Organic is healthier
 

According to scientists in Brazil, I know some of you that constantly complain that those opposed to chemical farming are acting purely on emotion and not listening to what science tells us.Well I have to ask, is it just the scientists that agree with you we should believe?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...vitamin-C.html

Wow! Larger tomatoes have less vitamin C than smaller ones. I wonder if potatoes that weren't irrigated to the max have more vitamins per pound, too? :whistlin:

They dont mention whether both farms raised the same VARIETIES of tomatoes.
That seems like it would make a difference to me. :shrug:

REAL studies have shown there are NO nutritional differences in organic and conventional produce.
The OP's source says that also:

Quote:

A U.S. review of research studies published last year found that while organic fruits and vegetables may taste better, there is no evidence that their nutrition value is higher.

This one is an opinion piece on a BLOG:

Quote:

Writing in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE

,

My bet is that each plant takes up a similar amount of calcium from the soil, but the conventionally farmed plants had a larger volume of fruit to distribute it to.

Better go back and take another look friend..... The "C" is vitamin C .... not calcium

.... otherwise if it was calcium your analysis would have been 100% correct

Lordoftheweeds,

Thank you for the article. At this point in my life, I have doubts about what our U.S. scientists say about the food supply.

I can believe that a plant grown in manure is both tastier and healthier than one doused with oil-based fertilizers and pesticides.

OOPS! Same logic could apply though. How is vit C taken up by the plant? From the soil, synthesis, or a combination of the 2?

I know that watermelons and cantaloupes raised under semi drought conditions are far sweeter than over irrigated melons. A crop expert told me its simply a matter of less water while the melons are growing concentrates the sugars.

Seem it would be the same with vitamins in tomatoes and such.

any studies done between commercially grown produce(whether organic or not) and "homegrown" produce where you maximize nutrients and nutrient sharing /uptake abilities of soil and plants?

to be classified "organic" just means chemicals applied or not...there's a whole heck of a lot more that goes into how a plant sucks up nutrients from the soil.

it's my gut feeling that produce I raise myself, by making healthy vigorous plants in nutrient packed soil, is gonna be more nutritious for my body--for one thing I'm cycling through local nutrients, and another there is the thing of "happy" food, etc. There's a lot of things we dont' understand yet scientifically, for instance the michorizzal relationships has only been understood recently. Some things are worth going with your gut, and time certainly compounds effect. So far in my life I've avoided flouride, chlorine, hydrogenated fats, fake sugars, antibiotics and I have no shadow of a doubt I'm healthier for it. Anecdotal of course, but I'm happy with the results.

I really doubt vit C would survive composting. I'd say synthesized . I think vit is the one requiring sunlight ???

Amen to that.

While Big Ag continues to pack the gov't with officials and Supreme Court justices and Chief of the USDA (or whatever position BO gave Monsanto's Vilsack) - "scientific studies" mean ZILCH in my book, too.

It's so very, very clear that the deck is stacked and not in the favor of human health by the powers that be. Or at least it is clear to those of us who do not make a living producing that crap. :rolleyes:

Some scientists are for organic .... or at least not biased against..... can they be trusted ?????

I feel for my own consumption that organic or pesticide free is my best choice. The nutritional differences found in either pesticide treated or untreated does not matter to me but it makes no sense that organic would not be better for you. I do not want to ingest chemicals made to kill bugs and other pests...It is just a down to earth common sense view in my world that what is designed to kill the little things in life, can't be that good for us bigger things? I mean I do not want to detail scientific reasons why organic is healthier because my common sense says, it sure can't be worse for your health? So my own opinion is yes, what I grow here with no pesticides will be better for me then that which is at the store treated with pesticides, herbicides, anti mold, anti fungus chemicals and so on, that does not even take into account the soil treatments... Horse meat in your hamburger anyone? Oh wait be sure to drug up the horse first and then...shhhh do not tell anyone. As long as we say hamburger is good for you...can we hide the truth of what is in it or just ignore it.??? I can color this any way I want for a good discussion but I can't feel that chemicals designed to kill things sound safe or wise! I have never seen produce labeled with every chemical etc that they applied on it listed clearly and disclosed for me to read....oh that is ok load me up....:shrug: :heh::heh: I am sorry I am sidetracking the thread..laugh and carry on! :)

Regardless of nutrient content, I tend to like the taste of organic foods a bit better, and prefer ingesting a little less herbicide/pesticide.

Gosh, it's been quite a few years ago, but I recall reading of a study that compared organic sweet corn to commercial sweet corn, and the finding was that the organic corn contained 27% more flavonoids. Why should that be important? Because flavonoids are the plant's immune system. A bug bites the plant and the plant responds by increasing the amount of flavonoids. Commercial crops have reduced amounts of bugs, their immune system does not develop with the same vigor as organic.

Why does that matter? Because high flavonoid content in your diet strengthens your immune system.

We really are what we eat.

And we are what they eat, too. Nothing is isolated; all is one.

So it's a my science is better than yours because my science agrees with me kind of thing. Remember that the peer reviewed consensus was that the world was flat and it was heresy to suggest otherwise. Sort of reminds me of the current climate surrounding food.

I figured probably so, so the logic still applies. If the same amount of leaf has to support less tomato mass then that mass will have higher vitamin content.

Now that said, I wonder what the study ignored. Seems that such a study would look at more than a single nutrient. Have you asked why the study didn't mention other nutrients? Maybe because the results were not so favorable?

while discussing organic vs non organic..which is better a ford or chevrolet. ?

Common sense! Of course it is healthier to eat food that has not been exposed to chemicals. Its not even debatable.

Conventional chemical methods have their place as they allow us to produce more food with less expense. Chemically produced foods feed the world, but like everything else there is a price to pay for that. Organic production costs more but is healthier. It wasn't too long ago that I remember cigarette companies arguing that there was no scientific proof that cigarettes are unhealthy...they used similar arguments to what we are hearing from some here who rush to their computers to evangilize anytime anyone mentions anything negative about chemically processed food. But then, as now, most of us with common sense knew that inhaling chemical laden smoke was probably unhealthy. Likewise, eating foods that are produced and saturated with chemicals is also probably not the best thing for you ;)


On the other hand, starving or going broke to feed yourself organically might not be a good idea either.

Thing is that we don't know that organic necessarily means better soil and nutrients as there is no requirement about it except that pesticides and chemicals aren't used. Maybe nothing is used and it is grown on dead soil. There are no guarantees. The word organic doesn't really cover much of anything. I believe that happy organically fed plants produce better tasting and vitamin packed food buttt you can't compare commercially grown with garden grown because the plants themselves have been bred for size, shipping and yield per acre and not nutrition or flavor when it comes to commercial crops. On the other hand garden seeds are a totally different critter. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Are commercially grown huge acres of commercial seeds raised under organic conditions being compared to inorganic conditions of the same seeds etc. A truck farmer can pick and choose tasty garden quality seeds for his crops. They are not suitable for commercial production. The home seed catalogs are full of seeds that have higher nutritional qualities--it is one of the things gardeners want but seems to be of no interest to commercial growers. The studies are totally worthless unless the seed varieties are the same etc.

Personally I think using less chemicals to grow your food is healthier for both your physical being and the environment even though it may not be practical to feed the numbers we are currently feeding using purely organic methods. But I have to laugh a bit at those who seem to think "organic" is somehow inherently better tasting or somehow doesnt contain GMOs etc. There is plenty of tasteless organic produce and plenty of very tasty conventional produce and it is more a factor of the growing conditions, freshness, when it was harvested and its storage.

We grow an organic truck garden (though not certified) and I have come to find that we are all conditioned to think certain things are more healthy or tasty or should look a certain way. My tomatoes are luscious and tasty but the varieties we mostly grow are heirloom and they are not smooth and round and most are not a uniform red and they just dont sell as well as the blood red smooth varieties we also grow. Last year we grew a few varieties of more traditional looking tomatoes (also heirloom) that had less flavor but because they looked like what people thought a tomato should look like our sales went up by a factor of 5. In a similar vein, if you think organic tomatoes taste better you will pay the extra cost at your grocer and think they taste better even though much commercially grown "organic" produce comes from Mexico and has the same loss of flavor and nutrients as commercial varieties due to shipping, storage and when it was harvested.

Lots of city folks without gardens of their own want a perfectly round, plump, smooth red tomato because they think that is what a good tasting tomato looks like while a lot of people more in tune with how things are grown seek an organically grown tomato and think it has to have spots, blemishes and be either multi color or something other than a uniform red because that is what they think will taste better. Neither is necessarily or uniformly true but its peoples expectations that drive a lot of markets.

Corn is another example, I dont care if you grow GMO corn and spray it for every possible bug or weed or you grow heirloom corn organically once you pick it the flavor starts to go. cvk is spot on IMO, my vegetables are more tasty because I select my crops for taste and when I sell its either directly from our roadside stand where I go out and harvest what a customer wants (usually taking them along) or I sell at markets where the harvest was the same day. If I harvest for shipment to a grocer or distributor and the produce will wait for a few days before hitting the market I would be forced to harvest at a different time in the crops cycle and the flavor from sitting a few days would be diminished.

Try it yourself with your own gardens, my heirloom tomatoes if harvested at the peak of ripeness last only a few days til they start to degrade and if you refrigerate any tomato (regardless of how grown) it changes texture and loses flavor. Corn is even worse, when I want really good tasting corn for my own table I pick a few ears right before I cook it, pick it the day before and throw it in the refer before cooking and it tastes completely different.

In the end its all what makes you happy but a lot of the organic devotees that dont grow their own have some false expectations.

I like you "technical" interest here !!!!!

I am thinking the vitamin content is genetically determined and not influenced by the environment. The OP trial was not scientifically designed and is not trustworthy.

:peep:

You are assuming environmental factors other than the amount of sunlight could affect vitamin levels ..... This has not been credibly established as fact .... or has it .... I will check with an internet search and report back here

There's been no "science" presented to prove organic is more nutritious.

This is one "study" with NO DATA given, from some "scientists" promoting their OWN PRODUCT.

The majority of ACTUAL studies state otherwise
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

Without commenting on the quality of the article itself, I do want to respond to the claim that PLoS ONE is a blog. This is not true. It is actually a real, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is online-only because that is how most scientists read articles these days, as well as to keep costs down (thus allowing it to publish more articles). It is less selective than many older journals like Nature or Science because it does not require that articles meet certain criteria for novelty and impact -- you don't have to prove that your results are unexpected and earth-shaking to publish them in PLoS ONE. However, every article is peer-reviewed to ensure that there are no major scientific flaws in the methodology of the study.

Thank you Daybright for your comments regarding the PLoS One.

A scientific study would require a randomized plot trial which is the standard method for evaluating crop performance in the field. Not difficult to do at all.

Comparing organically grown at one farm to chemically grown on another farm in an experiment to determine if the two methods produce different vitamin levels is a major scientific flaw in methodology .

I like organically grown food, I like the way it tastes and that my friends is good enough "research" for me.

I happily pay a bit extra for the produce and fruit I buy and if I can get it locally, all the better. It tastes better. I know my tomatoes that I raised last year did not last "for days and days" and tasted like biting into warm sunshine when I ate them.

I don't care how long a store bought tomato sits out to ripen, it NEVER has tasted like one grown at home, in real soil, with no chemicals.

that is just my opinion and really, isn't that what all this is about anyway? If you don't want to buy organic, then don't. Buy regular stuff at the grocery store.

Funny thing though, I have read many farmers don't eat what they grow, they have their own "garden" and the way their personal stuff is grown is quite different that what is grown "in the commercial field".

Wonder why that is? ;

Please do not interpret my criticism as being anti organic.

This kind of research I do like !!!!!!!!!!

http://extension.psu.edu/susag/news/...osium-fieldday

The actual study says the gains in nutritional density were due to STRESS on the plants.
If that is true, then logically, conventionally grow plants could be "stressed" and acheive the same results


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0056354
Funny how they claim "oxidative stress" is a GOOD thing
I wonder if they tested for any of the harmful chemicals it produces?:

Quote:

Oxidative stress reflects an imbalance between the systemic manifestation of reactive oxygen species and a biological system's ability to readily detoxify the reactive intermediates or to repair the resulting damage. Disturbances in the normal redox state of cells can cause toxic effects through the production of peroxides and free radicals that damage all components of the cell, including proteins, lipids, and DNA. Further, some reactive oxidative species act as cellular messengers in redox signaling. Thus, oxidative stress can cause disruptions in normal mechanisms of cellular signaling. In humans, oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development of many diseases or may exacerbate their symptoms.[1][2] These include cancer,[3] Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease,[4] atherosclerosis, heart failure,[5] myocardial infarction,[6] Schizophrenia[7][8] Bipolar disorder,[9][10] fragile X syndrome,[11] Sickle Cell Disease,[12] lichen planus,[13] vitiligo,[14] autism,[15] and chronic fatigue syndrome.[16] However, reactive oxygen species can be beneficial, as they are used by the immune system as a way to attack and kill pathogens.[17] Short-term oxidative stress may also be important in prevention of aging by induction of a process named mitohormesis.[18]

What is science?

Science is an approved method.

I can't be convinced that is true but even if it is, the known effects of the chemical fertilizers and pesticides in and on "conventianlly" grown foods should be enough to make any sane person eat organic.

There is NO DIFFERENCE in "chemical fertilizer" and the chemicals in any other type of fertilizer.
It's just a popular buzzword to instill fear in those who don't think it through

Nitrogen is Nitrogen, no matter what the source
The "known effects" are that it makes plants grow, and nothing more.
:shrug:

You can't wash off the residue of all pesticides. That is the primary reason I grow my fruits/veggies organically. It doesn't stop there, because I am frugal. I use Comfrey to make fertilizer, compost, and use composted manure. I use natural methods of pest control, buy no store-bought mixes.

The quality of the soil, not the "fertilizer" fed to the plants is what makes a difference in nutrition. In the past 50 years, the nutrition level of commercially grown fruits/vegetables has dropped substantially. However, growing in virgin soils, properly caring for the soil, crop rotation, not following the mono-culture model, using Heirloom seeds, and companion planting all goes a long way in producing fruits and vegetables containing higher nutrition levels.

About those pesticides...mmmm Well here is a link explaining how each one works. There is of course my favorite kind, Systemic. This kind absorbs into the plant as it is developing and then fruiting..this will never wash out and you will be consuming it with every bite of what fruit it has been used on. There is no disclosure on the chemicals placed on fruits and vegetables and there really should be.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/a_3.htm#how

I have found if you buy the large mixed organic greens, usually you get a pretty good price on those, want it to last a lot longer? Just open it, place a few unbleached napkins inside or paper towels. Then close the lid and place it upside down in fridge. This really helps extend the life of your greens! We have specific organic produce we can buy at almost the same price as non organic. That is due to the stores we go to. We grow what we can in season but not in season we know where to buy and have a specific selection that is more affordable, we have changed the variety! I do not buy apples for instance as the organics are way expensive on the mainland but organic bananas are not badly priced. I get apples here pesticide free in season and make a years worth of apple sauce at a time. I have canned apple pie slices and so on. I freeze berries, make jams/jellies and so on with any other veggie I can do. Canning what you are able to get that is not treated with pesticides is a very good idea. If you are buying all of your food, it is very hard to eat strictly organic unless you have stores that are better at pricing them.

I have never tasted a better pear than the ones I can pick off a tree! These were never treated with pesticides and the soil was rich with no chemicals added. I use Seaweed and rotten Nettles in my garden to add to my compost!

That's an often repeated LIE. Columbus and pretty much the whole world has KNOWN the world was round at least since classical Greeks observed it's shadow on the moon during an eclipse. What was miscalculated was the size of it.

That is a big enough flaw that it would not pass peer review.

I was going to say this.

And a plant could care less where the source of nitrogen comes from.

In a large scale, pelletized nitrogen fertilizer is not only less expensive to use, it's also safer because it doesn't carry a risk of e.coli like manure.

And organic doesn't mean pesticide free. Organic foods can be sprayed with any chemical also deemed organic...and just because that chemical maybe organic doesn't mean it's safe for consumption.

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/4DMG/VegFruit/organic.htm

Pyrethrins are severely toxic to fish, but can be organic.

True, and just because something MAY taste better to some in no means does that indicate it is Healthier, or more in Nutrients, just means a person likes it better that is all, and they both have the same amount of nutritional properties in them for a person.

As to farmers not eating what they produce. My uncle had a grade AA dairy and they NEVER used their own dairy products. Why farmers don't eat what they produce is a mystery and I doubt there is a logical reason. My uncle prefered to go to the store for dairy products. They didn't eat the grains and veggies they produced either for sale. They had a garden. Not for any particular reason other than taste--garden vegetable varieties taste better than commercial ones out in the field because they are SELECTED for flavor genetically.