarily to make people
> healthy.
>
> Pesticides in the food supply, or even in the environment are bad
> things to have, but are things that can be regulated without having to
> be eliminated.
>
> Pests in the food supply may be a great danger for peoples health. A
> worm in an apple can cause the apple to rot causing toxins.
>
> --
> Ron

I'm attempting to cut through the bias by looking for something other
than assertion to back up the claims that organic food has tangible
health benefits. It looks like my failure to find anything isn't down
to poor search skills, it's down to the lack of scientific evidence
full stop.

--
http://progcontra.blogspot.com
 
NoNickName wrote:

> Max, this isn't a scientific paper - in fact it's founded on an
> explicit rejection of science...

Well, you didn't state the position you were looking for on the
subject. You also didn't say you were looking for "scientific" papers.
Are you looking for papers that prove or disprove organic farming?

Max.
 
Mel Rowing wrote:

> How do they get bees to collect only organic nectar?

Heh... yeah, that one has bugged me for quite a while. Especially when
I mix up red food coloring, white sugar and water for humming birds and
the feeder is covered in honey bees.

Max.
 
Max C. wrote:
> NoNickName wrote:
>
> > Max, this isn't a scientific paper - in fact it's founded on an
> > explicit rejection of science...
>
> Well, you didn't state the position you were looking for on the
> subject. You also didn't say you were looking for "scientific" papers.
> Are you looking for papers that prove or disprove organic farming?
>
> Max.

My original post stated 'papers', I assumed that most people would
interpret that as scientific papers - but you're right, I didn't state
it explicitly.

To be honest I just want evidence one way or the other - pro or anti.

--
Progressive Contrarian http://progcontra.blogspot.com
 
"NoNickName" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Max C. wrote:
>> NoNickName wrote:
>>
>> > Max, this isn't a scientific paper - in fact it's founded on an
>> > explicit rejection of science...
>>
>> Well, you didn't state the position you were looking for on the
>> subject. You also didn't say you were looking for "scientific" papers.
>> Are you looking for papers that prove or disprove organic farming?
>>
>> Max.
>
> My original post stated 'papers', I assumed that most people would
> interpret that as scientific papers - but you're right, I didn't state
> it explicitly.
>
> To be honest I just want evidence one way or the other - pro or anti.
>
> --


There is no conclusive evidence. Common "knowledge?" says that pesticides
cannot be good.
Various fertilizers may be "O.K.". Decayed mater is necessary for a
"complete" fruit or vegetable. Is that good or bad? Organic labeling in
the market is almost meaningless unless accompanied by a dissertation of
what is meant.

An organic food diet is excellent for a reasons other than being organic.
An organic food diet typically omits much junk food. Increasing the intake
of vegetables and fruits while maintaining some animal / fish protein
provides phytonutrients, fiber, alkalinity, etc, etc. OUTSTANDING health
advantage.
 
On 4 Apr 2006 09:32:21 -0700, "NoNickName" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The "organic" movement is an attempt to separate the process of raising
>> food from the big corporations and not primarily to make people
>> healthy.
>>
>> Pesticides in the food supply, or even in the environment are bad
>> things to have, but are things that can be regulated without having to
>> be eliminated.
>>
>> Pests in the food supply may be a great danger for peoples health. A
>> worm in an apple can cause the apple to rot causing toxins.
>
>I'm attempting to cut through the bias by looking for something other
>than assertion to back up the claims that organic food has tangible
>health benefits. It looks like my failure to find anything isn't down
>to poor search skills, it's down to the lack of scientific evidence
>full stop.

You are largely correct. Organic foods do contain lower levels of some
pesticides etc, but the levels allowed in normal food are so low that
it's hard to see how it could make much difference. Certainly a single
bottle of 'spring' water can contain more than a year's supply of some
chemicals

Free range meats can have lower fat etc as the animals exercise, but
again, you would have to look at that across a person's entire diet

As you are seeing, the evidence for health benefits of organic are
marginal

--

cheers

matt
 
NoNickName wrote:
> James wrote:
>> Um I would stay away from inorganic food if I were you.
>>
>> Organic means basically carbon based. That includes plants and animals
>> etc. You should eat that stuff. Non-organic is other stuff like iron,
>> uranium, asbestos, arsenic etc. Try not to see that as food.
>>
>> Oh you mean food grown without the use of chemicals. Sorry.
>>
>> I guess unless you are alergic to some of the pesticides etc it
>> wouldn't make much difference. Yes it would be nice if the bloody
>> plants would grow properly without fertalizer and if the bugs would
>> just stop eating them. But well?
>>
>> But yeah it can be done. It just costs more. If we want to pay a bit
>> extra?
>>
>> As to papers. Google is your friend.
>>
>> You can find papers in favour of anything there.
>>
>> But really with food variety is the thing. Not to much of any one
>> thing. A bit of meat, some fruit, some vegatables, some grains. About
>> three times a day in reasonable moderation. Then you won't care to much
>> about whether it's "organic" or not. It is though.
>>
>> How about a tomato and cheese omlet? Some french toast? An apple or a
>> bannana? A taosted chicken sandwitch? Or my fave a roll with ham.
>> chicken, hot salami, cheese, beetroot (gotta have the beetroot) letuce,
>> tomato and cucumber. YUM!
>>
>> Or you could have a Big Mack. But personally i might poke at one of
>> those with a stick.
>>
>> But eat it? You gotta be kidding.
>>
>> James
>
> Thanks, but I already know the difference between organic/inorganic
> chemistry... I also understand the difference between food that is
> grown 'organically' and 'conventionally'. They all use fertilisers, by
> the way, including organic food.
>
> And you're wrong that Google can find papers in favour of anything - in
> this case the request is for scientific papers, and no amount of
> Googling is giving useful results. So, to repeat the question in the
> hope of more enlightening answers - does anyone have pointers to
> scientific evidence for the health benefits of organic food?
>

There's a 1999 House of Lords Report at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/93/9301.htm

that might be of interest, as might one of the sources it cites:

K Woese, D Lange, C Boess and KW Bögl, "A Comparison of Organically and
Conventionally Grown Foods - Results of a Review of the Relevant
Literature" in J Sci Food Agric 1997, 74, pp 281-293

This, according to their Lordships, is 'A detailed review of over 150
investigations which compared organic and conventional food concluded
that there were some differences in food quality[35]. In vegetables,
there was a trend towards more nutritionally desirable and less
undesirable components. Higher dry matter levels (ie. lower water
content) and lower pesticide levels were also found in fruit and
vegetables. In cereals, there were differences in processing properties,
where, it was stated, conventionally produced cereals were better suited
to modern baking requirements. In animal feed preference trials the
animals showed a clear preference for organic feed. '

I don't know what the paper itself is like, but at least it'll give you
another 150 sources to consider!

In general, I think you might get better results if put in "peer review"
as one of your search criteria in Google, along with "organic food",
"health benefits" and so on; I've just tried it, and the hits seem much
more relevant than they are without it.

Steve
 
NoNickName wrote:
> Can anyone help with this appeal for papers on the evidence of health
> benefits to organic food?

Hey, how about starting from the the beginning?

Define organic.

Specify what eating organic food is supposed to do for people.

Define appeal for papers.

Define papers.

You know, STOP being such an ****!!!! Use your brain for once.

Just thought that you might want to know.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
 
> There's a 1999 House of Lords Report at
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/93/9301.htm
>
> that might be of interest, as might one of the sources it cites:
>
> K Woese, D Lange, C Boess and KW Bögl, "A Comparison of Organically and
> Conventionally Grown Foods - Results of a Review of the Relevant
> Literature" in J Sci Food Agric 1997, 74, pp 281-293
>
> This, according to their Lordships, is 'A detailed review of over 150
> investigations which compared organic and conventional food concluded
> that there were some differences in food quality[35]. In vegetables,
> there was a trend towards more nutritionally desirable and less
> undesirable components. Higher dry matter levels (ie. lower water
> content) and lower pesticide levels were also found in fruit and
> vegetables. In cereals, there were differences in processing properties,
> where, it was stated, conventionally produced cereals were better suited
> to modern baking requirements. In animal feed preference trials the
> animals showed a clear preference for organic feed. '
>
> I don't know what the paper itself is like, but at least it'll give you
> another 150 sources to consider!
>
> In general, I think you might get better results if put in "peer review"
> as one of your search criteria in Google, along with "organic food",
> "health benefits" and so on; I've just tried it, and the hits seem much
> more relevant than they are without it.
>
> Steve

Thanks a lot, another reference to follow up.

p.
--
Progressive Contrarian http://progcontra.blogspot.com
 
NoNickName wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 4 Apr 2006 09:32:21 -0700, "NoNickName" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As you are seeing, the evidence for health benefits of organic are
> > marginal
> >
> > --
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > matt
>
> You can say that again, much more marginal than I was expecting to be
> honest.
>
> --
> Progressive Contrarian http://progcontra.blogspot.com

I'm suprised. Did you expect something better than a 25% average
variance in favor of organic? Isn't that quite good?

PeterB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back