Unhealthy Eating Habits: What's Going Wrong?

[NeoDevin]

They're better for you because, there are no harmful chemicals used in the process to grow them.

You mean like fertilizers to ensure that the plants have an optimum balance of nutrients to produce the best quality fruit?

 

[turbo]

You mean like fertilizers to ensure that the plants have an optimum balance of nutrients to produce the best quality fruit?

For many thousands of years, fertilizers have been rotted organic matter, with complex organics and lots of trace elements. I'm not so radical as to think that chemical fertilizers can harm us, but they CAN harm our environment, since they can easily be washed away and lost into our watershed as run-off - more so than complex organic amendments. The more serious problem (in terms of contamination of food) is posed by insecticides, fungicides, herbicides that agri-businesses use to boost their yields. What's good for Con-Agra, Monsanto and ADM is not necessarily what's good for you or your kids or grand-kids, and it is short-sighted and personally irresponsible to think that these huge businesses have food-safety uppermost in their agendas. They do not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The loss of trace elements is an interesting point. I have heard this from the fringe crowd and it would seem to make sense.

Are there critical trace elements that we once got from food but no longer do because they are not replenished with fertilizers.

 

[turbo]

The loss of trace elements is an interesting point. I have heard this from the fringe crowd and it would seem to make sense.

Are there critical trace elements that we once got from food but no longer do because they are not replenished with fertilizers.

I do not know this for certain. Nor is there anybody likely to have pockets deep enough (with some hope of repayment) to fund long-term studies that could track the concentration of trace elements in soils and produce and the long-term health effects of sufficiency/deficiency. It ain't going to happen. The money is behind consolidation, monolithic production, mass-processing ... Nothing for small growers with sustainable methods and personal accountability for the quality and safety of their produce.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A few references that came up on a first pass:

Essential trace elements are required by man in amounts ranging from 50 micrograms to 18 milligrams per day. Acting as catalytic or structural components of larger molecules, they have specific functions and are indispensable for life. Research during the past quarter of a century has identified as essential six trace elements whose functions were previously unknown. In addition to the long-known deficiencies of iron and iodine, signs of deficiency for chromium, copper, zinc, and selenium have been identified in free-living populations. Four trace elements were proved to be essential for two or more animal species during the past decade alone. Marginal or severe trace element imbalances can be considered risk factors for several diseases of public health importance, but proof of cause and effect relationships will depend on a more complete understanding of basic mechanisms of action and on better analytical procedures and functional tests to determine marginal trace element status in man.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/4514/1332

This review compares the content and major food sources of copper, manganese, selenium, and zinc in vegetarian and omnivorous diets. Interactions affecting trace element bioavailability and their impact on the trace element status of vegetarians are discussed. Adult vegetarian diets often have a lower zinc and selenium content but a higher copper and manganese content compared with omnivorous diets. Cereals are the primary sources of copper, manganese, and selenium in most diets and the major source of zinc in many vegetarian diets; flesh floods are the primary source of zinc and secondary source of selenium in omnivorous diets. Despite the apparent lower bioavailability of zinc, copper, manganese, and selenium in vegetarian diets because of the high contents of phytic acid and/or dietary fiber and the low content of flesh foods in the diet, the trace element status of most adult vegetarians appears to be adequate. Children, however, appear to be more vulnerable to suboptimal zinc status, presumably because of their high zinc requirements for growth and their bodies' failure to adapt to a vegetarian diet by increased absorption of dietary zinc.

http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=91385

... The purpose of this report is to identi1r reliable baseline
data for the concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Hg, I,
Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, and Zn in commonly encountered
clinical specimens such as whole blood and its components
and in hair, liver, milk, and urine from adult human
subjects. In addition, results for Al, B, Br, Cs, Li, Rb, V, and
U in selected specimens are also covered. The discussion will
be restricted to “total concentrations” only, and does not
extend to the aspects of speciation.
The expression “normal values” for trace elements has
been deliberately omitted in this report. In practice, it is
difficult to meet all the physiological criteria needed for
defining “normalcy”; such a task requires considerations of,
and compensation for, a number of possible concurrent
phenomena, and correlations are very complex. Thus, baseline
values can be deceptive and the question as to what is
normal may not be easy to answer (5, 6).

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/34/3/474

 

[NeoDevin]

turbo-1, if we're going to talk about environmental impact, you must take into account that organic/natural farming takes more land than "scientific" farming, and takes more water and land than hydroponics. The most environmentally friendly, and healthy food most likely comes from hydroponics (I would guess), since they have the best control over all environmental concerns. Generally the more control we can take over the growth/environment (including nutrients, pests, temperature, sunlight) the more efficiently we can use the land, and the better quality produce we can get.

 

[runner]

I like many of the products sold in natural health foods stores, but here's an example of why we should be careful about the assumptions we sometimes make based on marketing and other non-scientific criteria.

Here's an interesting study from Consumer Reports:

Think premium brands are safer? Overall, chickens labeled as organic or raised without antibiotics and costing $3 to $5 per pound were more likely to harbor salmonella than were conventionally produced broilers that cost more like $1 per pound.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/food-safety/chicken-safety/chicken-safety-1-07/overview/0107_chick_ov.htm"

 

[The Dagda]

They're better for you because, there are no harmful chemicals used in the process to grow them.

See even this is an assertion based on advertising? Can you show me any scientific studies that conclude people who wash their veg particularly and sometimes fruit before consumption, which is probably most are at extra risk? For example as well how on Earth does a potato get exposed to pesticides? Does it get absorbed into the potato by osmosis? Genuinely like to see some evidence here that doesn't come from the Organic Marketing board. Some fruits come with an outer skin you discard so who cares if it's got pesticides on it anyway?

I can see why chickens have less salmonella, but this is irrelevant to me, as I know how to cook properly and to store food safely. If I was going to buy organic, it would be to encourage framers to make the switch as an environmental and business concern, not because of some imagined health benefits.

For many thousands of years, fertilizers have been rotted organic matter, with complex organics and lots of trace elements. I'm not so radical as to think that chemical fertilizers can harm us, but they CAN harm our environment, since they can easily be washed away and lost into our watershed as run-off - more so than complex organic amendments. The more serious problem (in terms of contamination of food) is posed by insecticides, fungicides, herbicides that agri-businesses use to boost their yields. What's good for Con-Agra, Monsanto and ADM is not necessarily what's good for you or your kids or grand-kids, and it is short-sighted and personally irresponsible to think that these huge businesses have food-safety uppermost in their agendas. They do not.

This is what I think, it's not necessarily the direct benefit or adverse effects that are the problem, it is the use of pesticides on the general populaces health. In England we have ridiculously strict European laws that make our waterways and countryside some of the cleanest in the world. Not all countries are so anal about the environment though.

 

[runner]

Now there's a new study out on memory improvement and coloric restriction. I think anyone doing this should make sure that they are meeting all their nutritional needs in their reduced portions through high quality foods and possibly supplementation.

Low-calorie diets improve memory in old age

Category: Medicine & health • Memory
Posted on: January 26, 2009 5:00 PM, by Ed Yong

People diet for many reasons - to fit into clothes, to look more attractive, or for the sake of their health. But to improve their memory? It's an interesting idea, and one that's been given fresh support by Veronica Witte and colleagues from the University of Munster in Germany.

Witte found that elderly people who slash the calories in their diet by 30% were better able to remember lists of words than people who stuck to their normal routine. It's the first experiment to show that cutting calories can improve human memory at an age when declining memory is par for the course.

Link

 

[Evo]

I'd like to see your sources, because many of the infections were linked to Dole brand packaged spinach - a company not known for close cooperation with organic producers. Please provide links to relevant references - the FDA back-tracks that I have found show no such connections.

Starting point:

http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/september/consumeradvice.htm

Turbo, your OWN source shows it was an organic farm, they supply Dole.

Consumers should not eat, retailers should not sell, and restaurants should not serve spinach implicated in the E. coli O1577 outbreak. Products implicated in the outbreak include fresh spinach and spinach-containing products from brands processed by [v]Natural Selection Foods[/b]. The October 4 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) press release lists the brand names that have been the subject of recalls.

Here you go

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1085881&postcount=15

Organic carrot juice paralyzes Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/09/botulism.html

 

[turbo]

turbo-1, if we're going to talk about environmental impact, you must take into account that organic/natural farming takes more land than "scientific" farming, and takes more water and land than hydroponics. The most environmentally friendly, and healthy food most likely comes from hydroponics (I would guess), since they have the best control over all environmental concerns. Generally the more control we can take over the growth/environment (including nutrients, pests, temperature, sunlight) the more efficiently we can use the land, and the better quality produce we can get.

There is a 25-acre greenhouse a few miles south of me that grows vining tomatoes using hydroponics. The tomatoes are called "Backyard Beauties" and while they are remarkably consistent in appearance, and are free from insect damage, etc, they are also over-priced and tasteless compared to the tomatoes (of any variety) grown in my garden. In addition, their shelf-life is very poor, and they start to get wrinkly skin and go soft after just a few days. They are marginally better in quality than the hi-pack varieties normally found in stores, but the much higher cost means that most families end up eating the stuff shipped up from Florida, anyway. Hydroponic growing is a niche activity that can only be supported by concentrating on the more expensive produce on the market.

As for the "more land" statement about organic vs chemical fertilizers, there are some things that you might not know about organic gardens. One important thing is that tilling rotted organic materials (fertilizer) into soil gives the soil a "body" that resists erosion and holds water better than equivalent chemically-fertilized soils. A garden with well-developed organic soil requires very little watering under most circumstances, and it resists erosion during heavy rains. In addition, complex organic materials release their nutrients slowly and steadily as they are broken down by microorganisms in the soil, so nutrients are not leached out in run-off as easily as in chemically-fertilized soil. Good water retention and resistance to run-off leaching are both important advantages for organic farming and for the good of rivers and streams.

When I first moved here, the garden spot was a mess. The soil consisted of loamy clay that got hard as a rock when dry, and turned into a sticky slippery mess when wet. After a heavy rain, there would be a rivulet of mud running out the lowest corner of the garden. Not good. The previous owner used lime and chemical fertilizers exclusively. We were late getting in here, so I planted and hoped for the best, and got very poor crops in return.

Over the next 2 years, I tilled in truckloads of peat and composted cow manure, and have recently added truckloads of old rotted manure from a dairy operation a few miles away, as well as compost made from our own garden waste and vegetable scraps. I never once had to water the garden last summer, and when you reach down and grab a handful of soil, you can squeeze it and make it clump, yet it remains so soft in place that you can pull out weeds with very little effort AND get all the roots so that rhizome-propagating weeds don't come back. Building up this soil required some work and some investment, but the high yields and quality of the vegetables makes it all worth it. I doubt that any commercial farm could rival my garden in produce per unit area. My garden is a little over 1500 ft² and though I can and freeze vegetables all summer (we have two large chest freezers), make salsas and relishes etc, I still have to give away vegetables to neighbors and relatives.

BTW, I am not really new to this. 50 years ago I was helping my mother out in the garden, and we were composting vegetable scraps with coffee grounds, maple leaves from the front yard, and adding that to the garden along with rotted manure. Gardening organically is not a fad - it's a traditional technique.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, your OWN source shows it was an organic farm, they supply Dole.

Thank you - I missed that link between Dole and Natural Selections.

 

[turbo]

I can see why chickens have less salmonella, but this is irrelevant to me, as I know how to cook properly and to store food safely. If I was going to buy organic, it would be to encourage framers to make the switch as an environmental and business concern, not because of some imagined health benefits.

All food has to be handled properly because there are pathogens in soils, regardless of whether or not the produce is grown organically or not. C botulinum and E coli are present in soils and they have to be considered in the processing of all vegetables. Unless the acid content of a canned vegetable is very high, the containers should be processed in a pressure-cooker to kill C botulinum spores because they thrive in anaerobic environments. These spores are so ubiquitous that they show up in honey, too, which is why you should not feed honey to infants until they are regularly eating solid food (pH of their stomach is not low enough to kill the spores until then).

My reasons for going organic extend beyond environmental concerns like water cleanliness and the wish to avoid consuming residual chemicals on produce. My wife and I have to work in that garden, and why should we subject ourselves to exposure to chemicals that are strong enough to kill pests? I also don't want insectivorous birds to poison themselves or their chicks by eating insects with pesticide residue on them, and I certainly don't want to harm any of the pollinators like butterflies and bees.

 

[LowlyPion]

There is a 25-acre greenhouse a few miles south of me that grows vining tomatoes using hydroponics. The tomatoes are called "Backyard Beauties" and while they are remarkably consistent in appearance, and are free from insect damage, etc, they are also over-priced and tasteless compared to the tomatoes (of any variety) grown in my garden. In addition, their shelf-life is very poor, and they start to get wrinkly skin and go soft after just a few days.

I get fresh local when I can myself. Nothing ever hydroponic, except I have gotten that lettuce at the store in the plastic dome with the roots attached, that are hydroponic and that works out quite satisfactorily. I put a 1/4 cup of water in the bottom for the roots and the lettuce stays fresh for at least a month in the fridge and still has a nice crisp to it. But it is a premium price $2 for a head of Boston Lettuce. If I used it more rapidly, I wouldn't bother, but for my consumption the price works as it's in a sweet spot of not needing to discard lettuce or doing without because I wasn't planning on needing any for a bit.

 

[The Dagda]

All food has to be handled properly because there are pathogens in soils, regardless of whether or not the produce is grown organically or not. C botulinum and E coli are present in soils and they have to be considered in the processing of all vegetables. Unless the acid content of a canned vegetable is very high, the containers should be processed in a pressure-cooker to kill C botulinum spores because they thrive in anaerobic environments. These spores are so ubiquitous that they show up in honey, too, which is why you should not feed honey to infants until they are regularly eating solid food (pH of their stomach is not low enough to kill the spores until then).

My reasons for going organic extend beyond environmental concerns like water cleanliness and the wish to avoid consuming residual chemicals on produce. My wife and I have to work in that garden, and why should we subject ourselves to exposure to chemicals that are strong enough to kill pests? I also don't want insectivorous birds to poison themselves or their chicks by eating insects with pesticide residue on them, and I certainly don't want to harm any of the pollinators like butterflies and bees.

All fine reasons.

I see the benefit of the propaganda, I just wonder if people are being mislead. I suppose though if you can afford it there's no harm in buying it for the wrong reasons, if the overall reasons are good enough.

I also wonder if organic food is going to take a bigger hit than other foods because of the world recession; given the rising food costs, some might see it as a luxury they can't afford any more.

Oh and you forgot anthrax.

 

[turbo]

There is propaganda surrounding the organic food business, just as there is anti-propaganda. Usually, neither are all that credible. I am not rabid about avoiding chemical fertilizers, but I have gone the all-organic route in part because it builds soil instead of depleting it.

I hope people can keep buying local organic produce - most of the organic growers that I know are serious stewards of the land and are not pushing the propaganda. Some of them have revived fallow farm-land that would have been lost to encroaching woodland and have brought back vegetable farming as a family business. Many also participate in FedCo's programs designed to preserve crop diversity by propagating heirloom varieties of fruit trees and vegetables - a valuable service that is under-appreciated by the general public. We can't afford to lose that.

I'm not going to bother getting my property certified as "organic" so I can participate in the heirloom seed program because you need some pretty large plots of land (planted in isolation) to avoid cross-pollination. Still, if people were made aware of the valuable services that MOGFA members (Maine Organic Growers and Farmers Assoc.) provide to help protect crop biodiversity, I hope they would be willing to pay just a bit more for the produce.

 

[Ms Music]

I'm not going to bother getting my property certified as "organic" so I can participate in the heirloom seed program

Isn't that only if you sell for profit? I thought you just gardened for your own consumption (and sharing with neighbors).

BTW Turbo, Not sure if I have told you before, but I am extremely envious of your plot of land. I can't wait for the day when I am finally able to live and garden on my land. I love your posts of what your garden is doing and what you and your wife are preserving.

 

[turbo]

Isn't that only if you sell for profit? I thought you just gardened for your own consumption (and sharing with neighbors).

BTW Turbo, Not sure if I have told you before, but I am extremely envious of your plot of land. I can't wait for the day when I am finally able to live and garden on my land. I love your posts of what your garden is doing and what you and your wife are preserving.

Your land has to be certified organic if you want to participate in the heirloom seed/tree program because FedCo only accepts seeds and saplings from certified growers.

I hope some day you get to have your own garden, Ms Music. It is so rewarding to grow and preserve your own food. I started helping my mother garden as a very young child and I still get excited about planning the layout of the garden, ordering seeds, etc. I don't even mind weeding.

 

[NeoDevin]

There is a 25-acre greenhouse a few miles south of me that grows vining tomatoes using hydroponics. The tomatoes are called "Backyard Beauties" and while they are remarkably consistent in appearance, and are free from insect damage, etc, they are also over-priced and tasteless compared to the tomatoes (of any variety) grown in my garden. In addition, their shelf-life is very poor, and they start to get wrinkly skin and go soft after just a few days.

Regarding the flavour, I'm not sure why they would be tasteless, perhaps it has something to do with the environmental factors the plant is exposed to outdoors, I would have to do more research. They are grown indoors, which means that every tomato grown is free from insect damage, and also probably free from pesticides (unless they had an infestation during that crop, which does occasionally happen). This also means that every tomato makes it to the market, and (as long as they are selling), onto someone's table. This reduces waste. Hydroponics is very expensive, and currently is only really economic for premium imported fruits/vegetables, or out of season crops (I don't know why they are trying to compete with in-season tomatoes). As the technology becomes more common place, the prices will decrease (or as population increases, and there's no more farmland, so "conventional" growing becomes relatively more expensive), it will become competitive. At the moment, I agree that they are over-priced when there is a non-hydroponically grown version available (but so is organic produce, I've seen organically grown peppers selling for 2-3 times the price of the imported ones). The shelf life is likely poorer than other varieties because they are vine ripened as opposed to chemically ripened. The shelf life is likely poorer than your own tomatoes, because of the increased time between picking and your table.

For the rest of it: Yes, organic/natural techniques do have some benefits, and many "conventional" farmers would be advised to take notice. I don't know how common it is, but all the farmers I've known (a few, but not a statistically representative sample by any means) use both compost-fertilizer and chemical fertilizers. They use compost (whatever is available cheaply) for the bulk of it, then use chemical fertilizers to ensure that the nutrients are appropriately balanced (to make up any deficiencies in the cheap compost). By regularly testing the soil, they can add the chemical fertilizer on an "as needed" basis, thus reducing total use (and therefore cost), and waste (the run-off that you are so concerned about). This to me seems to be the best of both worlds (though again, I don't know how common it is), as it allows the high production per acre of "conventional" farms, minimizes fertilizer run-off, and maintains the soil (almost?) as well as using all compost fertilizer. They do use pesticides, which you are opposed to, but I would rather rinse off my produce than have lots of waste due to pest damage (or finding "half a worm" in my partially eaten apple).

I have also been involved in gardening in some form or another (right now it's containers, since I'm living in an apartment) since I was 3 (when my mom first let me help her with gardening), and can appreciate the value of good quality soil. I also appreciate the value of being able to add only those nutrients which are required for the optimum balance, which cannot easily be achieved with composted material.

Additional note about hydroponics: In state of the art hydroponics systems, the run-off is precisely zero. In less technologically-advanced systems, the run-off is still much less than both conventional and organic farms.

 

[NeoDevin]

All food has to be handled properly because there are pathogens in soils, regardless of whether or not the produce is grown organically or not.

So first you make the claim that "conventional" produce/food is "contaminated" by various chemicals, but when it's pointed out that organic produce and meats have (greatly) increased incidences of contamination with bacteria, you just brush it off? Our choices seem to be to have traces (if even that much remains) of pesticides (at levels which, to my knowledge, have never been shown to have adverse effects), or to have E-coli bacteria (which is very harmful) in our salads... tough choice.

 

[NeoDevin]

Could a Mentor please move the posts discussing conventional vs. organic farming to a new thread, so we're not derailing this one so much.

Thank you.

 

[turbo]

So first you make the claim that "conventional" produce/food is "contaminated" by various chemicals, but when it's pointed out that organic produce and meats have (greatly) increased incidences of contamination with bacteria, you just brush it off? Our choices seem to be to have traces (if even that much remains) of pesticides (at levels which, to my knowledge, have never been shown to have adverse effects), or to have E-coli bacteria (which is very harmful) in our salads... tough choice.

All soils contain pathogens, not just organic or non-organic garden soil. It is necessary to wash produce to remove pathogens - just common sense. E coli, C botulinum, and other pathogens are found in soils everywhere, not just in soils that have been built up using organically-derived nutrients.

If you wish to claim that organically-produced foods have "(greatly) increased incidence of contamination with bacteria", it might be a good idea to back that up. Also, in your previous post, you claim that commercial farmers use organic fertilizers/compost and only supplement the nutrients with chemical fertilizers. Funny how selective your bacteria are. They will propagate in my soil, but not in soil fertilized with supplemental chemical nutrients. Quite creative but unconvincing arguments.

BTW, it is not a good idea to let chemical companies and agri-businesses determine the "safe" levels of pesticide residue for you. Dow stopped making DBCP in the US because the chemical was causing sterility in men. Dole threatened to sue Dow for breach of contract if they stopped delivering the chemical, so Dow kept producing it off-shore and delivering it to Dole, which sprayed the pesticide on its banana plantations in Central America, poisoning their workers.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_knWbFc1RWGQWx9_Fp4ZF6gVk4Q

And the lawsuits continue.

http://www.bananabook.org/discovolonte/2008/12/save.html

 

[NeoDevin]

If you wish to claim that organically-produced foods have "(greatly) increased incidence of contamination with bacteria", it might be a good idea to back that up.

Think premium brands are safer? Overall, chickens labeled as organic or raised without antibiotics and costing $3 to $5 per pound were more likely to harbor salmonella than were conventionally produced broilers that cost more like $1 per pound.

In addition, as Evo pointed out, the outbreaks of E-Coli were due to organic farming techniques. Maybe I shouldn't have added the "(greatly)", my apologies.

Also, in your previous post, you claim that commercial farmers use organic fertilizers/compost and only supplement the nutrients with chemical fertilizers.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said that the few farmers I knew did this, I did not claim that commercial farmers in general do this.

Funny how selective your bacteria are. They will propagate in my soil, but not in soil fertilized with supplemental chemical nutrients. Quite creative but unconvincing arguments.

They will propagate in any soil, but one subset of farmers is willing to use pesticides and antibiotics.

BTW, it is not a good idea to let chemical companies and agri-businesses determine the "safe" levels of pesticide residue for you.

You'll get no argument from me on this point, there should definitely be testing and regulation.

 

[turbo]

Think premium brands are safer? Overall, chickens labeled as organic or raised without antibiotics and costing $3 to $5 per pound were more likely to harbor salmonella than were conventionally produced broilers that cost more like $1 per pound.

In addition, as Evo pointed out, the outbreaks of E-Coli were due to organic farming techniques. Maybe I shouldn't have added the "(greatly)", my apologies.

This is a myth. According to the FDA:

Q. Are chickens labeled "Kosher," "free-range," "organic," or "natural" lower in Salmonella bacteria?
A. FSIS does not know of any valid scientific information that shows that any specific type of chicken has more or less Salmonella bacteria than other poultry.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/salmonella_questions_&_answers/index.asp

Of course, Perdue and other big producers would have you believe that free-range chickens are more likely to be contaminated. One factor that people miss is that the big producers feed antibiotics to their chickens, and that apart from the % of contamination (which the USDA says is independent of growing methods) chickens that are routinely given antibiotics in their feed may harbor some drug-resistant strains of salmonella that would be tough to treat in humans sickened by them.