Ezekiel Bread

@Blickers,

Facts matter, Blickers. Let's talk about science.

It is the organic food industry making sometimes magical claims about the healthfulness of their product (much like the tobacco industry that you brought up even though it is irrelevant). They have the burden of proof to back it up.

The question is whether eating organic food matters at all to health. I just did a quick review, there is a study that organic food does increase certain antioxidants (hypothesized to be a stress response in plants) a small but measurable amount. But there is no study that suggests any significant improvement on human health. Organic food does produce less food, with more resources and at a significantly higher cost. There is also scientific research on pesticides. There is no real science to support what you are saying. You are just making it up to make a point.

Obviously exercise and nutrition are very important to human health. This has nothing to do with whether the food you consume is labeled "organic" or not.

If I eat organic bacon and organic eggs every morning as part of a organic meat laden diet followed by organic ice cream every night and get very little exercise, I am going to have health problems in spite of the fact that the fatty foods organic. If I exercise four times a week, eat a diet rich in non-organic vegetables and fiber, I am likely going to just fine even if no "organic" food passes my lips.

Organic is largely a marketing gimmick. Incidentally, you can eat local (which clearly has benefits both to the environment and to getting the freshest produce). I have a local farm stand that I frequent, I don't believe this produce is organic, nor do I care.

(I am a little curious about how Izzy thinks that skepticism about organic foods counts as misogyny, but unfortunately he has me on ignore.)

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/freshness/organic/medium/organic_1.jpg

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote max:

Quote:

Facts matter, Blickers. Let's talk about science...

...There is also scientific research on pesticides. There is no real science to support what you are saying. You are just making it up to make a point.

.....Organic is largely a marketing gimmick.

Really, do these standards look like a "marketing gimmick" to you? From the US Department of Agriculture on the requirements for food to be allowed to be sold as "organic":

Quote:

Organic certification verifies that products meet all requirements in the USDA organic regulations from farm to market.
www.ams.usda.gov/organicinfo

The USDA organic regulations specify production and processing requirements (such as conserving natural resources and preventing commingling with non-organic products). They also specify which substances (such as animal drugs) are allowed and prohibited.

For example, the use of most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, growth hormones, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering (genetically modified organisms or GMOs) are prohibited.

Certifying agents use a variety of tools to verify that organic farmers and processors aren’t using prohibited substances. These tools include annual on-site inspections and periodic residue testing.

CROPS + LIVESTOCK
The USDA organic regulations allow most natural substances in organic farming while prohibiting most
synthetic substances. The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances—part of these regulations—
lists the exceptions to this basic rule:
Crops
Synthetic substances are prohibited unless specifically allowed.
http://bit.ly/crops601
.
Allowed examples: boric acid, newspaper

Natural substances are allowed unless specifically prohibited.
http://bit.ly/crops602
.
Prohibited examples: arsenic, strychnine....

.....Land requirements: For 3 years immediately prior to harvest, organic farmers can’t apply prohibited substances to the land. During this transition, farmers can’t sell, label, or represent their products as organic.

Source

Right off the bat, we know that you are not going to get poisoned by synthetic sprays, because they are not allowed to be sprayed on organic crops. As the standards say, any farmer wanting to convert to organic farming has to use organic methods, such as no artificial insecticides or fertilizers, for three whole years before he can begin to sell his products as organic.

That's an expensive set of standards for a farmer to implement, so this "marketing" label is complete nonsense.

Remember that from the beginning of agriculture until midway in the 20th Century, agriculture was ALL organic. It is what our bodies have evolved to accept as food. The same cannot be said for inorganic farming at all.

2 Replies

@gollum,

Quote:

I read that Ezekiel Bread is very healthy. Now I see that Cinnamon Raisin Ezekiel Bread is also sold and the ingredients include sugar. Is the Cinnamon Raisin Ezekiel Bread healthy?

It's probably healthy but I'll bet it tastes like crap!

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

In my opinion it's very good.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I would guess that was a reference to the original stuff being cooked over human crap.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

My area expertise is more like Blicker's, my having lived in a region with very careful people with their land.

Alternately, I don't care what Max eats.

I'm a bread maker, may fool with some of that for the fun of it, since I have some of the ingredients.

0 Replies

Dan Glickman (Secretary of Agriculture during the creation of the USDA standards for Organic Food wrote:

Let me be clear about one thing, the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.

The USDA standards were created in a political process that was lobbied by the corporations who make lots of money selling organic food. Yes there are standards, but the people who made these standards were heavily lobbied by corporations who were driven by profit (and quickly realized that these standards would be very profitable).

Organic Food is a big business. The company that produces "Ezekiel Bread" built an 80,000 square foot factory in Arizona to produce this bread and a quick search (Hoovers) says they make over $28 million a year marketing this bread.

Organic food that is marketed as "organic" and meets the USDA specifications are increasing produced by large multi-national companies, including ConAgra and the shell company that produces Campbell's soup. You are being sold a marketing term.

Here's an interesting exercise for those who want to see past the marketing hype. Go into your pantry and make a list of the organic brands that are there. Then google them to see who owns them. Stonyfield farm yogurt (a brand I like) is owned by the multinational corporation that produces Dannon yogurt. Annies is owned by General Mills.

Lots of organic food is produced on factory farms. As I noted, I far prefer my local farmstand... in spite of the fact that they don't claim to be "organic".

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Organic Food is a big business. The company that produces "Ezekiel Bread" built an 80,000 square foot factory in Arizona to produce this bread and a quick search (Hoovers) says they make over $28 million a year marketing this bread.

And all that creates lots of jobs for Amurricans, which can't be bad, right?

1 Reply

Ezekiel bread is made from dry bones. Hear the word of the Lord.

0 Replies

@centrox,

I don't have a problem with people buying organic food, Centrox. Of course factories producing food that Americans want is a good thing -- whether the food is marketed as "organic" or "magically delicious".

I am only commenting on the marketing hype.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Remember that from the beginning of agriculture until midway in the 20th Century, agriculture was ALL organic. It is what our bodies have evolved to accept as food. The same cannot be said for inorganic farming at all.

This argument is also flawed, for a couple of reasons.

- We are currently in a period called "The golden age of food security". There are fewer humans starving (world wide) than at any time in human history. This has been true since the food crises in the mid 1990s (which were caused by political/economic problems rather than shortages).

Modern Agriculture, including the use of pesticides and fertilizers, developed to give humans a food security that we have never had before. Before modern agriculture humans were always facing food pressure, famine and devastating insect plagues. These are problems that have largely been solved. In the 20th century; humans literally doubled their life expectancy while making infant mortality plummet. The progress we have made in health is amazing.

World wide, we are producing more food than is needed by humanity. This is a good thing.

- We need to look at farming practices individually. The "organic" label lumps together a bunch of issues under one marketing term. This becomes an emotional, fear-driven reaction rather than a rational fact-based decision about food policy.

Of course, if a practice of modern agriculture is creating health risks or environmental damage is important. If we note that BHA is making people sick, or that certain fertilizers are destroying ecosystems, then we should eliminate, or moderate them.

It is foolish to lump together all modern farming techniques together. Show the the facts, and I will support the banning of a certain practice or the promotion of another.

The organic movement is very broad and covers things that are anti-science.

0 Replies

I have noticed a trend among items like candy bars etc. It has been going on for several decades, really, since maybe the 1980s. Before that, when I was a kid, certainly, you had things like Snickers, Mars bars, Kit Kats, etc, and they were marketed with a message, roughly, of "this tastes good!". Now you still have them, sure, but you also have a sizeable market segment of manufactured sugary salt-laden crap where the message is "this is healthy!" or "this is wholesome!". The packaging will show fields of corn or sacks of wheat or dairymaids or whatever. It's still junk.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote max:

Quote:

Dan Glickman (Secretary of Agriculture during the creation of the USDA standards for Organic Food wrote:

Let me be clear about one thing, the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.

Good for Dan Glickman. Organic Food leaves out-by law-artificially created pesticides and fertilizers as the standards I quoted attest. It makes sure that the soil the food is grown in has not had these artificial pesticides and fertilizers for three years before you can grow food labelled "organic" in the soil. I'll make the decision as to whether this is healthier.

Before you get carried away with non-organic farming, consider the case of Monsanto and Roundup, which is quite legal. Monsanto developed GMO crops that were immune to their pesticide Roundup. Roundup is deadly stuff, and it gets into the environment when sprayed on crops. With the GMO plants resistant to damage from Roundup, the growers spray the hell out of the crops that kills all the pests. It also leaves Roundup in the environment. Cancer risk in humans from Roundup is contradictory, but workers in the Roundup plant have twice the risk of B cell lymphoma. In addition, several animal studies show vastly increased risk.

No thank you. You can eat what you want, I'll eat what I want.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers-

Thank you.

Where can we find a statement from a reputable authority on the matter to corroborate your statement?

2 Replies

I drink my Roundup from the bottle. No second party source for me.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Before you get carried away with non-organic farming, consider the case of Monsanto and Roundup, which is quite legal. Monsanto developed GMO crops that were immune to their pesticide Roundup. Roundup is deadly stuff, and it gets into the environment when sprayed on crops. With the GMO plants resistant to damage from Roundup, the growers spray the hell out of the crops that kills all the pests. It also leaves Roundup in the environment. Cancer risk in humans from Roundup is contradictory, but workers in the Roundup plant have twice the risk of B cell lymphoma. In addition, several animal studies show vastly increased risk.

There are two separate types of issues here.

1) There are specific instances of things that are harmful. You give the example of Roundup resistant crops (and the resultant increased use of Roundup). If you have specific scientific evidence that you believe shows that this is harmful to consumers, workers and/or the environment, than you can easily get my attention by providing a rational argument for this specific instance.

Of course, I will look at both sides of the argument before making up my own mind (as should you). There are certainly cases where we will agree.

2) If you are making a knee-jerk argument against all "non-organic" or genetically modified crops then you lose me. These are broad arguments based on trigger words and emotional arguments. They are not rational.. and they certainly aren't a basis for sound policy decisions.

If you want to pay more for food based on superstition, be my guest.

When people try to market more expensive food to me based on it being "organic" even though it has no proven health benefits, I react badly.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I drink my Roundup from the bottle. No second party source for me.

This is silly. Organic farming uses cow manure (something that can contain infectuous agents that are dangerous to humans). Of course, eating "organic" produce isn't the same as drinking manure from a bottle any more than eating "roundup resistant" produce is the same as drinking roundup from a bottle.

These are emotional arguments, not rational ones. The real question is whether Roundup is scientifically shown to be harmful or helpful. We should absolutely have independent researchers testing this... but then we should respect their finding whether they support our political interest or not.

0 Replies

I got unfriended by a jerk on Facebook, because I criticized Monsanto. He said, there is no agreeing to disagree. And, that statement is about right. I will never accept Monsanto, willingly.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I think I remember you describing a way a company near you worked, sans Monsanto; I've forgotten the details, but remember that made sense.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know