Trojan Wurst III: Organic

We live in a world driven by trends.  Organic food (and product) has been one such trend in this country. There are proponents and antagonists in relation to the organic movement; and these factions are militant to their respective points of view.  I hope to put forth some data in this post for clarification on both sides of this issue.

Some antagonists (let's call them "A" camp) state that these trends show a marketing triumph over science reality.  Also, that science evidence is usurped by the philosophy of organic practice.  See:

No Health Benefits from Organic Food

What does this mean?  Let’s look at the practices.

The word "organic" refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. For example, rather than using chemical weedkillers, organic farmers may conduct more sophisticated crop rotations and spread mulch or manure to keep weeds at bay.

Here are some key differences in these farming methods:

Conventional	Organic
Apply chemical fertilizers to promote plant growth.	Apply natural fertilizers, such as manure or compost, to feed soil and plants.
Spray synthetic insecticides to reduce pests and disease.	Spray pesticides from natural sources; use beneficial insects and birds, mating disruption or traps to reduce pests and disease.
Use synthetic herbicides to manage weeds.	Use environmentally-generated plant-killing compounds; rotate crops, till, hand weed or mulch to manage weeds.
Give animals antibiotics, growth hormones and medications to prevent disease and spur growth.	Give animals organic feed and allow them access to the outdoors. Use preventive measures — such as rotational grazing, a balanced diet and clean housing — to help minimize disease.

Of all the reading I did for this post, the polarized factions could only agree on seemingly one thing: Organic agriculture's most relative contribution is that it’s about the relationship of farming to the social and biological environment as a whole, not just to one's immediate biology (the food itself). Aside from antibiotic resistant bacteria, this is in regards to broad ecological impacts of pesticide use, soil quality, erosion and runoff, eutrophication of bodies of water, social and economic consequences of the scale of farming, fossil fuel consumption, air pollution, substitution of capital for labor. Whether that particular head of broccoli has as many vitamins as the next one is not the issue (says the A camp).

The "O" (organic) camp claims organic strawberries look and taste better, have higher levels of vitamin C and other antioxidants, are larger and have a longer shelf life before going bad. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.
1371/journal.pone.0012346*.  (My personal experience is organic strawberries are a lot smaller, much more flavorful and have an extremely short shelf life -- like a day, two days max.  But the flavor! worth their seeming delicate naturalness).  The O-camp also say organic vegetables generally contain higher amounts of minerals and weigh more than conventionally grown ones, organically produced animal meats contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids, and 94-100% of organic grown foods do not contain any pesticide residues.  “Ecological and agronomic research on the effect of fertilization on plant composition shows that increasing availability of plant available nitrogen reduces the accumulation of defense-related secondary metabolites and vitamin C, while the contents of secondary metabolites such as carotenes that are not involved in defense against diseases and pests may increase.  A meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables showed that in organic produce the content of secondary metabolites is 12% higher than in corresponding conventional samples ( P< 0.0001)."*  Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417).  This site includes a meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables and a computer modeled benefit outcome on antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

I include here some of the literature I looked at. In this reading, I became almost more interested in how the research and evidence based inquiry was done and reported, more than the subject matter.  It was like looking at most political discourses; there were almost always two camps with opposite opinions and opposite findings.  There was pointing of fingers in regards to primary investigators on a research study (ie:  "Illegitimate! the author works for Big Tobacco").  Transparency seemed to be no where near an objective.  See ** below. Both factions have an obvious incentive to slant the results of whatever study toward their own bias. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-

tainted-by-biotechnology-funding/).

There are apparently many flaws in the way studies evaluate their data. For example:

- The (A camp's) nutritional analysis appears to favor specific nutrients that were found in similar levels in both conventional and organics, and ignores nutrients that occur in higher levels in organics. Studies of conventional versus organic nutrient levels have been done, and according to at least one published survey of these studies (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/afrd/research/publication/168871), organic produce contain about an average of 12% more nutrients than conventional produce. See also: 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html

- The amounts of pesticides and other harmful chemicals in the food were not considered in the analysis. Both organic and conventional foods have these (organic in trace amounts), and naturally conventional foods have much higher levels. But in the analysis the amount and number of kinds of pesticide found was not factored in; only whether or not any pesticide at all was found. See (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-food)

- The comparative percents of conventional versus organic foods containing pesticides was also misrepresented; the report states that conventional food is 30% more likely to contain them. But the numbers in the details of the report show that 7% of organic foods sampled contained pesticides compared to 38% of the conventional foods. That’s a factor of more than FIVE times greater chance of conventional food containing the pesticides, not to mention that they are in much higher levels on conventional products compared to their organic counterparts.

Rodale web published an article entitled: "Lower Taxes! And 4 Other Surprising Reasons to Save the Earth by Going Organic" (attention grabbing!). Another aspect of organic that is less obvious. They say organic is tax saving because:

"Chemical farming kills jobs. Another perk of organic farming? Labor inputs are 15 percent higher, compared to chemical farms, writes Rodale in Organic Manifesto, which means the organic sector creates more jobs. Many farmers are talked into using agrichemicals because they're told it will make their jobs easier by saving labor—which means fewer farm jobs. But the fact of the matter is, the use of these chemicals is creating "superweeds" that are starting to outwit chemical pesticides.

• There's an experiment going on…and all of us are the guinea pigs. GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, have infiltrated every aspect of our food systems, without ever having been evaluated for their effects on human health. Now that some research is being done (in spite of aggressive tactics by agribusiness to prevent all testing), researchers are seeing signs that GMOs cause organ failure, digestive diseases, even accelerated aging. More studies need to be done to understand how GMOs affect human health, but in the meantime, buying organic is the best way to stop being used as a lab rat.

• You can still eat pineapples and bananas. There are good reasons to seek out food that's grown locally—you support your local economy, you cut down on the fossil fuels needed to bring it to your table, you may even be able to talk to the grower find out how it was produced. But giving up, say, bananas or avocados because they can't be grown where you live is not a step many people want to take. Choose organic, though, and you shrink the carbon footprint of your favorite long-distance treat. "Numerous studies have shown that organic is much more critical when it comes to carbon than local," writes Rodale. That's because the production, shipping, and application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are among the most energy-intensive farming practices. Organic methods bypass all that and, as mentioned, keep greenhouse carbon out of the atmosphere. Organic AND local is the gold standard, but organic food has a smaller carbon footprint than its local but chemically grown counterpart."

Science, research, evidence base-- it all is questionable, even when the "facts" are laid out, seemingly plain as day.  One sleuths for hard facts and everything appears to be hidden behind mirrors and smoke screens.  Where is Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson when you need them?  Where is transparency?

other sources:
**http://www.agronomy-journal.org/index.php? and ”
http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html

option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129

and

http://www.cargill.com/corporate-responsibility/environmental-sustainability/environmental-partners/stanford/index.jsp

http://www.responsibletechnology.org

Farm Use of Antibiotics Defies Scrutiny.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/benbrook_annals_response2012.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ng33933p56368477/


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html

Trojan Wurst 1: EGGS

As promised in my post Giving Thanks: Relationship in Food Preparation, I am following up with a post (or two or four) debunking some long held myths on specific foods.  Lately, I’ve been slightly aghast at the continued belief that eggs (specifically their yolks) are “bad” for you.

Truly, I cannot think of a more gorgeous, perfect, natural phenomenon than the mighty egg.  Even the packaging is nutrient rich and so amazing in it’s form and capacity. The egg is not called a perfect food for nothing: in Chinese terms, it’s the complete balance of yin and yang embodied.  The idea of separating the yolk from the white practically seems barbaric; they belong together, and as a complete food, they are practically unsurpassed in their nutritional power and beauty. So let’s see what the research says.

Eggs contain a wide variety of nutrients that support good health and certainly never deserved a place on anyone’s “Foods to Avoid” list.  The historical avoidance of course, was due to the high cholesterol content in its yolk. However, since your liver produces most of the cholesterol in your body, and it adjusts to what you eat, it turns out the natural fat and cholesterol in eggs is practically benign (in moderation).  Major studies have proven they are not the culprit for risks of heart attack and stroke.  Evidence that people who cook (scramble, boil, or poach) one for breakfast — versus eating a bagel with the same number of calories — bypass junk-food cravings and eat fewer calories for at least 24 hours;  it turns out eggs make your body feel full longer. They actually strengthen your heart and help to control your blood sugar, and even boost your metabolism which can aid in weight reduction. Add to this the fact that eggs promote your ability to properly regulate the hormones that help you burn fat.

According to the Journal of Nutrition, eggs should be considered “the whole package”, because they’re inexpensive and contain “the highest quality of protein on the planet.”  Egg protein has a score of 100 on the biological value index, meaning it contains all of the essential amino acids, and has a perfect score of 1.0 on the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Index (PDCAA). These indexes measure a protein's completeness and quality.  Eggs contain lutein which is known to protect you from inflammation. And many doctors today recognize inflammation as the real cause of cardiovascular problems, not cholesterol.  As was mentioned in FAT FACTS, the source and quality of the food source is an important consideration.  All saturated fats are not alike, as all cholesterol sources are not alike (and do not necessarily have a negative impact on the body).

Eggs also have a generous supply of B vitamins, which are also credited with helping to keep your heart healthy.  In addition, eggs contain vitamin D, biotin, calcium, copper, folate, iodine, iron, manganese, magnesium, niacin, potassium, selenium, sodium, thiamine, vitamin A, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin E, and zinc.  Riboflavin, like other B vitamins, is needed for energy metabolism or breaking down the foods you eat into energy your cells can use. Vitamin B12, found almost solely in animal foods, is important for making genetic material, or DNA, as well as red blood cells. All of the B vitamins are important for promoting a healthy nervous system. Selenium helps prevent cells from damage, promotes immune system health and is necessary for regulating the thyroid hormone. Because eggs are packed with selenium, a nutrient that can help keep your memory sharp and your thinking fast.  According to the You Docs “People who get at least 55 micrograms (mcg) a day of selenium have cognitive test scores that put them in a league with people 10 years younger. An egg (14 mcg) on whole-grain toast (10 mcg) gets you almost halfway there. Round out your day with some albacore tuna (63 mcg for 3 ounces), turkey (27 mcg for 3 ounces), or Brazil nuts (a mother lode at 270 mcg per half ounce). Repeat the next morning.” Another trace mineral found in eggs, Molybdenum, according to the Oregon State University, is a key component of the enzyme sulfite oxidase, which is used to metabolize certain amino acids, or building blocks of protein. Like, iodine, selenium is important for proper thyroid function.

Recent studies suggest that eating whole eggs can raise HDL (High Density Lipids), your “good” cholesterol, and have little to no impact at all on your LDL (Low Density Lipids), which is your “bad” cholesterol. One such study was conducted at the University of Connecticut. It involved a group of men who ate 3 eggs every day for 12 weeks while on a reduced carb, higher fat diet.  At the conclusion of the study, it was found that these men increased their HDL or “good” cholesterol by 20%, while their LDL or “bad” cholesterol stayed the same.  Meanwhile, participants who ate egg substitutes saw no change in either cholesterol level.

Egg yolks are rich in two antioxidants known as lutein and zeaxanthin. The content of these antioxidants in an egg yolk varies and depends upon the hen's diet, however, it has been reported that the body's ability to utilize the lutein and zeaxanthin in egg yolks is better than that found in leafy greens, such as spinach, according to an article published in the "Journal of the American College of Nutrition" in 2004. Eating 1.3 egg yolks daily increases blood lutein and zeaxanthin levels significantly. These antioxidants promote  eye health and those with increased blood levels experience lower rates of developing age-related macular degeneration.

As in all foods, the nutritional value is determined by its source and age.  Eggs begin to loose their nutrition punch the older they get and eggs produced by organically fed, free range chickens are superior in their nutrition content.  Look for a deep, rich, yellow yolk (bordering on bright orange) and non-watery whites.  For irrefutable freshness confirmation, break open a fresh organic egg newly laid, and your jaw will likely drop open in wonder at the balanced beauty beheld.

this post was mostly gleaned from:

Journal of Nutrition

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/

http://www.wellnessonline.com/health-tips/nutrition/foods/foods-a-f/eggs-are-good-nutrition/

Journal of the American College of Nutrition

thanks Lee for the humorous title idea....