20 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

If you think something is healthier for you because it claims to be organic, then probably you will enjoy it more, and possibly even "feel better".

The human psyche cannot be ignored in the preference for the "organic" label, since it is perceived as "superior".

Expensive wine is often perceived as much better than cheap wine only because it is more expensive:

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology and Stanford's business school have directly seen that the sensation of pleasantness that people experience when tasting wine is linked directly to its price. And that's true even when, unbeknownst to the test subjects, it's exactly the same Cabernet Sauvignon with a dramatically different price tag.

(FMRI) showed evidence for the researchers' hypothesis that "changes in the price of a product can influence neural computations associated with experienced pleasantness,"

"Even more intriguingly, changing the price at which an energy drink is purchased can influence the ability to solve puzzles."

LINK

This chart shows that people ranked taste of a $45 wine higher than the same wine priced at $5, and the same for a different wine marked $90 and $10. (Credit: CalTech, Stanford)

Edited by Rogerdodger, 02 August 2009 - 10:06 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

The costly fraud that is organic food
Its main contribution will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition

Dick Taverne
Thursday May 6, 2004
The Guardian

Organic farming is a billion-pound industry.
It is promoted by a stream of propaganda from green lobby groups, notably the Soil Association, and subsidised by government. Supermarkets like it because premium prices increase profits. Every lifestyle magazine regards organic food as synonymous with healthy living and every TV chef tells us that organic food tastes better. To question claims made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet, perhaps even to be guilty of corruption by American multinationals.

The organic movement was inspired by the mysticism of Rudolf Steiner, who believed in planting according to the phases of the moon, enriching the soil through cowhorns stuffed with entrails, and who taught that chemical fertilisers damage the brain. It is based on the belief that nature knows best and science is dangerous.

The SA has argued that organic farming cannot be judged by scientific criteria because "the current tools of scientific understanding are not sufficiently developed" to measure its virtues. It seizes on any findings, however flimsy, that seem to confirm its claims and dismisses any contradictory evidence as irrelevant, prejudiced or influenced by the biotechnology industry.

It has bitterly denounced the Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by government to safeguard our welfare, which refuses to endorse the claims made for organic food. Only in January the agency declared that "on the basis of current evidence ... organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".

It is claimed that organic food is more natural and that its reliance on natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals like ricin or aflatoxin or botulinum toxin, or especially dangerous about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides, isoniazid that cures TB, or the painkiller paracetamol.

We are told we should eat organic food because pesticide residues harm us. As the FSA has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a year; food poisoning for between 50 and 300. There are no known deaths from pesticide residues (or GM foods). A cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. If people are worried about the effect of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pesticide-resistant GM crops, which reduce their use.

It is said that organic food tastes better. Yes, if it is fresh. But blind tests have shown fresh organic food tastes no better than fresh food grown conventionally. Furthermore, about 70% of organic food is imported and is not fresh, and since it is imported by air, it is not exactly environmentally friendly.

It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become organic farmers for environmental reasons, and achieve their aim. But studies show that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the system of farming. In general, integrated farm management achieves the best results. What is most beneficial to birds and wildlife is low-till farming, which is made possible by cultivating GM crops. Organic farmers depend on the plough, which disturbs the ecology of the soil, releases more carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds.

Even if most claims made for organic farming could be substantiated, its main disadvantage is its inefficiency. Organic food costs more because average yields are 20-50% lower than those from conventional farms. Its inefficiency is highly relevant to the hungry and the poor.

While there may be food surpluses in some areas, we need to treble food production in the next 50 years to feed 3 billion extra people and meet higher living standards at the same time. We face an increasing shortage of water and of good agricultural land. In many places the only way inefficient organic farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical forest. Every form of technology that increases efficiency in farming will therefore be needed to contribute to the production of more food.

What contribution can organic farming make? In the words of the Indian biologist CJ Prakash, its only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be "to sustain poverty and malnutrition".

Lord Taverne is chair of Sense About Science, and author of The March of Unreason, to be published in November.
dicktaverne@hotmail.com

Edited by Rogerdodger, 02 August 2009 - 10:19 AM.

[calmcookie]

Although I'm a nutrition freak and health book author, I've never paid much attention to the "organic" claims. It simply isn't that important.

[MaryAM]

Although I'm a nutrition freak and health book author, I've never paid much attention to the "organic" claims. It simply isn't that important.

Every thanksgiving the stores have the "all natural" turkeys on display. I for one would like to try and artificial turkey just for fun.

[OEXCHAOS]

I buy my turkey either from the farmer down the road or from the Amish 30 miles away. I think that the natural part has something to do with brine. I'll say this, If you buy a fresh bird and cook it properly, you don't need to brine it. M

[Rogerdodger]

The "Big Picture" in this debate is that we probably don't eat enough fruits and vegetables.

Organic food debate boils over

Scientist behind study that said organic products were no healthier becomes victim of hate campaign.
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Thursday, 6 August 2009
The scientist who concluded that organic food is no healthier than conventional produce has been bombarded with abusive messages from zealous environmentalists.

Dr Alan Dangour, a nutritionist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told The Independent that hundreds of people had contacted him since his work was published, with many accusing him of dishonesty and incompetence in emails peppered with swear words.

"A lot of them have been unpleasant reading," said Dr Dangour, whose controversial study found no evidence that organic food was significantly healthier than food produced using chemicals. "They were saying I'm a quack [and that] I should do something else and stop wasting my time, but also a lot of stuff saying I must have been funded by Monsanto or big industry."

Professor Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh University, an ardent critic of organic food, backed him, saying: "The trouble is that ideologues have propounded the idea that organic must be better for you simply because it's more natural. Nothing really could be further from the truth."

Conclusive proof about the differences between the two farming systems could come only from cohort studies of illnesses over a long period of time – like the 200 studies done to prove the link between diet and cancer – and these were unlikely to be funded, added the Professor Trewavas, an expert in plant biochemistry. "If you are eating the recommended diet of five portions of fruits and vegetables a day that is designed to saturate you in minerals and vitamins, there is no benefit from eating more," he said. "The fact is that the five a day from conventional farming is perfectly adequate for our health."

Nutritionists pointed out that, whatever the truth of the organic debate, Britons still ate too few portions of fruit and vegetables. Adults eat an average of 2.7 portions a day against a Government recommendation of five.
LINK

Edited by Rogerdodger, 05 August 2009 - 11:28 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

Heh, the point must be taken. Arguing for organic for "health reasons" is kind of silly when you're not eating enough fruits and veg in the first place.

[Rogerdodger]

Heh, the point must be taken. Arguing for organic for "health reasons" is kind of silly when you're not eating enough fruits and veg in the first place.

And some of the biggest organic "health nuts" that I know smoke cigarettes!

Got Twinkies?

[OEXCHAOS]

All said and done, local, fresh and responsibly grown or raised food is best for a number of reasons. Need not be organic.

[calmcookie]

What really matters? Learn to alkalize, oxygenize and be insulin-wise. If you don't know HOW to do these, use the password - life123 at the locked pages tab of my website. I'm not allowed to link it here, but google my full name and you'll find the site. Author of 5 star amazon book on food and hormones - Title: Feed Your Need.