In this article, we will look at what is required in order to call a product organic, how choosing organic eating and farming impact the environment and our health, discuss the benefits of eating organic foods, and what research says about the nutritional benefits of organically-grown produce.

Calling it "Organic"

In 1995, the US National Organic Standards Board passed the definition of 'organic', which is a labeling term denoting products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. It states, "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance ecological harmony."

The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals, and people.

The philosophy of organic production of livestock is to provide conditions that meet the health needs and natural behavior of the animal. Organic livestock must be given access to the outdoors, fresh air, water, sunshine, grass and pasture, and are fed 100% organic feed. They must not be given or fed hormones, antibiotics or other animal drugs in their feed. If an animal gets sick and needs antibiotics, they cannot be considered organic. Feeding of animal parts of any kind to ruminants that, by nature, eat a vegetarian diet, is also prohibited. Thus, no animal byproducts of any sort are incorporated in organic feed at any time.

Because farmers must keep extensive records as part of their farming and handling plans in order to be certified organic, one is always able to trace the animal from birth to market of the meat. When meat is labeled as organic, this means that 100% of that product is organic.

Although organic crops must be produced without the use of pesticides, it is estimated that between 10-25% of organic fruits and vegetables contain some residues of synthetic pesticides. This is because of the influence of rain, air and polluted water sources. In order to qualify as 'organic', crops must be grown on soil free of prohibited substances for three years before harvest. Until then, they cannot be called organic.

When pests get out of balance and traditional organic methods don't work for pest control, farmers can request permission to use other products that are considered low risk by the National Organic Standards Board.

The Environment

According to the 15-year study, "Farming Systems Trial", organic soils have higher microbial content, making for healthier soils and plants. This study concluded that organically grown foods are raised in soils that have better physical structure, provide better drainage, may support higher microbial activity, and in years of drought, organic systems may possibly outperform conventional systems. So, organic growing may help feed more people in our future!

What is the cost of conventional farming, today? The above-mentioned 15 -year study showed that conventional farming uses 50% more energy than organic farming. In one report, it was estimated that only 0.1% of applied pesticides actually reach the targets, leaving most of the pesticide, 99.9%, to impact the environment. Multiple investigations have shown that our water supplies, both in rivers and area tap waters, are showing high levels of pesticides and antibiotics used in farming practices. Water samples taken from the Ohio River as well as area tap water contained trace amounts of penicillin, tetracycline and vancomycin.

Toxic chemicals are contaminating groundwater on every inhabited continent, endangering the world's most valuable supplies of freshwater, according to a Worldwatch paper, Deep Trouble: The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution. Calling for a systemic overhaul of manufacturing and industrial agriculture, the paper notes that several water utilities in Germany now pay farmers to switch to organic operations because this costs less than removing farm chemicals from water supplies.

What About our Health?

Eating organic food is not a fad. As people become more informed and aware, they are taking steps to ensure their health. US sales of organic food totaled 5.4 billion dollars in 1998, but was up to 7.8 billion dollars in the year 2000. The 2004 Whole Foods Market Organic Foods Trend Tracker survey found that 27% of Americans are eating more organic foods than they did a year ago.

A study conducted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation reports that the number of people poisoned by drifting pesticides increased by 20% during 2000.

A rise in interest and concern for the use of pesticides in food resulted in the passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, directing the US EPA to reassess the usage and impact of pesticides for food use.

Particular attention was paid to the impact on children and infants, whose lower body weights and higher consumption of food per body weight present higher exposure to any risks associated with pesticide residues.

Publishing an update to its 1999 report on food safety, the Consumers Union in May 2000 reiterated that pesticide residues in foods children eat every day often exceed safe levels. The update found high levels of pesticide residues on winter squash, peaches, apples, grapes, pears, green beans, spinach, strawberries, and cantaloupe. The Consumers Union urged consumers to consider buying organically grown varieties, particularly of these fruits and vegetables.

The most common class of pesticide in the US is organophosphates (OP's). These are known as neurotoxins.

An article published in 2002 examined the urine concentration of OP residues in 2-5 year olds. Researchers found, on average, that children eating conventionally grown food showed an 8.5 times higher amount of OP residue in their urine than those eating organic food. Studies have also shown harmful effects on fetal growth, as well.

Pesticides are not the only threat, however. 70% of all antibiotics in the US are used to fatten up livestock, today. Farm animals receive 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics per year!

Public health authorities now link low-level antibiotic use in livestock to greater numbers of people contracting infections that resist treatment with the same drugs. The American Medical Association adopted a resolution in June of 2001, opposing the use of sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in agriculture and the World Health Organization, in its 2001 report, urged farmers to stop using antibiotics for growth promotion. Studies are finding the same antibiotic resistant bacteria in the intestines of consumers that develop in commercial meats and poultry.

Is it More Nutritious?

Until recently, there had been little evidence that organically grown produce was higher in nutrients. It's long been held that healthier soils would produce a product higher in nutritional quality, but there was never the science to support this belief. Everyone agrees that organic foods taste better.

In 2001, nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington published her review of 41 published studies comparing the nutritional values of organic and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables and grains. What she found was that organically grown crops provided 17% more vitamin C, 21% more iron, 29% more magnesium, and 13.6% more phosphorus than conventionally grown products. She noted that five servings of organic vegetables provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and women, while their conventional counterparts did not. Today there are more studies that show the same results that Ms. Worthington concluded.

Considering the health benefits of eating organic foods, along with the knowledge of how conventionally grown and raised food is impacting the planet should be enough to consider paying greater attention to eating organic, today. Since most people buy their food in local supermarkets, it's good news that more and more markets are providing natural and organic foods in their stores. Findings from a survey by Supermarket News showed that 61% of consumers now buy their organic foods in supermarkets. More communities and health agencies also are working to set up more farmer's markets for their communities, also, which brings more organic, locally grown foods to the consumer. The next time you go shopping, consider investigating organic choices to see if it's indeed worth the change!

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

Chef Tim Johnson

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!

For example, a recent article in The New York Times revealed that the organic version of Similac infant formula is sweetened with cane sugar (sucrose) and is much sweeter than other infant formulas. While all infant formulas have some added sugars to aid in the digestion of proteins, other organic products use sugars like organic lactose, which is presumably a better match for what's found in breast milk and doesn't have the sweetness of sucrose. Most health-conscious readers are probably shaking their heads and thinking that it is nothing short of insanity to be adding sugar to baby formula when the U.S. is in the middle of an obesity epidemic. Were pediatricians actually consulted about what was put into this formula? Or was the product designed primarily by food chemists like the ones that create fast food strawberry milkshakes?

According to a list of frequently asked questions on the FDA website, the FDA currently does not approve infant formula before it can be marketed. The FDA does require that infant formula contain minimum amounts of certain nutrients, and it does provide upper limits for some nutrients. Certain nutrients that are required to be included in any infant formula are protein, fat, linoleic acid, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), vitamin B6, vitamin B12, niacin, folic acid, pantothenic acid, vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, copper, iodine, sodium, potassium and chloride. If cow's milk is not used for the formula, then biotin, choline and inositol must be included.

Any substance that is generally recognized as safe may be used in infant formula in the United States. For now, that means that sugar can be used in baby formula in the U.S., and there is absolutely no upper limit to the amount of sugar that can be dumped into it. Europe, on the other hand, in light of the childhood obesity epidemic, has banned all sucrose from baby formula products beginning in 2009.

According to the The New York Times article, Dr. Benjamin Caballero, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, doesn't think sucrose belongs in infant formula, either. Dr. Caballero believes that feeding children sweet things encourages them to eat more. He explains that babies and children generally prefer sweeter foods and will eat more of them than foods that aren't as sweet.

While having babies eat more might be of interest to food corporations, parents need to be concerned with the health of their children. Concerns about obesity aren't the only problem with putting sugar in baby formula. If a baby's teeth are constantly exposed to sugar, this could result in tooth decay.

Clearly, finding a safe infant formula is a daunting task. According to The Breastfeeding Task Force of Greater Los Angeles, there are many risks associated with using infant formula instead of breast milk. For example, formula feeding is responsible for up to 26% of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in children. Middle-ear infections are three to four times more common in children who are fed infant formula, and children who are fed infant formula are also much more likely to be hospitalized due to bacterial infections. In addition to the health risks, some studies have shown that formula-fed babies don't do as well on intelligence tests as breast-fed babies.

Moreover, sugar isn't the only undesirable thing turning up in infant formula. An NPR report indicates that certain formulas enhanced with omega-3 fatty acids may actually pose a health risk. Other reports warn about Bisphenol-A turning up in infant formulations. What is a new mother to do?

Maybe new moms should take a lesson from the animal kingdom. What other mammals feed their babies the milk of other creatures? Do dogs try to feed their puppies cat milk? Of course not. Even small children know that cat milk is for kittens, just like cow's milk is for baby cows. Perhaps the perfect formula for a baby just isn't something that can be found in a can.

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

Chef Tim Johnson

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!

Every day in the United States more than 240 million people turn on their faucets in order to drink, bathe, and cook, using water from public water systems. But more people are arriving to the point where they will not let a drop of water touch their lips in their own homes unless that water comes from a bottle shipped from a fresh water source. And even then we still have trouble in the home. Researchers at the University of Texas found that showers and dishwashers liberate trace amounts of chemicals from municipal water supplies into the air.

"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives." - American Indian Proverb

Squirting hot water through a nozzle, to produce a fine spray, increases the surface area of water in contact with the air, liberating dissolved substances in a process known as "stripping." So if we want to avoid those chemicals drinking bottled water is not enough. Chemically sensitive individuals would also have to wear a gas mask in the shower, and when unloading the dishwasher if they want to avoid chemical contamination. And even then the skin will absorb directly in the shower chemicals like fluoride so we cannot assume we are safe from the contaminants even if we are drinking pure water. The majority of people still take the purity of their tap water for granted when they shouldn't.

When we look deeper we can see that even in a rich country like the United States, we all have reason to be concerned about not only drinking, but even bathing in water that comes from public treatment systems. Albuquerque, Fresno, and San Francisco are examples of cities that have water that is sufficiently contaminated so as to pose serious potential health risks to pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems, according to Dr. David Ozonoff. What we find in these waters are contaminants that occur with surprising regularity, regardless of location, such as chlorination by-products, lead, and coliform bacteria. Other contaminants, such as Teflon and rocket fuel occur less frequently but pose major health concerns. If we include the fact that fluoride is actually poisonous we have water that is slowly killing some Americans and depressing the health of almost everyone who drinks and showers in it.

And the problems with water just do not end. In August 2005 we learned that common household brass plumbing fixtures may release far more lead into drinking water than previously believed. As a result, even new homes built with brass fixtures like ball valves and water meters could end up with potentially unsafe lead levels. In a report trumpeted by the National Science Foundation, Virgina Tech researchers charged that the standards used to certify the brass plumbing supplies found at most hardware stores may be inadequate to predict lead contamination of water. This contradicts years of assumptions that lead contamination primarily comes from old leaden pipes or public water systems with lead contamination problems. Contrary to popular belief, many plumbing supplies sold today are not lead-free but contain up to 8 percent lead content in brass fixtures. Lead makes brass and other metals more malleable, helping manufacturers create intricate shapes.

The consequence though is extraordinarily high for exposure to lead in drinking water which results in delays in physical and mental development, along with slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities. In adults, it can cause increases in blood pressure. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure according to the American EPA. The Romans had their engineers turn the populace into neurological cripples when they started using lead in their water systems but they did not have to deal with either fluoride or mercury. The three together, mercury, lead and fluoride become a kind of devil's triangle of chemical toxicity that is only made worse by aluminum and a host of other hostile chemicals that are clogging up our bodies.

Water pollution by drugs is an emerging issue that is extremely important. Pharmaceuticals are now attracting attention as a whole new class of water pollutants. At the recent American Chemical Society conference, Chris Metcalfe of Trent University in Ontario reported finding a vast array of drugs leaving Canadian sewage treatment plants. Padma Venkatraman, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins concluded that antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anticancer drugs and antimicrobials are among the pharmaceuticals most likely to be found at "toxicologically significant levels" in the environment.

These drugs and many more are finding their way into public water systems because pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and other medical facilities as well as households dispose of unused medicines and even human excreta can contain incompletely metabolized medicines. Millions of doses of prescription drugs that Americans swallow annually to combat cancer, pain, depression and other ailments do not disappear harmlessly into their digestive systems but instead make their way back into the environment where they may contaminate drinking water and pose a threat to life, according to researchers at John Hopkins medical center.

These drugs pass intact through conventional sewage treatment facilities, into waterways, lakes and even aquifers. Discarded pharmaceuticals often end up at dumps and land fills, posing a threat to underlying groundwater. And farm animals also are a huge source of pharmaceuticals entering the environment because of the massive use of hormones, antibiotics and veterinary medicines used in their care. Along with pharmaceuticals, personal care products also are showing up in water. Generally these chemicals are the active ingredients or preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries or fragrances. For example, nitro musks, used as a fragrance in many cosmetics, detergents, toiletries and other personal care products, have attracted concern because of their persistence and possible adverse environmental impacts. Some countries have taken action to ban nitro musks. Also, sun screen agents have been detected in lakes and fish.

It is hard to tell which is worse, the toxic chemicals and drugs that are leeching into the public water systems or the noxious chemicals deliberately put in the water by public health officials. Standard water treatments result in health threats yet health officials are loath to admit any problem that we should beware of. Chlorination of drinking water supplies virtually eliminates most disease or bacterial contamination, but creates traces of several toxic by-products in drinking water -- such as chloroform, trihalomethanes and other chlorinated organic compounds. In recent years municipal water districts across the United States are changing the way they disinfect public water supplies. Many are adding ammonia to chlorinated water to produce chloramines, or chloraminated water. They are doing that in order to meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While chloramination has been used as a way to lower the level of carcinogenic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) created by chlorination, it has led to extreme water toxicity. Chloraminated water kills fish and reptiles and there is no reason to believe it is safe for human consumption.

"I almost died," Denise Kula Johnson of Menlo Park said the day after chloramines were added to her water supply. "I was in the shower and suddenly I could not breathe. I passed out on the floor. I was terrified."

"The government is hiding the fact that the drinking water is not usable," says medical scientist Dr. Winn Parker who tells us that the most at-risk groups from chloraminated water are the fetus in the first trimester, children to age three, people over age 60 and those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Women in the 35-45 age group are at risk of recurring rashes on the inner thighs and chest, he added. Parker is calling for government funding of alternative disinfection methods, such as ultra-violet and reverse osmosis, which would make harmful chemical disinfection methods obsolete. "We need to amend the Constitution," Parker said, "to give the people in each state the right to vote on what goes into their water."[viii] A recently discovered disinfection byproduct iodoacetic acid, found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines, is the most toxic ever found.

"Individuals who consume chlorinated drinking water have an elevated risk of cancer of the bladder, stomach, pancreas, kidney and rectum as well as Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."

When Washington DC changed in 2000 to chloramines, this newly treated water reacted with the lead in the pipes to poison the drinking water. Lead levels were found in Washington's water 3,200 times the EPA's "action level" and 4,800 times the UN's acceptable level for the toxic heavy metal. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the problem with lead has mostly disappeared but nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Washington Post, "In New York City, the nation's largest water provider has for the past three years assured its 9.3 million customers that its water was safe because the lead content fell below federal limits. But the city has withheld from regulators hundreds of test results that would have raised lead levels above the safety standard in two of those years."

The drinking water lead crisis in Washington D.C. poses serious public health risks to thousands of residents of the national capital area, and casts a dark shadow of doubt over the ability, resources, or will of federal and local officials to fulfill their duty to protect our health.

After switching to chloraminated water, children in Washington ingested more than 60 times the EPA's maximum level of lead with one glass of water.

Jim Elder, who headed the EPA's drinking water program from 1991 to 1995, said he fears that utilities are engaging in "widespread fraud and manipulation. It's time to reconsider whether water utilities can be trusted with this crucial responsibility of protecting the public. I fear for the safety of our nation's drinking water. Apparently, it's a real crap shoot as to what's going to come out of the tap and whether it will be healthy or not."

Cities across the country are manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law and putting millions of Americans at risk.

Underground aquifers can become contaminated with bacteria and viruses because of insufficient topsoil layers to filter rainwater as it trickles down to recharge the groundwater. Livestock manure, human sewage sludge, fertilizers, weed killers and pesticides seep down into groundwater supplies. The intensification of agricultural practices -- in particular, the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- has had a huge impact on water quality. The main agricultural water pollutants are nitrates, phosphorus, and pesticides. Rising nitrate concentrations threaten the quality of drinking water, while high pesticide use contributes substantially to the direct poisoning of our water supplies.

The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM, 1992) concluded that "groundwater is threatened by pesticides in all European states." WHO (1993) has established drinking water guidelines for 33 pesticides but an awareness is growing that in all matters water related we are not being protected from serious harm. There really is no limit to the concerns and chemicals that make drinking public water a bad idea.

There really is no end to the serious problems with tap water that are being seriously underestimated. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that arsenic is so dangerous in drinking water that stringent levels set by the Clinton administration and later suspended by the Bush White House were not strict enough. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency set an acceptable arsenic level of 50 parts per billion in drinking water. But recent studies suggested that this level was too high and increased the risk of bladder and lung cancer. A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 said the standard should be made stricter "as promptly as possible." President Bill Clinton ordered the limit to be lowered to 10 parts per billion in 2006 and scientists doubt if even this low level of concentration is safe.

References:

Drinking Water Act in 1996 banned plumbing devices with pure lead pipe but still allows low levels of lead. Homes built before 1986 are more likely to have lead pipes, fixtures and solder. However, new homes are also at risk: even legally "lead-free" plumbing may contain up to 8 percent lead. The most common problem is with brass or chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures which can leach significant amounts of lead into the water, especially hot water.


Detected contaminants include caffeine, which was the highest-volume pollutant, codeine, cholesterol-lowering agents, anti-depressants, and Premarin, an estrogen replacement drug taken by about 9 million women. Also chemotherapy agents were found downstream from hospitals treating cancer patients. Final results from the study are expected to be released in the fall. For additional information about the U.S.G.S. study check the website: (http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc.html)

 Chloramine is a disinfectant put into many municipal water supplies. In recent years it has often replaced chlorine for two main reasons. The first is that it is much longer lasting, so it continues to provide a disinfectant action in supply pipes, where chlorine typically loses its capacity to disinfect. The second is that it does not react with organics nearly as readily as does chlorine. The reaction products of chlorine and organics (chlorinated organics) are very toxic to people, and water supply operators elect to use chloramine to reduce this toxicity.

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

Chef Tim Johnson

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!