Is Organic Food Good for You Essay

What is organic food? †¢(1) Organic food is food which has been produced to standards designed to keep the production more ‘natural’. Fewer, if any, chemicals are used and most pesticides are banned – when they are used they are very carefully controlled. †¢(2)Organic food costs more then non-Organic food. This is not always the case but on average organic farmers generally charge more for their produce because: oMany organic farming practices take a bit longer and produce lower yields oIt is more labor intensive than conventional agriculture oFields have to be taken out of food production while they go through three years of organic conversion or for fertility building. Here you will find out if organic food is good for you or not, there will be the science behind it, advantages, and disadvantages evidence and a conclusion. The science behind it In the rush to produce more and more crops to satisfy growing demand producers have had to resort to using a lethal cocktail of pesticides to control disease and insect attack. Good news for their bank balances perhaps but not good news for your health, this is why you need to be informed of the advantages of organic food. Did you know that if you consumed an average apple you would be eating over 30 pesticides, even after you have washed it? Organic food is known to contain 50% more nutrients, minerals and vitamins than produce that has been intensively farmed. You will have to eat more fruit nowadays to make up the deficiency, but unfortunately that means eating more chemicals, more detrimental affects on your health eating something that should be good for you! Some more startling facts now. Pesticides in food have been linked to many diseases including: ? Cancer ?Obesity ?Alzheimer’s ?some birth defects There are probably others but if you think about it, how can it be okay for you to eat chemicals and not expect some form of reaction in your body. Our bodies are delicwonderful machines. Any form of foreign chemical is bound to cause irritation at the least. (3)Some organic foods, including fruit, vegetables and milk, may be more nutritious than non-organic produce, according to an investigation by British scientists. Early results from a ? 12m study showed that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than non-organic varieties, according to Professor Carlo Leifert at Newcastle University, who leads the EU-funded Quality Low Input Food project. Larger differences were found in milk, with organic varieties containing more than 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids, he said. Antioxidant-rich food is often promoted as healthier because in lab tests the compounds neutralize free radicals that are thought to contribute to ageing. (4) Ben Gold acre says the Soil Association’s criticism of the recent Food Standards Agency research on nutrients is â€Å"not about organic food† and that â€Å"the emotive commentary in favor of organic farming bundles together diverse and legitimate concerns about unchecked capitalism in our food supply†, In fact, our argument with the FSA research is about whether it gives a fair and accurate picture of organic food. Gold acre. First, he said we were trying to change the argument by saying that â€Å"the important issue with organic food is not personal health benefits, but rather benefit to the environment†. More farmland wildlife, high animal welfare and lower pollution were not mentioned in our own initial response, but were put forward strongly by the government when the FSA launched its report, and we repeated it as the government’s view, with which I agree. Second he argued that absence of pesticides, no routine use of antibiotics on farm animals and far fewer additives allowed in organic food all deliver health benefits. Goldacre says that as these â€Å"cannot be measured† by the FSA research, mentioning them â€Å"is gamesmanship†. These are real benefits, confirmed by other research. The organic movement represents a spectrum of practices, attitudes, and philosophies. On the one hand are those organic practitioners who would not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides under any circumstances. These producers hold rigidly to their purist philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, organic farmers espouse a more flexible approach. While striving to avoid the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, these practitioners do not rule them out entirely. Instead, when absolutely necessary, some fertilizers and also herbicides are very selectively and sparingly used as a second line of defense. Nevertheless, these farmers, too, consider themselves to be organic farmers [6]. For raising animals, antibiotics would not be permitted as growth stimulants but would be permitted to counter infections. The rules permit up to 20% of animal feed to be obtained from non-organic sources. This was done because some nutrients (such as trace minerals) are not always available organically. Irradiation, which can reduce or eliminate certain pests, kill disease-causing bacteria, and prolong food shelf-life, would be permitted during processing. Genetic engineering would also be permissible. More Nutritious? Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious The nutrient content of plants is determined primarily by heredity. Mineral content may be affected by the mineral content of the soil, but this has no significance in the overall diet. If essential nutrients are missing from the soil, the plant will not grow. If plants grow, that means the essential nutrients are present. Experiments conducted for many years have found no difference in the nutrient content of organically grown crops and those grown under standard agricultural conditions. Safer? Many â€Å"organic† proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances . To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in foods and conducts frequent â€Å"market basket† studies wherein foods from regions throughout the United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997 tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables had no detectable pesticides and only about 1. 2% of domestic and 1. 6% of imported foods had violative levels [13]. Its annual Total Diet Study has always found that America’s dietary intakes are well within international and Environmental Protection Agency standards. Most studies conducted since the early 1970s have found that the pesticide levels in foods designated organic were similar to those that were not. In 1997, Consumer Reports purchased about a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides. Traces were detected in 77% of conventional foods and 25% of organically labelled foods, but only one sample of each exceeded the federal limit Pesticides can locate on the surface of foods as well as beneath the surface. The amount that washing can remove depends on their location, the amount and temperature of the rinse water, and whether detergent is used. Most people rinse their fruits and vegetables with plain Tastier? â€Å"Organically grown† foods are not inherently tastier than conventionally grown foods. Taste is influenced by freshness, which may depend on how far the products must be shipped from farmer to consumer. What kinds of locally grown fruits and vegetables are available varies from community to community. Whether they are organically or conventionally produced is unlikely to make any difference. In the early 1990s, Israeli researchers made 460 assessments of 9 different fruits and vegetables and no significant difference in quality between â€Å"organic† and conventionally grown samples. The Consumer Reports’ study found no consistent differences in appearance, flavour, or texture. Better for the Environment? Many buyers of â€Å"organic† foods believe that the extra money they pay will ultimately benefit the environment by encouraging more farmers to use â€Å"organic† methods. But doing this cannot have much effect because â€Å"organic† agriculture is too inefficient to meet the world’s food needs. Moreover, the dividing line between organic and conventional agriculture is not sharp because various practices are not restricted to one or the other. For example, â€Å"organic† farmers tend not to use pesticides, but faced with threatened loss of crops, they may change their mind. If certain patterns of pesticide use cause more harm than good and there is a way to remedy the situation, the people concerned about it can seek regulatory solutions. I don’t believe that paying extra for food will benefit anybody but those who sell it. This research shows there are benefits,† said Dr Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University, which led the research. â€Å"The reason why it’s such a grey area is because it’s extremely difficult to measure the health benefit in any food, but we can say that if you eat 400g of fruit and vegetables per day you would get 20 per cent more nutrients in organic food. † Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, welcomed the new research. He said: â€Å"There is clear evidence that a range of organic foods contain more beneficial nutrients and vitamins and less of things known to have a detrimental health effect. â€Å"