Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables

Note: Week ago I listened to an hour long presentation by a Keynote Speaker and Lecturer on "Mechanistic" (outside in) vs. the "Vitalistic" (whole body) approaches to modern medicine. The "New Start" his summary was as follows: Nutrition: Buy Organic for the minerals content (especially Asparagus, Spinach and Carrots) along with lean protein; Exercise: Walking (preferably early in the day) is preferred because it resets the biorhythms of the human body; Water: Drink one half of your body weight in lbs. / in ounces each day (180 lbs. = nine 10 ounce glasses daily); also that Watermelon contains the highest beneficial alkaline content which the acidic content of the body requires... I'll continue with "Start" if there's interest.

Q. Does this doctor sound credible and what are your views on the benefits of Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables?
___________________________________________________________

Forgot to mention that this Keynote Speaker and Lecturer on "Mechanistic" (outside in) vs. the "Vitalistic" (whole body) approaches to modern medicine stated that 68% of all prescription drugs dispensed in the world are currently consumed by US Citizens. He then further stated that pain medications and muscle relaxants are routinely prescribed for many if not most patients even before definitive diagnoses have been made. Corporately he was critical of Monsanto and others in the farming chemicals industry for providing farmers with products which marginally meet government safety standards.

The New Start mnemonic continued with Sunshine: Encouraging all able bodied in the audience to avail themselves of some exposure whenever weather permitted to this "excellent" source of Vitamin D; Temperance: or Self Control [intentionally stronger words than 'moderation] he advocated with respect to foods and beverages with known harmful toxicities or other chemical properties which in excess may interfere with normal body organ functions ["eat and drink clean"]; Air: Proper intake while exercising should be through the nostrils with exhale through the mouth; Rest: The emphasis here was on consistency, rather than stipulated times and/or hours; Tone: The nexus between thought and body sounded like a rehash
of psychosomatic illness awareness without specificity. His emphasis was also on Whole Grains. I'd grade the lecture a C-.

Postscript Regimen: For the past year I've been buying (a) Tropicana Pomegranate Blueberry Juice; (b) Ziegler's Apple Cider; (c) Bolthouse Farms 100% Carrot, (d) Blue Goddess and (e) Berry Boost Juices. My health cocktail recipe [lol] is one part each (a) and (b); with two parts of (c), (d) and (e) which I serve over ice in a tall tumbler two thirds full and then top it off with Diet Canada Dry Ginger Ale. Eight to ten of these drinks have become my liquid intake in lieu of water. After evening meals I enjoy black coffee over ice with oatmeal, ginger or molasses cookies. I welcome your comments and criticisms.

According to a recent study, the less informed a consumer is, the more likely they are to buy branded products (and the less likely they will be able to afford them).

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28451696

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since they found traces of pesticides on the organically produced stuff, one would imagine so as otherwise they shouldn't have found any residues at all.

I don't think it follows. I think some organic farmers probably do use non-organic pesticides (people cheat) , and there are also ways for non-organic pesticides to get onto organic products by accident.
But insects need controlling, so how do the organic farmers do it? And what are the consequences to the products? Were these consequences tested for?

But nitrates in organic matter tend not to leach through the soil so quickly.
Evidence please. When I looked up nitrate pollution, every link said 'fertilizer and manure'.
The biggest cause of river pollution is soil erosion which has to do with ploughing and how you maintain your soil. This is however not that strongly related to whether or not you are an organic farmer.

Also, while it's not compulsory (AFAIK) they encourage crop rotation, so nitration is done by planting legumes for a season or clover over winter.
Although this may be more common with organic farmers, it is not technically a part of organic farming. ie non-organic farmers can do this too - and probably should. Also, do you have any evidence that the nitrates do not leach in this case?

Bear in mind that the "scientific" approach of Thatcher's government in the late 80's insisting that BSE was not a threat to human health, with the excuse that there was no scientific proof that it was, has left us with 177 dead (the last person to start showing symptoms of vCJD did so within the last two years) and up to 250,000 people carrying the disease in a symptom free fashion. People who argued were labelled as anti-science then. So I'm wary about scientific claims for the food chain that are at odds with (my) intuition or against precautionary approaches.
I have not labelled you anti-science in this thread. In fact, most of my comments so far are telling you to be wary of scientific claims in the food chain that are at odds with my intuition. The only difference is, that the claims are being made by organic farmers.
I certainly can't see how your example of Thatcher's government politics supports organic farming in any way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think it follows. I think some organic farmers probably do use non-organic pesticides (people cheat) , and there are also ways for non-organic pesticides to get onto organic products by accident.
But insects need controlling, so how do the organic farmers do it? And what are the consequences to the products? Were these consequences tested for?
...[text shortened]... an't see how your example of Thatcher's government politics supports organic farming in any way.

But nitrates in organic matter tend not to leach through the soil so quickly. (DeepThought )
Evidence please. ( twhitehead )

I just happen to have REAL expertise in that field ( called “soil science” ) and have C&G credentials on this and organic matter does generally release nutrients more slowly than than most chemical fertilizers.
The nutrients from most chemical fertilizers releases into the soil are identical to those released by manure and most other organic fertilizers i.e. they have identical chemical formula. This means that, once they are released, they leach through the soil just as quickly. The only thing that is different about those from organic fertilizers is that they tend to be released more slowly because microbes and fungi have to first break them down to release minerals in a form that plants can absorb.

One thing that DeepThought has failed to understand here is that how quickly the nutrients leach out of the soil this is irrelevant to the issue of the environment because it is not how quickly each molecule of nutrient on average leaches out of the soil that really counts but how much nutrients in total leach out of the soil before they have a chance to be picked up and absorbed by the crop. So it isn't the speed of the leaching process in particular that is the key factor here. One of the problems with organic fertilizers is that they release nutrients more slowly and that means they continue to release the nutrients even when the crop is not absorbing much or well after the crop is harvested which means much of those nutrients don't have a chance to be absorbed by the roots of the crop before they are leached away through the whole of the soil profile and just wasted to pollute rivers etc. One big advantage of most chemical fertilizers, and this is especially true for nitrogen-based ones because they tend to be more mobile in the soil, is that they can be applied to the crop at the exact time when the crop can absorb the nutrients with maximum efficiency and then stop releasing the nutrients later on when the crop doesn't need so much nutrient thus reduce the proportion of the nutrients from the fertilizer that fails to be absorbed by the roots and just ends up being leached out and wasted.

I have heard from another real expert on this of some research that has actually shown that manure causes MORE nitrate leaching and nitrate pollution than ammonia nitrate fertilizers because of this but currently don't know of any specific links on that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think it follows. I think some organic farmers probably do use non-organic pesticides (people cheat) , and there are also ways for non-organic pesticides to get onto organic products by accident.
But insects need controlling, so how do the organic farmers do it? And what are the consequences to the products? Were these consequences tested for?
...[text shortened]... an't see how your example of Thatcher's government politics supports organic farming in any way.

There is stuff about cadmium toxicity on the wikipedia page. A major contributor is cigarette smoking. I think the problem is it tends to build up, so eating it in sub-toxic but elevated quantities can create problems over time.

One approach to insect control is to encourage predators. The conventional pesticide approach tends to kill everything, so for aphid control they advocate releasing ladybirds (this is from memory, I think I read it on the soil association website). Accidental contamination, for example from a neighbouring farm should be a lot smaller than any direct route.

With one crop (Maize I think, again this is from memory) pesticides kill a weavel thing that damages the crop, this allows in a fungus in response to which the plant produces some alkaloid or other which is harmful to humans - it depends on the plant (this is from the reference I was giving in the GM thread).

There's not a vast amount of point rotating crops if one is using artificial fertilizer, not having to is the point of using it. Good point about manure, if they are using slurry then it has different properties to a crop rotation system where the field is just used for animal grazing for a season. I'll see if I can find a reference for that last point and for the nitration route point.

With the BSE point, the Soil Association are concerned about animal welfare and what the animal is fed so a bad health outcome transmitted to the human population due to animal overcrowding compensated for by antibiotics (for example) is not possible as organic methods rule that particular practise out. I assume (but don't know for certain) that the feeds which caused the BSE outbreak couldn't be used on organic farms

I wasn't thinking about you particularly, and was thinking more about the GM thread when I mentioned "anti-science".

Originally posted by humy

But nitrates in organic matter tend not to leach through the soil so quickly. (DeepThought )
Evidence please. ( twhitehead )

I just happen to have REAL expertise in that field ( called “soil science” ) and have C&G credentials on this and organic matter does generally release nutrients more slowly than than most chemical fertilizers.
Th ...[text shortened]... onia nitrate fertilizers because of this but currently don't know of any specific links on that.

Over-nitrification will create problems however it's done. Nitrates put into the soil which have gone below the level at which crop roots can reach them will just leach wherever diffusion takes them. Did this research make any assumptions about whether the soil was in use or not?

What level was the C&G?

Originally posted by DeepThought
There is stuff about cadmium toxicity on the wikipedia page.

Although it did mention fertilizer as one possible source, it seems polluted water is the more common reason for high cadmium in crops.
But you still didn't answer my actual question - which was whether or not the levels the detected were serious enough to cause health issues.

One approach to insect control is to encourage predators. The conventional pesticide approach tends to kill everything, so for aphid control they advocate releasing ladybirds (this is from memory, I think I read it on the soil association website).
But I very much doubt that this is the only, or even the most popular way of controlling pests amoungst organic farmers. It is far more likely that they do use insecticides, but ones that they can get classified 'organic' by some means.

There's not a vast amount of point rotating crops if one is using artificial fertilizer,
It depends on the cost of the fertilizer. In Zambia it is one of the largest costs for a farmer so it is often worth doing crop rotation to reduce the requirements.

With the BSE point, the Soil Association are concerned about animal welfare and what the animal is fed so a bad health outcome transmitted to the human population due to animal overcrowding compensated for by antibiotics (for example) is not possible as organic methods rule that particular practise out.
Yes, but organic farming methods introduce a whole lot of other health risks. It is not inherently more likely to result in healthier food.

I assume (but don't know for certain) that the feeds which caused the BSE outbreak couldn't be used on organic farms.
I don't see why not. They were perfectly 'organic' as far as I know.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Over-nitrification will create problems however it's done. Nitrates put into the soil which have gone below the level at which crop roots can reach them will just leach wherever diffusion takes them. Did this research make any assumptions about whether the soil was in use or not?

What level was the C&G?

Over-nitrification will create problems however it's done.

This is true whether the nitrogen comes from organic fertilize or chemical fertilizer. The answer is, of course, to use fertilizer in moderation regardless of what sort it is.

Did this research make any assumptions about whether the soil was in use or not?

What does that mean? I heard that the total amount of annual leaching was directly measured from the soil profile so no need for any assumptions.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables

Week ago I listened to an hour long presentation by a Keynote Speaker and Lecturer on "Mechanistic" (outside in) vs. the "Vitalistic" (whole body) approaches to modern medicine. The "New Start" his summary was as follows: Nutrition: Buy Organic for the minerals content (especially Asparagus ...[text shortened]... und credible and what are your views on the benefits of Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables?[/b]

I personally prefer organic fruits and vegetables not only because they taste much nicer (they actually have a taste) but also because we must reduce the use of pesticides. I am not speaking for us consumers, but for the farmers. They are the ones dying with cancer and other diseases after all these years of intensive use. Not mentioning sterilization, big prob in the long run. Long ago I heard on the radio that man is a species in extinction, the poor chap is unlucky to be XY, while us girls double XX will end up hermaphrodite.
Doesn't sound very exciting. 🙁

In any case, it is practically impossible to have 100% organic products considering that the wind, the insects, the birds, etc... spread seeds around. The same goes for GMO's. Our world has not only become small in social & economic terms (market village) but also in agriculture. Specially in Europe where space is fairly limited.

But I still choose organic and buy from the local producers who provide smaller but tastier fruits & veggies. 🙂

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It is a myth that organic food is healthier than non-organic food. In addition, organic food puts an additional strain on the environment because of its lower yields, and it puts a strain on the economy because of its greater costs in overhead, retail and logistics. So for ethical and financial reasons, it is best to avoid organic food.

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables

Note: Week ago I listened to an hour long presentation by a Keynote Speaker and Lecturer on "Mechanistic" (outside in) vs. the "Vitalistic" (whole body) approaches to modern medicine. The "New Start" his summary was as follows: Nutrition: Buy Orga ...[text shortened]... ck coffee over ice with oatmeal, ginger or molasses cookies. I welcome your comments and criticisms.

Questions: 1) To what extent do artificial sweeteners decrease caloric intake? and 2) What is metabolic syndrome? Also, the speaker mentioned Genetically Modified Food and can liners that contain BPA: Any comments? Thanks for all of your posts.

The Dangers of Diet Soda November 26, 2013 | Van Halsema

"I was surprised that a client ended our session last week by asking me, “Do you have a diet soda in the studio? I am so thirsty, I’ve got to have one!” I smiled and told him I was sorry, that all I had was bottled water. He motivated me to write a post on diet soda, since hydration is not only an essential part of our workout lives, but also of our daily lives.

Did you know that according to a recent study by Harvard Medical School, drinking diet soda every day is associated with doubling your risk of kidney decline? Or that the acidity of the soda may be causing dental erosion? And the American Academy of Neurology says that if you are drinking four or more cans a day, you are 30% more likely to be suffering from depression.

The November 2013 Prevention Magazine not only mentions the above facts, but also says that stroke and heart attack can increase by as much as 43% if you are downing more that 1 can a day. There are other articles being written about metabolic syndrome, and diet soda is linked to a 34% higher risk.

And neither do diet sodas help you lose weight! A study at the University of Texas found that drinking two or more sodas a day increased waistlines by 500% because the brain feels tricked into thinking it is eating sugar so the body just craves more and more.

A final note, just about all diet sodas contain mold inhibitors. Most regular sodas do not. These inhibitors can cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they inactivate it according to MSN Healthy Living. Some companies are replacing these mold inhibitors, but the new preservative, potassium benzoate, is still a mild irritant to the skin and the eyes and the mucous membranes.

By the way, there are many studies showing that drinking from the soda can itself can be harmful. The MSN post states that the cans have a coating of the endocrine disruptor bisphenaol A (BPA), which has been connected to heart disease and reproductive problems.

So, please consider some other options when whetting your whistle!"

http://www.liveto110.com/dangers-diet-soda/

Thanks to an RHP friend, the myth's dispelled. I had erroneously believed Diet Canada Dry was the Ginger Ale of choice.

For Humy and DeepThought.

Although not directly related to organic foods, this paper I edited/proofread 4 weeks ago has now been published. It concerns heavy metals in soils only. However, it is of some relevance as it mentions that the types of local soils and rainfalls are an important factor in adsorption. The English is not perfect, as the paper was re-adjusted after I sent it back. However, it is easily readable, compared with the half-Thai/half-English paper I originally received, but was only given 12 hours to complete!

I thought you'd find it of interest, particularly yourself Humy, as it may concern other areas of your presumed work... 😉

http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/23.3/Pol.J.Environ.Stud.Vol.23.No.3.853-865.pdf

-m.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information?

Which information specifically?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The Dangers of Diet Soda

I do not know how accurate any of those claims about Diet Soda are, however I do agree that it is healthier to not drink it than to drink it. The same applies to most junk food.