Vital Information wrote:Tom Philpott, who is somewhat of a God amongst my set (and probably some kind of relation to OurPalWill) hops on the nitrogen issue too.

But what I find most immediately significant is this: Both studies found that conventionally grown produce has substantially higher levels of nitrates than organic—most likely from widespread use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms.

This consensus around a nitrogen gap suggests a non-trivial advantage for organic food: A growing body of literature indicts heightened levels of nitrates in the U.S. diet as a significant health menace. For a while, we’ve known that nitrates are a powerful carcinogen.

The latest: a rather stunning recent report from the Journal of Alzheimer Disease (press release here) linking nitrates in food to “increased deaths from diseases, including Alzheimer’s, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s.”

Beetroot juice 'boosts stamina' [BBC link] wrote:Professor John Brewer, an expert on sports science at the University of Bedfordshire, said: "These findings are potentially exciting for many people involved in sport and exercise, but will almost certainly require further more extensive studies before the exact benefits and mechanisms are understood.

"We must also remember that exercise and training and a sensible diet will always remain as the essential ingredients for a balanced and healthy lifestyle."

Dr Simon Marshall, of the University of San Diego, has carried out work on exercise and health.

He said much more work was needed involving many more subjects to draw firm conclusions.

"Certainly, a diet high in nitrate-rich fruits and vegetables is good for your heart health and this study provides further evidence of this."

basis from
"Dietary nitrate supplementation reduces the O2 cost of low-intensity exercise and enhances tolerance to high-intensity exercise in humans" Bailey, SJ et. al
J Appl Physiol (August 6, 2009). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00722.2009
Free Abstract

------
1¢ (recession and all)
Scientists report results to fund further studies that may be of interest. The media and agenda-driven create minor flaps to sell (whatever it is they need to sell) and preserve entrenched positions. As a consumer I simply eschew junk (food, information, etc.) and do what makes sense.
Be sceptical, be very sceptical.

------

Over there! An 8 mile high distraction made of posh chocolate![Bad Science] wrote:...in reality, this is not about organic food.

Tyrus,

Appreciate your thoughful comments.

Your right that the various sectors and components of industrial ag lobbies and at any point there are issues they advocate that just don't make sense. Similarly, the organic industry, which after the organice standards were affirmed as rules quickly became industrial, lobbies. It's more fragmented but when you pull in the interest groups its just as well funded as industrial.

My experience with the target of these efforts, EPA and USDA is that regardless of where their people come from, they try especially hard to get it right. At times their work is driven by legislation that paints them into a corner and most of the time they are understaffed and on tight deadlines. But they are good, honest people.

When I spoke of wealth it was meant to be half provocative and the truth of the current organic market. Consumer Union has made some attempts to provide guidance on where paying extra to purchase organic produce makes sense (I believe this has to do with pesticide residue so the obvious culprits are strawberries, leafy greens, lettuces, etc.). But the cost can sometimes be extraordinary so we don't find Whole Foods, for example, in the same zip codes as Walmart.

Cost of food is a huge social welfare issue. There are benefits to organic production and both sides should and do learn from one another. But organic by definition reintroduces lower efficiency production methods which correlates with higher costs. Let me just say that I take great offense to the locavores, organic advocates and others who say regularly that more expensive food is actually a solution for the health issues prevalent today in lower income (primarily minority) communities such as obesity and its relative diabetes. Blow your food stamps on a pound of organic purple asparagus and there's no money left to buy bad stuff. And the default is they eat less because they can't afford more. Really Michael Pollan? Thanks for helping.

This is the elitist, me first attitude that adds nothing to solving the very real food problems in the developed and developing worlds. And Tyrus, the lack of grocery stores in minority communities has far more to do with the 30 year consolidation of the US food retail industry and racism than certain populations' taste for alcohol (which I've witnessed to be very well developed in those communities in which Whole Foods reside).

Proving that there's a market for highly specialized foods such as the organic white peaches that my wife loves from Whole Foods amongst a broad affluent population isn't a marvel. Figuring out how to make that product available to everyone is. Unless we don't really give a shit about everyone being able to eat the same as us (access and cost) for a reasonable price.

On the record, I'm for removing all the pesticides from food production that we can. If we can produce with zero pesticides, all the better. But I balance this objective with other practical issues which means its going to take some time to get there, and we may never eliminate some pesticides. How are we going to get there? It's, likely going to be the industrial ag complex continuing to figure out how to simplify production and remove pesticides, reduce fertilizer, etc. Organics have played a valuable role in showing industrial ag that consumers value these products. But organic producers aren't going to solve the puzzle of how to produce sufficient supply on our limited land.

My rant is that it's not a zero sum game as elements on both sides would have you believe. The UK study immediately set into motion the message machines and we've staked out ground and are falling on our swords to defend a stupid piece of land that doesn't mean jack. And since we're not feeling so good defending this trivial piece of land, let's bring in all sorts of other crap that provides "a non-trivial advantage for organic food."

The truth of production is that it's far down the road of merging different practices. And the hybrid production practices that result will no doubt produce fruit with nutrient content equivalent to organice....and conventional...just like their plant DNA tells them to produce. I'm sure this is going to be an extremely disappointing outcome.

Auxen1, well put. I think, essentially we're on the same page but if I may, I would like to comment on a couple of your points.

[quote=auxen1]Similarly, the organic industry, which after the organice standards were affirmed as rules quickly became industrial, lobbies. It's more fragmented but when you pull in the interest groups its just as well funded as industrial.

My experience with the target of these efforts, EPA and USDA is that regardless of where their people come from, they try especially hard to get it right. At times their work is driven by legislation that paints them into a corner and most of the time they are understaffed and on tight deadlines. But they are good, honest people.[/quote]

Though I don't doubt that the organic side lobbies, I can't speak to level of their funding (or the fact that it's an actual small "organic" farm and not a big food corp). The point I was trying to make is that big ag / industrial ag lobbies regardless of their organic designation and that we, as consumers need to be skeptical about who's spoon feeding us these studies and who benefits from them. I think this is less of an organic v non-organic issue and more of an overall "food is political" issue.

As for your experience with the EPA/USDA, I can't comment and I'm glad you've had such good interaction with them. I wouldn't want to question anyone's character but again, I'm sometimes skeptical about who benefits from government policy. It's not hard to find several instances where the leadership of these government organizations actually came from the companies or the industries for which they are responsible for regulating.

For example, the USDA Food and Nutrition Services is responsible for administering federal food assistance programs which include things like food stamps, food distribution and school lunch/breakfast programs. Their Director of the Office of Communications and Government Affairs, Sue Siemietowski, was formerly a Vice President of AFFI (American Frozen Food Institute), a "National trade association that promotes and represents the interests of all segments of the frozen food industry." Their Board of Directors include executives from Kellogg, Kraft, Nestle, Tropicana, General Mills, and Con Agra, among others. Want to get those pre-packaged food products out of your child's government subsidized lunch program? - Good luck.

Or better yet, just last month, the FDA announced that Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive, had joined the agency as “senior advisor to the commissioner.” Among his responsibilities will be:
• Assess current food program challenges and opportunities
• Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities
• Develop plans for allocating fiscal year 2010 resources
• Develop the FDA’s budget request for fiscal year 2011
• Plan implementation of new food safety legislation
This isn't his first role with the government, apparently he's bounced back and forth between the food industry and the agencies that enforce it. He may be best known for issuing industry-friendly policy on food biotechnology and approving the use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered growth hormone in dairy cows (mostly cut/pasted from source: Grist http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08 ... DA-taylor/). Now he may have some redeeming qualities and I hope that he is working in the best interest of the public and that in the end he is a good and honest person. But I remain skeptical.

The point I was trying to make is that food (organic, non-organic, big ag, small ag, local, sustainable, etc) is linked pretty heavily to politics.

[quote=auxen1]And Tyrus, the lack of grocery stores in minority communities has far more to do with the 30 year consolidation of the US food retail industry and racism than certain populations' taste for alcohol (which I've witnessed to be very well developed in those communities in which Whole Foods reside).[/quote]

Let me be clear on this one in particular. Although the liquor store comment was not mine originally, I was pointing out that it's an easy thing to say someone should do something and it's another matter of the community actually doing it (or wanting to do it). Also, not all "minority communities" are dependent on the consolidated US food retail industry. Having lived in a predominately Hispanic neighborhood, I can tell you that there is no shortage of family run groceries selling fresh, healthy food to the community at reasonable prices. Same goes for many of the Asian communities I've visited in this city. My point is that change (demand for fresh food) is dependent upon not only the individual person but the community as a whole. I think my intended argument is similar to yours that the companies selling this food tend to go where the money is and getting them into a poorer/less privileged neighborhood is a challenge but I don't necessarily agree that it has to do with race (everyone's a little different shade of "green" in retail food's eyes).

I think this was an interesting post/thread as we can see there are many reasons why people buy certain food and the nutritional argument really doesn't settle much (for this group anyway). I'm glad we have this little food "community" to share these ideas and learn from each other. I thank auxen1 and Vital Information for posting some thought provoking topics (regardless of stance or lack thereof) because it's gets the conversation going. I got into growing some of my own food because of conversations/arguments like this one and learned a lot. I hope someone else glances at this and does something bigger about it. Thanks for letting me participate. Cheers...

Tyrus,

Thanks very much for your thoughts. Just a word or two...

Well made points on regulatory talent. There's no doubt that some of the best talent moves back and forth between govt and private industry. Which I believe puts a unique burden on the agencies to be transparent and create good policy. My position is that it is an issue by issue burden of proof that they have to meet as a result.

In regards to underserved communities/food deserts...It's a tremendously complex issue and has far more to do with the retail portion of the chain than production as I think we both commented. But many are densely populated and they have to consume a couple thousand calories per person each day. There's an opportunity there.

I don't know that demand will be home grown but there's some ongoing research that may help us to understand this better. The "value" for fresh fruits and veggies was removed (by economic and social discrimination) a couple of generations ago and the effort to reintroduce these values is a complex, difficult and multi-year job. But the problem has been recognized and smart people are working to understand how to fix it.

Enjoyed your comments and all the best.

More stuff to read.

Just wanted to say I am enjoying reading this. Don't have a leg to stand on in any argument, but am learning!!

Interesting read, Vital. Calm, reasonable talk by both parties. Good.

On the 'what is soil?' issue, just one quickie. For the longest time, the grape people at Davis simply scoffed at the vignes people in Montpellier (And I know, I've talked to both: I'm a Davis grad and I've done research at Montpellier) vis à vis the answer to the 'what is soil?' question.

The American view, for the longest time, looked at soil as a physical structure which supported the plant physically and chemically. There was no *biological* interaction of importance between soil and plant.

Goodbye terroir.

The French view was that there was biological interaction between soil and plant. Hence, terroir.

Thirty-seven years ago I believed that Davis was correct; by now, I thoroughly believe that Montpellier is correct. (And, truth to tell, I think some folks at USDA are coming round to this view; I know bcz I've talked to them.)

Geo

auxen1 wrote:And so a regulatory body from the most pro organic country in the world steps in, does a research review and finds nothing to suggest that the end product is any different (which is no surprise to most of the scientific world).

Except those surrender-lovin' scientists in the French world, or is that French scientists in the scientific world, right?

They seem to have looked into the question at hand and concluded what, organic food is more nutritious.

For those interested in bona fides, the author works in a lab of the Institute National Recherche Agronomique, which is, as it states, the National Institute for Agronomic Research. INRA also publishes the journal. There are INRA labs for various crops, and various agronomic foci. AGRO-Montpellier, for example, includes the INRA lab for viticulture and enology, as a constituent of the École Nationale Superieure Agronomique. This is a very high level place, in fact, the *highest* level place of its kind in France. (I'm lucky enough to have spent some research time there, in its beautiful South of France setting. Somebody's got to do it! ) USDA is *not* comparable to INRA: INRA's sole task is research. It's the agricultural counterpart to CNRS.

Geo

Vital, I think you've proven my earlier point

With so many food issues there's "science" on both sides and advocates on both sides. You can pretty much find what you want to support your position.

I thought I would add a farmer's point of view on this subject. This was an article from the DeKalb County Farm Bureau newspaper (June 2010) "Point of View".

"Today's food production allows for all sorts of options be it conventional or organic, GMO or heirloom seeds. But study after study show that organic food isn’t any healthier than ordinary, conventionally grown food. So says the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Food Technology’s Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety and Britain Food Standards Agency.

Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the claims made by organic proponents and concluded that much of the claims by organic proponents are based on research articles which have not been reviewed by independent scientists and data that is not statistically significant. Nonexistent or incomplete data is nevertheless published in the media. In some cases, organic food proponents omit data that does not support their views.

Rosen also noted that experts at Mayo Clinic and the American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food.

Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more health nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money, says Rosen.

What would happen if all the production agriculture went organic? Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world. University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen with organic nitrogen, the US alone would need and additional one billion livestock (for manure) and two billion acres of forage crops (for livestock). That’s the size of the lower 48 states.

In other words, the organic niche is just that – a niche, and a feel-good system for those who can afford it. “

Gee, I have a farmer's point of view too.

"If I can grow like this, and make a living at it, why shouldn't I?"

Everyone has a voice! I thought the last two paragraphs in the article were interesting.

You can find a study that says whatever you want.

razbry wrote:I thought I would add a farmer's point of view on this subject.

Based on the quoted article, it appears to be the point of view of a New Jersey professor, not an actual farmer, right?

eatchicago wrote:You can find a study that says whatever you want.

But can you find a credible study to say whatever you want? (Not making a claim one way or another about this issue, just about the idea that bad research should be given as much weight as good research.)

Darren72 wrote:

eatchicago wrote:You can find a study that says whatever you want.

But can you find a credible study to say whatever you want? (Not making a claim one way or another about this issue, just about the idea that bad research should be given as much weight as good research.)

In this case, probably.

I'm suspicious of any speculative studies that deal in absolutes. That is, "this CANNOT be done" or "this can ABSOLUTELY be done". The truth is almost always significantly more nuanced and complex.

This droll to the extreme. The problem with the Monsanto consortium (so to speak) propaganda is that it has become too rote. Google that quoted article and you can find almost those exact words in many another "farmer's" defense, especially down to the, if we do not farm this way we will all starve, kicker.

As to the study quoted, just re-read the posts upthread to see all the critiques of said study. Quickly: 1) the data ranges used in the British study are skewed (and skewered) 2) studies, especially side by side studies, do show differences in nutrient qualities between foods grown organically vs. conventionally 3) the British study did not touch the subject of health consequences of eating various 'cides 4) nor did said study account for environmental damages associated with chemical farming. As to taste, go see for yourself.

Just because the same stuff keeps on re-appearing, does not make it any righter.

aschie30 wrote:

razbry wrote:I thought I would add a farmer's point of view on this subject.

Based on the quoted article, it appears to be the point of view of a New Jersey professor, not an actual farmer, right?

Um, the person quoting the article is an actual farmer. I think that bears some consideration.

gotta say Im skeptical of anyones opinion on either side of this issue that has a financial stake in it.

Personally I have started doing more to learn more about, and to purchase more organic & local items.

Mhays wrote:

aschie30 wrote:

razbry wrote:I thought I would add a farmer's point of view on this subject.

Based on the quoted article, it appears to be the point of view of a New Jersey professor, not an actual farmer, right?

Um, the person quoting the article is an actual farmer. I think that bears some consideration.

Not to belabor this, but I don't see where in the above post a farmer's opinion is expressed, be it razbry's or anyone else's. The post quoted an article that quoted a professor's not-so-novel positions about organic food and farming (see first three pages of thread). Does razbry think that organic farming is strictly a feel-good system that would lead to worldwide starvation if farmed exclusively?

Yeah, that farmer seems to be growing a fine crop of K Street astroturf.

In any case, it's nothing this long thread hasn't been over before, but to the "organic will starve us!!!" point, honestly, show me the bill that Big Organic has just about snuck through all the congresses and parliaments in the world to outlaw industrial agriculture tomorrow and I'll worry about that.

Industrial ag had 100+ years of overwhelming support from government and commerce to get to the point where it's as fabulously efficient as it is today. Organic or any other form of alternative agriculture has been a few kooks working things out for themselves over the same period, so it seems rather poor manners for the rich heir to be sneering at the poor cousin working the fields. One of the things I admired so much about interviewing Dave Cleverdon of Kinnikinnick was that he wasn't asking for big government handouts, subsidies, etc. but makes such an impassioned plea for free markets and being able to serve them as he sees fit. I realize that self-reliant farmers are as unAmerican as you can get today, but can't we allow them a little room to experiment and learn, even if they refuse to demand billions of tax dollars for it like sensible people?

My point is that if razbry quoted the article, she must agree with it, and she has a farmer's perspective. Am I wrong?

Big is definately bad. And, if you can attach the opposing view of your issue to big you are very far down the path of winning. Merits of your argument notwithstanding.

If you have any interest in either buying organic food personally, or say that it has any benefit in any area over industrial ag, you have a secret desire to cause famine. A recent study proves it!

Yes, the crop of straw men should be plenty big this year.

aschie30 wrote:Not to belabor this, but I don't see where in the above post a farmer's opinion is expressed, be it razbry's or anyone else's. The post quoted an article that quoted a professor's not-so-novel positions about organic food and farming (see first three pages of thread). Does razbry think that organic farming is strictly a feel-good system that would lead to worldwide starvation if farmed exclusively?

(emphasis mine)

I'm sorry, Mike - but that's exactly what the above statement implies: otherwise, why would Wendy mention that rasbry cares about organics being farmed exclusively? I happen to agree that I don't think we can feed everyone on earth without high-yeild techniques that make the most out of every bit of land - and exclusively organic practices don't do that.

If you are asking for the right to purchase boutique vegetables and like it, nobody's stopping you. If you aren't trying to change the "system," then what exactly are you after?

Mhays wrote:My point is that if razbry quoted the article, she must agree with it, and she has a farmer's perspective. Am I wrong?

Just because someone may post or link to anything, it does not guarantee it reflects their opinion. I post articles I find interesting or may be of interest to someone, though I expect it reflects the author's effort not necessarily their view. For example, freelancers often write an article they have been assigned with the tone and view may be dicated by their customer.

Regards,

I happen to agree that I don't think we can feed everyone on earth without high-yeild techniques that make the most out of every bit of land - and exclusively organic practices don't do that.

Yet.

Or maybe never.

But high-yield techniques may not work either-- if oil goes to $300 a barrel. Or if wars break out over water.

And see, that's the problem I have with this debate. It basically says this: "After 100+ years of intensive scientific improvement, industrial ag feeds all these people! Organic as it exists right now could not! Both are fixed exactly where they are in 2010, so organic can never get any better, and industrial ag will never face any new problems. Therefore, if you even want to change industrial agriculture in the slightest, you're out to make people starve!"

Oh hogwash. That's GM in 1972 thinking. Well, guess what, we did make cars smaller and safer and more fuel-efficient and more reliable. And if you won't, GM, someone else will. Industrial agriculture is a great achievement. But anybody who wants to bronze it and leave it where it is right now is a bigger danger to industrial agriculture than all the Michael Pollans in the world. Take your opponents' criticisms and build something new and better out of them. Or somebody else will.

But high-yield techniques may not work either

So, you're advocating for a low yield solution?

so organic can never get any better

If organic gets a lot better I vote we call it industrial agriculture

Of course I'm being a smart ass. I was afraid that a straight response would contribute to group self flagellation.

Ah, Auxen1, I know I'll never know as much about this as you tell us you do.