• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Organic food offers no health benefit

tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
SHOPPERS who are willing to pay more than three times the price of factory-farmed chicken for organic birds get no more benefit to their health, according to a study commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.

The agency said organic food did nothing to improve health or offer any more nutritional benefits than non-organic food.

The agency insisted that it was neither for nor against organic food. It stopped short of saying that buying organic was a waste of money. It said that there were no important benefits for health and that it was more important for people to eat a healthy, balanced diet.

The research, the biggest and most comprehensive of its kind, looked at research published on the health and nutritional benefits of organic produce over the past 50 years.

The researchers, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, were led by a public health nutritionist, Dr Alan Dangour.

They found that there was no significant benefit from drinking milk or eating meat, vegetables, fruit, poultry and eggs from organic sources, as opposed to the products of conventional farm systems.
Pro-organic groups criticised the findings of the year-long review, which cost pounds 120,000. They said that the conclusions, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, failed to take into account the impact of pesticides and herbicides. Organic farming bans artificial chemical fertilisers and has stricter animal welfare rules than conventional farming.

Dr Dangour said that, as a nutritionist, he was not qualified to look at pesticides. "There is a possibility that organic food has less pesticide residues, but this was not part of the review," he said. "Potentially this may be an area for further research."

He added: "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced crops and livestock on the basis of nutritional supremacy." Among the differences identified by the study was a higher phosphorous content in organic food.

Dr Dangour said: "Phosphorous is an important mineral and is available in everything we eat. It is important for public health but the difference in the content between organic and conventional foods was not statistically relevant in terms of health."

He added: "Acidity is also higher in organic produce but acidity is about taste and sensory perception and makes no difference at all for health."

Nitrogen levels were found to be higher in conventional produce, but this was not surprising given the use of nitrogen as a fertiliser in commercial agriculture. But the levels posed no better or worse impacts on human health, the research said.

A study of 52,000 papers was made, but only 162 scientific papers published between January 1958 and February last year were deemed relevant, of which just 55 met the strict quality criteria for the study, Dr Dangour said.

Twenty-three nutrients were analysed. In 20 categories there were no significant differences between production methods and the nutrient content. The differences detected were most likely to have been due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest, and were unlikely to provide any health benefits.

The Soil Association challenged the conclusions that some nutritional differences between organic and conventional food were not important. It said it was particularly concerned that the researchers dismissed higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic food - such as 53.6 higher levels of beta-carotene and 38.4 per cent more flavonoids in organic foods - according to the mean percentage difference of samples analysed.

Dr Dangour was adamant that these were not relevant because of the level of standard error in the research - which was 37 per cent for beta-carotene and 10.6 per cent for flavonoids.

The authors said in their conclusion: "No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrient assessed in this review, suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content."



I've been banging on about this for years. And the critiques the organics people raise in this are spurious at best too. Pesticide residues shouldn't be an issue due to legal requirements on withholding periods of use. Herbicides ditto. I know some countries have more lax laws and use higher rates than Australia, but those countries also don't tend to be net exporters and becomes a national issue rather than a food issue.

Basically you want fresh food that hasn't been artificially ripened.
 
Adam23

Adam23

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
5,644
Points
38
nice read !!!

thanks for sharing Tim :thumbsup2:
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
They said that the conclusions, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, failed to take into account the impact of pesticides and herbicides. Organic farming bans artificial chemical fertilisers and has stricter animal welfare rules than conventional farming.

Dr Dangour said that, as a nutritionist, he was not qualified to look at pesticides. "There is a possibility that organic food has less pesticide residues, but this was not part of the review," he said. "Potentially this may be an area for further research."


I've been banging on about this for years. And the critiques the organics people raise in this are spurious at best too. Pesticide residues shouldn't be an issue due to legal requirements on withholding periods of use. Herbicides ditto. I know some countries have more lax laws and use higher rates than Australia, but those countries also don't tend to be net exporters and becomes a national issue rather than a food issue.

Basically you want fresh food that hasn't been artificially ripened.


That is the exact reason why people buy organic over non organic is to avoid the pesticides and toxic chemicals found in them or atleast the reason i hear most frequently.

This is an inconclusive study as a whole on rather non organic and organic are equal in terms of effecting someones health. They have examined the nutrition but have left a piece of the puzzle out and that is the toxins in the chemicals that the soil and plants are treated with if they are not organic. The toxins not present in the organic foods is what makes them a better choice for some people.

The nutrition expert said he could not comment on the effect of pesticides because he is not an expert. And he should not comment in an area he is not an expert in that would be a fallacy to assume he could talk about pesticides with the same expertise he can nutrition. He cant.

I am still personally undecided on the matter because I have yet to read studies that are convincing one way or another. This study is not convincing. How can we fully examine the health value of an entire food and leave part of the whole unexamined? The answer is simple you cannot examine the whole wih out examining all the individual parts. In this study some of the individual parts were left out so we cannot make a conclusion on the two organic VS non oragnic as far as their effect on a persons health is concerned.

As far as nutrition you can make a conclusion in favor of what their evidence suggested, organic and non organic foods have minimal differences in nutritional values.

Thank you for the study Tim they are always interesting.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
That is the exact reason why people buy organic over non organic is to avoid the pesticides and toxic chemicals found in them or atleast the reason i hear most frequently.

This is an inconclusive study as a whole on rather non organic and organic are equal in terms of effecting someones health. They have examined the nutrition but have left a piece of the puzzle out and that is the toxins in the chemicals that the soil and plants are treated with if they are not organic. The toxins not present in the organic foods is what makes them a better choice for some people.

The nutrition expert said he could not comment on the effect of pesticides because he is not an expert. And he should not comment in an area he is not an expert in that would be a fallacy to assume he could talk about pesticides with the same expertise he can nutrition. He cant.

I am still personally undecided on the matter because I have yet to read studies that are convincing one way or another. This study is not convincing. How can we fully examine the health value of an entire food and leave part of the whole unexamined? The answer is simple you cannot examine the whole wih out examining all the individual parts. In this study some of the individual parts were left out so we cannot make a conclusion on the two organic VS non oragnic as far as their effect on a persons health is concerned.

As far as nutrition you can make a conclusion in favor of what their evidence suggested, organic and non organic foods have minimal differences in nutritional values.

Thank you for the study Tim they are always interesting.

Like I said below the article: pesticides and herbicides should be a moot point. Withholding periods are such that the chemicals should be broken down long before harvest.

But here's the part that really annoys me about the organics people. Pesticides, herbicides and chemicals are meant to be bad, yet those same people will have fly spray in the kitchen (pesticide and a nasty one at that), cockroach baits (which get spread all of the house and are systemic pesticides), organophosphates (most household cleaning products), and several other harsh chemicals (bleach, caustic cleaners, ammonias, tetrabutyls). Hell they use some of them daily, like shampoo, deoderant, etc.

These dangerous chemicals are supposedly safe because they use them in the house. And don't even get me started on the "natural" products. Those are even worse as they have a legal loop-hole that avoids testing for toxicity.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
Fair enough and i agree with that point made about sprays deoderant ect, Tim. I personally buy non organic stuff bc it is cheaper, but like i said i dont know if it is better. Thanks again for the study Tim.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,654
Points
38
A friend of mine grow organic produce, among other things, and sells it in Madison.

ORGANIC DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T USE PESTICIDES.

It just means you're limited in how much and what kind you can use.



One thing I do buy "organic" is meat. That same of mine in WI also raises grass-fed, hormone free beef cattle. The meat is tastier, has a higher amount of omega 3s, etc.

Just know your food, and avoid buying stuff because it says "organic" or "natural." Heh, my favorite health food comes in a can- sardines!
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
A friend of mine grow organic produce, among other things, and sells it in Madison.

ORGANIC DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T USE PESTICIDES.

It just means you're limited in how much and what kind you can use.



One thing I do buy "organic" is meat. That same of mine in WI also raises grass-fed, hormone free beef cattle. The meat is tastier, has a higher amount of omega 3s, etc.

Just know your food, and avoid buying stuff because it says "organic" or "natural." Heh, my favorite health food comes in a can- sardines!

Grass fed is a better option as the grain finished diet changes the omega fatty acid ratio.

But the hormones? Makes SFA difference. I'm more concerned about antibiotics as the hormones by their nature are metabolised. Plus the fact that we get exposed to more xanoestrogens than is ever in our food. The antibiotics have a larger issue in their use. It is part of the reason that so many countries have banned the use of antibiotics in production (and some have also banned hormones).

Another fun fact: you are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of toxins and chemicals from a day in a city just breathing and drinking the water than you ever will from the food you eat.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,654
Points
38
But the hormones? Makes SFA difference. I'm more concerned about antibiotics as the hormones by their nature are metabolised. Plus the fact that we get exposed to more xanoestrogens than is ever in our food. The antibiotics have a larger issue in their use. It is part of the reason that so many countries have banned the use of antibiotics in production (and some have also banned hormones).

I'm extremely paranoid about xanoestrogens ever since I got slight gyno as a teen. (It was probably just fatty gyno.) Hormones were just one more thing that unfortunately have been associated with that paranoia.

:omgwtf:
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
I'm extremely paranoid about xanoestrogens ever since I got slight gyno as a teen. (It was probably just fatty gyno.) Hormones were just one more thing that unfortunately have been associated with that paranoia.

:omgwtf:

Well it is misplaced. Yes you are exposed to a lot of xano and phyto estrogens, there is soy in most things these days, the pill has ended up in our water supply, etc. The fact remains, however, that you won't be able to change this exposure level.

Best method is to actually have counters to your exposure, be fit and healthy, have muscle, take ZMA, avoid processed foods, try and get reverse osmosis water. I know in Australia that hormones haven't been allowed in animal production since the 1950's, I believe Europe is similar (but unsure), I don't know about America or other backwards countries :)thumbsup2:).
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,654
Points
38
Well it is misplaced. Yes you are exposed to a lot of xano and phyto estrogens, there is soy in most things these days, the pill has ended up in our water supply, etc. The fact remains, however, that you won't be able to change this exposure level.

I'm aware it's misplaced, that's why it's unfortunate.

:hhj:

ZMA's, huh? Haven't read much about them, will look into it. Sounds interesting, as I sweat tons and probably don't get enough vitamins.

Danke!
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Folk Artist

Folk Artist

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
506
Points
18
It is really more important they(nutritionists) say, for people to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables regardless of how they are grown. Also note that organic farmers also use pesticides, but have a smaller selection of them to use- some of them are more toxic than the synthetic ones.
 
Kakashi2020

Kakashi2020

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
415
Points
18
SHOPPERS who are willing to pay more than three times the price of factory-farmed chicken for organic birds get no more benefit to their health, according to a study commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.

The agency said organic food did nothing to improve health or offer any more nutritional benefits than non-organic food.

The agency insisted that it was neither for nor against organic food. It stopped short of saying that buying organic was a waste of money. It said that there were no important benefits for health and that it was more important for people to eat a healthy, balanced diet.

The research, the biggest and most comprehensive of its kind, looked at research published on the health and nutritional benefits of organic produce over the past 50 years.

The researchers, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, were led by a public health nutritionist, Dr Alan Dangour.

They found that there was no significant benefit from drinking milk or eating meat, vegetables, fruit, poultry and eggs from organic sources, as opposed to the products of conventional farm systems.
Pro-organic groups criticised the findings of the year-long review, which cost pounds 120,000. They said that the conclusions, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, failed to take into account the impact of pesticides and herbicides. Organic farming bans artificial chemical fertilisers and has stricter animal welfare rules than conventional farming.

Dr Dangour said that, as a nutritionist, he was not qualified to look at pesticides. "There is a possibility that organic food has less pesticide residues, but this was not part of the review," he said. "Potentially this may be an area for further research."

He added: "A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced crops and livestock on the basis of nutritional supremacy." Among the differences identified by the study was a higher phosphorous content in organic food.

Dr Dangour said: "Phosphorous is an important mineral and is available in everything we eat. It is important for public health but the difference in the content between organic and conventional foods was not statistically relevant in terms of health."

He added: "Acidity is also higher in organic produce but acidity is about taste and sensory perception and makes no difference at all for health."

Nitrogen levels were found to be higher in conventional produce, but this was not surprising given the use of nitrogen as a fertiliser in commercial agriculture. But the levels posed no better or worse impacts on human health, the research said.

A study of 52,000 papers was made, but only 162 scientific papers published between January 1958 and February last year were deemed relevant, of which just 55 met the strict quality criteria for the study, Dr Dangour said.

Twenty-three nutrients were analysed. In 20 categories there were no significant differences between production methods and the nutrient content. The differences detected were most likely to have been due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest, and were unlikely to provide any health benefits.

The Soil Association challenged the conclusions that some nutritional differences between organic and conventional food were not important. It said it was particularly concerned that the researchers dismissed higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic food - such as 53.6 higher levels of beta-carotene and 38.4 per cent more flavonoids in organic foods - according to the mean percentage difference of samples analysed.

Dr Dangour was adamant that these were not relevant because of the level of standard error in the research - which was 37 per cent for beta-carotene and 10.6 per cent for flavonoids.

The authors said in their conclusion: "No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrient assessed in this review, suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content."



I've been banging on about this for years. And the critiques the organics people raise in this are spurious at best too. Pesticide residues shouldn't be an issue due to legal requirements on withholding periods of use. Herbicides ditto. I know some countries have more lax laws and use higher rates than Australia, but those countries also don't tend to be net exporters and becomes a national issue rather than a food issue.

Basically you want fresh food that hasn't been artificially ripened.

I do agree that there's no outright benefits in eating organic vegetables instead of normally produced vegetables because as you've mentioned it's health benefits is almost insignificant, but if you're going to eat organic vegetables long term then that insignificant benefits would eventually pile up and become significant.
 
Alexandoy

Alexandoy

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
3,249
Points
48
What exactly is organic food and why is the price tag more expensive than the ordinary food? Well, organic means the food was grown in the farm with no chemical whether it is pesticide, anti-biotics, or vitamins. In other words, organic food are the vegetables, fruits and animals that were grown in the natural way. But how do we get assurance that what we are buying are really organic? That's a good question - what health benefits do we get from organic food? My answer is practically nothing more than the ordinary food that we eat which may be tainted by chemicals.
 
Heatman

Heatman

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
630
Points
18
Seriously, vegetables and fruits are very important for one's good health. When I say vegetables, I mean the raw ones, they are far more better than the cooked ones. It's why fruits gives a lot of vitamins and minerals.
 
Alexandoy

Alexandoy

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
3,249
Points
48
Seriously, vegetables and fruits are very important for one's good health. When I say vegetables, I mean the raw ones, they are far more better than the cooked ones. It's why fruits gives a lot of vitamins and minerals.

I have to agree that raw vegetables like what we see in salads are good to eat more than the cooked vegetables. An example is cabbage that is made into cole slaw compared to the cabbage in the beef soup. I love cole slaw but it has an issue with my stomach for it gives me severe indigestion when I had eaten a lot.
 
NoviceNinja

NoviceNinja

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
397
Points
18
Eating raw vegetables may be a healthier choice because they maintain their fiber and vitamin levels much better than cooked food, so they offer higher food volume in addition to more nutrients.
 
Heatman

Heatman

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
630
Points
18
Eating raw vegetables may be a healthier choice because they maintain their fiber and vitamin levels much better than cooked food, so they offer higher food volume in addition to more nutrients.

Exactly! Have you seen how fresh vegetarians look always? It's all because of how healthy vegetables are for consumption. Some people might want heavy foods but vegetables are great. You never get fat as a vegetarian and you will always feel light and strong.
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
31
Views
14K
Alexandoy
Alexandoy
jolter604
Replies
6
Views
4K
bourehim
B
The Creator
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Creator
The Creator
Top