Posted on 04/05/2014 3:41:07 AM PDT by markomalley
Comment One of the primary drivers of the growth in organic food sales over the last couple of decades is the perception that organic food is healthier than conventionally farmed food.
It stands to reason, doesn’t it? After all conventional crops depend on chemicals and organic food doesn't.
And we all know that chemicals, in this case mainly pesticides, are bad for you. Ergo organic food should be healthier, and the strong growth in organic food sales (up 2.8 per cent last year, after a few years of downturn during the recession) attests to how popular opinion has accepted this assertion.
This is why the results of a new UK study that looked at cancer risk and the consumption of organic food is so damned inconvenient. Where organic food advocates have pushed organics as a way of reducing cancer risk, the study shows that it makes little difference one way or another. Hence uncomfortable headlines from the likes of the Daily Mail: Eating organic foods does NOTHING to reduce the cancer risk among women, says new study.
6,000 eaters probed
The study in question appears in the latest edition of the British Journal of Cancer and is by Oxford University cancer epidemiology boffin Dr Kathryn Bradbury and co-workers. Part of the Million Women Study funded by Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council, this particular bit of research tracked 623,080 middle-aged British women for almost 10 years and looked at their pattern of organic food consumption and the incidence of 16 different cancer types, as well as overall cancer incidence.
Based on their reported eating habits the women were put into three groups: never, sometimes, or usually/always eating organic food. The headline result showed that eating organic food was not associated with overall cancer incidence one way or another (in fact there was a tiny increased overall risk of about 3 per cent, but it’s the sort of noisy result one can ignore). Look at the specific cancer types and the results are mixed, with some showing increased or decreased risks, but again nothing to be alarmed (or pleased) about.
Of course this has upset some, especially the British Soil Association, the guardian of all things organic in the UK (including being the premier organic certification body in the country).
According to Peter Melchett (aka Lord Melchett or the 4th Baron Melchett, ex-Greenpeace head honcho and now Policy Director at the Soil Association) the study is flawed because certain confounding variables weren’t addressed and because, according to him, the authors don’t understand what pesticides are found in food or how they get into food.
However, he was quick to pick out one of the results for particular attention – the numbers show that there is an apparent 21 per cent decrease in non-Hodgkins lymphoma risk among the women who reported "usually or always" eating organic food.
However, there were other numbers that were not picked out by the Soil Association, the most alarming of which was the apparent 9 per cent increase in the risk of breast cancer. This was a result that the study authors subjected to a series of additional tests and the results still stood. More alarming still was the 37 per cent increase in the risk of developing a soft tissue sarcoma, a form of cancer which is rare and hard to treat. Why no mention of those figures at the Soil Association?
It's all relative
Of course the fact is that all of these figures are dealing with relative risk, which is standard practice in epidemiological studies. To get some perspective, the chances of getting non-Hodgkins lymphoma is about 2.1 per cent, so if the results of this study hold true, then sticking to an always organic diet will reduce that to 1.66 per cent.
The figures for breast cancer are around 12.3 per cent life-time risk, and this will be increased to 13.4 per cent if you go the all organic route. And if you really want to trade punches with the proponents of organic, you can point out that a high-organic diet will lead to more cancers as the incidence of breast cancer is much higher than the incidence of non-Hodgkins.
However, it’s unlikely that this finding is going to do much to dissuade the faithful that the benefits of organics have been over-sold. After all, this is not the first negative study when it comes to organics and health. A systematic review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012 found that: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods".
There were differences reported to do with pesticide residues but nothing to cause alarm. In terms of nutrient content, there was one statistically significant nutrient where organics outdid conventional produce: phosphorous. Now, if you’re starving, then eating organic is the better choice, but if you’re not, then increased phosphorous is pretty much irrelevant as it’s abundant in the diet no matter where it comes from.
Of course it’s the pesticide residues that ultimately drive the idea that organics are better for us. This ignores the fact that even organic food uses pesticides, for example rotenone and pyrethrin, some of which are considered carcinogenic or otherwise hazardous to health.
And, just to throw in some numbers, a study by the United States Department of Agriculture in 2012 found that 4 per cent of organic food samples had pesticide residues above the 5 per cent EPA limit, which technically meant they would have failed the organic certification they carried.
But leaving that aside, the chemophobia of much of the population is stoked by the use of in vitro studies which show that certain pesticides are carcinogenic. However, there is a huge difference between the inside of a petri dish and the inside of a human.
Pesticides are amongst the most heavily regulated chemical agents in the world, and if there was a link to cancer incidence then we would expect to see it in studies such as this one, and in studies that looked at farm workers and others who have greater exposure to pesticides.
One recently published paper looked at the incidence of cancer in agricultural workers in France during the period 2005 – 2009 (the AGRICAN study). It reported that overall agricultural workers were healthier than the general population, with reduced cancer incidence compared to the general population in the same areas. So where are the bodies (so to speak)?
There are, of course, problems with this new study in the UK. For one there was no stratification by type of organic diet – so, for example, we don’t know whether the lymphoma result was skewed by an excess of vegans or carnivores.
And the categories of "never", "sometimes" and "usually/always" are by necessity coarse and difficult to quantify – for example how can you tell how much non-organic food the "usually" group eats?
But for all that, this is study with a large sample size and if there was a positive signal that eating organic protects against cancer you’d expect to see it.
The upshot? It’s probably true to say that spending the pennies (or pounds) you save by eating non-organic on eating MORE fruit and veg is a healthier bet than forking out the extra for "organics". ®
Rosemary is one of the easiest herbs to grow. It grows well in containers for colder climates. I have one plant that started as one limb and is now about a ten foot bush.
Don’t tell me Alice Waters is writing here on a conservative forum!
Seriously, though, even with 7 years of soil restoration (how biblical), it wouldn’t explain how perfect the fruit and vegetables are. But you seem to be hinting and what I am saying: the organic industry is a fraud.
I think that SA article is wrong. I believe regular pasteurized milk in the supermarket is marked with a ‘sell by’, not an expiration, date—and it’s good for up to 10 days after the sell-by date.
I assume because there’s no fat in it.
Maybe he ate it back in the ‘90s.
Food freaks are some of the worst people on earth. They are dedicated to ruining the joy of life for other people. Most, not all, are on the left of the political spectrum.
Sugar is sugar, and so is starch. It is converted by your saliva before it even gets to your stomach. Milk is also full of sugar.
No matter the source, Americans are hooked on the drug which is sugar.
Herbs are very expensive when sold in those tiny little packets. And they turn black after 2 minutes in the fridge. Rosemary is easy to grow in pots in the summertime. Outside, it will come back year after year.
Tell you what. You keep eating what you’re eating. And I’ll keep to this pure foods diet, and maintaining a weight I haven’t been since I was 9 years old....without starving and healthier than ever.<^..^>
Ok nice article but wrong about the merits of artificial food.
Just watch this video and teem me which sweet potato you would rather eat — the “Bud-nip” one, or the organic one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugqjGgWNAY
My Potato Project The Importance of Organic.mp4
The FDA and the Dairy Association duped Americans into thinking drinking milk is good for you.
"One at noon,
One at night,
One along the way.
You never outgrow your need for milk.
Drink three glasses every day."
(a propaganda song)
Most mammals are weaned off of mother's milk at a very young age, that mother's milk is necessary for introducing components for early infant developmental nutrition and resistance to diseases.
No other mammal besides man consumes the milk of another mammal.
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, there's nothing quite like a mouthful of nice cold sour milk to make your day.
Conservative answer:
If there wasn’t a strong market and demand for organic food, it wouldn’t be selling.
It is a choice made freely. If you oppose it, you are something other than a conservative. If you oppose free choice, China and Russia can meet your need just fine.
/johnny
Well, let’s not exaggerate. I have no problem with the demand and selling of organic food. I just think the industry is slipping a rubber peach on a gullible child, to use a Bob and Ray phrase.
Amylase is an enzyme that catalyses the hydrolysis of starch into sugars. Amylase is present in the saliva of humans and some other mammals, where it begins the chemical process of digestion. Foods that contain large amounts of starch but little sugar, such as rice and potato, may acquire a slightly sweet taste as they are chewed because amylase degrades some of their starch into sugar.
The pancreas and salivary gland make amylase (alpha amylase) to hydrolyse dietary starch into disaccharides and trisaccharides which are converted by other enzymes to glucose to supply the body with energy. Plants and some bacteria also produce amylase.
For even better results, avoid sugar completely (which is almost impossible) but your body doesn't even need it.
It makes its own.
It makes its own from vegetables and grain.
Rinse, heat, and put it in a can with lots of salt. Open the can; rinse, heat in microwave; reapply the salt, and eat. Don’t worry about pesticides or poopy.
Why organic will last longer, look fresher, etc. is a function of the fact that it costs more.
Yes, it actually flows in that direction, not the other way.
It’s like the fact that you will find a better orange at the store in NYC than in Florida because it costs more.
If you are paying a premium for something (be it organic, or expensive due to shipping), you will demand a better product for your money. You can check the productivity per acre for organic farms, and it appreciably less then for conventional agriculture. That means some stuff is being left behind because it isn’t up to snuff. Because of the higher cost they can afford that.
In the case of organic milk, it likely means you are using a closer dairy which doesn’t store stuff as long, and the turnover is higher.
Personally I have organic milk delivered to my house. This is not because it is organic (I simply don’t buy into that stuff), but because it is delivered. They wouldn’t deliver normal milk because it is too cheap. The accoutrements follow the cost.
btr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.