In an article in the NY Times on Sept. 3, Kenneth Chang describes the study that Stanford Scientists did on whether or not the organic strawberry has more vitamin C in it than conventional strawberries. In the study, the scientist did not find a huge amount of difference in the amount of vitamin C in the fruits. Organic, GMOs, Quality And Our Health is of vital importance and let’s look into this and the findings.
It was one way the scientists were trying to compare the organic and the conventional foods. Their conclusion being that organic fruits and vegetables were no more nutritious than the conventional less expensive varieties. It says that a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Health Center for Health Policy said “ I think we were definitely surprised.”(i) He also cited a study done in 2010 that did find that organic strawberries did contain more vitamin C than conventional ones and that this study had been “ erroneously left out” (ii) of the study.
In this Stanford study they found that organic fruits and vegetables were no more likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria. Well that is good to know, because none of us want E Coli contaminated food. They did say that the conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue on it. Kenneth goes on to say that this will fuel a debate over whether organic foods are a marketing tool to get people to over pay for their food. Organic foods are not supposed to be raised using synthetic pesticides, hormones and additives.
Even though this is said the Organic Industry has allowed much more into their organic products than I would have liked. I still find that it is at least more regulated than the non-organic food industry that is going wild with genetically modified seeds and plants, use of cheap antibiotics, hormones, toxic pesticides and chemicals that are now saturating the farming areas, water systems and affecting our earth in ways that are quite alarming.
From my research I have found that “there are two basic types of genetically engineered crops on the market now: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant. Herbicide tolerant is grown to handle the direct use of pesticides on them. There are over a billion pounds of pesticides used in the United States alone each year.
Many of these chemical fertilizers were developed for use as bombs or poisons in warfare. They poison our food and our environment. Pesticides particularly affect our nervous system. These insect resistant plants actually produce an insecticide to kill insects that feed on them. If this is what the genetically engineered plant is doing to a small insect, then what is it doing to the person who is eating this food? The effect of this type of plant on the environment and in the human body, especially long-term, is unknown.
Genetically engineered, or genetically modified (GM), plants are escaping into the wild and inter-breeding with wild plants. Our pollinators, such as bees, are in trouble now. Are genetically engineered plantsa contributing factor? Good question.
Genetically engineered food is such a recent food product that no long-term, in-depth studies show their long-term effect on humans or the ecosystem. You must decide for yourself if eating food that has pest control built right into it or has large amounts of poisons put on it is good for human consumption.
“An estimated 75 percent of foods in U.S. grocery stores contain GM ingredients. About seven out of every 10 items in the average grocery cart have been genetically modified. And don’t bother reading labels to see if you’re buying a GM product, because no labeling is required.”iii
Another thing food venders do to make produce more appealing to consumers is to dip it in color or wax, or put a preservative on it produce to make it look prettier.
Organic food is supposed to be grown without chemical, synthetic, or biological pest control or fertilizers used.
Although the USDA continues to water down its regulations, certified organic is still better than non-certified organic. This is because the USDA organic label gives you the most information about the origins and production of your food.
These foods must adhere to much stricter regulations than any other food on the market, and the stricter the regulations, the more you will know about what is actually in your food, thus, giving you more control over what you put into your body and empowering you to make more informed decisions at the grocery store.
You may want to let your voice be heard in favor of stricter food labeling and production regulations. Personally, I would like to see foods containing genetically modified ingredients labeled as such, as is currently required in most Western countries.” iii
Since I was married to an environmental trial lawyer for over 23 years, I learned how toxic these practices are and how deadly they can be for our environment and our bodies. Kenneth goes on to say that even though these findings were what Stanford has found in this study, this won’t be convincing people who understand the concept of toxins and poisons in our environment and in our bodies to go non organic anytime soon and that the researchers “failed to appreciate the differences they did find between the two types of food- differences that validated the reasons people cite for buying organic.
Organic produce, as expected, was much less likely to retain traces of pesticides.” iv What the researchers don’t appreciate or maybe aren’t aware of is that pesticides affect our nervous system and that it is much more critical to children, in that their organs are still forming.
I found this information on a site for food safety. I thought I would just quote them here, because it was so powerfully said about GM crops and the use of chemicals in our environment. “Since the introduction of GE crops, the US has seen herbicide use increase by nearly 400 million pounds. Eighty-four percent of the GE crops planted today are designed to withstand massive applications of herbicides without dying.
As more of these “herbicide resistant” (HR) crops have been planted, the massive increase in herbicide use has triggered an epidemic of resistant “superweeds.” Now, in a misguided effort to fix the weed resistance problem created by first generation HR crops, biotechnology companies are racing to genetically engineer new crops resistant to ever more toxic herbicides.
Dicamba is an older, more toxic herbicide, which is similar in structure and mode to 2,4-D, a major component of Agent Orange. It is highly soluble in water and very mobile so carries a large groundwater contamination risk. Dicamba is also very volatile and can drift for miles. Such volatilization has caused millions of dollars in damages to growers who have suffered crop losses due to herbicide drift onto their farms.
Penn State ecologist David Mortensen predicts that herbicide use on soy could increase 70% if the new 2,4-D and dicamba-tolerant soybeans are adopted. Inevitably new “superweeds” will develop in response to the new biotech crops, and the chemical arms race with weeds will continue. This means more pesticidal pollution, environmental damage, higher production costs, and of course, increasing profits for firms like Monsanto that sell both GE seed and pesticides.
At a time when farmers, citizens, and government have worked hard to limit our use of, and exposure to, hazardous pesticides like dicamba, approving this crop would take us backwards, seriously endangering human health and the environment. “(v)
While it may not have found the Vitamin C in strawberries that different, it did find that the organic milk they tested, did have more omega –3 fatty acids, which are anti inflammatory, than the conventional milk. He goes on to quote Sonya Lunder, with the Environmental Working Group. Their group creates a list frequently rating the lowest and highest amounts of pesticides residues on fruits and vegetables.
The Stanford researchers said that their study was to help people make more informed choices. “In the study — known as a meta-analysis, in which previous findings are aggregated but no new laboratory work is conducted — researchers combined data from 237 studies, examining a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and meats.
For four years, they performed statistical analyses looking for signs of health benefits from adding organic foods to the diet. The researchers did not use any outside financing for their research. “I really wanted us to have no perception of bias,” Dr. Bravata said.” (vi)
In the study they did find that “organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. “ (vii) Since this study was strictly on paper and their was not any kind of study on how it affects people, the environment, or growing children and their central nervous system, I have to say that I am still going to support food that does not have poisons dumped on them or genetically engineered into them for my own family and friends.
I don’t believe the earth and our bodies are meant to have poisons in them. I don’t believe poisons contribute to a healthy way of life. With the extensive use of pesticides, I was not surprised that the “produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.”(viii) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine.”(ix) He noted the debate over whether the laws for pesticide reside is really below safety thresholds. I personally don’t believe they are strict enough in their standards.
Dr, Bravata did agree that there are a “variety of reasons — concerns about the effects of pesticides on young children, the environmental impact of large-scale conventional farming and the potential public health threat if antibiotic-resistant bacterial genes jumped to human pathogens.
“Those are perfectly valid,” she said.” Kenneth went into the fact that they were not tasting the food and that for the most part, there were many reasons people bought organic food, only one of which is that it may have more nutrients in it than conventional. He does say that most people do eat organic in order to “reduce exposure to pesticides, especially for pregnant women and their young children.
Organic food advocates point to, for example, three studies published last year, by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. The studies identified pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of pesticides known as organophosphates and then followed their children for years. In elementary school, those children had, on average, I.Q.’s several points lower than those of their peers.” (x) He goes on to say that many critics of this Stanford study argued that this type of study missed the major benefits of certain characteristics of food.
For me, I choose organic for various reasons. The least of which it is the best thing we can do for the earth and the environment. I also think it tastes fresher and more vibrant. I also do not like the thought that I am ingesting poison. I want to support the farmer who is trying to do the right thing by the animals and the environment.
If we don’t support those farmers, then they may not be around to support in the future. I also am careful about the origin of the food. I don’t buy “organic food” from China. China is very polluted and there really is no one watching what and how they are doing things. So, look at the food you are buying and see where it is being grown.
Try to buy locally and seasonally at a local farmer’s market, where you can actually find out if they are authentic or not. I have been down to some of the farms that I buy from. I wanted to make sure they were telling me the truth. I found out they were! Now we have a great relationship. Also, get involved!
If you would like to make your voice heard, call your local representatives and senators and let them know how you feel. One phone call to them, is thought to represent 1,000 or even 10,000 people. So don’t underestimate the power of a phone call or email. Also, join the Organic Consumers Association (www.organicconsumers.org) and keep up with the bills and laws.
The article by Mr. Chang was quite good and the link is below in the sources.
This is food for thought!
Sincerely, Nancy
Sources:
I, ii, iv. vi, vii, viii, ix, x were taken from the article :, September 3, 2012
Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce
By KENNETH CHANG and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general&v- from The Center for Food Safety website and an article called:Stop Monsanto’s Dicamba Tolerant Soybeans!http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8328
iii pages 317 and 318 in How to Be a Healthy Vegetarian by Nancy Addison
copyright@nancyaddison2012
You may like Nancy’ Addison’s International award-winning books. You can find them on her website: www.organichealthylife.com or on her Amazon author page.
Leave a comment and join the conversation!
