Re: The Myth Of Organic

[Guest guest]

To claim that organic is a myth because big business has gotten into the game is

a frail

argument. While many organic firms have been taken over by larger corporations

and

produce organic to the " letter of the law " , there are still significant small

producers, local

growers, farmer's cooperatives, and medium to large size companies that produce

quality

organic foods in just the ways you envision.

The fact that organic milk and eggs may, in some instances, come from factory

farms does

not change the fact that these farms, unlike the traditional ones you buy from,

cannot use

antibiotics, growth hormones, chemical pesticides and herbicides and have to

feed their

animals feed that conform to the same requirements. In fact, while Stoneyfield

has grown

into a large producer and requires milk from multiple sources (still organic)

they actually

appear to be doing a good job of maintain the organic standard in spirit and

practice.

I have aoften been suprised that for a group so focused on " optimal nutrition "

that there is

such disregard for organic, lack of concern for pesticide residue and no

discussion at all

about the higher nutritional value of eating local and organic produce.

There are a variety of great books out there that talk about the negative

components that

go into non organic food and talk about the value, with scientific evidence to

support it,

for both organic, and even more importantly, local organic produce that does not

have to

travel the globe to get to your plate. For those of you that are interested the

book Real

Food is excellent, Harvest of Hope is interesting, What to Eat is very detailed

and even Eat,

Drink & Be Healthy by Harvard's top nutrition maven is a good general tome.

Omnivore's

Dilema, the book of the moment, addresses some of the " big organic " issues.

If you want to differentiate between brands of milk so that you don't lump

Safeway " O " in

with Strauss Organic (just like you shouldn't lump Wonder " Bread " with the

breads you

likely buy (if you eat bread) then do a bit of web research - there is a great

site that talks

about " maintaining the integrity of organic milk " and ranks milk producers by

various

criteria that really helps show the range of differences that exists in organic

dairy, just like

they exist in every other category.

Milk site is http://cornucopia.org/index.php/dairy_brand_ratings/

What is important is to understand that their is variety of quality in all

things and as

consumers we need to make educated choises to obtain the best products.

>

> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm?chan=search

>

> The Organic Myth

> Pastoral ideals are getting trampled as organic food

> goes mass market

>

>

> Next time you're in the supermarket, stop and take a

> look at Stonyfield Farm yogurt. With its contented cow

> and green fields, the yellow container evokes a

> bucolic existence, telegraphing what we've come to

> expect from organic food: pure, pesticide-free,

> locally produced ingredients grown on a small family

> farm.

>

> So it may come as a surprise that Stonyfield's organic

> farm is long gone. Its main facility is a

> state-of-the-art industrial plant just off the airport

> strip in Londonderry, N.H., where it handles milk from

> other farms.

>

[Guest guest]

Considering that the " idea " most people have of what

organic implies and what is often promoted as by both

the industry, the peddlers and the supporters, and the

" reality " of the current state of the industry... with

its watered down guidelines, reduced standards, and

change in philosophy (i dont think they ever meant for

there to be " organic twinkies " )..

Considering that the label " organic " doesnt even mean

" organic " anymore , by the FDAs own standard...

I would call the typical consumers concept of

" organic " and the current status of organic a " myth " .

But, that is just MHO.

There were some recent discussion on all the above in

the last month or two and I posted a long article

Regards

Jeff

Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of

Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.

Authors: Magkos, Faidon, Arvaniti, Fotini, Zampelas,

Antonis

Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition

Jan 2006, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p23-56.

Abstract:

Consumer concern over the quality and safety of

conventional food has intensified in recent years, and

primarily drives the increasing demand for

organically grown food, which is perceived as

healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence,

however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound.

Although there is an urgent need for information

related to health benefits and/or hazards of food

products of both origins, generalized conclusions

remain tentative in the absence of adequate

comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be

expected to contain fewer agrochemical

residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet,

the significance of this difference is questionable,

inasmuch as actual levels of contamination

in both types of food are generally well below

acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber

organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate

content compared with conventional ones, but whether

or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to

human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand,

no differences can be identified for

environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other

heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food

from both origins. With respect to other food

hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological

pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available

evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized

statements. Also, results for mycotoxin

contamination in cereal crops are variable and

inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is

difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but

what should be made clear is that 'organic' does not

automatically equal 'safe.' Additional studies in this

area of research are warranted. At our

present state of knowledge, other factors rather than

safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.

[Guest guest]

I would agree that SOME organic brands do not represent the ideal that consumers

envision, but that is not the whole picture. You have to pick your vendors just

like in any

other area.

Also, there have been many attempts to dilute and weaken the " Organic " standard

as

presented by the USDA, but by and large those efforts ahve failed due in alrge

part to

consumer outcry. For those that want more stringent standards the Oregeon

Tilth, and

even more so the Japanese from what I understand, have stricter guidleines than

the

USDA. The USDA is not a great friend to the consumer in any area (being tasked

primarilly

with promoting industry and not health), but the standard is still a good one

and, if not

weakened, a far better choice than most.

Many producers are going " beyond organic " in that they hold to what they

consider a

higher standard which often encompasses sustainability which is not addressed in

the US

standard.

I agree that Organic Twinkies as a concept is a joke, but I am focussing on

Produce and

Dairy Products. if people can't see through the marketing hype (how about candy

corn

" made with honey " ) that junk food companies use to soften the impact then that

is their

own limited intelect or desperate need for a rationalization.

What I fear is that people will throw out the baby with the bath water - look at

Stonyfield's

response - they support family farms, they buy organic milkl from family farms,

they are

active in building the organic milk supply. Another member forwarded me the

link so

Stoneyfields point by point:

Setting the Record Straight

http://www.stonyfield.com/AboutUs/setting_the_record_straight.cfm

Organic remains, IMHO, a far better choice even if you don't research who the

better

vendors are.

>

> Considering that the " idea " most people have of what

> organic implies and what is often promoted as by both

> the industry, the peddlers and the supporters, and the

> " reality " of the current state of the industry... with

> its watered down guidelines, reduced standards, and

> change in philosophy (i dont think they ever meant for

> there to be " organic twinkies " )..

>

> Considering that the label " organic " doesnt even mean

> " organic " anymore , by the FDAs own standard...

>

> I would call the typical consumers concept of

> " organic " and the current status of organic a " myth " .

>

> But, that is just MHO.

>

> There were some recent discussion on all the above in

> the last month or two and I posted a long article

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

> Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of

> Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.

> Authors: Magkos, Faidon, Arvaniti, Fotini, Zampelas,

> Antonis

>

> Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition

> Jan 2006, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p23-56.

>

> Abstract:

> Consumer concern over the quality and safety of

> conventional food has intensified in recent years, and

> primarily drives the increasing demand for

> organically grown food, which is perceived as

> healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence,

> however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound.

> Although there is an urgent need for information

> related to health benefits and/or hazards of food

> products of both origins, generalized conclusions

> remain tentative in the absence of adequate

> comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be

> expected to contain fewer agrochemical

> residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet,

> the significance of this difference is questionable,

> inasmuch as actual levels of contamination

> in both types of food are generally well below

> acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber

> organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate

> content compared with conventional ones, but whether

> or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to

> human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand,

> no differences can be identified for

> environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other

> heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food

> from both origins. With respect to other food

> hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological

> pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available

> evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized

> statements. Also, results for mycotoxin

> contamination in cereal crops are variable and

> inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is

> difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but

> what should be made clear is that 'organic' does not

> automatically equal 'safe.' Additional studies in this

> area of research are warranted. At our

> present state of knowledge, other factors rather than

> safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.

>

[Guest guest]

We recently had a discussion about the article in this post:

/message/24099

in which a scientist claims that the residue in pesticides is negligible. Also we've had other posts from authoritative sources that state rinsing in either plain water or a vinegar/water rinse rids most produce of pesticides.

on 10/19/2006 2:38 PM, Jeff Novick at chefjeff40@... wrote:

Considering that the " idea " most people have of what

organic implies and what is often promoted as by both

the industry, the peddlers and the supporters, and the

" reality " of the current state of the industry... with

its watered down guidelines, reduced standards, and

change in philosophy (i dont think they ever meant for

there to be " organic twinkies " )..

Considering that the label " organic " doesnt even mean

" organic " anymore , by the FDAs own standard...

I would call the typical consumers concept of

" organic " and the current status of organic a " myth " .

But, that is just MHO.

There were some recent discussion on all the above in

the last month or two and I posted a long article

Regards

Jeff

Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of

Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.

Authors: Magkos, Faidon, Arvaniti, Fotini, Zampelas,

Antonis

Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition

Jan 2006, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p23-56.

Abstract:

Consumer concern over the quality and safety of

conventional food has intensified in recent years, and

primarily drives the increasing demand for

organically grown food, which is perceived as

healthier and safer. Relevant scientific evidence,

however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound.

Although there is an urgent need for information

related to health benefits and/or hazards of food

products of both origins, generalized conclusions

remain tentative in the absence of adequate

comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be

expected to contain fewer agrochemical

residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet,

the significance of this difference is questionable,

inasmuch as actual levels of contamination

in both types of food are generally well below

acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber

organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate

content compared with conventional ones, but whether

or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to

human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand,

no differences can be identified for

environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other

heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food

from both origins. With respect to other food

hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological

pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available

evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized

statements. Also, results for mycotoxin

contamination in cereal crops are variable and

inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is

difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but

what should be made clear is that 'organic' does not

automatically equal 'safe.' Additional studies in this

area of research are warranted. At our

present state of knowledge, other factors rather than

safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food.

[Guest guest]

Hi Atherben:

" I have often been surprised that for a group so focused on " optimal

nutrition " that there is such disregard for organic, lack of concern

for pesticide residue and no discussion at all about the higher

nutritional value of eating local and organic produce. "

Thank you for that input.

From my point of view the question at issue is: " What is

important? " Naturally my perception may be wrong, and I may find

myself sometime in the future changing my view.

However, my present perception in that more important are things

like: how to adjust my fat intake to do the best I can to get the

optimal amount and type (similarly protein and carbs I suspect also,

but I haven't really got to that yet!); what specific steps to take

to avoid various types of very nasty diseases; how to eat a range of

foods each week to ensure an adequate intake of all the important

nutrients even with a low caloric intake - especially those that not

many foods contain. These keep me more than busy ferreting through

studies that I hope will help me find the answers.

By contrast, just my present opinion of course, whether some food

item, while 50% more expensive, may have 10% more nutrient content of

some nutrient I may have plenty of already; or worrying about

microscopically small traces of substances some serious sources

consider trivial (see the post on this that Francesca referenced); or

being alarmed about polychlorinated biphenyls in fish, when the

amounts claimed are measured in parts per TTTrillion (although the

press release about the supposed contamination took the trouble to

make sure they did *not* mention the word " trillion " , but expressed

the concentration instead in terms the vast majority reading it would

not understand was almost infinitessimally small).

I might change my mind if I were to see some carefully conducted

studies showing that mice or monkeys or whatever live longer or are

perceptibly healthier if they eat organic instead of regular foods.

Certainly that would make me sit up and take notice. If you know of

any such studies (published in peer-reviewed journals) it would be of

great help to people like me who remain largely ignorant of the

dangers of consuming non-organic vegetables, etc..

Rodney.

>

> To claim that organic is a myth because big business has gotten

into the game is a frail

> argument. While many organic firms have been taken over by larger

corporations and

> produce organic to the " letter of the law " , there are still

significant small producers, local

> growers, farmer's cooperatives, and medium to large size companies

that produce quality

> organic foods in just the ways you envision.

>

> The fact that organic milk and eggs may, in some instances, come

from factory farms does

> not change the fact that these farms, unlike the traditional ones

you buy from, cannot use

> antibiotics, growth hormones, chemical pesticides and herbicides

and have to feed their

> animals feed that conform to the same requirements. In fact, while

Stoneyfield has grown

> into a large producer and requires milk from multiple sources

(still organic) they actually

> appear to be doing a good job of maintain the organic standard in

spirit and practice.

>

> I have aoften been suprised that for a group so focused on " optimal

nutrition " that there is

> such disregard for organic, lack of concern for pesticide residue

and no discussion at all

> about the higher nutritional value of eating local and organic

produce.

>

> There are a variety of great books out there that talk about the

negative components that

> go into non organic food and talk about the value, with scientific

evidence to support it,

> for both organic, and even more importantly, local organic produce

that does not have to

> travel the globe to get to your plate. For those of you that are

interested the book Real

> Food is excellent, Harvest of Hope is interesting, What to Eat is

very detailed and even Eat,

> Drink & Be Healthy by Harvard's top nutrition maven is a good

general tome. Omnivore's

> Dilema, the book of the moment, addresses some of the " big organic "

issues.

>

> If you want to differentiate between brands of milk so that you

don't lump Safeway " O " in

> with Strauss Organic (just like you shouldn't lump Wonder " Bread "

with the breads you

> likely buy (if you eat bread) then do a bit of web research - there

is a great site that talks

> about " maintaining the integrity of organic milk " and ranks milk

producers by various

> criteria that really helps show the range of differences that

exists in organic dairy, just like

> they exist in every other category.

>

> Milk site is http://cornucopia.org/index.php/dairy_brand_ratings/

>

> What is important is to understand that their is variety of quality

in all things and as

> consumers we need to make educated choises to obtain the best

products.

>

> --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@>

wrote:

> >

> > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm?

chan=search

> >

> > The Organic Myth

> > Pastoral ideals are getting trampled as organic food

> > goes mass market

> >

> >

> > Next time you're in the supermarket, stop and take a

> > look at Stonyfield Farm yogurt. With its contented cow

> > and green fields, the yellow container evokes a

> > bucolic existence, telegraphing what we've come to

> > expect from organic food: pure, pesticide-free,

> > locally produced ingredients grown on a small family

> > farm.

> >

> > So it may come as a surprise that Stonyfield's organic

> > farm is long gone. Its main facility is a

> > state-of-the-art industrial plant just off the airport

> > strip in Londonderry, N.H., where it handles milk from

> > other farms.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Feb;61(1):19-24.

Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or

shades of green? CM.

High Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition, School of Human

Nutrition, School of Food Biosciences, University of

Reading, UK. c.m.williams@...

Consumer concern regarding possible adverse health

effects of foods produced using intensive farming

methods has led to considerable interest in the health

benefits of organically-produced crops and animal

products. There appears to be widespread perception

amongst consumers that such methods result in foods of

higher nutritional quality. The present review

concludes that evidence that can support or refute

such perception is not available in the scientific

literature. A limited number of studies have compared

the nutrient compositions of organically- and

conventionally-produced crops, with a very small

number of studies that have compared animal products

(meat, milk and dairy products) produced under the two

agricultural systems. Very few compositional

differences have been reported, although there are

reasonably consistent findings for higher nitrate and

lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced

vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables. Data

concerning possible impacts on animal and human health

of diets comprising organic or conventional produce

are extremely sparse. Data from controlled studies in

animal models, particularly within single species, are

limited or poorly designed, and findings from these

studies provide conflicting conclusions. There are no

reports in the literature of controlled intervention

studies in human subjects. Comparison of health

outcomes in populations that habitually consume

organically- or conventionally-produced foods are

flawed by the large number of confounding factors that

might contribute to any differences reported. If

consumer perceptions regarding potential health

benefits of organic foods are to be supported, more

research of better quality is needed than that which

is currently available.

PMID: 12002790

[Guest guest]

if you dont mind Francesca... I am just adding some

more to our " data base " ...

Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2003 Sep;54(5):357-71. Links

Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A

review of the evidence.Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas

A.

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio

University, Athens, Greece.

Apparently, one of the primary reasons for purchasing

organic food is the perception that it is more

nutritious than conventional food. Given the

increasing interest towards organic food products, it

is imperative to review the existing literature

concerning the nutritional value of the produce, and

to determine to what extent are consumer expectations

met. There are only few well-controlled studies that

are capable of making a valid comparison and,

therefore, compilation of the results is difficult and

generalisation of the conclusions should be made with

caution. In spite of these limitations, however, some

differences can be identified. Although there is

little evidence that organic and conventional foods

differ in respect to the concentrations of the various

micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and trace

elements), there seems to be a slight trend towards

higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown

leafy vegetables and potatoes. There is also a trend

towards lower protein concentration but of higher

quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops.

With respect to the rest of the nutrients and the

other food groups, existing evidence is inadequate to

allow for valid conclusions. Finally, animal feeding

experiments indicate that animal health and

reproductive performance are slightly improved when

they are organically fed. A similar finding has not

yet been identified in humans. Several important

directions can be highlighted for future research; it

seems, however, that despite any differences, a

well-balanced diet can equally improve health

regardless of its organic or conventional origin.

PMID: 12907407

[Guest guest]

Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci. 2005;70(3):351-63. Links

Comparison of health status between organic and

conventional products.La Torre A, Leandri A, Lolletti

D.

CRA-Plant Pathology Research Institute via C.G.

Bertero 22, I-00156 Roma, Italy.

This paper reports the results of two trials carried

out to estimate the hygienic-sanitary status of

samples obtained from organic farming in comparison

with products obtained from conventional agriculture.

In three years of activity were carried out analyses

on samples of common or durum wheat and on processing

products like. flour, bran, macaroni and bread

obtained from biological and conventional method. Also

samples of vegetables and fruits were analyzed. The

laboratory analyses have been focalized on qualitative

and quantitative evaluation of fungal contamination

and surveying of pesticide residues level. The great

size of collected data has not highlighted substantial

differences between the two analyzed typologies. About

pesticide residues levels, generally they proved to be

contained under the Italian legal limit, so both these

products can be considered healthy under a

hygienic-sanitary profile. The trials should be

extended also to other cultivations like herbs,

fruit-trees and vegetables to improve our knowledge's

about qualitative and hygienic differences beyond the

two methods of production and defense.

PMID: 16637200

[Guest guest]

Food Addit Contam. 2005 Jun;22(6):514-34.

Quality of organically and conventionally grown

potatoes: four-year study of micronutrients, metals,

secondary metabolites, enzymic browning and

organoleptic properties.

Hajslova J, Schulzova V, Slanina P, Janne K, Hellenas

KE, Andersson Ch.

Institute of Chemical Technology, Department of Food

Chemistry and Analysis, Prague, Czech Republic.

Jana.Hajslova@...

The quality of potatoes from organic and conventional

farming was investigated in this study. Tubers of

eight potato varieties, organically and conventionally

produced at one or two geographical sites in

controlled field trials, were collected in four

consecutive harvests from 1996-1999. The parameters

analysed included nitrate, trace elements (As, Cd, Co,

Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn), vitamin C, potato

glycoalkaloids, as well as chlorogenic acid,

polyphenol oxidase and rate of tuber enzymic browning.

The results indicated lower nitrate content and higher

vitamin C and chlorogenic acid content to be the

parameters most consistently differentiating

organically from conventionally produced potatoes.

Elevated concentrations of glycoalkaloids were also

observed throughout the experiments in some potato

varieties grown in organic farming systems. Principal

component analysis (PCA) of the analytical and other

data using three PCs confirmed a good separation

between the organically and conventionally produced

potatoes when studied in single crop years. However,

score-plots (objects) and loading-plots (variables) of

pooled results from the consecutive harvests showed

that between the years' changes and also variety as

well as geographical variations are equally or more

important factors determining the quality of potatoes

than the farming system. Further studies of various

marker compounds of potato quality related to the

organic or conventional farming systems should be

performed before unbiased information can be given to

the consumers.

PMID: 16019825

[Guest guest]

The author I previouslly cited has several papers on PubMed on this same topic.

These

two are most relevant and perphaps this is a better format/source for her work:

Worthington V.

NutriKinetics, Washington, DC, USA.

The increasing use of alternative therapies that rely on organically grown foods

has

renewed interest in the relationship between agricultural methods and food

quality. The

purpose of this article is to review the literature produced over the last 50

years

comparing the nutritional quality of organic with conventional crops. Whereas

few studies

have been conducted, there is a trend in the data indicating higher nutrient

content in

organically grown crops. This phenomenon is possibly due to a higher water

content in

conventional crops, which causes nutrient dilution. For individual nutrients,

existing

studies show that organic fertilization practices produce crops with higher

levels of

ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared

with

conventionally grown crops. Although a theoretical rationale exists for possible

effects of

herbicides on nutrient content, few studies have examined the effects of these

or other

pesticides. Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals fed

organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed.

Further

research is required to confirm the trends seen in the existing data and to

clarify the exact

relationships between agricultural management and nutritional quality.

PMID: 9439021 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

- I would note that the information on animal studies showing better growth and

reproduction is more thouroughly detailed in her full article across multiple

studies.

Worthington V.

Nutrikinetics, Washington, DC 20036, USA. nutrikin@...

OBJECTIVES: To survey existing literature comparing nutrient content of organic

and

conventional crops using statistical methods to identify significant differences

and trends

in the data. DESIGN: Published comparative measurements of organic and

conventional

nutrient content were entered into a database for calculation. For each

organic-to-

conventional comparison, a percent difference was calculated: (organic -

conventional)/

conventional x 100. For nutrients where there was adequate data, the Wilcoxon

signed-

rank test was used to identify significant differences in nutrient content as

represented by

the percent difference. Mean percent difference values were also calculated for

each

significant nutrient by study and by vegetable for the most frequently studied

vegetables.

The nutrient content of the daily vegetable intake was calculated for both an

organic and

conventional diet. RESULTS: Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin

C, iron,

magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional

crops. There

were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a

higher

content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy

metals in

organic crops compared to conventional ones. CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be

genuine

differences in the nutrient content of organic and conventional crops.

PMID: 11327522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Just out this week..

No Difference between organic and conventional wheat..

SCIENCE NEWS (Scientific American)

October 18, 2006

Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not

Matter

http://www.sciam. com/article. cfm?chanID=

sa003 & articleID= 0000D361- A2C3-1536- 9DDD83414B7F0000

& ref=nature

Peer-reviewed article at:

J. Agric. Food Chem., 54 (21), 8301 -8306, 2006.

Metabolite Profiling of Wheat Grains (Triticum

aestivum L.) from Organic and

Conventional Agriculture

Christian Zorb, Georg Langenkamper, Betsche,

Karsten Niehaus, and Aiko

Barsch

Abstract at:

http://pubs. acs.org/cgi- bin/sample. cgi/jafcau/

2006/54/i21/ abs/jf0615451. html

Abstract (text):

In some European community countries up to 8% of the

agricultural area is

managed organically. The aim was to obtain a

metabolite profile for wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) grains grown under comparable

organic and conventional

conditions. These conditions cannot be found in plant

material originating from

different farms or from products purchased in

supermarkets. Wheat grains from a

long-term biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional

farming system from the

harvest 2003 from Switzerland were analyzed. The

presented data show that using

a high throughput GC-MS technique, it was possible to

determine relative levels

of a set of 52 different metabolites including amino

acids, organic acids,

sugars, sugar alcohols, sugar phosphates, and

nucleotides from wheat grains.

Within the metabolites from all field trials, there

was at the most a 50%

reduction comparing highest and lowest mean values.

The statistical analysis of

the data shows that the metabolite status of the wheat

grain

from organic and mineralic farming did not differ in

concentrations of 44

metabolites. This result indicates no impact or a

small impact of the different

farming systems. In consequence, we did not detect

extreme differences in

metabolite composition and quality of wheat grains.

Full-text at: (link works for me but I probably have

subscriber status)

http://pubs. acs.org/cgi- bin/sample. cgi/jafcau/

2006/54/i21/ pdf/jf0615451. pdf

[Guest guest]

Ben: Doesn't this author herself publish " NutriKinetics " : Isn't she affiliated with the organization? If so, that would be a conflict of interest. I notice that there are no other names on these two publications. Granted that the articles are in Pubmed, but are there any other published studies (by other scientists) that have backed up these studies?

In contrast we have many studies by many different authors cited here that disagree with this. So which conclusion would you expect us to believe?

on 10/19/2006 4:51 PM, atherben at narasin@... wrote:

The author I previouslly cited has several papers on PubMed on this same topic. These

two are most relevant and perphaps this is a better format/source for her work:

Worthington V.

NutriKinetics, Washington, DC, USA.

The increasing use of alternative therapies that rely on organically grown foods has

renewed interest in the relationship between agricultural methods and food quality. The

purpose of this article is to review the literature produced over the last 50 years

comparing the nutritional quality of organic with conventional crops. Whereas few studies

have been conducted, there is a trend in the data indicating higher nutrient content in

organically grown crops. This phenomenon is possibly due to a higher water content in

conventional crops, which causes nutrient dilution. For individual nutrients, existing

studies show that organic fertilization practices produce crops with higher levels of

ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared with

conventionally grown crops. Although a theoretical rationale exists for possible effects of

herbicides on nutrient content, few studies have examined the effects of these or other

pesticides. Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals fed

organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed. Further

research is required to confirm the trends seen in the existing data and to clarify the exact

relationships between agricultural management and nutritional quality.

PMID: 9439021 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

- I would note that the information on animal studies showing better growth and

reproduction is more thouroughly detailed in her full article across multiple studies.

Worthington V.

Nutrikinetics, Washington, DC 20036, USA. nutrikin@...

OBJECTIVES: To survey existing literature comparing nutrient content of organic and

conventional crops using statistical methods to identify significant differences and trends

in the data. DESIGN: Published comparative measurements of organic and conventional

nutrient content were entered into a database for calculation. For each organic-to-

conventional comparison, a percent difference was calculated: (organic - conventional)/

conventional x 100. For nutrients where there was adequate data, the Wilcoxon signed-

rank test was used to identify significant differences in nutrient content as represented by

the percent difference. Mean percent difference values were also calculated for each

significant nutrient by study and by vegetable for the most frequently studied vegetables.

The nutrient content of the daily vegetable intake was calculated for both an organic and

conventional diet. RESULTS: Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron,

magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There

were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a higher

content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in

organic crops compared to conventional ones. CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be genuine

differences in the nutrient content of organic and conventional crops.

PMID: 11327522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Guest guest]

Let me ask a dumb question.

You know it takes a lot of chemical fertilizer for regular crops, right? Condensed stuff, probably 4 or 5 times the volume and weight of high strength fertilizers.

So where do they get all that organic material used to fertilize organic crops?

Regards,

Re: [ ]The Myth Of Organic

[Guest guest]

jwwright wrote:

>

> Let me ask a dumb question.

> You know it takes a lot of chemical fertilizer for regular crops,

> right? Condensed stuff, probably 4 or 5 times the volume and weight of

> high strength fertilizers.

> So where do they get all that organic material used to fertilize

> organic crops?

>

By running permaculture systems that integrate animal and plant agriculture.

One concept is to have most of the land (75%) in pasture or other

low-intensity crops to feed to animals. Pasture " produces " nutrients

from two sources: nitrogen fixation in the nodules of leguminous

plants, and erosion of the subsoil. The animals produce a high value

product, and also manure -- you put some of that back (maybe 50%) back

on the pasture, and you put the rest on land that you use to grow

nutrient-intensive crops, such as vegetables.

To make this economical, you can't transport manure very far: this

model doesn't work well for the kind of farms you see in the Central

Valley of California, which can be miles on a side.

Conventional agriculture is a form of mining. We can get away with it

in the breadbaskets of the US, because we've got areas that have

hundreds of feet of alluvium, but it just doesn't work in many parts of

the world. Tropical soils, for instance, cycle organic matter

rapidly: you can get a few years of crops after you cut rainforest,

and then the land is shot. The same process happened in New England,

except it took about 50 years to wreck the soil. Many parts of Europe

depend on large-scale industrial composting programs to maintain the

structure of soil that's been worked for centuries.

It's astonishing to see how manure treatments transform soil. One of

our neighbors put heavy loads of horse manure on pretty crappy clay; in

a few years the soil was beautiful, as black as night, with an

incredible ability to retain water. Unfortunately, he overdid it -- he

had so much nitrogen in the soil that his tomato plants put all their

energy into producing leaves, and none into producing fruits!

Organic dairy is a big success story in the Northeast. Conventional

farmers have to deal with all kinds of health problems caused by

intensive confinement systems: mastisis, for instance, is an economic

killer. It can be treated with drugs (expensive), but then you can't

sell the milk until the drugs have worked out of the cow's system. Many

farmers who switch to less intensive systems find that their production

drops less than their costs do... They get more practical.

If you're going to criticize organic, " free range " and other

standards, it's that they require a number of practices which vary in

value, and often allow many of the worst practices. The miracle of

organic produce in California is the miracle of produce from California

-- cheap labor. A farmer who uses more pasture and less grain might

increase his profits -- but his costs go way up if he needs to use

organic grain to be certified organic. " Deep Litter " systems produce

quality eggs at lower cost than " free range " , and provide a much better

life for hens than the battery systems, but there's no marketing label

that consumers understand for them.

All that said, the people in our other house have a flock of hens, and

I'll tell you: eggs produced by free-range hens that mostly eat seeds

and weeds (in the summer they get just enough imported grain to keep

them coming back to the roost) taste immeasurably better than any eggs

you can buy from the store, organic or not. You'll occasionally have

one explode when you crack it, but that's a small price to pay.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, ,

Recognize that heat animals turn all that into heat, with very little return.

Regardless of the plan there is diminishing returns.

I'm sure that all farmers recycle waste back into the ground of necessity.

So we have to nourish the land with chemicals taken from other parts of the country.

Land depleted by previous owners.

Those fertilizer chemicals are the same that would be found in "organic" farmland, and careful analysis of the soil shows which chemicals must be added.

If you don't move the chemical you move the product of that chemical.

Taken to the limit, fertilizer is a necessity.

Regards.

Re: [ ]The Myth Of Organic

jwwright wrote:>> Let me ask a dumb question.> You know it takes a lot of chemical fertilizer for regular crops, > right? Condensed stuff, probably 4 or 5 times the volume and weight of > high strength fertilizers. > So where do they get all that organic material used to fertilize > organic crops?> By running permaculture systems that integrate animal and plant agriculture.One concept is to have most of the land (75%) in pasture or other low-intensity crops to feed to animals. Pasture "produces" nutrients from two sources: nitrogen fixation in the nodules of leguminous plants, and erosion of the subsoil. The animals produce a high value product, and also manure -- you put some of that back (maybe 50%) back on the pasture, and you put the rest on land that you use to grow nutrient-intensive crops, such as vegetables.To make this economical, you can't transport manure very far: this model doesn't work well for the kind of farms you see in the Central Valley of California, which can be miles on a side.Conventional agriculture is a form of mining. We can get away with it in the breadbaskets of the US, because we've got areas that have hundreds of feet of alluvium, but it just doesn't work in many parts of the world. Tropical soils, for instance, cycle organic matter rapidly: you can get a few years of crops after you cut rainforest, and then the land is shot. The same process happened in New England, except it took about 50 years to wreck the soil. Many parts of Europe depend on large-scale industrial composting programs to maintain the structure of soil that's been worked for centuries.It's astonishing to see how manure treatments transform soil. One of our neighbors put heavy loads of horse manure on pretty crappy clay; in a few years the soil was beautiful, as black as night, with an incredible ability to retain water. Unfortunately, he overdid it -- he had so much nitrogen in the soil that his tomato plants put all their energy into producing leaves, and none into producing fruits!Organic dairy is a big success story in the Northeast. Conventional farmers have to deal with all kinds of health problems caused by intensive confinement systems: mastisis, for instance, is an economic killer. It can be treated with drugs (expensive), but then you can't sell the milk until the drugs have worked out of the cow's system. Many farmers who switch to less intensive systems find that their production drops less than their costs do... They get more practical.If you're going to criticize organic, "free range" and other standards, it's that they require a number of practices which vary in value, and often allow many of the worst practices. The miracle of organic produce in California is the miracle of produce from California -- cheap labor. A farmer who uses more pasture and less grain might increase his profits -- but his costs go way up if he needs to use organic grain to be certified organic. "Deep Litter" systems produce quality eggs at lower cost than "free range", and provide a much better life for hens than the battery systems, but there's no marketing label that consumers understand for them.All that said, the people in our other house have a flock of hens, and I'll tell you: eggs produced by free-range hens that mostly eat seeds and weeds (in the summer they get just enough imported grain to keep them coming back to the roost) taste immeasurably better than any eggs you can buy from the store, organic or not. You'll occasionally have one explode when you crack it, but that's a small price to pay.