Is organic food silly?

[SkepticLance]

There are a lot of people who think we should all eat organic food. Some for nutritional reasons, some for ecological reasons, and some for animal welfare reasons.

 

What do you think? Should we all be eating organic food? Some organic food? if so, which? Or is the issue silly?

[ecoli]

apparantly, the level of riboflavins in organic food is higher. That makes it taste better, to me, if it's not actually healthier.

 

Also, I like not having to worry about insecticide residues on my fruit.

[iNow]

Nor IN your fruit, since those insecticides will leach into the water which is taken up by the plant. There are also indications that the colony collapse disorder in bees is the result of damage to their nervous system from insecticides...

 

"Silly" is personal and subjective... means nothing really, but if I must answer, I'd say, "No, it's not silly at all." Some people who talk about all organics all of the time yet know very little about organics, though... they are often silly.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

The phrasing of the question came from another thread, in which that question arose, using that wording.

 

I would like to comment on pesticide residues. We are talking about poisons, and that falls into the science of toxicology. It is very well known that the first principle of toxicology can be worded as :

"The dose makes the poison."

 

This has two consequences.

1. Any chemical substance becomes toxic if the dose is high enough. Even water, where a humorous 'data sheet' describes its oral LD50 as six feet deep!

2. Any chemical substance becomes harmless if the dose is small enough.

 

The second principle is the one that is relevent with respect to pesticide residues. If the residue is low enough, it is harmless.

 

(Definition for the message below. Oral LD50 is mentioned. It means the amount of the test chemical, taken by mouth, sufficient to kill half the test population.)

 

How much is low enough? As a general rule of thumb, a single dose of 1% of the minimum able to cause death will not cause lasting harm.

For example : ethanol is a toxin, and is found at about 40% in whiskey. The oral LD50 as measured in male rats translates as a dose of 1500 ml for male humans. In other words, if humans react in a similar way to rats, then a session of whisky drinking in which every adult male drinks 1.5 litres will result in the deaths of half of them, if no medical assistance is forthcoming.

 

A single dose of 1% of the oral LD50 translates as 15 ml, or a single shot of whiskey in many bars. Clearly not enough to cause lasting harm, if just one dose is taken.

 

However, government regulatory organisations generally work off the NOAEL (no observed adverse effect limit). The lowest dose observed to cause a measurable harmful effect, which is much lower than the lowest lethal dose. Most regulations are based on a dose of 1% to 0.1% of the NOAEL. This measure is used because it is extremely conservative. Evidence of toxic effects in humans would suggest that a dose of 10% of the NOAEL is probably, in most cases, quite harmless.

 

For ethanol, 15 mls of whiskey clearly causes an adverse effect (slowed reflexes). 1% of the NOAEL is 0.15 mls. If a government had just discovered ethanol and was setting a regulatory limit, it would be 0.015 to 0.15 mls of whiskey. This gives an idea of just how conservative regulatory limits for pesticide residues really are!

 

Thus, pesticide residues in food become of concern only if they reach a level substantially higher than the limit set by government regulations. As far as I can see, this is a very rare outcome.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

The phrasing of the question came from another thread, in which that question arose, using that wording.

Oh, I know. I know who said it too. Thank you though.

 

To the other part of your post, just because it's not toxic to humans does not mean it won't negatively impact other animals. See my example of bees and the colony collapse disorder. If the bees die, we won't be able to grow any foods anyway.

[ecoli]

Oh, I know. I know who said it too. Thank you though.

 

To the other part of your post, just because it's not toxic to humans does not mean it won't negatively impact other animals. See my example of bees and the colony collapse disorder. If the bees die, we won't be able to grow any foods anyway.

plus these toxins tend to build up. Have you ever heard of biological magnification?

[dichotomy]

I’ve tried to buy organic when cost permits, generally out of a fear of negative long term effects of pesticides to the enviroment and me.

 

After looking at what constitutes ‘organic’ I don’t think organics are silly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

 

What they primarily need to be though is cost effective, widely available and have some sort of ISO certification to clear up confusion between nations.

[ecoli]

I’ve tried to buy organic when cost permits, generally out of a fear of negative long term effects of pesticides to the enviroment and me.

 

After looking at what constitutes ‘organic’ I don’t think organics are silly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

 

What they primarily need to be though is cost effective, widely available and have some sort of ISO certification to clear up confusion between nations.

most of the organic food I get use the state of california standards. But, the food is already becoming more cost effective now that more people are buying. Price is only going to go down if demand goes up.

[SkepticLance]

A couple of points

 

1. Colony collapse disorder in bees. As I understand it, the focus of research on this is now on virus diseases. Pesticides are not implicated

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm

 

2. Biological magnification of pesticides. What you are talking about is bioaccumulation down the food chain. This works for persistent chemicals such as DDT and PCBs. It does not work for modern products such as synthetic pyrethroids which break down in the environment and also break down inside the bodies of animals that consume them.

 

End result is what organisations such as the USFDA and USEPA could tell you. When they analyse foods for pesticides, they find levels of 1 part per million or less. In fact, about half of all analyses (according to the NZ Food Safety Authority) end up 'not detectable.' This means, with modern very sensitive chemical analytical methods, levels of 1 part per trillion or less.

 

As long as pesticide residues end up below maximum recommended levels (as prublished by regulatory authorities) there is little or no risk. Here is the result of such a survery in NZ.

 

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2004/2004-07-16-survey.htm

 

When I spoke to Mr. Gary Bowering from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority about a year ago, I asked him whether pesticide residues in food in other western countries often exceeded regulatory limits, and he told me it happens extremely rarely.

 

Anyway : end conclusion - being afraid of the toxic effects of pesticide residues in non-organic food is to be afraid of something that is simply so rare as to be inconsequential.

 

Organic food is not free of such risks. For example : in many countries, copper sulphate is permitted as a fungicide spray on organic crops. Copper sulphate is a nasty, non-biodegradable liver toxin. If sufficient remains on organic food, it can cause liver disease, and on soils, it may kill soil animals and remain there for decades.

 

http://www.medications.com/news/view/362970

[dichotomy]

 

Copper sulphate is a nasty, non-biodegradable liver toxin. If sufficient remains on organic food, it can cause liver disease, and on soils, it may kill soil animals and remain there for decades.

 

http://www.medications.com/news/view/362970

 

I use this on my peach and nectarine trees. Is there a safer alternative?

I always thought copper was relatively safe.

 

All I really know about my own home grown 'organic' fruit is that it tastes better. Especially when I compare supermarket tomatoes with home grown ones. Super market ones are much more tasteless and watery.

[iNow]

A couple of points

 

1. Colony collapse disorder in bees. As I understand it, the focus of research on this is now on virus diseases. Pesticides are not implicated

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm

If you want sources, I can even provide the name of the exact pesticide implicated in colony collapse disorder, the method by which that pesticide causes the damange, and the company who makes it, but it's not really on topic here.

[SkepticLance]

To dichotomy

Re tomato taste

 

I carried out a personal experiment a few years ago. I was told that organic tomatoes tasted better. I was also told that old genetic stock tomatoes tasted better than modern hybrids.

 

My experiment was to grown 3 different old stock tomato plants, alongside 3 different modern hybrids, all using organic methods. I also bought supermarket tomatoes, and kept them in a bowl till totally ripe, and compared them to supermarket tomatoes bought just before tasting.

 

I compared taste.

 

Conclusion : Tomato flavour depends on ripeness. Tomatoes from the supermarket taste awful, until ripened in a bowl for about a week. All tomatoes, whether organic or not, whether old stock or new, tasted good if ripe, and bad if not.

[ecoli]

To dichotomy

Re tomato taste

 

I carried out a personal experiment a few years ago. I was told that organic tomatoes tasted better. I was also told that old genetic stock tomatoes tasted better than modern hybrids.

 

My experiment was to grown 3 different old stock tomato plants, alongside 3 different modern hybrids, all using organic methods. I also bought supermarket tomatoes, and kept them in a bowl till totally ripe, and compared them to supermarket tomatoes bought just before tasting.

 

I compared taste.

 

Conclusion : Tomato flavour depends on ripeness. Tomatoes from the supermarket taste awful, until ripened in a bowl for about a week. All tomatoes, whether organic or not, whether old stock or new, tasted good if ripe, and bad if not.

and how did you quantify taste?

[SkepticLance]

To ecoli

 

If anyone has found a way to quantify taste, I would be pleased to hear about it. Taste is subjective.

 

However, the difference was substantial. Try a simplified version of the experiment yourself. Buy some supermarket tomatoes and put them in a bowl to ripen for a week, or until they are bright red and softer. Then buy some more supermarket tomatoes - less red and less soft - and taste both. You will find the difference that simple ripeness makes is substantial.

 

What surprised me was that the old gene stock was so bland. We had been told in very enthusiastic terms that the old stock tasted far better. In fact, if anything, the modern hybrids were sweeter.

[ecoli]

To ecoli

 

If anyone has found a way to quantify taste, I would be pleased to hear about it. Taste is subjective.

That's exactly my point. You can't do an accurate taste comparison without a large subject group and a blind test.

 

However, the difference was substantial. Try a simplified version of the experiment yourself. Buy some supermarket tomatoes and put them in a bowl to ripen for a week, or until they are bright red and softer. Then buy some more supermarket tomatoes - less red and less soft - and taste both. You will find the difference that simple ripeness makes is substantial.

 

What surprised me was that the old gene stock was so bland. We had been told in very enthusiastic terms that the old stock tasted far better. In fact, if anything, the modern hybrids were sweeter.

 

Oh, I've definitely eaten ripe store bought tomatoes... and I'll take my homegrown organics any day of the week (if they're ripe, of course).

I also think canned tomatoes taste bad.

 

Perhaps it is a psychological thing, but I honestly don't care. If I think my homegrown tastes better I'm going to stick to that, in season. Plus they're cheaper.

[John Cuthber]

I would rather take my chances with, for example, the licensed fungicides left in food than the fungal mycotoxins that mouldy food would contain.

Also, the "organic" movement permits the use of really rather toxic compounds like nicotine and rotenone. Nicotine proportionately more toxic to people than to the insects they are meant to kill.

I think you could argue that's "silly".

Since the tomato taste testing wasn't done "double blind" it's hard to see that it has any great value.

[ecoli]

I would rather take my chances with, for example, the licensed fungicides left in food than the fungal mycotoxins that mouldy food would contain.

 

Then don't eat moldy organic food... the same would apply to non organics.

 

Also, the "organic" movement permits the use of really rather toxic compounds like nicotine and rotenone. Nicotine proportionately more toxic to people than to the insects they are meant to kill.

That depends on what standard of organic you're talking about.

[SkepticLance]

Ripeness is important, though. I don't think anyone would really disagree with the statement that riper tomatoes taste better. That principle applies to other fruit also.

 

Organic food tends to be tree ripened, and consequently tastes better. Conventional fruit tends to be picked green and allowed to ripen later. It is often bought unripe and does not taste as good. However, the taste difference between organic and conventional food is due to the different ripeness - not to the means by which it is grown.

 

Another difference often touted for organic food is more nutrients. Normally measured as vitamin C and vitamin E. Different ripeness can also account for this.

 

However, vitamin C and vitamin E should be the least of our health worries. Anyone who eats the recommended 5 or more fruits and vegetables each day will ingest far more than the necessary amount of these two vitamins.

 

Organic food can often cost double the price of the equivalent conventional food. I do not think that the minor differences in taste and nutritional value can justify this.

 

John Cuthber mentioned mycotoxins. This is a genuine concern. The nasty fungi are spread by insect mouthparts, biting the corn seeds. If crops are not treated with effective insecticides, they can end up with significant fungal contamination. Some of the fungi produce really nasty toxins. Since organic farmers have poor access to good insecticides, organic crops are frequently under-protected.

 

Corn is a special case. Fusarium is the fungus, and the toxins are fumonisins. Consumption of these toxins by pregnant women can lead to deformed babies, and a high rate of brain defects.

 

http://www.apsnet.org/education/K-12PlantPathways/NewsViews/Archive/2006_03.html

 

I would personally NEVER eat organic corn or anything made from it. Interestingly, the corn with lowest fumonisin contamination is GM insect resistant corn.

[iNow]

All this talk of ripeness...

 

Has no one ever experienced the deliciousness which is a fried green tomato?

[ecoli]

However, vitamin C and vitamin E should be the least of our health worries. Anyone who eats the recommended 5 or more fruits and vegetables each day will ingest far more than the necessary amount of these two vitamins.

And I can count on one hand the number of people I know that do.

 

Organic food can often cost double the price of the equivalent conventional food. I do not think that the minor differences in taste and nutritional value can justify this.

But only because demand is lower. It used to cost more than twice as much and the price has gone down because more people are aware of them.

[SkepticLance]

I was told once that it would be possible to get all the vitamins and other nutrients required on a diet exclusively of fish and chips (French fries) and parsley.

 

Potatoes contain 11 mgms vitamin C per 100grams. Thus, if you ate 500 grams of chips each day, you would get more than the 50 mgm per day required by the average person, even not taking into account the parsley.

 

It is actually very easy to get all the vitamins and basic nutrients you need. An organic diet or conventional food - either way.

[ecoli]

I was told once that it would be possible to get all the vitamins and other nutrients required on a diet exclusively of fish and chips (French fries) and parsley.

 

Potatoes contain 11 mgms vitamin C per 100grams. Thus, if you ate 500 grams of chips each day, you would get more than the 50 mgm per day required by the average person, even not taking into account the parsley.

 

It is actually very easy to get all the vitamins and basic nutrients you need. An organic diet or conventional food - either way.

 

maybe, but you might succumb to mercury poisoning first. Also, fish and chips are deep fried, so that sounds pretty unhealthy. I don't know how much roughage is in parsley, but I'd think you'd need more fiber than that.

 

also, is there vit B6 in fish? You might need those supplements also.

[SkepticLance]

To ecoli

 

I did not say that diet would be healthy! The amount of fat would probably see the eater dead of atherosclerosis by age 40. I do not know whether that diet would, indeed, supply all nutrients, but it would certainly supply most.

 

The old sailing ships set out with salt pork and ship's biscuit for the crew. After 6 months on this, scurvy would begin. After lime juice was given, even scurvy was no longer a problem. Again, salt pork, biscuit and lime juice is hardly an ideal diet, but supplies enough nutrients to keep people in a more or less healthy state for several years.

 

A lot of people think that a good diet is really difficult. Not so. A little animal protein each day - some fibrous starch - a few fruits and veges - and other bits and pieces from time to time for variety, and you will stay healthy for a lifetime. In fact, staying physically active is probably more important.

 

Certainly, there is no need to eat organic food for good health.

[dichotomy]

 

Conclusion : Tomato flavour depends on ripeness. Tomatoes from the supermarket taste awful, until ripened in a bowl for about a week. All tomatoes, whether organic or not, whether old stock or new, tasted good if ripe, and bad if not.

 

If you compare tomatoes with tomatoes, you are right that flavour can be equalized to a degree with aging. But I can see with my own eyes that the standard supermarket tomatoes I buy are much more watery, that is, they have much less solid flesh holding them together when you slice them into sandwich sized slices. So possibly what I'm tasting is the sheer quantity of fleshy bits (in the home tomatoe) as aposed to the watery seed containing bits (in the supermarket ones). The texture comes into taste too with me.

[LookUp2]

There are a lot of people who think we should all eat organic food. Some for nutritional reasons, some for ecological reasons, and some for animal welfare reasons.

 

What do you think? Should we all be eating organic food? Some organic food? if so, which? Or is the issue silly?

 

I think supporting organic foods is beneficial for ecological reasons. I havent spent time looking up whether there is a significant nutritional reason. As far as animal welfare, feed lots are, for the most part, a pretty horrible existence for the animals confined there.