Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hay Belly Nation
Mum's the word among federal officials about the health benefits of eating organic foods.
The Department of Health and Human Services defers questions about organic foods to the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA has no policy on organics because it says they're the domain of the Department of Agriculture, which will admit to using the "o-word," but says its mandate is simply to regulate use of the certified organic label, not to judge the relative benefits of organic versus conventional foods.
While the agencies entrusted with safeguarding our food and health pass the potato, a fast-growing body of scientific literature suggests that the connection between farm practices and the healthfulness of our foods merits attention. Organic foods don't come out ahead of conventionally grown foods in 100 percent of comparative tests, but they rise to the top often enough to suggest that organic farming can increase, sometimes dramatically, the nutrient density of what we put in our mouths.
Even a cursory look at recent peer-reviewed studies should be enough to get public health officials talking.
Researchers at the University of California at Davis found that 10-year mean levels of quercetin were 79 percent higher in organic tomatoes than in conventional tomatoes, and that levels of kaempferol were 97 percent higher. Quercetin and kaempferol are flavonoids that studies suggest protect against cardiovascular disease, cancer and other age-related ills.
Another Davis study compared organic and conventional kiwis and found that "all the main mineral constituents were more concentrated in the organic kiwifruits, which also had higher ascorbic acid (a precursor of vitamin C) and total phenol content, resulting in a higher antioxidant activity."
A Spanish study measured 1.5 times more carotenoids -- associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and some cancers -- in peppers grown organically.
And Swiss researcher Lukas Rist found that mothers consuming at least 90 percent of their dairy and meat from organic sources have 36 percent higher levels of rumenic acid in their milk. Research suggests rumenic acid may deter cancer and diabetes, and preserve and improve immune system functions.
These and other studies give hope that organic farming can reverse the nutrient decline of fruits and vegetables that appears to accompany the widespread use of agricultural chemicals and produce varieties selected primarily for yield. And while it's true that nutrition science is still a long way from understanding what the amount of a specific nutrient in a tomato, kiwi or glass of milk means for overall health, ignoring the opportunity to improve the nutrient density of foods at the foundation of the USDA's food pyramid seems foolhardy.
Based on a review of data collected by the Centers for Disease Control, Brian Halweil, senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, says, "Thirty percent or more of the U.S. population ingests inadequate levels of magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin E and vitamin A, all nutrients we get from plants."
In a paper he published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Ames, professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of California-Berkeley, noted that vitamin and mineral deficiencies are common in the United States, and that these deficiencies may accelerate degenerative diseases.
Even our ever-expanding waistlines may be due in part to nutrient declines in our foods. Paul Hepperly, director of research at the Rodale Institute, thinks we may be responding like cattle do.
"Cattle will eat more of hay that's been rained on and had most of its nutrients leach out than they normally would," he says. "The animals get these big bellies, and they're unhealthy, but they're just trying to get their nutrients. Ranchers know that if they have animals with hay belly, they have poor quality food. What we've done with the erosion of nutrient content in our foods -- what we've done with additives, processing and artificial agriculture production methods -- is that we have basically produced a hay belly nation."
Refusing to enter the discussion about how farming methods affect the nutrient density of our food helps our government duck the question of why it lends so much support to the status quo of conventional, nonorganic agriculture. But failing to acknowledge the connection between what happens on the farm and the healthfulness of foods may be enough to make a nation sick.
Deborah Rich grows olives near Monterey, Calif., and writes about agriculture for the San Francisco Chronicle and other publications. She wrote this comment for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.

15 Comments so far
Show AllFor many, the food they eat is making them sick.
Quality food is, for many, too expensive, or too far away.
Agricultural Reform to promote Health, in us and the Biosphere, and to promote Democracy and the Social Good.
That's another for my list of things Mr. Obama needs to push before I would vote for him.
Same goes for my prospective Congresspersons.
Call me demanding, I guess.
-matti.
I had no idea there was such a difference in the nutritional values. Wow. Now I'm wishing my kids were little again, so I could have fed them better foods. I didn't know. I just bought whatever was in the grocery store close by, thinking all produce was the same. I just didn't know, but I sure wish I had. With two out of three kids with Crohns disease, I'll always wonder.
The simple answer to why the gov. supports conventional farming is that many non-organic fertilizers and pesticides are petroleum based and the further you need to haul products the more oil you use.
Gee, maybe getting fat isn't our fault after all! Maybe, once again, it's the fault of corporate America. The bottom line counts for everything. Nutrition? What's that?
According to the book 'The End of Food', we are close to having food toxicity outweigh the marginal benefits of some of the things we eat. Potatoes from large producers no longer contain vitamin A, for instance. Tomatoes are designed to be picked for shipping qualities and gassed into redness just before we purchase them. Flavor is not even considered as a desired quality.
Too many people on the planet, folks. Somehow, it does not seem like the Human Race is any brighter than rabbits about that particular issue.
Specific nutritional benefits of organic food is debatable to some degree. I do agree that in pursuit of the bottom line, the nutritional content and even the flavor of fresh foods seem to come last. So, orgaincs are may be more nutritious simply because the priority it is given, rather than the absense of any particular pesticide or such.
But the benefits to the environment, and society in the form to the local organic family-farms and food vendors are not debatable.
This is the reason I try to eat organic - although one should avoid the big organic brands and chains like Whole Foods. Support a local CSA farm.
One of my pet peeves is the use of the term "conventional" in describing agriculture which is really "chemical" or "industrial" or "artificial"; that terminology makes it sound so harmless and normal. We ought to call it what it is.
One in 1800 people got cancer before the year 1900. Now it's 1 in 3. It's mostly environmental causes, including pesticides, and it's a bit that we don't get exercise. If members of your own family are already dead, I give you my regrets. One member of my family is dead of cancer. Companies make profits and we are the dead.
Say "We are the dead," and see if a voice behind the wall doesn't agree.
Thank you, PaulK. This is exactly the same conclusion I have come to.
I am 68 and I have had three cancers: Two masectomies and a basal cell carcinoma. I am a survivor of all of them. Meanwhile, when I was in my teens, I do not even recall hearing of three people I knew or people I knew also knew. (strange sentence, I hope you get my drift). Why?
There are so many books, doctors, advisors etc. out there who advise us to eat some things and avoid others, even water. If you were to listen to them all, you would avoid everything - even water. It's not doable.
So instead, I have made a new rule: If it wasn't on anybody's table 100 years ago, it shouldn't be on ours today: No high fructose corn syrup, no GM foods, no aspertame, no partially hydrogenated soy bean oil (we used to call shopping for organics, grocery shopping). Type 2 diabetes didn't even exist until the 1930's - now look.
I also agree with the author that nutrient deficient foods lead to over eating in order to get the nutrients: Hay belly.
Regards,
Hay Belly Janet
T
What would Hillary Do?
http://www.minimovie.com/film-128295-Welcome%20Back,%20Clinton
And they want to add radioactive waste to the mix.
People complain about the high price of organic foods but pretty much anyone with a water source can grow sprouts on a windowsill, broccoli sprouts are particularly healthful . . . just make sure to use seeds intended for sprouting and human consumption because some seeds intended for planting have been treated with toxic products meant to prevent fungal diseases, etc. . . .
I'm currently reading an interesting book on this topic. You might want to check it out.
Real Food: What to Eat and Why (Amazon link provided for informational purposes only - buy it at a LOCAL bookstore if you can find one!)
It's interesting that higher levels of obesity in American kids coincided with the use of high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar in soft drinks and other products. Some studies have shown that sugar is safer, and more satisfying, than the cheaper but more physically harmful HFCS, meaning kids drink a smaller quantity of soft drinks and eat fewer sweet snacks. Chemically-packed diet soft drinks have been initially found to be even more harmful, although the research is still underway.
The increase in breast and other soft tissue cancers can be traced to the rise in Bovine Growth Hormones and antibiotics in beef and cow's milk, and caged chickens. Also, some European studies conclude that whole milk is much better for children and adults than 2 percent or skim milk. Consumers tend to drink and eat less, since a smaller amount is more satisfying and filling.
And it goes on, as we cede our health, and that of our children, to corporate profits, but it is changing. More and more people are demanding safer, organically-grown foods. Getting rid of the current corporate occupants of the Executive Branch will be a good start to making our food healthier and more nutritional.
Reduces "Hay Belly" - Animals have less intestinal fill because less Chaffhaye is required to achieve nutritional needs. Within ten days of feeding, the stomach will begin to tuck in. This makes Chaffhaye the ideal feed for saddled and show animals.
________________________
Submited by : Libros Gratis