Organic Foods

  • Thread starter Smasherman
  • Start date
  • #26
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Integral said:
Pet peeve.

"Inorganic food"....When did you start eating rocks?

ALL FOOD IS ORGANIC! Some is grown without the use of man synthesized and applied chemicals. :biggrin:
The even better part is that most pesticides are organic chemicals too. :biggrin:
 
  • #27
151
0
You need a lot more land for organic crops, at least if you're doing it on a large scale, because you have more crop loss/waste.
I wonder, how much land would be freed-up to grow that which is needed, if the products that are not needed that CURRENTLY utilize land to grow ingredients for that 'non-needed product', were prohibited?

I also wonder, how much produce would be freed-up to be used for purposes that are needed, if the products that are not needed that CURRENTLY utilize that produce, were prohibited?

Consider all the land and produce CURRENTLY used to provide ingredients for the following 3 types of products that are not needed: coffee, any alcoholic beverage, cigarettes.

Not to mention the forests that are mowed down to accomodate the packaging that those products "need". However, a forest mustn't be mowed down to accomodate any product; a forest already serves its optimal purpose within the biosphere by being what it is-a forest.

Now, consider the land and produce CURRENTLY used to provide ingredients for all products that are not needed.

It's not feasible to have all food organic.
So long as the priority of nations is to provide land and produce for products that are not needed, the above quoted statement is CURRENTLY correct.

o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,697
It is a matter of economics. There is no shortage of land available for agriculture, it is the cost involved to produce organic crops that is the issue. And in poorer nations, it is the cost to produce any crop in unfavorable conditions.

Different soils and climates are suitable for different crops. For example, coffee "coffee is important as a 'money crop' because it can be cultivated on slopes, too steep for other crops; it can be picked by unskilled labour, and it keeps well and is not damaged by rough transportation."

I wasn't aware coffee cans were made from trees. :tongue:

Also, alcohol is usually in glass containers. :wink:
 
  • #29
151
0
do you believe the human body needs "coffee"?

o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,697
jimmie said:
do you believe the human body needs "coffee"?

o:)
Absolutely.

You didn't mention, sugar, chocolate, tea, or flowers, just to mention a few non-nutritive crops.
 
  • #31
151
0
Absolutely.
You are not correct.

It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.

o:)
 
  • #32
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,697
jimmie said:
You are not correct.
I guess next you're going to say chocolate is not necessary. :surprised

We all know that chocolate raspberry coffee is the nectar of the gods.
 
  • #33
151
0
I guess next you're going to say chocolate is not necessary
I 'think' we both know the two-letter answer to that.

o:)
 
  • #34
151
0
We all know that chocolate raspberry coffee is the nectar of the gods.
How does that substance make you "feel"?

o:)
 
  • #35
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,697
jimmie said:
How does that substance make you "feel"?
o:)
Peaceful, satisfied, sleepy. (I'm one of those people not affected by caffeine, I can drink a pot of coffee and go straight to sleep) I don't drink it for the caffiene, I can't tell the difference between regular and decaffienated.
 
  • #36
151
0
Peaceful, satisfied,
True peace, and true satisfaction, do not require action; only non-action.

Peace and satisfaction are the effects of non-action.

Perhaps your "self" has tricked you into 'thinking' that you "need" that substance so as to be "peaceful and satisfied".

o:)
 
  • #37
Mk
1,984
3
jimmie said:
You are not correct.
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.
It's possible. Its possible to filter out all you need from seawater. But do you think anyone will bust a cap on that sort of way of life. How much easier is it to eat a steak rather than a few pounds of beans.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.
What's wrong with altering metabolism? Especially for such a short period of time? A lot of people WANT to change their metabolism from lower to higher, and a lot of people, if educated, would want theirs to be lower.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Mk
1,984
3
jimmie said:
do you believe the human body needs "coffee"?

o:)
Besides, humans don't need much anyway. We don't "need" 8-10 hours of sleep a night. We don't "need" to eat every day. We don't "need" clean water. We don't "need" clothes.

We don't "need" a mattress to sleep on at night, or televisions.

We don't need civilization either. Have you ever lived, or even seen a "3rd world" villiage? They live in straw huts, and don't need much.

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens? :wink:
 
  • #39
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,697
Mk said:
Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens? :wink:
Yeah!! Yeah!!!
(bans jimmie to a hippie commune) :grumpy:
 
  • #40
151
0
Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything.
A true world government would ensure that all individuals would possess, if they so choose, that which is needed in, at minimum, the lowest-technological form of that product.

That which is needed is mass-produced, and is available in varying levels of technology; product 'x' has high-tech versions and low-tech versions.

If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possess the lowest-tech version of product 'x'.

A needed product is a product that is needed by an individual somewhere, but not every individual everywhere. Clothing is a needed product. Should you choose to not use clothing, that is your individual choice.

We don't "need" clean water.
Clearly, Mk, you do not know what "need" is.

But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?
Why not make those mattresses, toasters and forks, and all NEEDED products, so we, ALL individuals on the planet, can be a happier, safer, more productive citizens of the planet?

o:)
 
  • #41
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
jimmie said:
If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possess the lowest-tech version of product 'x'.
Why does it have to be lo-tech?

I can assure you that coffee is a needed product. It ensures the survival of all who have to be near me in the morning. They will all agree this is absolutely essential. :approve:
 
  • #42
151
0
I can assure you that coffee is a needed product. It ensures the survival of all who have to be near me in the morning. They will all agree this is absolutely essential.

Uhhh....good one. :smile:

I have no doubt that you "believe" it is "needed".

o:)
 
  • #43
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,304
124
How strong is the organic food demand in places other than the U.S.A.? How about Canada? U.K.? France? Germany? Other places?
 
  • #44
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,304
124
jimmie said:
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.
The Intuit (or the native Greenlanders) just don't "get" this. :smile:
 
  • #45
356
3
EnumaElish said:
The Intuit (or the native Greenlanders) just don't "get" this. :smile:
Maybe because you keep calling them that. It's inuit. One 't' at the end, sometimes two 'n's.


Intuit is a verb.
 
  • #46
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
jimmie said:
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.
Which of those provides iodine? Historically, before we started adding iodine to salt and before refrigerated transportation made it possible to get fish inland, iodine deficiency was a common health problem among people living far inland.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.
o:)
Oh, one more thing...coffee is in your category of a wide variety of seeds...it is the seed of the coffee plant.

And this article supports it as a "functional food."
Dorea JG, da Costa TH. Is coffee a functional food? Br J Nutr. 93(6):773-82, 2005.

Abstract:
Definitions of functional food vary but are essentially based on foods' ability to enhance the quality of life, or physical and mental performance, of regular consumers. The worldwide use of coffee for social engagement, leisure, enhancement of work performance and well-being is widely recognised. Depending on the quantities consumed, it can affect the intake of some minerals (K, Mg, Mn, Cr), niacin and antioxidant substances. Epidemiological and experimental studies have shown positive effects of regular coffee-drinking on various aspects of health, such as psychoactive responses (alertness, mood change), neurological (infant hyperactivity, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases) and metabolic disorders (diabetes, gallstones, liver cirrhosis), and gonad and liver function. Despite this, most reviews do not mention coffee as fulfilling the criteria for a functional food. Unlike other functional foods that act on a defined population with a special effect, the wide use of coffee-drinking impacts a broad demographic (from children to the elderly), with a wide spectrum of health benefits. The present paper discusses coffee-drinking and health benefits that support the concept of coffee as a functional food.
 
  • #47
151
0
Which of those provides iodine?
Iodine is an element that is needed by the human body in "trace" amounts to help ensure a 'right' metabolism, the processes within all the eukaryote cells inside the human body, is maintained.

Any plant/vegetable/fruit that is grown in soil that is rich in iodine, such as coastal areas that are directly exposed to seawater, is a source of iodine.

I am aware that garlic, spinach, and sesame seeds, do contain iodine if the soil they grew in, regardless of the geographic location, was rich in iodine.

Oh, one more thing...coffee is in your category of a wide variety of seeds...it is the seed of the coffee plant.
I did not state that ALL seeds, from ALL plants, are needed by the human body.

To teach individuals EXACTLY what a "rightdiet" is, I believe a website needs to be created (:biggrin:) that provides ALL DETAILS for a "rightdiet", including: elements needed by the human body, the function of those elements, the sources of those elements, and the effects of not having those elements inside the human body.

And this article supports it as a "functional food."
There are MANY 'articles/reports/studies' on caffeine, and its effects on the human body.

A study of nearly fifty thousand male health professionals showed no increase of cardiovascular disease due to coffee-drinking [THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 323:1026-1032 (1990)] -- a result in agreement with the Framingham Study [ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 149:1169-1172 (1989)]. Neither caffeinated nor decaffeinated coffee are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction [AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 149(2):162-167 (1999)]. However, coffee in excess of 8 cups per day may aggrevate cardiac arrhythmias [ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 114:147-150 (1991)] and raise plasma homocysteine [AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 76:1244-1248 (2002)]. Adenosine is sometimes used in emergency medicine to treat supraventricular arrhythmias [AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN 65(12):2479-2486 (2002)] and caffeine may interfere with this treatment.

As with any information on any particular subject, the individual contemplating the information ultimately must decide if they BELIEVE that information, regardless if it is "right" or not, and if in fact that individual is AWARE of the difference between "right" and "not right", that individual is able to know if that information is in fact, "right", regardless if that information was "correct".

It comes down to having a "rightbelief".

"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".

Therefore, any individual reading the current thread, and any other thread that "I" have made a post on, ultimately must decide if they believe "I", and if "I am" "right".

o:)
 
  • #48
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
jimmie said:
It comes down to having a "rightbelief".
"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".
Therefore, any individual reading the current thread, and any other thread that "I" have made a post on, ultimately must decide if they believe "I", and if "I am" "right".
o:)
You didn't state "caffeine," you stated "coffee" earlier. I provided you with a scientific article that refuted your claim that coffee is not a nutritive food. You have provided nothing to support your argument. As this is a forum dedicated to science, no, it is not about "believing" who is right or wrong, it is about what the scientific evidence supports.
 
  • #49
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,304
124
Smurf said:
Maybe because you keep calling them that. It's inuit. One 't' at the end, sometimes two 'n's.
Intuit is a verb.
Thanks for the intuition. Not that I knew it, as I now know it, it's Inuit.
 
  • #50
151
0
You have provided nothing to support your argument.
I have provided below, as per your "request", information derived from "scientific studies and research" that indicate that "coffee" is, in fact, detrimental to the human body.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (ajcn.org), has printed several scientific studies on coffee and its effects on the human body.

Below are just three abstracts of separate scientific studies proving the detrimental effects of coffee consumption in human beings.

1.) Inhibition of food iron absorption by coffee

TA Morck, SR Lynch and JD Cook

Dual isotope studies were performed in iron replete human subjects to evaluate the effect of coffee on nonheme iron absorption. A cup of coffee reduced iron absorption from a hamburger meal by 39% as compared to a 64% decrease with tea, which is known to be a potent inhibitor of iron absorption. When a cup of drip coffee or instant coffee was ingested with a meal composed of semipurified ingredients, absorption was reduced from 5.88% to 1.64 and 0.97%, respectively, and when the strength of the instant coffee was doubled, percentage iron absorption fell to 0.53%. No decrease in iron absorption occurred when coffee was consumed 1 h before a meal, but the same degree of inhibition as with simultaneous ingestion was seen when coffee was taken 1 h later. In tests containing no food items, iron absorption from NaFeEDTA was diminished to the same extent as that from ferric chloride when each was added to a cup of coffee. These studies demonstrate that coffee inhibits iron absorption in a concentration-dependent fashion.



2.) Chronic coffee consumption has a detrimental effect on aortic stiffness and wave reflections 1,2

Charalambos Vlachopoulos, Demosthenes Panagiotakos, Nikolaos Ioakeimidis, Ioanna Dima and Christodoulos Stefanadis

1 From the 1st Department of Cardiology, Hippokration Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece (CV, NI, ID, and CS), and the Department of Dietetics–Nutrition, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece (DP)

Background: The effect of coffee consumption on the cardiovascular system is still an unresolved issue. Aortic stiffness and wave reflections are important prognosticators of cardiovascular disease risk. We have shown that caffeine acutely increases aortic stiffness and wave reflections.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the effect of chronic coffee consumption on aortic stiffness and wave reflections.

Design: This was a cross-sectional study of 228 healthy subjects: 141 men ( ± SD: 41 ± 8 y old) and 87 women (41 ± 9 y old). Aortic stiffness was evaluated with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). Wave reflections were evaluated with augmentation index (AIx) and augmented pressure (AP) of the aortic pressure waveform with the use of high-fidelity pulse wave analysis. Coffee consumption was ascertained over 1 y with a food-frequency questionnaire.

Results: A linear relation between coffee consumption and PWV, AIx, and AP was observed (P for trend < 0.05). Compared with the nonconsumption group, PWV was on average 13% higher, AIx was 2-fold higher, and AP was 2.4-fold higher (P < 0.01 for all) in the high-consumption group (>450 mL/d). The findings remained significant after control for confounders such as age, sex, smoking habits, body mass index, total and LDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols, blood glucose, mean blood pressure, and heart rate. The linear relation (P for trend < 0.05) observed between coffee consumption and arterial pressures was largely explained when the covariates were entered in the model.

Conclusions: Chronic coffee consumption exerts a detrimental effect on aortic stiffness and wave reflections, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease



3.) Heavy coffee consumption and plasma homocysteine: a randomized controlled trial in healthy volunteers1,2,3
Rob Urgert, Trinette van Vliet, Peter L Zock and Martijn B Katan

1 From the Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences, Nutrition and Health Programme, Wageningen, Netherlands; the Department of Physiology, TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Zeist, Netherlands; and the Division of Human Nutrition and Epidemiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Background: An elevated plasma concentration of total homocysteine is considered to be a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Heavy coffee drinking has been related to high homocysteine concentrations in epidemiologic studies and in one experiment in which healthy subjects drank unfiltered, boiled coffee.

Objective: Our goal was to determine whether daily consumption of paper-filtered coffee raises plasma concentrations of total homocysteine in healthy subjects.

Design: Twenty-six volunteers (18–53 y of age) consumed 1 L/d of paper-filtered coffee brewed with 70 g regular ground beans or no coffee for 4 wk each in a randomized, crossover design.

Results: The mean (±SD) plasma concentration of total homocysteine in fasting blood was 8.1 ± 1.8 µmol/L after abstention from coffee and 9.6 ± 2.9 µmol/L after 3–4 wk of coffee drinking, a difference of 1.5 µmol/L (95% CI: 0.9, 2.1 µmol/L) or 18% (P < 0.001). Coffee increased homocysteine concentrations in 24 of 26 individuals. Circulating concentrations of vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, and folate were unaffected.

Conclusion: Drinking large quantities of paper-filtered coffee raises fasting plasma concentrations of total homocysteine in healthy individuals.


Michael Traub is president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, and director of Lokahi Health Center in Kailua Kona, Hawai'i.

Coffee, according to Traub, comes with a host of unwanted health problems including sleep disturbances, PMS, decreased immune function, reflux, vitamin and mineral deficiency, and possibly cancer.

Traub's research indicates that coffee has many carcinogens besides caffeine--creosote, pymdine, tars, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to name a few--so decaf is guilty here too. "There is a suggestion of a higher incidence of cancers of the pancreas, ovaries, bladder, and kidneys in coffee drinkers."

Traub paints a dark picture when it comes to coffee and stress response. He reports that our adrenal glands become exhausted as coffee pumps up our stress hormones. Anxiety builds and builds as coffee depletes us of adenosine, which should help to calm us. Coffee elevates levels of lactate, which increases the onset of panic attacks in many people. Coffee increases blood pressure and makes blood vessels constrict, which puts more pressure on the heart. Coffee can also nullify the effects of expensive blood pressure medications used to control such problems.


Moonbear, according to the "scientific" article you provided that "discusses" coffee-drinking and health benefits that support the concept of coffee as a functional food, it states that "Depending on the quantities consumed, it can affect the intake of some minerals (K, Mg, Mn, Cr), niacin and antioxidant substances."

"I" believe that the "scientific evidence" I have presented clearly proves that that coffee is not "nutritive".

However, the current thread is about "Organic Foods", not "coffee".

We must stay on topic, lest our banter about "coffee" becomes generally annoying.

At May 7, 2002, the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), released the results of a landmark study that confirms organic foods have fewer pesticides.

The researchers analyzed test data on pesticide residues in more than 94,000 organic and nonorganic food samples of some 20 different crops tested over nearly a decade. Data were obtained from three independent sources: tests undertaken by CU in 1997 on selected foods; surveys conducted by the Pesticide Data Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on residues in a wide array of foods available on the U.S. market; and California Department of Pesticide Regulation surveys of residues in foods sold in California.

Research Highlights

* The USDA data showed that 73 percent of conventionally grown produce had at least one pesticide residue, while only 23 percent of organically grown samples of the same crops contained residues.
* More than 90 percent of USDA’s samples of conventionally grown apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery had residues.
* Conventionally grown crops were also six times as likely to contain multiple pesticide residues.
* In California state testing, residues were found in nearly a third of conventionally grown foods, but in only 6.5 percent of organic samples. The researchers remarked that the California data were based on tests with less-sensitive analytical methods than those used to generate the USDA data, and hence, did not include many low-level residues detected by the USDA’s testing methods. LI>California testing also revealed multiple pesticide residues nine times more often in conventional samples than in organic samples.
* CU’s tests found residues in 79 percent of conventionally grown samples and in 27 percent of organically grown samples, with multiple residues six times as common in the former.


I believe that it is feasible for all individuals on the planet to eat ONLY organic foods, IF, the land and produce that is currently utilized to support products that are not needed, such as coffee, were utilized for products that are needed, like a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds, but not all seeds.

o:)
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Organic Foods

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
579
Replies
12
Views
792
  • Last Post
203
Replies
5K
Views
593K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
56
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top