Organic Food Is Healthier Confirms New Analysis
Source: Eco Watch
More nutritional antioxidants, far fewer toxic pesticides; those are the results of a comprehensive meta-analysis on organic foods published yesterday in the British Journal of Nutrition. Led by Carlo Leifort, PhD, at Englands Newcastle University, the analysis is a scientific rebuttal to a previous Stanford University review published in 2012, which found that there was little difference between the nutritional content of organic food over conventionally grown produce. Both studies found there to be fewer pesticides in organic products.
While Stanford Universitys review only looked at 200 studies, Dr. Leifert and his team of researchers expanded the scope of their meta-analysis to 343 studies, and also employed more robust analytic tools by analyzing the standardized mean differences of the data from the various studies. It shows very clearly how you grow your food has an impact, said Dr. Leifert to The New York Times. If you buy organic fruits and vegetables, you can be sure you have, on average, a higher amount of antioxidants at the same calorie level. Antioxidants, compounds such as phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanin, have been linked to lower risks of cancer and other diseases.
For many, news of higher nutritional content in organic foods is simply another benefit of buying into a system that eschews toxic pesticides, treats animals with care and protects farmworkers and the surrounding environment. Both the Stanford and Newcastle studies found pesticide residues four times more frequently on conventional crops than on organic produce.
Pesticide exposure, even at low level residues like those found on food, has been linked to a wide range of adverse impacts wildlife and humans, particularly children. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement advising parents to choose organic in order to avoid pesticide exposure. Also in 2012, a report published by a team of 12 scientists found strong evidence that low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals influence human diseases, including links to infertility, cardiovascular disease, obesity, cancer and other disorders. Whether low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds influence human disorders is no longer conjecture, as epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures are associated with human diseases and disabilities, the report stated. Research from Tyrone Hayes, PhD, at University of California Berkeley found that a minute dose of the herbicide atrazine (as small as .1 parts per billion) turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites. In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged that low dose responses to chemicals do occur in biological systems, yet has still not begun regulating endocrine disrupters through a finalized Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, as mandated by Congress in 1996.
<snip>
Read more: http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/15/organic-food-is-healthier-confirms-new-analysis/
knightmaar
(748 posts)More clearly
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/antioxidants
"Overall, these nine randomized controlled clinical trials did not provide evidence that dietary antioxidant supplements are beneficial in primary cancer prevention. In addition, a systematic review of the available evidence regarding the use of vitamin and mineral supplements for the prevention of chronic diseases, including cancer, conducted for the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) likewise found no clear evidence of benefit in preventing cancer (27)."
bananas
(27,509 posts)Z_California
(650 posts)I don't see the correlation between your references and the OP. I don't have any clinical trials to link but I'm pretty sure it's safe to eat organic produce.
knightmaar
(748 posts)... seems to be suggesting that the primary benefit of organic food is the presence of antioxidants.
There does not seem to be any benefit to eating antioxidants. In fact, it's contraindicated for lung cancer victims.
I won't argue with the idea that a pesticide which isn't safe for human consumption shouldn't be on your food. I just don't like the buzz around anti-oxidants. The large, well conducted studies on the matter have found no health benefit.
FreeState
(10,661 posts)knightmaar
(748 posts)... when you consume them in food.
Do you have a study like that?
FreeState
(10,661 posts)I assume you have google too.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9698642
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/145/1/33.short
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/4/923.short
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/5/391.short
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np9904509
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/2/362.short
http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/3/218.short
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/3/223.short
knightmaar
(748 posts)Almost everyone one of them uses that phrase.
"Food consumption during the previous year was estimated using a dietary history interview"
That means that they ask you what you ate at the end of the year, or the the three year period. These studies have been shown to be problematic.
"... was assessed from seven day household food inventories ... "
Also problematic. People throw food away. That's how we were overestimated saturated fat intake and (possibly incorrectly) blamed it for heart problems. People were trimming away the way and discarding it, but "food inventory" said that people were averaging a lot of fat intake.
The lycopene study showed that eating tomatoes reduced prostate cancer risk. That was a well done study, but doesn't mention anti-oxidants generally.
One of the studies is comparing flavonoid intake to cardiovascular risk, not anti-oxidants to cancer risk.
The second link's abstract:
Intakes of beta-carotene, vitamins C and E, and flavonoids were not inversely associated with cognitive impairment or decline. This study raises the possibility that high linoleic acid intake is positively associated with cognitive impairment and high fish consumption inversely associated with cognitive impairment.
Correlations have been, sort of, vaguely, indicated. Studies where we specifically alter people's diets and find out if that improves things have not been as successful.
antigone382
(3,682 posts)I am not stating that there is rock solid evidence that flavenoids are beneficial. But one of the linked articles seems to have found compelling evidence of such, and I am referring to the nature of your refutation of that article. Your implication seems to be that since the benefit being discussed is cardiovascular risk rather than cancer, the article is outside the subject area of this discussion. However that makes no sense; flavenoids are one of the compounds mentioned in the original news article. No claim is made as to the nature of the health benefit that they may provide.
In your first post (I believe), *you* referenced a link to antioxidant substances and cancer benefits--or rather the lack thereof, but that does not preclude other health benefits, nor does it constrain the ability of others to point out evidence for those benefits. As such, I'm not sure why you added to your otherwise seemingly logical illumination of the above studies' limitations, the irrelevant point that one of the studies referenced addressed cardiovascular risk rather than cancer risk. No one asserted that effects on cancer risks were the only effects being discussed, and as I recall cardiovascular problems cause more deaths than cancers do. If flavenoids can be shown to have a positive effect on cardiovascular risk, and if flavenoids are more prevalent in certain organic foods, then there public health case to be made for their consumption.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)For many, news of higher nutritional content in organic foods is simply another benefit of buying into a system that eschews toxic pesticides, treats animals with care and protects farmworkers and the surrounding environment. Both the Stanford and Newcastle studies found pesticide residues four times more frequently on conventional crops than on organic produce.
That.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)If they are healthier, that's just an added benefit.
villager
(26,001 posts)Quick! Where's a snarky comment or smilie I can post!?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Huh?
Obligatory note to jury: this is obvious sarcasm.
rickford66
(5,607 posts)If they are healthier, it's an added benefit. Is the better taste is only in our heads? Who cares? Our garden looks like a weed patch, but the tomatoes, lettuce and cucumbers taste great.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)even when a vegetable is tweaked to raise the sugar content (corn, tomatoes - In those cases, I have to believe that the sugar is replacing something that is better for you!)
Think about it - taste and smell are our methods of detecting chemicals. It seems to me that we've evolved to prefer more flavor, which is why we use so many spices that themselves have health benefits.
When we measure nutritional values, all we are doing is measuring the levels of chemicals that we know about. For example, if we don't actively measure Vitamin C levels, we'd have no idea that oranges have a higher level than ice cream.
The vitamins and minerals we know enough about to look for were generally found as a result of acute diseases brought about by a total absence (pellagra, beriberi). Now we are finding entire classes of chemicals (Omege-3, Omega 6)which have long term effects on health. It's an area of active research and there is a lot of controversy out there. It may never be possible to isolate each chemical and determine its role simply because of the complexity and expense involved (not to mention the interplay among chemicals)!
For now, eat lots of plants, eat moderately, avoid processed foods.
Dustlawyer
(10,510 posts)Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)
wisechoice This message was self-deleted by its author.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)But in my local supermarket, a dozen eggs were $1.49 for conventional and $3.99 for cage-free, organic.
THat markup is insane.
I have a strict $40/week grocery budget and organic does not fit it.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)if the study was to try to convince the non-believers that eating food grown without toxic chemicals is better than food grown with toxic chemicals, it failed because you aren't going to change anyone's mind that doesn't already think that organic food is better. And Faux news will probably tell them the opposite.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Organics is anti science. Some one already wrote an article that organics don't offer any benefits over conventional food. Also the study is flawed because it is not done by Monsanto.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I have yet to find any benefits that GMO offer that organics don't, apart from cost.
And if everyone started planting organically, the supply would go up and the costs come down. Costs are always more expensive on 'niche' items.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)but organic food is definitely safer for insects that consume it.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)analyze the cost. Unless one grows their own, all organic food is usually a third more expensive than non, and only a small part of the population can afford organic foods.
djean111
(14,255 posts)But that does not change what the OP is saying. Has nothing to do with it.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)but the salient point is: people can't afford the food the OP is touting. It's a moot point for a lot of people. That's what it had to do with OP. Like a lot of people, "yes, it is a problem" does not lower cost for the people who can really benefit, children and poorer folks. Better off folks, 1%ers and the upper middle class wannabe's could give a damn less that poorer folks are stuck in the cycle of monsanto grown foods, mcDonalds and burger king.
djean111
(14,255 posts)is pointing out that it is better. If this fact is not publicized, nothing will be done about the cost and availability and the GMO's win - sort of like presidential candidates, it is better than the alternative - in this case, starving.
I can't afford much in the way of organic food - I am living on social security. But I feel that if enough people know to try and buy organic, maybe costs will come down. And, really, now that I am attempting to buy organic or at least non-GMO, no corn, no soy, no wheat, no processed crap - I skip buying a lot of absolute crap and maybe I was spending too much on food I did not need.
We can't get out of the cycle if we say or do nothing. Maybe stores will stock more organic stuff, higher demand, more growers, lower prices. Might as well at least try!
Heh, maybe Monsanto et. al. will go organic!
/fixed
- I prefer saying it the ''affirmative'' way......
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Cha
(302,810 posts)for decades.
mathematic
(1,468 posts)From the study:
"detected significantly higher concentrations of total carbohydrates and significantly lower concentrations of proteins, amino acids and fibre in organic crops/crop-based compound foods"
It must have less protein because it's real and natural.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)What on earth are the poor sheeple consumers to do other than go back to
the good old GM-enhanced, factory-farmed, antibiotic-rich crap that makes
so much money for all those honest corporations?
flamingdem
(39,793 posts)for my organics. Always knew it tastes better that's for sure.
Archae
(46,665 posts)Right wing- "If the science doesn't agree with (our interpretation of) the Bible, it's a hoax/satanic/communist/nazi!"
Left wing-"If the science doesn't agree with 'Natural News,' it's Monsanto/corporate shill/nazi!"
Hugin
(34,303 posts)foods section?
Hmm...