Follow Your Gut Feeling

There is an interesting discussion going on this topic. You are what you eat is driving the entire effort. I want to seriously follow this. Thanks guys.

Great discussion! I have a strong interest in this topic as an organic supporter. I conducted an independent study during my senior year of undergraduate education at Virginia Tech. I can’t argue against going with your gut, however my science based background has taught me look at the data first and foremost. I reviewed literature comparing the pesticide content, sensory characteristics, and nutrient quality of organically produced foods versus their conventional counterparts. Evidence does support that organics are much less likely to contain significant levels of synthetic pesticide residues. And sustainable soil practices used in organic growing regimens are certainly relevant and warranted in creating a greener environment. However, there is a lack of supporting scientific evidence to support the claims of improved nutrient quality or sensory characteristics that the consumer often associates with organic foods. Moreover, it has been suggested that nutrient composition changes are likely due to seasonal effects on growing, harvesting and storage methods. These factors may not have been accounted for in current experimental designs. Overall, there is a general consensus that future research with more tightly controlled studies is warranted to explore any appreciable health benefits to humans from consumption of an organic diet.One note worthy finding of my study is that reliance on organics will not necessarily offer complete protection against pesticide residue exposure. The ubiquitous nature of pesticides across agricultural areas is a source of cross contamination. Drift or irrigation water provides a transportation medium to facilitate the spread of pesticides from conventional farms to nearby organic landscapes. Post-harvest fungicides applied after harvest of the crop can also cross contaminate organics stored nearby. Also, some pesticides are able to remain soil bound for years. Cases in which organics contains pesticide levels comparable to conventional foods is likely due to laboratory error, accidental mixing of organic and conventional products, mislabeling or most disturbing, fraudulent practices. The Pesticide Data Program (PDP) was established by the U.S. congress. The PDP is tasked with assisting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in assessing potential health hazards of pesticide residues. The NOP Rule states that any pesticide residue exceeding 5% of the EPA tolerance level can lead to investigation of that producer. The PDP conducted a long-term study from 1993 through 2004 testing fresh fruits and vegetables. The results showed that 66% of conventional samples contained at least one synthetic residue. For organic samples, 17% tested for one or more residues. Therefore, conventional products were 3.9 times more likely to contain residue. So organics are definitely the way to go for those of you who are trying to avoid synthetic residues. Source: Cooper, J., Niggli U. and Leifert, C. (Ed.). 2007. Handbook of organic food safety and quality 1st ed. CRC Press, Cambridge, England.

Great response Dag… Ill let the REAL science speak for itself.. A University of Washington study found that children fed mostly organic produce and juice had only one-sixth of the level of organophosphate pesticide byproducts in their urine compared to children who ate conventionally grown foods. Curl et al. Organophosphorus pesticide exposure of urban and suburban preschool children with organic and conventional diets. Environmental Health Perspectives.. 2003 March. 111(3): 377-382. Finally a study from UC Davis- Science NEWS: STRESS CAN MAKE PLANTS MORE NUTRITIOUS By Janet Raloff Web edition : Friday, February 13th, 2009 Most people know the benefits of diets rich in fruits and veggies. They’ve been linked to lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and stroke, for instance. Yet Americans typically ignore those data, preferentially chowing down instead on meats, other foods rich in fats, and starches. Realizing this, researchers at the University of California—Davis decided to see if they could identify types of produce that generate a relative abundance per serving of flavonoids, vitamins and other beneficial plant micronutrients. And they did. They’re in many old-style cultivated varieties of crops — ones that commercial growers have abandoned because these plants don’t hold as well to the vicissitudes of climate, transport to market and pests. One cultivar of white-fleshed nectarines, for instance, can produce six times the quantity of total phenolic antioxidants as another under the same field conditions, Alison Mitchell of UC-Davis reported this morning. Such field data show, she says, that cultivar selection is an important but “oft overlooked” factor not only in crop selection but also in nutrition. Mitchell reviewed her team’s findings this morning at an opening session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, in Chicago Some of the bonus antioxidants her group has focused on have been linked to potent health-promoting properties. The problem, she argues, is that the marketplace today rewards farmers for yield and disease resistance in their crops, not for how much of these beneficial micronutrients a crop may contain. Mitchell’s team has also been investigating whether organically grown fruits and veggies differ from those produced by conventional farming. Her team compared identical cultivars grown on certified organic plots versus those where standard fertilizers and pesticides were being applied. And as a rule, organics far surpassed their conventionally grown kin for vitamins and beneficial micronutrients, such as the antioxidant flavonoids quercetin and kaempferol, Mitchell reported She also thinks she knows why that is. Plant nutrients tend to fall into two broadly defined categories: primary and secondary plant metabolites. We know the first category better. It includes fats (or oils), carbohydrates, amino acids and simple sugars. The second group includes the phenolic acids, flavonoids, alkaloids and terpenoids. Conventional farming has optimized its practices and crop amendments to maximize a plant’s production of the primary metabolites. These are the ones listed on food labels. However, plants normally have a fairly balanced ratio of both primary and secondary metabolites: the primary ones don’t dominate. And that makes sense, Mitchell points out, since many of the secondary metabolites are defense compounds — essentially a plant’s natural pesticides or sun screens, for instance. When plants aren’t stressed, they produce fewer of these compounds. But the relative paucity of plant-protective agents available to organic farmers means that crops on their farms tend to suffer more damage from pests and the weather. And they respond by revving up production of defensive secondary metabolites. The extra stress that organically grown plants typically experience may lead to less attractive veggies — like spinach greens with a hole in each leaf. But the resulting nutritional value of each gram of spinach from moth-eaten plants can be superior. It’s time, Mitchell argued, that we consumers — and the marketplace generally — find ways to reward farmers for the nutritional quality of their crops. And one potential bonus: Better taste. Some of the secondary plant metabolites break down into flavor compounds, Mitchell says.