The whole organic thing is pure marketing nonsense. There is not one thing you have ever eaten that wasn’t organic. IE you never eat inorganic food since it doesn’t exist.
The whole organic fraud is because in the grocery store industry the let metric they use is sales per square foot. Whole Foods showed the industry by calling things organic that they could easily double/triple their sales per square foot. That is the only reason it’s pushed. The limiting factor in the grocery business is the square footage. They have an almost infinite amount of items they can sell so they have to maximize their sales per sq ft. This was described back in the 90’s in a Forbes magazine article.
You understood my main point: Organic food is a marketing gimmick. It means nothing. It does mean "expensive." It certainly doesn't mean healthy or safe. My argument is that those of us who wish to eat healthy, high-quality food must begin to think with more sophistication rather than simply lurching toward the food labeled "organic" without considering what we're actually purchasing. Organic canola oil? Organic cane sugar? Organic pasta? Whatever "organic" means, all three are unhealthy and should be avoided as much as possible.
"The “organic” designation is no different than the “kosher” stamp on products marketed to orthodox Jews."
You couldn't be more incorrect in your analogy or your conclusions. Kosher deals primarily with the method of killing animals showing respect for sacrifice and prohibitions relating to natural foods that may not be consumed at all or in combination that have actual food safety rationale in their origins.
Organic applies to all plant and animal food sources produced without toxic chemicals or hormones or drugs or gmo feed and excludes all the GMO plant and animal variants from the Agent Orange Gang now the bulk of commodity crops. Most widely used chemicals have never been tested for human health effects much less in combination. In the food supply glyphosate aka Monsanto Roundup is now ubiquitous.
To suggest ingesting this toxin with food, or that nutrients from healthy soils are equal to plants steeped in herbicides is like reading from toxic profiteers playbook. Read a bit about glyphosate and rethink your promotion of foods that ceased to exist in traditional forms in the 1970's.
It appears that you agree with me, then, that kosher food is no more nutritious than non-kosher food. It simply costs more, and that money does not go toward improving the healthfulness of the product being purchased. In that way, it is analogous to organic food. I leave the religious argument for kosher food aside, as it's not relevant to the discussion of what makes a healthy diet.
Your definition of organic is not accurate, as there is no definition of the word. It means whatever one wants it to mean. That is the point of the Stanford study. It considered both organic and conventional food using objective standards and found that the organic food is not superior in either nutrient content or safety.
I have not indicated or implied that ingesting toxins from food is healthy or desirable, nor have I promoted "contemporary" food as superior to traditional food. On the contrary, natural and simple forms of fruit, vegetables, meat, and dairy are always the best choices. Those superior foods, though, are not necessarily found under the "organic" label, which is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to skim money from gullible consumers who don't think for themselves. Exhibit A: "Organic cholesterol-free water" for $5 a liter.
MW Dr- "It appears that you agree with me, then, that kosher food is no more nutritious than non-kosher food. It simply costs more, and that money does not go toward improving the healthfulness of the product being purchased."
Don't twist my words to suggest I agree with any of your badly misinformed views.. we agree on nothing here... honest argument is based on facts and manipulation gives me a big time cramp... it's also a pretty lame move to double down on your Kosher claims of no benefit when you obviously never even glanced at the standards observed by the Kosher Rabbis,.. If they did nothing but inspections of production facilities it would be priceless... #protip try primary sources https://oukosher.org/what-is-kosher/
Take a gander at FDA food recalls which are triggered by hot spots of consumer illness NOT oversight by Washington's corp captured minions. It may not add value in your mind but knowing folks who answer to God are checking how clean and pure ingredients are adds a value that manifests in better health. https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts
MW Dr- "Your definition of organic is not accurate, as there is no definition of the word. It means whatever one wants it to mean."
Wrong again but ignoring primary sources to drop favorite talking points will make a fool of you with an informed source & perhaps worse with my decades of food safety research.. to repeat myself checking references w primary sources always a solid move...
It is true the word "natural" has no legal definitions but Organic Standards are defined with great specificity in US law and handled through its own USDA department. Relentless assaults bu Big Ag - Agent Orange Gang gmo ;lobbyists have made a few chips in The National Organic Program (NOP) but consumer pressure to have food free of toxins & devoted small farmers has held most ground.
MW Dr- "That is the point of the Stanford study. It considered both organic and conventional food using objective standards and found that the organic food is not superior in either nutrient content or safety."
One study without a link no clue to funders or study design.. very impressive almost as good as "safe & effective" mantra.. who needs anything more that the conclusion of random experts? That was a pathetic move pre-Covid just a shameful dodge now.
Of course it's easy to find if one is inclined to invest the effort it takes to put key words in a search engine.. kinda like Kosher Law or US Organic Standards.. all page one hits no hunting required...
Citing Stanford's very limited 2012 study is lazy and worse it's disingenuous to take a conclusion that sought to minimize toxic risks of herbicide & pesticide grown foods and use that as evidence that organic convey no benefits by comparison... extremely poor move in my book to twist the evidence to bolster your theories.. ugly trait in general and disappointing to see from a caring MD ..
"The study, published this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed 17 human studies and 223 studies on nutrient density and contamination levels and concluded that, so far, published literature “lacks strong evidence” that organic foods are significantly more nutritious, but choosing to consume those foods may reduce exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
The review found that, overall, organic produce is 30 percent less likely to contain detectable pesticides, compared to conventional produce, but the vast majority of all produce tested fell below government safety tolerances. The study did look at one study which found that children who switched to an organic diet for five days had lower levels of pesticides in their urine, but whether the levels have a direct impact on human health is “unclear.” https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/organic-food-not-proven-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/
MWDr "I have not indicated or implied that ingesting toxins from food is healthy or desirable, nor have I promoted "contemporary" food as superior to traditional food. On the contrary, natural and simple forms of fruit, vegetables, meat, and dairy are always the best choices."
That is exactly what you did claiming Kosher & Organic are nothing but a pricing gimmick and "conventional" aka soaked in toxins differ only in price... take your means NOTHING "natural" term out of the discussion.. it's toxin free or toxin soaked and gmo another level of risk not even involved here...
MWDr - "Those superior foods, though, are not necessarily found under the "organic" label, which is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to skim money from gullible consumers who don't think for themselves. Exhibit A: "Organic cholesterol-free water" for $5 a liter."
Hat tip for the most ridiculous consumer product to bolster your rip off claim since Nieman Marcus Christmas catalogue.. it might have been insulting if not so transparently self serving and wrong.. read the glyphosate studies & get a flippin clue about human health effects for diet... try sources not funded by looters & polluters..
GMWatch is a genuine consumer group w science chops this 2019 article cites studies w many more in their archives...
"A new scientific review highlights an evidence gap on the potential health benefits of an organic diet over an equivalent non-organic diet.The review (abstract below) details an abundance of evidence linking exposure to pesticides to an increased risk of developing various diseases, including Parkinson's and cancer.The review also calls attention to evidence showing that switching to an organic diet rapidly reduces the pesticide burden in the urine.But what is lacking, the authors show, are controlled studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in which the consumption of a sustainable organic wholefood diet is seen to result in health benefits. The review cites a rare exception, in the form of a study comparing the effects of an organic and non-organic Italian Mediterranean diet on male patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal subjects. The dietary intervention was for only two weeks but revealed that subjects on the organic diet showed statistically significant improvements in several body function measurements, suggesting a reduced risk of both cardiovascular and kidney disease in healthy control individuals and CDK patients."
Hi Pamela, great explanation - u explained how it should be and Mark explined how it is “in simple words” organic is just as food should be and kosher is blessed by Rabi 😊
I could not find a link to the actual organic vs non organic study, but would be curious to know who funded it. Even still this quote was interesting: "While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk (well, "30% lower" means something to me, personally) of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free (not "necessarily" 100% free? You mean, some are? That would mean something to me too, but you've already raised a red flag--now I want to see the actual data.) of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally ("generally"? So scientific. Again, let's see the data.) fell within the allowable safety limits." ("Allowable safety limits." . . . As determined by who? The FDA? EPA? Those limits would then be meaningless.) I think many of us who buy organic don't do it because we think it doesn't have any pesticides--but because it has LESS. If you read Toxic Legacy by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, you'll see why that would matter to some, especially in the case of glyphosate. Speaking of, after watching PragerU's video on why GMO food is great(???), I now have a "healthy" skepticism of their understanding of nutrition, health, and environmental hazards. As for animal protein and the inflammation it can cause, I recommend Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book, Eat to Live. I often wonder if the ingredients in vaccines (sugar, salt, oil, animal protein, etc.) is contributing, in part at least, to the inflammatory response these foods can cause in our bodies. Haven't seen research on that aspect though, and probably never will, unfortunately.
The actual meta-analysis (not a study but a review of all published research on this question, written by a research group at the Stanford University School of Medicine) is not difficult to find. It comes up on page 1 of a simple Google search for "Stanford organic food meta analysis" here: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007. Most people don't bother to read the published papers, so I choose to refer to the summary written by the Stanford U School of Medicine.
The point is that organic food is not healthier or safer than conventional food. It simply costs more. It is a very poor means of identifying quality food. In fact, much organic food contains MORE pesticides than conventional food, because the pesticides are "organic," which, of course, means absolutely nothing. Cholera is organic, and much of the produce in Mexico (that is all organic, by the way) is contaminated with bacteria that cause cholera and dysentery, because farmers there fertilize their fields with organic human waste. Fruits and vegetables must be washed with dilute bleach to make them safe for human consumption. Pesticide residue, on the other hand, is easily washed off with water, which is why obsessing over pesticides is not productive. There are some exceptions to this, but, in general, it should not be the point of focus in categorizing safe vs unsafe food.
Growing evidence argues strongly that meat is anti-inflammatory and nutritious, while a vegetarian and vegan diet is toxic to human health. Of course, whatever one eats, it must be fresh, nutrient-rich, unprocessed, and not contaminated with toxins.
And don't forget that incredible taste can indicate valuable nutrition (and sometimes means you're eating it in season, too, or you really need what's in that food). The tastiest eggs come from my neighbor's chickens. Compare that taste to the cheapest grocery stores eggs which offer a dull, unlayered flavor.
I’m always willing to admit I am wrong and look more critically at things. I was under the impression that organic means free of glyphosate, is that wrong? I was never under the impression that it was free of pesticides. I wish I had more time to comb through all this info in this post and comments. Could you clarify this point for me?
"Organic" has no real meaning, because there is no universally accepted standard. It's similar to the word "fresh" or "natural." In chemistry, an organic molecule is one with a carbon atom bonded to a hydrogen atom. In marketing food, unless the label contains specific language about certification, you have no way of knowing how that that product differs from any other. Even if Roundup hasn't been used, so-called organic herbicides like paraquat and pyrethrin may have been--known neurotoxins and agents that can induce asthma and renal failure. You can read more about the labeling process at the US Department of Agriculture website: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling#what%20requirements.
If you're looking for safe and healthy food, don't rely on the word "organic" to guide you. Do your research.
The whole organic thing is pure marketing nonsense. There is not one thing you have ever eaten that wasn’t organic. IE you never eat inorganic food since it doesn’t exist.
The whole organic fraud is because in the grocery store industry the let metric they use is sales per square foot. Whole Foods showed the industry by calling things organic that they could easily double/triple their sales per square foot. That is the only reason it’s pushed. The limiting factor in the grocery business is the square footage. They have an almost infinite amount of items they can sell so they have to maximize their sales per sq ft. This was described back in the 90’s in a Forbes magazine article.
You understood my main point: Organic food is a marketing gimmick. It means nothing. It does mean "expensive." It certainly doesn't mean healthy or safe. My argument is that those of us who wish to eat healthy, high-quality food must begin to think with more sophistication rather than simply lurching toward the food labeled "organic" without considering what we're actually purchasing. Organic canola oil? Organic cane sugar? Organic pasta? Whatever "organic" means, all three are unhealthy and should be avoided as much as possible.
"The “organic” designation is no different than the “kosher” stamp on products marketed to orthodox Jews."
You couldn't be more incorrect in your analogy or your conclusions. Kosher deals primarily with the method of killing animals showing respect for sacrifice and prohibitions relating to natural foods that may not be consumed at all or in combination that have actual food safety rationale in their origins.
Organic applies to all plant and animal food sources produced without toxic chemicals or hormones or drugs or gmo feed and excludes all the GMO plant and animal variants from the Agent Orange Gang now the bulk of commodity crops. Most widely used chemicals have never been tested for human health effects much less in combination. In the food supply glyphosate aka Monsanto Roundup is now ubiquitous.
To suggest ingesting this toxin with food, or that nutrients from healthy soils are equal to plants steeped in herbicides is like reading from toxic profiteers playbook. Read a bit about glyphosate and rethink your promotion of foods that ceased to exist in traditional forms in the 1970's.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/glyphosate?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It appears that you agree with me, then, that kosher food is no more nutritious than non-kosher food. It simply costs more, and that money does not go toward improving the healthfulness of the product being purchased. In that way, it is analogous to organic food. I leave the religious argument for kosher food aside, as it's not relevant to the discussion of what makes a healthy diet.
Your definition of organic is not accurate, as there is no definition of the word. It means whatever one wants it to mean. That is the point of the Stanford study. It considered both organic and conventional food using objective standards and found that the organic food is not superior in either nutrient content or safety.
I have not indicated or implied that ingesting toxins from food is healthy or desirable, nor have I promoted "contemporary" food as superior to traditional food. On the contrary, natural and simple forms of fruit, vegetables, meat, and dairy are always the best choices. Those superior foods, though, are not necessarily found under the "organic" label, which is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to skim money from gullible consumers who don't think for themselves. Exhibit A: "Organic cholesterol-free water" for $5 a liter.
MW Dr- "It appears that you agree with me, then, that kosher food is no more nutritious than non-kosher food. It simply costs more, and that money does not go toward improving the healthfulness of the product being purchased."
Don't twist my words to suggest I agree with any of your badly misinformed views.. we agree on nothing here... honest argument is based on facts and manipulation gives me a big time cramp... it's also a pretty lame move to double down on your Kosher claims of no benefit when you obviously never even glanced at the standards observed by the Kosher Rabbis,.. If they did nothing but inspections of production facilities it would be priceless... #protip try primary sources https://oukosher.org/what-is-kosher/
Take a gander at FDA food recalls which are triggered by hot spots of consumer illness NOT oversight by Washington's corp captured minions. It may not add value in your mind but knowing folks who answer to God are checking how clean and pure ingredients are adds a value that manifests in better health. https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts
MW Dr- "Your definition of organic is not accurate, as there is no definition of the word. It means whatever one wants it to mean."
Wrong again but ignoring primary sources to drop favorite talking points will make a fool of you with an informed source & perhaps worse with my decades of food safety research.. to repeat myself checking references w primary sources always a solid move...
It is true the word "natural" has no legal definitions but Organic Standards are defined with great specificity in US law and handled through its own USDA department. Relentless assaults bu Big Ag - Agent Orange Gang gmo ;lobbyists have made a few chips in The National Organic Program (NOP) but consumer pressure to have food free of toxins & devoted small farmers has held most ground.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190925234311/https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/organic-food-labels
MW Dr- "That is the point of the Stanford study. It considered both organic and conventional food using objective standards and found that the organic food is not superior in either nutrient content or safety."
One study without a link no clue to funders or study design.. very impressive almost as good as "safe & effective" mantra.. who needs anything more that the conclusion of random experts? That was a pathetic move pre-Covid just a shameful dodge now.
Of course it's easy to find if one is inclined to invest the effort it takes to put key words in a search engine.. kinda like Kosher Law or US Organic Standards.. all page one hits no hunting required...
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
Citing Stanford's very limited 2012 study is lazy and worse it's disingenuous to take a conclusion that sought to minimize toxic risks of herbicide & pesticide grown foods and use that as evidence that organic convey no benefits by comparison... extremely poor move in my book to twist the evidence to bolster your theories.. ugly trait in general and disappointing to see from a caring MD ..
"The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products. " https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
Food Safety News Sept 2012....
"The study, published this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed 17 human studies and 223 studies on nutrient density and contamination levels and concluded that, so far, published literature “lacks strong evidence” that organic foods are significantly more nutritious, but choosing to consume those foods may reduce exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
The review found that, overall, organic produce is 30 percent less likely to contain detectable pesticides, compared to conventional produce, but the vast majority of all produce tested fell below government safety tolerances. The study did look at one study which found that children who switched to an organic diet for five days had lower levels of pesticides in their urine, but whether the levels have a direct impact on human health is “unclear.” https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/organic-food-not-proven-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/
MWDr "I have not indicated or implied that ingesting toxins from food is healthy or desirable, nor have I promoted "contemporary" food as superior to traditional food. On the contrary, natural and simple forms of fruit, vegetables, meat, and dairy are always the best choices."
That is exactly what you did claiming Kosher & Organic are nothing but a pricing gimmick and "conventional" aka soaked in toxins differ only in price... take your means NOTHING "natural" term out of the discussion.. it's toxin free or toxin soaked and gmo another level of risk not even involved here...
MWDr - "Those superior foods, though, are not necessarily found under the "organic" label, which is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to skim money from gullible consumers who don't think for themselves. Exhibit A: "Organic cholesterol-free water" for $5 a liter."
Hat tip for the most ridiculous consumer product to bolster your rip off claim since Nieman Marcus Christmas catalogue.. it might have been insulting if not so transparently self serving and wrong.. read the glyphosate studies & get a flippin clue about human health effects for diet... try sources not funded by looters & polluters..
GMWatch is a genuine consumer group w science chops this 2019 article cites studies w many more in their archives...
"A new scientific review highlights an evidence gap on the potential health benefits of an organic diet over an equivalent non-organic diet.The review (abstract below) details an abundance of evidence linking exposure to pesticides to an increased risk of developing various diseases, including Parkinson's and cancer.The review also calls attention to evidence showing that switching to an organic diet rapidly reduces the pesticide burden in the urine.But what is lacking, the authors show, are controlled studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in which the consumption of a sustainable organic wholefood diet is seen to result in health benefits. The review cites a rare exception, in the form of a study comparing the effects of an organic and non-organic Italian Mediterranean diet on male patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal subjects. The dietary intervention was for only two weeks but revealed that subjects on the organic diet showed statistically significant improvements in several body function measurements, suggesting a reduced risk of both cardiovascular and kidney disease in healthy control individuals and CDK patients."
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/19228-evidence-gap-on-health-benefits-of-organic-diet-highlighted
If you enjoyed this post exposing the organic food movement, you're going to love my next one!
Hi Pamela, great explanation - u explained how it should be and Mark explined how it is “in simple words” organic is just as food should be and kosher is blessed by Rabi 😊
I could not find a link to the actual organic vs non organic study, but would be curious to know who funded it. Even still this quote was interesting: "While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk (well, "30% lower" means something to me, personally) of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free (not "necessarily" 100% free? You mean, some are? That would mean something to me too, but you've already raised a red flag--now I want to see the actual data.) of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally ("generally"? So scientific. Again, let's see the data.) fell within the allowable safety limits." ("Allowable safety limits." . . . As determined by who? The FDA? EPA? Those limits would then be meaningless.) I think many of us who buy organic don't do it because we think it doesn't have any pesticides--but because it has LESS. If you read Toxic Legacy by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, you'll see why that would matter to some, especially in the case of glyphosate. Speaking of, after watching PragerU's video on why GMO food is great(???), I now have a "healthy" skepticism of their understanding of nutrition, health, and environmental hazards. As for animal protein and the inflammation it can cause, I recommend Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book, Eat to Live. I often wonder if the ingredients in vaccines (sugar, salt, oil, animal protein, etc.) is contributing, in part at least, to the inflammatory response these foods can cause in our bodies. Haven't seen research on that aspect though, and probably never will, unfortunately.
The actual meta-analysis (not a study but a review of all published research on this question, written by a research group at the Stanford University School of Medicine) is not difficult to find. It comes up on page 1 of a simple Google search for "Stanford organic food meta analysis" here: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007. Most people don't bother to read the published papers, so I choose to refer to the summary written by the Stanford U School of Medicine.
The point is that organic food is not healthier or safer than conventional food. It simply costs more. It is a very poor means of identifying quality food. In fact, much organic food contains MORE pesticides than conventional food, because the pesticides are "organic," which, of course, means absolutely nothing. Cholera is organic, and much of the produce in Mexico (that is all organic, by the way) is contaminated with bacteria that cause cholera and dysentery, because farmers there fertilize their fields with organic human waste. Fruits and vegetables must be washed with dilute bleach to make them safe for human consumption. Pesticide residue, on the other hand, is easily washed off with water, which is why obsessing over pesticides is not productive. There are some exceptions to this, but, in general, it should not be the point of focus in categorizing safe vs unsafe food.
Growing evidence argues strongly that meat is anti-inflammatory and nutritious, while a vegetarian and vegan diet is toxic to human health. Of course, whatever one eats, it must be fresh, nutrient-rich, unprocessed, and not contaminated with toxins.
And don't forget that incredible taste can indicate valuable nutrition (and sometimes means you're eating it in season, too, or you really need what's in that food). The tastiest eggs come from my neighbor's chickens. Compare that taste to the cheapest grocery stores eggs which offer a dull, unlayered flavor.
I’m always willing to admit I am wrong and look more critically at things. I was under the impression that organic means free of glyphosate, is that wrong? I was never under the impression that it was free of pesticides. I wish I had more time to comb through all this info in this post and comments. Could you clarify this point for me?
Many thanks!
"Organic" has no real meaning, because there is no universally accepted standard. It's similar to the word "fresh" or "natural." In chemistry, an organic molecule is one with a carbon atom bonded to a hydrogen atom. In marketing food, unless the label contains specific language about certification, you have no way of knowing how that that product differs from any other. Even if Roundup hasn't been used, so-called organic herbicides like paraquat and pyrethrin may have been--known neurotoxins and agents that can induce asthma and renal failure. You can read more about the labeling process at the US Department of Agriculture website: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling#what%20requirements.
If you're looking for safe and healthy food, don't rely on the word "organic" to guide you. Do your research.