- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
1st Trimester
etude de la vie
member
But is organic food really any better for me? The perceived wisdom is that it's more 'pure' and 'natural', devoid of disease-causing pesticides; that organic farming "generates healthy soils" and "doesn't poison ecosystems with toxic chemicals".Organic food is riding a surge in popularity; across the globe, sales of organic food are burgeoning. The global market in 2006 was estimated at close to an impressive US$40 billion (A$47.9 billion) by Organic Monitor, an industry research body, and growing 20 per cent annually in the U.S. and Canada.
THE SURPRISING FACT IS that this mass migration to organic food has not been on the back of scientific evidence. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find comprehensive evidence that organic food is healthier ? either for us or the planet. Nevertheless, in the public consciousness, organic farming is unquestioningly bundled with the reigning moral imperatives of sustainability, protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gases.
For example, organic farmers will use litres of BT spray (BT is a 'natural' pesticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), yet they often demonise the genetically modified (GM) cotton crops that carry an inbuilt supply of BT, and which therefore require less spraying.
Yet many agricultural scientists estimate that if the world were to go completely organic, not only would the remaining forests have to be cleared to provide the organic manure needed for farming, the world's current population would likely starve.
Organic farmers source nitrate from manures, gradually broken down by soil organisms. They use only naturally-occurring products to control pests, such as the elements sulphur and copper; pyrethrins and rotenone (both made by plants); BT spray and Spinosad (both made by bacteria). However, these natural pesticides are not harmless. For instance, sulphur irritates the lungs, and rotenone has been shown to cause Parkinson's disease in rats.
There's no doubt exposure to high doses of pesticides is hazardous to health: in countless studies, high doses given to laboratory animals have caused birth defects, sterility, tumours, and damaged organs. But as any toxicologist will tell you, most chemicals ? natural or synthetic, are toxic at high doses. The question is not, "do pesticides cause cancer?" Rather, do the small traces of pesticide residue we eat in our food really cause a problem?
Even the freshest organic apples ? as well as other plant foods ? contain natural compounds which, when extracted and given to rats in high doses, cause tumours. paper published in 1990 said it all. Entitled, "Dietary Pesticides (99.99 per cent All Natural)", it reported that in a regular diet, people consume about 10,000 times more natural carcinogens than synthetic ones. According to Ames, a single cup of coffee contains more natural carcinogens than a year's worth of the pesticide residues eaten on fruit and vegetables. AMES IS NOT ALONE in his findings. A comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers on the health impacts of organic foods, published by Faidon Magkos and colleagues in 2006 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, concluded there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier.
Even if it can't be proved that eating organic is healthier, advocates claim it is nutritionally superior. Some studies, especially those reported by the organic farming advocate group, the British Soil Association, show that organic produce has a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and anti-oxidants such as flavonols, polyphenols, lycopene and resveratrol. However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides. According to Bruce Ames, a variety of insect-resistant celery had to be taken off the U.S. market in the late 1980s because its psoralen levels were eight times higher than normal and caused a rash in people who handled it. There was a similar story with a naturally pest-resistant potato variety that ended up being acutely toxic because of its high levels of solanine and chaconine ? natural toxins that block nerve transmission and cause cancer in rats. Organic farmers who rely on 'naturally resistant' plant varieties may also be producing plants with high levels of 'natural' toxins. And in this case, 'natural' is not likely to mean better. Think of Abraham Lincoln's poor mother, who died after drinking the milk of a free-range cow that had grazed on a snakeroot plant.
IF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES ARE hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina ? the Agricultural Health Study ? suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't! A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out.
"organic is better" a scientific perspective. -long
etude de la vie
member
As I read this long heated discussion on the board about pesticides I had to give a scientific perceptive. I teach in the Biology department at a University and one of the assignments in a class I teach is to read this article.
FYI- I asked a colleague, an entomologist (studies insects- has a PhD and creates pesticides in a lab) when I had my BFP. Should I be worried because we have an exterminator at the house? He said "if it kills a bug, it could kill a fetus.... but as long as you are not around when he is spraying you will be fine."
-----------------------------------------------------
t?s a booming trend, driven by public perception that food produced minus pesticides and fertilisers is healthier and better for the planet. We examine the science to see if the evidence stacks up.But is organic food really any better for me? The perceived wisdom is that it's more 'pure' and 'natural', devoid of disease-causing pesticides; that organic farming "generates healthy soils" and "doesn't poison ecosystems with toxic chemicals".Organic food is riding a surge in popularity; across the globe, sales of organic food are burgeoning. The global market in 2006 was estimated at close to an impressive US$40 billion (A$47.9 billion) by Organic Monitor, an industry research body, and growing 20 per cent annually in the U.S. and Canada.
THE SURPRISING FACT IS that this mass migration to organic food has not been on the back of scientific evidence. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find comprehensive evidence that organic food is healthier ? either for us or the planet. Nevertheless, in the public consciousness, organic farming is unquestioningly bundled with the reigning moral imperatives of sustainability, protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gases.
For example, organic farmers will use litres of BT spray (BT is a 'natural' pesticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), yet they often demonise the genetically modified (GM) cotton crops that carry an inbuilt supply of BT, and which therefore require less spraying.
Yet many agricultural scientists estimate that if the world were to go completely organic, not only would the remaining forests have to be cleared to provide the organic manure needed for farming, the world's current population would likely starve.
Organic farmers source nitrate from manures, gradually broken down by soil organisms. They use only naturally-occurring products to control pests, such as the elements sulphur and copper; pyrethrins and rotenone (both made by plants); BT spray and Spinosad (both made by bacteria). However, these natural pesticides are not harmless. For instance, sulphur irritates the lungs, and rotenone has been shown to cause Parkinson's disease in rats.
There's no doubt exposure to high doses of pesticides is hazardous to health: in countless studies, high doses given to laboratory animals have caused birth defects, sterility, tumours, and damaged organs. But as any toxicologist will tell you, most chemicals ? natural or synthetic, are toxic at high doses. The question is not, "do pesticides cause cancer?" Rather, do the small traces of pesticide residue we eat in our food really cause a problem?
Even the freshest organic apples ? as well as other plant foods ? contain natural compounds which, when extracted and given to rats in high doses, cause tumours. paper published in 1990 said it all. Entitled, "Dietary Pesticides (99.99 per cent All Natural)", it reported that in a regular diet, people consume about 10,000 times more natural carcinogens than synthetic ones. According to Ames, a single cup of coffee contains more natural carcinogens than a year's worth of the pesticide residues eaten on fruit and vegetables. AMES IS NOT ALONE in his findings. A comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers on the health impacts of organic foods, published by Faidon Magkos and colleagues in 2006 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, concluded there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier.
Even if it can't be proved that eating organic is healthier, advocates claim it is nutritionally superior. Some studies, especially those reported by the organic farming advocate group, the British Soil Association, show that organic produce has a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and anti-oxidants such as flavonols, polyphenols, lycopene and resveratrol. However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides. According to Bruce Ames, a variety of insect-resistant celery had to be taken off the U.S. market in the late 1980s because its psoralen levels were eight times higher than normal and caused a rash in people who handled it. There was a similar story with a naturally pest-resistant potato variety that ended up being acutely toxic because of its high levels of solanine and chaconine ? natural toxins that block nerve transmission and cause cancer in rats. Organic farmers who rely on 'naturally resistant' plant varieties may also be producing plants with high levels of 'natural' toxins. And in this case, 'natural' is not likely to mean better. Think of Abraham Lincoln's poor mother, who died after drinking the milk of a free-range cow that had grazed on a snakeroot plant.
IF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES ARE hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina ? the Agricultural Health Study ? suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't! A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out.
It's almost an axiom that pesticides are to blame for our major ecological problems. But once again, finding the evidence turns out to be a little difficult. Like many of today's environmental warriors, the University of Melbourne's Richard Roush was called to arms after reading Carson's Silent Spring. But after 30 years working in land management and sustainability, he thinks it's finally time to admit victory in the war on pesticides. "We've come a long way since Silent Spring? I am hard-pressed to think of a case where we can now attribute an environmental disaster to pesticide use."
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
This discussion has been closed.
Re: "organic is better" a scientific perspective. -long
I buy organic because I do not support conventional famring practices (such as monocultures, hog confinements, etc). I fell that although conventional famring practices allow us to feed an overpopulated world, we are destroying the environment in the process. Eventually that will lead to us not being able to feed everyone.
National Geographic just had an article about this. In the next 20ish years they expect that climate change/drought will drastically reduce crops in a lot of 3rd world countries. The genetically modified "drought resistant" crops still only produce about 15% of a normal crop during a drought. Better than 0%, but not by much.
Yes that is very true when discussing the meat industry, (I buy hormone-free beef or "organic meat") but when looking at the agricultural farming it is saying that organic farming is actually destroying/clearing more forests. In fact, in impoverished countries where they are farming organic crops using slash/burn agricultural techniques they are unable to sustain the soil and ruin the environment because they are only using natural nitrates (created by insects) in higher concentrations and causing rain-forests to become deserts.
It is more about marketing "feel-good about what your eating" than any scientific data. How does eating non-organic food really attributing to destroying our environment? If you read the scientific papers, by entomologists, environmentalists, and biologists, you will not find any recent data with current methodology used in non-organic farming (yes DDT ruined the environment but that isn't the current method of farming) after years of work and hundreds of articles.
It feels-good to go green but thats about it!
spell check wouldn't have picked it up, because it is a word, and it doesn't pick up contextual clues.
Just wanted to let you know, as a research scientist in the food industry... this statement is 100% untrue. "Organic" does not equal identity-preserved, non-genetically modified material. Organic refers to the method of agricultural production of raw ingredients. Genetic modification has to do with the organism itself.
https://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567
here is the article in its original source. i would hardly consider a magazine to be non-biased. maybe if you posted something from a peer-reviewed educational journal (since you are a professor at a university), i would take what you said more seriously.
How about the packaging that is used in it? The way factory farms ruin the water, air and soil for miles and miles around the factory?
IWhen I choose "organic" (and forget about the stuff in the sorcery store that is packaged that way - I'm talking local produce from family farms) I know that it wasn't shipped halfway across the world (and picked before it is ripe - then gassed to ripen). Doesn't transportation effect the environment?
No problem! If you are interested in me sending you MANY scientific articles privatly outside of this forum I would be glad to do so. I noted this artcile for a couple of reasons.
1. I teach undergraduate students and as exciting as it is to read published articles getting 45+ students per class to read through the scientific jargon, mathematical graphs and statistics, etc, and have them able to come out with any opinion is almost impossible. So I often assign this article in addition to peer-reviewed articles and their textbook!
2. This is a public forum where for similar reasons it may be distracting to put that "dry" scientific articles on a pregnancy forum. This article, although not a peer-reviewed article, does have viable sources and does not bore one to death!
I guess I am confused if you are interested in having a discussion about what the article said or do you just want to critic my grammatical errors and my credentials? (both are fine but not what this post is about!)
critique
BAHAHAHAHAHA
"critique"
Yes... see what happens when you only have 4 hours sleep! We all have flaws... mine is grammar and spelling! Thanks.... I know some are better at it than others! I guess i always empathized with people who said "they just can't do math" because I feel that way after all these years writing. It will Always be a work in process!
I think as others mentioned if you can buy locally from farms or farmers markets that's the best way to go.
Blog: Baby Mama's Drama