Downshifting bad for your health ?

ixwood

spaceraiders wrote: »

You know those vegetable food boxes that people have delivered each week? Does anyone know of any websites that list non-organic food boxes?

I like science and evidence and the organic food movement is based on neither. It's nice to want healthier food, but I don't want to contribute to organic as it just plays on people's fears and misunderstandings on health.

You seem to have an organic chip on your shoulder. Organic is better in a lot of ways, including food quality and nutrition generally.

Modern farming consists of growing crops in a sponge of lifeless soil that gets filled with artificial fertilisers. The plants grow, but lack the numerous trace nutrients, minerals and vitamins that would normally be present.

Then there's the man-made chemical thing. They're supposed to be safe, but do you 100% think they all are? What combinations have been tested in? At least natural chemicals have evolved naturally alongside us over long periods of time. Why do we suffer from such high cancer rates? Isn't cancer unheard of in native tribes (with natural diets amongst many other factors)?

Organic is much better for land and for the wildlife locally and on wider scale too. "Normal" farming is now wholly dependant on fossil fuels and a huge polluter. Obviously organic itself doesn't remove all of these, but organic, local and unprocessed and unpackaged would be much better. Best is grown at home of course.

I do think "Organic" has been cashed in on by greedy supermarkets and the like, but that in itself doesn't make it bad.

Debt_Free_Chick

spaceraiders wrote: »

My only point was that you shouldn't demonize sweeteners because they're "artificial" or "chemicals" as such statements don't make any sense. Your statement is also fairly meaningless as you can that about almost anything.

I agree with you entirely - suffice it to say that one should not demonise sugar, white bread, red meat etc etc for the same reason

Debt_Free_Chick

1carminestocky wrote: »

So is water, for that matter. Or, indeed, oxygen.

Yup Which is why all these suggestions of "healthy foods" are somewhat odd ... at least, they're odd to me

Debt_Free_Chick

ixwood wrote: »

You seem to have an organic chip on your shoulder. Organic is better in a lot of ways, including food quality and nutrition generally.

But not having the "organic" badge is not necessarily bad. Many, many farmers grow to "near organic" standards, but choose not to buy the badge. And there's the rub - it costs money to buy that organic badge.

Modern farming consists of growing crops in a sponge of lifeless soil that gets filled with artificial fertilisers. The plants grow, but lack the numerous trace nutrients, minerals and vitamins that would normally be present.

No - I'm sorry, but this is an urban myth. It's not the case that "organic = good" and "not organic = bad" - that's not necessarily the case.

Then there's the man-made chemical thing. They're supposed to be safe, but do you 100% think they all are? What combinations have been tested in? At least natural chemicals have evolved naturally alongside us over long periods of time. Why do we suffer from such high cancer rates? Isn't cancer unheard of in native tribes (with natural diets amongst many other factors)?

And very many "natural" things are not good for us.In fact, "any" thing - natural or manmade - if taken to excess, is bad. We should not be thinking about individual ingredients or products, but our overall diet/lifestyle.

[quote0Organic is much better for land and for the wildlife locally and on wider scale too. "Normal" farming is now wholly dependant on fossil fuels and a huge polluter. Obviously organic itself doesn't remove all of these, but organic, local and unprocessed and unpackaged would be much better. Best is grown at home of course. [/quote]

I've said this, but I'll say it again - "Organic" is just a badge. Sure, it tells the consumer that the farmer/food producer is adhering to certain standards, but you can do that without having to "buy the badge".

It's simply not true to suggest that all non-organic farmers/food producers are bad.

I do think "Organic" has been cashed in on by greedy supermarkets and the like, but that in itself doesn't make it bad.

Of course the Supermarkets have cashed in - sorry, but they're good at just that. But why do so many of us "buy" what the supermarkets think? They don't give a stuff about food - they simply use food to get us into the store where they can sell us white goods and/or clothes!!!!!

ixwood

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.
The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.


http://www.physicalnutrition.net/soil-mineral-depletion.htm
Soil is the prime source of minerals on which every living cell depends for its structure and function. Vitamins, enzymes, amino acids (protein) and a host of other biologically active substances are essential for our bodies to function properly. They virtually all include minerals as an integral part of their chemical structure. Dr Linus Pauling, twice noble prize winner, said “you can trace every sickness, every disease and every ailment to a mineral deficiency”. Yet, all over the world, minerals are disappearing from agricultural soils at an alarming rate. In 1992, the official report of the Rio Earth Summit concluded “there is deep concern over continuing major declines in the mineral values in farm and range soils throughout the world”. This statement was based on data showing that over the last 100 years, average mineral levels in agricultural soils had fallen worldwide – by 72% in Europe, 76% in Asia and 85% in North America. What has caused this staggering decline?

spaceraiders

Debt_Free_Chick has already addressed a lot of points I agree with

ixwood wrote: »

You seem to have an organic chip on your shoulder. Organic is better in a lot of ways, including food quality and nutrition generally.

Any proof of these bold statements? Food quality is a fairly meaningless term and I know of no studies that show eating organic actually increases the health of humans in any measurable way.

Modern farming consists of growing crops in a sponge of lifeless soil that gets filled with artificial fertilisers. The plants grow, but lack the numerous trace nutrients, minerals and vitamins that would normally be present.

Non-organic just means you don't meet organic requirements. It doesn't mean "lifeless soil etc.". You're grossly overgeneralising.

Then there's the man-made chemical thing. They're supposed to be safe, but do you 100% think they all are? What combinations have been tested in?

Another meaningless statement. Can you prove 100% that apples or carpets or hats do not give you cancer? Philosophy of science say, no, you can only gather good evidence that this is not the case. Pesticides, vaccinations, medicine, electrical products etc. are all tested to a high standard before being subjected to the public.

At least natural chemicals have evolved naturally alongside us over long periods of time. Why do we suffer from such high cancer rates? Isn't cancer unheard of in native tribes (with natural diets amongst many other factors)?

We suffer from cancer because science has allowed us to live long enough to die of cancer instead of starvation, plaques etc. It crazy that people want to turn on science now when it has done such good. Modern pesticides are generally more effective than ones that occur in nature too and require less to be used.

Organic is much better for land and for the wildlife locally and on wider scale too. "Normal" farming is now wholly dependant on fossil fuels and a huge polluter. Obviously organic itself doesn't remove all of these, but organic, local and unprocessed and unpackaged would be much better. Best is grown at home of course.

Overgeneralising again.

spaceraiders

ixwood wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.
The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

The trouble with studies like this is that there's no proof things like antioxidants reduce cancer rates. In fact:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15464182?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
"INTERPRETATION: We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality."

If you want to make claims like this, you have to actually show that eating organic directly leads to less cancer. I would suggest you look for evidence outside of newspapers as the media are notorious for jumping to conclusions.

Look, some of the organic guidelines make sense, some of them don't (e.g. no modern pesticides). I just get bothered when people claim that any organic food is automatically better than any non-organic food. It doesn't really make any sense why that should be the case because you can grow non-organic food any way you want.

ixwood

The Newspaper is reporting news. It didn't make it up!

It's the results of a £12m four-year project funded by the EU. Maybe you could take up your concerns with them, or Professor Leifert.

I'm willing to accept that minerals are used by the body and if artificial fertilisers don't contain them, soil and crops will have less.

PS I'm in no way anti science.

spaceraiders

ixwood wrote: »

The Newspaper is reporting news. It didn't make it up!

I never said you made it up, just take what you read in the papers about sciences with a large grain of salt. The people that write science stories for newspapers typically are not scientists and frequently exaggerate or misinterpret stories.

These sites give excellent current and daily examples of this:
http://www.nhs.uk/News/Pages/NewsArticles.aspx
http://www.badscience.net/

It's the results of a £12m four-year project funded by the EU. Maybe you could take up your concerns with them, or Professor Leifert.

Notice the newspaper made the link of increase antioxidants to reduce cancer. I doubt that was in the study. Anyway, you really need to wait for a consensus to form over time and not just rely on one study. There is certainly no consensus that organic is healthier for you at the moment.

ailuro2

Great point raised by the OP, but sadly it's degenerated into one of those threads where posts are littered with multiple quote boxes.:rolleyes:

My tuppenceworth I'm going to add is to downshift where you can do it without giving up on taste, and without giving up on nutritional value.

Downshift if the saving is 'real'

Mince is an excellent example - 500g of cheap mince with the fat drained will end up weighing a lot less than 500g of lean steak mince with the fat drained after browning.
If the difference in price is vast then it might be better value to buy the cheapest mince, but why not consider going round the corner to the reduced section to see if you can pick up some reduced price mince that isn't going to vanish in a pile of grease? - that way you get the best of both worlds. Cook it when you get home and stick it in the freezer and it will be ready to use when you need it. Now that's proper moneysaving without the need to lose quality in your food.