Uncovering the Truth: Healthy Food Myths Busted

[_ldsfaqs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FEoG3T6mdM

[_Gunnar]

Congratulations, ldsfaqs! That video was actually informative and very factual! I have long known that there is nothing significantly superior about so called "organic" produce. Usually, the only really significant difference between standard produce and certified organic produce is the price. Many purveyors of organic produce actually know this, and some have been known to and have been caught at purchasing standard produce at ordinary grocery stores when they run out of some of their organic produce and reselling it at the higher organic prices, knowing that their customers will not be able to tell the difference. As for genetically modified foods, there are almost no foods (if any) available to us today that have not been genetically modified drastically from what they used to be like thousands of years ago when humans first began to practice agriculture.

There is a downside to how modern developers of genetically modified foods' marketing practices though. Traditionally farmers would save a portion of the seeds from each crop to use in planting their next crop. Nowadays companies (like Monsanto, for instance) have used their financial clout to push intellectual property rights laws to make it illegal to do that. Farmers who plant these genetically modified crops have to agree to buy 100% of the seeds they need for each new crop from the company that developed them or face severe financial penalties or even imprisonment. This can be a severe burden to impoverished farmers in developing countries.

The comments about sugar were also right on. What is wrong with the sugar in our diets has almost entirely to do with the excessive amount of it that we consume, and nothing to do with the type of sugar. It has also been demonstrated that gluten free foods are not only often more expensive than their gluten containing counterparts, they are often less nutritious because it is difficult to remove all the gluten without removing at least part of the vital nutrients they contain. Unless you have siliac disease, you are normally better off avoiding gluten free foods (except, of course, foods that never contained gluten in the first place).

I also agree that the supposed benefits of ionized water (or air, for that matter) are almost certainly pure nonsense.

Another one of my pet peeves is all the excessive hype about natural versus processed or man made. The claim that a product is 100% natural, even if true, is not a sure guarantee that it is good for you. There are natural products that are every bit as dangerous and even deadly as anything ever produced in a laboratory or industrial plant, and there are man made products, processes and chemicals that are not only benign, but can and have greatly increased our quality of life. Besides that, there are no legally binding standards for what is natural or unnatural. Anyone can claim that anything they produce or market is 100% natural, no matter what it is, without any legal consequences whatsoever.

[_canpakes]

Usually, the only really significant difference between standard produce and certified organic produce is the price.

Gunnar, I don't know that there are many folks claiming that organic food is more nutritional, but organic produce is subject to different fertilization and pesticide use than non-organics. Mosr folks that I know who buy organic produce do so for this reason alone, especially if they have kids.

As example, foods labeled 'organic' cannot have been fertilized with treated human fecal waste from your local waste treatment plant. This is not a restriction for non-organic produce. It's also not a new practice, but more recent times have seen biosolids begin to contain new components that we do not know yet how will influence the outcome, such as the presence of prescription drug and antibiotic residue.

[_Gunnar]

Usually, the only really significant difference between standard produce and certified organic produce is the price.

Gunnar, I don't know that there are many folks claiming that organic food is more nutritional, but organic produce is subject to different fertilization and pesticide use than non-organics. Mosr folks that I know who buy organic produce do so for this reason alone, especially if they have kids.

I don't know how many folks claim that organic food is inherently more nutritional, but I have often heard that claim. Admittedly that claim is not as often heard as the claim that organically grown foods simply taste better. I'm sure you and I both agree that neither claim is likely to be true.

As far as organic produce being safer or healthier due to differences in the amount or type of pesticides used in organic farming, even that is highly questionable according to this:

But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides."

In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*

Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."

Scientists can examine pesticides before they are sprayed on fields, however. And what do these analyses show?

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

Organic foods are no safer than conventional foods. Even Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), recognizes this as fact. An “organic label does not promise a necessarily safer product," she once remarked (PDF).

So why are the misconceptions so pervasive? According to an in-depth report by Academics Review, a group founded by University of Illinois nutritional scientist Bruce M. Chassy and University of Melbourne food scientist David Tribe, the organic and natural-products industry -- which is worth an estimated $63 billion worldwide -- has engaged in a "pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal." Like their succulent fruits and scrumptious vegetables that we eat, the organic industry has given consumers a nibble of untruth and a taste of fear, and have allowed misunderstanding to sow and spread while they reap the benefits.

Commenting on the extensive report on his popular podcast, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Novella had some blunt words for the organic industry.

"People buy organic because they think it's better for the environment; it's not. It's safer; it's not. It tastes better; it doesn't. It's more nutritious; it isn't. And these are all misconceptions that have been deliberately promoted -- according to these authors -- by organic farmers and organic proponents despite the fact that scientific evidence doesn't support any of these claims."

This is yet another example of the irrational "natural" vs. "synthetic" or man made dichotomy. "Natural" pesticides are not necessarily safer or more effective than "synthetic", man made pesticides.

As example, foods labeled 'organic' cannot have been fertilized with treated human fecal waste from your local waste treatment plant. This is not a restriction for non-organic produce. It's also not a new practice, but more recent times have seen biosolids begin to contain new components that we do not know yet how will influence the outcome, such as the presence of prescription drug and antibiotic residue.

I hadn't considered that before, and it may well be a legitimate concern that warrants further study and monitoring. But it seems to me that properly treated and sterilized human fecal waste ought to be as safe as any other kind of manure. At any rate, human fecal waste, properly treated or not, eventually gets back into and permeates our environment to some extent anyway, no matter what we do, and I doubt that prescription drug residue is absorbed or taken up unchanged by growing food crops.

[_canpakes]

As far as organic produce being safer or healthier due to differences in the amount or type of pesticides used in organic farming, even that is highly questionable according to this. But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides."

I'll point out two things here -

1. The belief that organic farming does not use pesticides would be a public information myth worth correcting. Yet, many who buy organic produce are well aware that pesticides can be used, but also that what is permitted for use may be vastly different than for conventional farming.

2. This paragraph ends in conflating the idea of some consumers believing that organic foods have 'no pesticides' and the wholly different concept of some consumers seeking to 'avoiding pesticides'.

In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical (emphasis mine) with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out).

This is not completely accurate or true. A pesticide safe for organic use might be a 'chemical', or it may be something completely different. An example of the latter is Bacillus thuringiensis. This is a naturally occurring bacteria that can be sprayed on crops like grapes and that will devastate caterpillars in their early life stages by more or less paralyzing their digestive tracts. It will not present a danger to consumption in humans and it is not persistent. I have used it myself on grape vines and have needed no other pesticide to preserve the vines.

http://www.todayshomeowner.com/using-bt ... ur-garden/

You can find genetically modified Bt on the market, but it is not approved for use in organic farming.

Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*

The study that this links to does not assert or confirm that farmers will necessarily use more of a pesticide acceptable for organic farming than they would pesticides suitable for non-organic applications. Regardless, the rate of use is not an issue so much as persistence or effects on other critters (including you and I). However, the study does mention that pesticides used in non-organic farming tend to be more specific in their targeting of the particular critters that the farmer is trying to rid the crops of. This is important as an organic pesticide with a wider spectrum can affect or kill some beneficial insects along with the target insects.

The lower effectiveness of pesticides used in organic farming is part of the reason why you are paying more for organic produce, and why it looks uglier than its non-organic counterparts. : )

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

Not to quibble, but I might ask, "Toxic to whom or what?"

If they're just as toxic to critters, then this statement contradicts the previous claim from within the same article. If they're just as toxic to humans, then there should be some data that speaks to this... but none is presented.

So why are the misconceptions so pervasive? According to an in-depth report by Academics Review, a group founded by University of Illinois nutritional scientist Bruce M. Chassy and University of Melbourne food scientist David Tribe, the organic and natural-products industry -- which is worth an estimated $63 billion worldwide -- has engaged in a "pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal." Like their succulent fruits and scrumptious vegetables that we eat, the organic industry has given consumers a nibble of untruth and a taste of fear, and have allowed misunderstanding to sow and spread while they reap the benefits.

This is a broad claim that needs to be fleshed out more before it can be rigorously debated. I don't doubt for a minute that (let's call it) 'Big O' will have participants within the industry promote less-than-truthful claims about their products just as occurs in virtually every industry. But claims of a vast conspiracy, or sweeping all organics producers into the same dustbin of dishonesty ignores that misinformation can comes from sources that are simply uninformed or that did not do their homework, such as Consumer Reports last year when it suggested that organic foods use no pesticides (the magazine subsequently issued a retraction).

All that having been said, there have been several recent and well-structured studies that speak to the presence or persistence of pesticides within the human body when ingesting a diet of either organically-produced or conventionally-produced food. They are worth perusing:

https://news.boisestate.edu/update/2015 ... sure-diet/

https://www.coop.se/PageFiles/429812/Co ... %20ENG.pdf

From the second study: "Compared with the period when the family consumed conventionally grown food, the concentrations of pesticide residues decreased on average by a factor of 6.7 when the family ate organic food. The children in particular had lower concentrations during the period of organic food consumption. Levels of most, but not all tested pesticides fell in the adults."

As example, foods labeled 'organic' cannot have been fertilized with treated human fecal waste from your local waste treatment plant. This is not a restriction for non-organic produce. It's also not a new practice, but more recent times have seen biosolids begin to contain new components that we do not know yet how will influence the outcome, such as the presence of prescription drug and antibiotic residue.

I hadn't considered that before, and it may well be a legitimate concern that warrants further study and monitoring. But it seems to me that properly treated and sterilized human fecal waste ought to be as safe as any other kind of manure. At any rate, human fecal waste, properly treated or not, eventually gets back into and permeates our environment to some extent anyway, no matter what we do, and I doubt that prescription drug residue is absorbed or taken up unchanged by growing food crops.

It may not be. Neither might the flame-retardant chemicals that show up in biosolids. But for those who are willing to spend a few extra pennies on the dollar for an alternative at their produce market that is not exposed to these residues, it gives a small peace of mind, especially given the increasingly varied levels and types of chemical exposure faced by the general population and the lack of information about the long-term effects from some of it.

A free market should have options for the participants; it's expected that some will spend more on any one particular product compared to another based upon their perception (or evidence) of greater safety, efficacy, luxury or comfort. When it comes to ingesting chemical residues, I'd expect some folks to differ in what they are willing to expose themselves to and certainly not surprised that some will freely pay more to better their odds of less overall negative impact to themselves or their family.

[Guest]

Great information, canpakes! I love your responses! They almost always leave me feeling a bit smarter and more enlightened than before I read them. I was particularly fascinated by your description of Bacillus thuringiensis and its proper usage. Yet I can see why using that as a pesticide could be more time consuming than some other methods of controlling pests and would add to the cost of commercially produced organic produce. I love that it poses no real danger to the humans that eat the food protected by it, and would definitely prefer using something like that in my own, home garden, rather than pesticides that are potentially toxic to humans as well as the targeted pests. I wonder, though, why genetically modified strains of that bacteria should necessarily be not approved for organic gardening. If there is a potential for further improving its effectiveness without compromising its safety through genetic modification, why should that be discouraged?

After reading your comments about Bacillus thuringiensis talking with my wife and daughter about it, I found they already knew about it (and some of the other things you discussed), as they are both active members of the local Master Gardeners group, and participate regularly in meetings with them and community outreach to advise and educate others concerning home gardening. I should try to get more involved with them in home gardening myself. I have to admit that some of the vegetables and tomatoes that have come out our home garden beat anything I have ever tasted from commercially grown produce, whether conventionally or organically grown!

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

Not to quibble, but I might ask, "Toxic to whom or what?"

If they're just as toxic to critters, then this statement contradicts the previous claim from within the same article. If they're just as toxic to humans, then there should be some data that speaks to this... but none is presented.

I assume Steven Novella was talking about their toxicity to humans, but, as you said, he did not provide data to clarify this. Of course if they as toxic (or more toxic) only to the targeted pests, that would be a point in their favor.

A free market should have options for the participants; it's expected that some will spend more on any one particular product compared to another based upon their perception (or evidence) of greater safety, efficacy, luxury or comfort. When it comes to ingesting chemical residues, I'd expect some folks to differ in what they are willing to expose themselves to and certainly not surprised that some will freely pay more to better their odds of less overall negative impact to themselves or their family.

I definitely have no quibbles with that!

Thank you for all the good information you provided! You have given me a lot to think about!

[_Lemmie]

...they are both active members of the local Master Gardeners group, and participate regularly in meetings with them and community outreach to advise and educate others concerning home gardening.

This is quite interesting, I have been looking into a Master Landscapers class offered near me, but a Gardeners group would be closer to my interests. Did your family members have to certify or take classes to be part of this group? If you don't mind my asking, could you tell me the formal name of this group? Maybe I could find a local branch.

[_Gunnar]

...they are both active members of the local Master Gardeners group, and participate regularly in meetings with them and community outreach to advise and educate others concerning home gardening.

This is quite interesting, I have been looking into a Master Landscapers class offered near me, but a Gardeners group would be closer to my interests. Did your family members have to certify or take classes to be part of this group? If you don't mind my asking, could you tell me the formal name of this group? Maybe I could find a local branch.

Yes, they had to take classes for about three months or so to certify (if I recall correctly), and regularly attend additional training sessions with visiting experts as they become available. The also had to commit to taking turns with their fellow master gardeners to spend time in the Master Gardners' office a few hours each month to advise people who call in for advice about home gardening. They are both in bed right now (as I should have been already, and will be as soon as I finish this reply), but I will get more specific information from them and pass it on to you the next time I get on my computer.

[_EAllusion]

It's not accurate to say that organic farming approves "natural" pesticide/herbicides, but avoids synthetics. For example, organic farming allows for the use of copper sulphate as a fungicide. Not only is this significantly more dangerous to the consumer than any modern fungicide, it is acquired in large quantities for farmers to use through chemical synthesis. It gets a pass because it can be found in nature and, apparently, is sufficiently old-timey to appeal to the groups in charge of labeling practice. There are several substances like this.

[_canpakes]

It's not accurate to say that organic farming approves "natural" pesticide/herbicides, but avoids synthetics. For example, organic farming allows for the use of copper sulphate as a fungicide.

This is true. It's also not accurate to state that synthetic compounds are not permitted to be used in organic agriculture. Some are allowed. Folks can examine the USDA's list of allowed substances at the link below -

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... 2.7&idno=7