Comparing Organic vs Non-Organic Bananas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Smasherman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Organic
AI Thread Summary
Organic foods, particularly bananas, often appear less visually perfect than non-organic options but are perceived to have better taste and fewer internal defects. The discussion highlights that the quality differences may stem from sourcing practices, with local, smaller producers tending to offer fresher, more flavorful produce compared to mass-produced items. While organic foods are generally more expensive due to strict growing standards, some argue that the taste difference may not be significant and is influenced more by freshness than organic status. The feasibility of transitioning to all organic food is questioned, with concerns about land use and crop yield losses. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the complexities of organic versus non-organic farming and the importance of local sourcing for quality produce.
Smasherman
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I've noticed that organic foods seem to look less pristine than non-organic foods, but taste better and have less defects (rot and such).

I'm comparing bananas specifically, since I can tell how good they are easier.

Non-organic bananas seem to be nearly perfectly yellow on the outside. The black spots present on the outside mark very dark spots on the inside. Organic bananas seem to almost always have many black spots on the outside, but almost none on the inside.

I sometimes buy organic vegetables from farmers' markets and quakers. I find the food quality to be superior to nearly all non-organic foods I find in grocery stores. The organic food is slightly more expensive in grocery stores and cheaper in the markets.

Organic food seems to be slightly more expensive but much better. Is it feasible to have all our food organic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This now makes me want to conduct a test. I think I will.

I think there won't be much of a difference at all. I'll see.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are no "organic" bananas. The banged up bananas that no one will buy are labeled "organic" and sold for twice the regular price. :biggrin: <teasing>

Organic bananas? So, they are grown in the US? I'm not aware of pesticides used on banana farms in S America, I know they have lots of snakes though. I watched a program about it, that's the main problem with bananas, the snakes.

Organic vegetables taste no different from "non-organic", IMHO. Perhaps what you are thinking about is produce that is picked fresher or left to ripen naturally as opposed to being picked green and either ripened through transit or chemically? That has nothing to do with "organic" though.
 
Last edited:
It's not feasible to have all food organic. The reason we can feed all the people we have and not have massive famine is because we can use pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers to keep our large crops from being eaten by pests or the land from being leeched of all nutrients.

The actual plant varieties aren't necessarily different between organic and regular produce, organic just means chemicals aren't used.

The difference in quality you're noticing is that you're buying from small local producers/sellers. They probably take more care with the produce that it doesn't get bruised since it's a bigger loss for them to not be able to sell bruised fruits or vegetables than for the big supermarket to lose some cheaper vegetables that aren't organic. The other difference (though not for bananas...it might just be whoever they're buying from that makes the difference there) is that locally grown fruits and vegetables will taste better because they can ripen more fully on the vine, while commercially grown produce is picked unripe and allowed to ripen off the vine so it will last longer during shipping. For some produce for which there are multiple varieties that can be grown, the local grower can also choose ones that will be more flavorful or juicier because, again, they don't need to worry about it being able to tolerate shipping. This has nothing to do with it being organic, but with it being locally grown on smaller scale farms rather than being commercially grown for shipping.
 
i work with a lot of agricultural companies, and the main difference between organic and non-organic is the lack of pesticides used in the growing, harvesting, cleaning of the produce. take an apple for example...when you are at the store, note how shiny a regular apple is to an organic one. wax is applied to the everyday apple not only to give it a shine, but to help preserve it. some apples you get have been in cold storage for months! others are more seasonal. i tried buying organic there for awhile, and it turns out that my produce went bad faster. if you truly want good taste and fresh produce, you need access to a garden or local produce stand.

also, organic produce has very strict standards in order to become organic, which makes it more expensive for those growing, packing and selling it. many of the smaller packing houses tend to stay away from the organic route because of how difficult it is to achieve those standards.

btw, i have been in the packing houses for apples where the wax is applied, and after smelling it, i always wash my apples before i eat them. :smile:
 
Thanks for the information!

I notice little difference in taste as well, but I pick out foods that look better, so the average might be more or less tasty.

I'm aware that the difference between organic and non-organic is whether or not chemicals are used (different varieties never occurred to me, actually).

Some of the organic bananas I eat are shipped from fairly far away and are mostly w/o inner black spots. I suppose it's primarily a locality thing.

How much more land does it take to grow organic vegetables and such, anyway? I imagine it's more, but I understand that organically-grown foods are also more sustainable.

Also, do large agriculture businesses bother choosing the best produce? I thought they just added chemicals to make everything look good.
 
I buy organic fair trade because I want to support the small farmers, not the corporate farms. Where I live there is no scarcity of organic produce.
 
I accidentally went into a "Whole Foods" supermarket once and felt like I had ants crawling over me the whole time I was in there. It gave me the heebie jeebies. I needed a shower after I left. Pay twice the price for inferior food? What are they smoking (yes, I already know the answer to that question)?

All GM and chem'd up (bug free) for me, baby.
 
Skyhunter said:
I buy organic fair trade because I want to support the small farmers, not the corporate farms. Where I live there is no scarcity of organic produce.
Why support the "small farmers?" (just thinking)
 
  • #10
Smasherman said:
How much more land does it take to grow organic vegetables and such, anyway? I imagine it's more, but I understand that organically-grown foods are also more sustainable.
Sustainable agriculture and organic are two separate things. 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. On a small scale, as long as someone can get out and pick bugs off the garden every day you probably won't have much more loss than in a small garden where pesticides are used.

Also, do large agriculture businesses bother choosing the best produce? I thought they just added chemicals to make everything look good.
A lot of factors go into what varieties they choose, such as crop yield, drought resistance, time to maturity, uniformity of size, resistance to insects and molds and other plant diseases, and quality of the fruit for shipping and/or storage. This is why you get so many store-bought tomatoes that seem sort of tough and tasteless. In order to be able to tolerate bouncing around a truck or train car while being shipped across the country, you really can't grow the same sort of juicy tomato you'd grow in your backyard. It's a compromise between taste and durability. Neither the farmers nor the retailers can afford to have the produce arriving half squished or rotting on the truck during shipment. But, it means I can buy an avocado in Ohio, even if it's not as good as the one I might be able to buy at a farm stand in California. The only alternative would be to have less variety of produce and instead only buy what is locally grown (within the state instead of across country). However, we've all grown more "exotic" tastes and I think it would be hard to go back to folks on the east coast not having a clue what an avocado is or folks on the west coast struggling to find cranberries for Thanksgiving dinner. I don't even know if we could go back to that system since so much of our former farmland has houses and shopping malls and interstate highways built on it now.

Organic is great if you have it available at a local farm stand and can buy just enough for a day or two at a time, but I don't really think it's worth the extra expense at the grocery store where it's still mass-produced, tasteless varieties (you're just paying extra for bugs and horse manure :-p), or if you are someone who only has time to do the grocery shopping once a week or once every two weeks and need produce that will last in the fridge a while.

I haven't had the experience you've had with bananas. Your grocery store might just have too slow of turnover and has older bananas out for sale, or the stock clerks might toss them around and bruise them more. When mine turn all black and spotty on the outside, they're just soft and ripe inside and ready for being made into banana nut bread (I don't like eating soft bananas).
 
  • #11
Skyhunter said:
I buy organic fair trade because I want to support the small farmers, not the corporate farms. Where I live there is no scarcity of organic produce.
I hate to break it to you, but small farmer does not equal organic food. My grandfather (recently retired) owns a ~65 acre farm. When I asked him about the debate over organic foods, he damn near laughed at me. But then, he did about 1/3 soybeans, and pretty much all soybeans today are GM (also 1/3 corn, 1/3 potatoes, plus a small garden of a couple thousand square feet, maybe a row or two of pumpkins and strawberries). And the thought of not using pesticides was pretty amusing to him.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
I accidentally went into a "Whole Foods" supermarket once and felt like I had ants crawling over me the whole time I was in there. It gave me the heebie jeebies. I needed a shower after I left. Pay twice the price for inferior food? What are they smoking (yes, I already know the answer to that question)?

All GM and chem'd up (bug free) for me, baby.
:smile: Every once in a while I need to go into one of those for an ingredient I can't get at the regular supermarket. The one near here has very little produce and mostly packaged goods. Some brands I never knew were organic (I'm not even sure they really are now either), and never in my life paid as much as they charge for them...they are regular brands in the NJ grocery stores, so I learned to just fill my suitcase when I visit my sister. Oh, but the whole foods (or some related type store) in Ann Arbor, MI was the place to buy the really good microbrew beers. :biggrin:
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
I hate to break it to you, but small farmer does not equal organic food. My grandfather (recently retired) owns a ~65 acre farm. When I asked him about the debate over organic foods, he damn near laughed at me. But then, he did about 1/3 soybeans, and pretty much all soybeans today are GM (also 1/3 corn, 1/3 potatoes, plus a small garden of a couple thousand square feet, maybe a row or two of pumpkins and strawberries). And the thought of not using pesticides was pretty amusing to him.
There's a caution on the USDA website that I came across a while ago that tells corn producers not to label their product GMO-free. In other words, the USDA is saying it's impossible to know if it is or isn't, and there has probably been too much cross-fertilization to say any of it isn't. I don't have any problems with it anyway, since in many cases, it's just a matter of speeding up the process of genetic selection by taking genes for resistance to disease and sticking them into the plants rather than taking the time to do all the generations of selective breeding to get the same gene into the plant naturally. Though, organic and GMO-free aren't the same either. A lot of people seem to have this misconception, but if you grow GM crops without pesticides, you can still label them organic. It also doesn't even mean you didn't kill the pests. You can sit out and shoot the rabbits from the garden and pluck the bugs off and stomp on them and it's still organic as long as you didn't use any pesticides or poisons. I point this out because there are also people who think organic means no animals or insects were harmed to grow it.

I still prefer biting into an apple and feeling fairly confident I'm not going to find half a worm in it.
 
  • #14
Kerrie said:
btw, i have been in the packing houses for apples where the wax is applied, and after smelling it, i always wash my apples before i eat them. :smile:

Wait there's a wax on apples? Wouldn't that be water resistant? So you'd have to use some kind of detergent to get it off, and not just water?

 
  • #15
rachmaninoff said:
Wait there's a wax on apples? Wouldn't that be water resistant? So you'd have to use some kind of detergent to get it off, and not just water?
Yes, wash your apples with soapy water.

And biting into them, you'll notice that the redness of the skin has bled into the apple a few mm. What do you think that is...?
 
  • #16
The soap running? :-p :biggrin: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Yes, wash your apples with soapy water.

And biting into them, you'll notice that the redness of the skin has bled into the apple a few mm. What do you think that is...?

You should wash them even if they didn't have wax on them!

Russ, where and what kind of apples do you buy?! I've never seen anything like that with the redness penetrating into the skin. Then again, I rarely buy an apple that's sold all red looking. The only ones that appear that way to me are the red delicious variety, but those are a rather bland, soft apple and seem to spoil too quickly. I prefer things like Fuji, Braeburn, Jonagold, and Gala varieties. Oh, now you've reminded me of the ONE thing I used to like about MI. I lived only a few miles from an orchard, so in the fall, I could get the apples that were just picked, and they grew the Jonagold variety (along with some of the more tart varieties like Granny Smith...I like using those in pies, but not for eating uncooked). :approve:

My grandfather used to have apple, pear, peach and plum trees (I think they still have a few peach trees, but sold off the property that had the other trees on it and they were taken down to build a house on that property :frown:). There is nothing better than fruit right from the tree. Then again, even though he used pesticides and spent ridiculous amounts of time trying to chase off birds and squirrels, the rest of us would have been happy to share some of them with the bugs and birds when he showed up at our house with bushels and bushels of fruit in the fall that then needed to be canned.

On the other hand, I bought a variety of apple recently...okay, not too recently...a few months ago I guess...I had cut half of it into pancakes for breakfast and had the other half sitting on the counter while I ate breakfast. When I went back to it later to clean up all the dishes, it hadn't turned brown like you'd expect the cut edge of an apple to do. This seemed really odd, so I left it out on the counter longer. By the end of the day, it still hadn't turned brown! There were a few little specks of what looked more yellow or gold than brown, but they were just tiny specks. I don't usually leave apples sitting around like that so was pretty impressed with it. I was tempted to go out and buy a bunch of varieties of apples and cut them in half and leave them out to find out how many have this trait now (maybe I'll do that in the fall and make a big apple pie and just leave out a slice of each variety to see what happens). But, hey, if it means you don't have to rub your apples with lemons to put them out as slices on platters, and they still taste good, I'm all for it!
 
  • #18
I see, it's an issue of locality of crops.

(I'll wash all my apples from now on, btw)
 
  • #19
Moonbear said:
Russ, where and what kind of apples do you buy?! I've never seen anything like that with the redness penetrating into the skin. Then again, I rarely buy an apple that's sold all red looking. The only ones that appear that way to me are the red delicious variety, but those are a rather bland, soft apple and seem to spoil too quickly.
I don't buy apples much - my mom used to comment on it every now and then. And yes, for eating, bright red isn't the best anyway. But they do make for pretty Christmas decorations...
 
  • #20
red delicious are very bland...pink lady, fuji, galas are for me!
 
  • #21
Granny Smiths, all the way!

If fruit isn't sour, it's not worth bothering with!
 
  • #22
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:



Edit: (Grin added) When I read this later, I did not like the tone. It was said with a grin, not a snarl... Sorry.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Kerrie said:
red delicious are very bland...pink lady, fuji, galas are for me!
Red Delicious are best fresh off the tree, they do not stay crisp for any length of time, by mid winter they are inedible in my opinion.

As said by Moonbear, all apples are best fresh off the tree.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
Yes, wash your apples with soapy water.

And biting into them, you'll notice that the redness of the skin has bled into the apple a few mm. What do you think that is...?
I've had some apples bleed that way, I think they were red delicious (which are NOT delicious). I agree with the gala, fuji and pink lady as favorites.

You also have to wash or peel cucumbers, those are very heavily waxed.

I have peach, pear and plum trees, but my plum tree just died. :cry: Deer ate my cherry and apple trees. The JAWS OF DEATH ate my blueberry bushes, and my raspberry & blackberry vines. :devil: I still have one grapevine left, half chewed.
 
  • #25
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:
Amen, brother!
 
  • #26
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
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 accommodate the packaging that those products "need". However, a forest mustn't be mowed down to accommodate 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
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. :-p

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

o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #30
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
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
jimmie said:
You are not correct.
I guess next you're going to say chocolate is not necessary.

We all know that chocolate raspberry coffee is the nectar of the gods.
 
  • #33
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
We all know that chocolate raspberry coffee is the nectar of the gods.

How does that substance make you "feel"?

o:)
 
  • #35
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
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
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
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
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)
 
  • #40
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 possesses 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
jimmie said:
If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possesses 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:

Similar threads

Replies
37
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
53
Views
10K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
39
Views
14K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Back
Top