Rat.... http://www.darcof.dk/research/health.html

Just an addendum to our discussion a couple of months back in which
you disputed the value of organic food....

[Correction! We did not dispute the "value of organic food". We disputed both
the degree of evidence for the various types of possible benefit of organic
food, and the probable value of those possible benefits relative to the value,
for most peole (particularly for us), of the cost in time and money of fresh
organic food. --Paul]

[Paul C, this page at the "Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming" is not a
published peer reviewed paper. While it may reflect some research in progress
(though no dates are provided on the page at all), none of the 11 papers at
PubMed authored by C Lauridsen (1st of the 5 authors listed) listed between 1995
and June 2004 is this paper. Until research is peer-reviewed and published it is
not scientific evidence and therefore should not be taken as credible fact.
Please in the future, do the work and search PubMed for the "paper" that a
website claims as "reseach" to determine if it has passed the
peer-review/publication test. If it has not, do not send it to us except with
the proviso that it is "interesting" *but* not yet published and therefore yet
to be deemed acceptable as scientific evidence.

Along this same line, I picked up a copy of Sunflower Market's own monthly
magazine this afternoon while Paul and I were there to purchase a few items (the
cottage cheese they carry tastes better and has live cultures and sometimes they
have really good prices on nice produce and bulk items). One article on organic
food claimed in the subtitle that "science confirms nutrional benefits", but
when I checked the 3 selected sources, the first one really does not say that at
all:
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2002 Jan;42(1):1-34.
"A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of
organically and conventionally produced foods."
Bourn D, Prescott J.
Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
diane.bourn@...

Given the significant increase in consumer interest in organic food products,
there is a need to determine to what extent there is a scientific basis for
claims made for organic produce. Studies comparing foods derived from organic
and conventional growing systems were assessed for three key areas: nutritional
value, sensory quality, and food safety. It is evident from this assessment that
there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid
comparison. With the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong
evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various
nutrients. Considerations of the impact of organic growing systems on nutrient
bioavailability and nonnutrient components have received little attention and
are important directions for future research. While there are reports indicating
that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of
sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent. In future studies, the
possibility that typical organic distribution or harvesting systems may deliver
products differing in freshness or maturity should be evaluated. There is no
evidence that organic foods may be more susceptible to microbiological
contamination than conventional foods. While it is likely that organically grown
foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation
of residue levels.

Publication Types: Review
PMID: 11833635

The 2nd reference is an article by a Charles M Benbrook from the Organic Center
for Education and Promotion, entitled: "Elevating Antioxidant Levels in Food
through Organic Farming and Food". PubMed does not contain such a title by CM
Benbrook; it is solely an article at the group's website. However searching on
antioxidant levels organic food, I found a 2004 abstract (PMID:15479014) that
studied the antioxidant microconstituent contents between organically and
conventionally grown tomatoes and their plasma effects on humans. "When results
were expressed as fresh matter, organic tomatoes had higher vitamin C,
carotenoids, and polyphenol contents (except for chlorogenic acid) than
conventional tomatoes. When results were expressed as dry matter, no significant
difference was found for lycopene and naringenin. In tomato purees, no
difference in carotenoid content was found between the two modes of culture,
whereas the concentrations of vitamin C and polyphenols remained higher in
purees made out of organic tomatoes." However, after 3 weeks of consuming 96
grams of tomato puree, there was no significant difference between the two
purees in their effect on the human plasma levels of the two major
antioxidants, vitamin C and lycopene.

I was unsuccessful in locating at PubMed the 3rd reference in this article:
"Organic Agriculture: Does It Enhance or Reduce the Nutritional Value of Plant
Foods?" by a K.Brandt and JP Molgaard in J Sci Food Agric, 2001 despite
searching in several ways. However I did come across another review paper that
concluded much the same as the abstract quoted above: PMID: 12002790. "If
consumer perceptions regarding potential health benefits of organic foods are to
be supported, more research of better quality is needed than that which is
currently available."

After additional searching through Google, I located the Journal of the Science
of Food and Agriculture published by Wiley and found the cited paper by Brandt
and Molgaard.
"Abstract:
The possible differences between organic and conventional plant products are
examined from the view of possible effects on human health. It is concluded that
nutritionally important differences relating to contents of minerals, vitamins,
proteins and carbohydrates are not likely, primarily since none of these are
deficient in typical First World diets, nor are present levels of pesticide
residues in conventional products a cause for concern. However, there is reason
to believe that contents of many defence-related secondary metabolites in the
diet are lower than optimal for human health, even for those where too high
levels are known to be harmful. High biological activity resulting in adverse
effects on growth of animals and children may be directly linked with promotion
of longevity. There is ample, but circumstantial, evidence that, on average,
organic vegetables and fruits most likely contain more of these compounds than
conventional ones, allowing for the possibility that organic plant foods may in
fact benefit human health more than corresponding conventional ones. The authors
define testable scientific hypotheses which should be further investigated to
provide more definitive answers to the question."
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/84002299/ABSTRACT
This paper was a presentation at the International Conference on the Nutritional
Enhancement of Plant Foods, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK, 6 September 2000 to
9 September 2000. The level of peer-review for such conference papers is often
not the same high level of rigor given those submitted only for publication. In
addition, this journal is not among those carried by PubMed, which since it is
not a new journal may also be some indication of it scientific value or lack of.

[Because the meaning of the author's comments in the last few sentences is
rather difficult to dicipher, I will explain it a little as I understand it. By
"defense-related secondary metabolites", the authors mean the polyphenols,
flavonoids and other phytochemicals that plants produce as a defense against
molds, pariscites, bacteria and viruses. These are also useful to humans for the
same purposes (for preventing "high biological activity resulting in adverse
effects") and are one of the secondary values of eating plants. The authors
suggest, and I agree, that because organic plants must defend themselves from
environmental insults without the aid of artificial external chemicals, they may
upregulate production of their own defense chemicals and thus, that organic
plant foods may contain more of these valuable secondary defensive chemicals
than do non-organic foods. However, the authors also maintain (and I concur)
that this "theory" needs research verification before being accepted. --Paul]

The current published scientific studies are not confirming that what many
popular writers are printing in articles, in books and online regarding claims
of superior nutritional value of organically grown foods over those done
conventionally. This does not mean that some food production practices would be
better to be minimized or even eliminated, but the label "organic" does not
automatically mean superior or even merely better. **Kitty]


Yes....I know you will
counter that it is not cost effective but I wonder,

[Cost effectiveness has a couple of aspects to consider:
1.) The expenditure is individual and the benefit is individual. Some people
reading MoreLife are likely quite financially able and willing to spend 1.5 to 5
times the cost of conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc. for their
organic counterparts. Then there is also the time involved in many areas to just
find fresh organic fruits and vegetable at all. While more grocery chains are
including larger selections of organic produce and processed foods, far less
selection and choice is available in the organic section.
For us personally, there is no way that Paul and I are going to spend $3.99 for
organic strawberries (16 oz) on sale at WholeFoods (in Tempe) when the same
quantity of conventionally grown can be had on sale (in the same time frame,
late March 2005) for between $0.77 and $2.00 in the various other supermarket
chains. Even if we had substantially more income than we do, we would not choose
to spend it in this manner. We simply wash our fruits and vegetables well under
running water and consume them both raw and cooked.
Now it's perfectly possible that the costs of organically grown foods will
decrease appreciably in the future. When the cost and freshness begin to
approach that of the conventional version easily available to us, then Paul and
I will likely make use of them.

2.) To consume the amount of many micronutrients that are beneficial for
maintaining or regaining one's good health would require excessive caloric
intake. This then would be counterproductive as the extra body weight brings
with it the increased risk of numerous disease types (diabetes, cardiovascular
and various cancers, just to name 3 very common ones).

**Kitty]


given the cost
of supplements for those of us not blessed with your LFF deal....

[Your comment here deserves to be directly addressed. Your inference is that
Paul's arrangement for supplements for life from LEF is unearned ("blessed").
Paul thinks (he's told me, so I know) that Bill Faloon and Saul Kent (the
persons behind LEF) have kept in mind the considerable value Paul provided to
21CM in its formation and early years (large amounts of both money and unpaid
time) as well as later at LEF with the Forums and the supplement directories
(with low consultant payment and no publicity from LEF). (This is in addition of
course to the computer work that LEF balked at fully paying for.) Paul was
consulted by Saul Kent when LEF first began their Internet presence and, as Tom
Matthews, he took on the job of making their presence known on the Internet,
which job continued as separate work up until he resigned as Forums moderator.
He never received any payment for this work and was supposed to get a life-time
commision on all the customers which came to LEF as a result of his work.
However, soon after beginning the Internet marketing operation, he realized that
it would be perceived as too commercial and would not work unless he asked
nothing in return for his help and knowledgeable advice. Thus, there was no way
for LEF to keep track of the customers that he brought in and no commisions have
ever been paid.
While Paul has not and will not hesitate to make it publicly known when he
thinks that LEF or any of its staff or authors (if the party is known) has made
an error or performed poorly, he does think that LEF on the whole is as good or
better than any other major supplement company, and better considering the fact
that they have extensive disease protocols and fund considerable worthwhile
research.

So Paul C, if you think that it is cost effective for *you* to buy and consume
organically produced foods and minimize the nutritional supplements you take,
then it is prudent for you to do so of course. I would suggest that you evaluate
the entire worth to you first, however. You might create a spreadsheet that
would include the major micronutrients (macronutrients being protein,
carbohydrates and fat) of interest and the common food sources *and* with the
total quantities of the foods needed to obtain the levels desired. Actually the
Walford diet tool might be helpful doing this - if it is more user friendly than
it was a few years ago. But you'll still need a spreadsheet to determine the
cost of the organic vs. the conventionally grown items. If you take on this
project, we'd certainly be interested in hearing what results you obtain in the
way of ingested food quantities needed to reach the really healthy levels of
micronutrients (not the same as the RDAs, of course - even for those
micronutrients that have RDAs). **Kitty]