Of course, I understand that the two need not be mutually exclusive.Yet, when one reads an appeal to libertarians, it seems reasonable to expect that the issues presented have something to do with libertarianism.

Recently a friend of mine sent me something written by an outspoken and reasonably well-known libertarian; I think it is fair to describe this individual as a left-libertarian.I am not comfortable offering the name of the author as the original reference is to a Facebook post; as I am not on Facebook, I cannot directly verify the source.Further, I am unable to offer a link.I suspect someone with a Facebook account can find this pretty easily.

So, why do I bother addressing this?Two reasons, I guess: first, the comment is on a topic that I have written about recently (more than once), one on which I place some value; second, it offers a case study to the question posed in the title (and clarified in my opening paragraph above).

Time to buy old US gold coins

Here is the post, in its entirety (based on the email I received):

Jordan Peterson is a huckster and charlatan and if you take him as a serious scholar you should not be taken seriously. Hes a slicker, more credentialed Molyneux, and real scholars know that he is misrepresenting those he disagrees with and offering a one-sided take on the issues hes discussing.

To those libertarians, young and old, who are fans, you are hitching yourself to a doomed train. We can and should do much better than this nonsense. Find and follow real scholars who treat the left the way youd want the left to treat you. Spit out this poison before it destroys you and the case for liberty. Seriously.

What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness. Petersons sole discovery is that postmodernism can be usefully exploited alongside the more familiar, established populist scare tactics.

As a description of what the postmodern thinkers actually wrote, it is very flawed. If all of Derridas and Foucaults writing can be made to support one sweeping claim, it is not that interpretation is potentially infinite and therefore meaningless. It is that interpretation must be socially and historically contextualized in order to become meaningful. Much art that we now deem canonicalJackson Pollocks drip paintings, for instancewould have struck nineteenth-century art patrons as incomprehensible garbage. The point is simply that artistic values are not universal but produced by historically situated communities of people.

Lets be clear: Peterson doesnt understand the major thinkers in the postmodern tradition who he libels for money. His grotesque caricature and slander of the humanities is very different from what actually happens in humanities classrooms.

Lets examine this.First note, the appeal is to libertarians:

To those libertarians, young and old, who are fans, you are hitching yourself to a doomed train.

With this as the authors concern, you would think that the reasons behind the attack would have something to do with the non-aggression principle.But I find nary a criticism on this basis; instead, the author offers:

Find and follow real scholars who treat the left the way youd want the left to treat you.What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness. As a description of what the postmodern thinkers actually wrote, it is very flawed.

I have no idea if Petersons views on post-modernist philosophy are accurate or not.But, as a libertarian, what do I care?I dont.I dont pay attention to Peterson because of his analysis and conclusions about post-modernism.

While offering no reason for libertarians as libertarians to reject Peterson, the author admonishes libertarians, young and old to:

Spit out this poison before it destroys you and the case for liberty. Seriously.

But what poison must I,as a libertarian, spit out?I receive not a clue from this rant.I might, as a historian or political philosopheror a leftistfind reason to spit out something that Peterson offers, butwhy as a libertarian?Silence.

So, Whats Really Going on Here?

I cannot speak to why other libertarians have been drawn to Peterson.I can speak as to my interest.

I believe Petersons popularity first soared when he began his fight regarding the compelled use of gender pronouns compelled by law.

I became aware of him some time after this, when someone pointed me to Petersons lectures and discussions regarding the value of culture and tradition in society, and specifically the value of western, Christian tradition.After this, I have also spent time on his gender pronoun topics.

That Peterson bases his views on his interpretation of post-modernism whether a valid interpretation or not is irrelevant to meas a libertarian.

I believe it is safe to say: if Peterson is well-known to a public broader than his university students and to libertarians in particular, it is for these two reasons:

1)He is against being compelled by law to use made-up words; he is against compelled speech.

2)He recognizes the value of the western tradition that has been developed and refined through the millennia.

Thats it.

So, why would a libertarian as a libertarian have a beef with these?

A libertarian should be fully supportive of Petersons stance on the first item.Government limitations on speech (on or while using my own property) are bad enough; governmentcompelledspeech is unbelievably horrendous.

The government is forcing you to say something.If you dont say it, you could go to prison.This is about as anti-libertarian as it gets.

To the second point: it seems to me that as a libertarian, the most one could say is he is neutral on this matter.When it comes to traditions and norms, these are all outside of the non-aggression principle (although I believe that libertarianism can only survive and thrive in a certain cultural soil).

So, a libertarianas a libertarianwould agree with Peterson on the first point, and at worst be neutral toward Petersons view on the second.

Conclusion

A leftist, on the other hand, would really despise Peterson for both points.

So, I ask: leftist or libertarian?From which perspective would one have a complaint about Peterson?

Postscript

BTW, although I havent examined this thoroughly,I think Rothbard holds a similar viewon the topic of the post-modernists as does Peterson (I may write something on Rothbards views at some point).Rothbard might be the primary reason that this left-libertarian is apoplectic about Petersons popularity with libertarians.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Read more here:

Left-Libertarians Flip Out - LewRockwell

We havent had one of these for a while, but Professor Jordan Peterson articulates (I think) one of the reasons Slugger remains a live and lively community of unlike-minded folk who arent afraid to disagree with one another over almost everything.

This piece, recorded at the Oxford Union a couple of years ago, is worth watching the whole way through, but this section (where I hope the video link will start below, is the key passage that relates to the role which dispute plays in any democracy.

One key phrase is how he describes respect for the manifestation of the logos as the core value of free speech. In this important regard, Sluggers famous play the ball and not the man is merely an aid to the promulgation of such respect.

As my good friend and colleague John Kellden likes to say, in a network, the best place to store knowledge is in other people. Preferably folk who dont see the world in the same ways that you do

Theres dangers on both sides. One is the danger of pathological order and the other is the danger of pathological chaos and the problem with the questioning tendency is that it knows no limits and thats actually hard on people.

Its actually very difficult to orient yourself in life if you happen to be very high in openness very low in conscientiousness and very high in neuroticism because you question everything and youre not stable.

You might be wildly creative like thats a pretty good recipe for wild creativity but that doesnt mean that its tenable or sustainable because most creative ideas are not only wrong theyre actually deadly.

But some of them arent. Some of them are absolutely vitally important right and so part of the reason we have political discussion or discussion at all is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So the endless proclivity of the questioning tendency of the liberal left is that every axiom is open for infinite questioning well that leaves you bereft.

But the problem on the right is if you tighten things up too much well then you have no adaptive flexibility left and you are in a sterile tyranny of stone and then the environment shifts around you and youre not prepared and then everyones done.

So the reason that free speech is so important, well I dont think about it as free speech but as respect for the manifestation of the logos thats the proper way of conceptualizing it is that it keeps the balance between those two tendencies right.

You need the questioning and you need the order. And so you think well how much of each and the answer is the recipe changes day to day? And so you think well if it changes day to day how are we going to keep up?

And the answer is by keeping up. Right where we are. But we do that by thinking and we think by talking and we think and talk by disagreeing and were better disagree conceptually because then we dont have to act out stupid ideas that will kill us.

The abstract territory of conceptual dispute is the substitute for war and death. It can be a brutal substitute because conceptual disagreement can be very intense but compared to war and death its hardly intense at all.

You keep the landscape open for serious dispute including dispute thats offensive, obviously, because if youre ever going to talk about anything thats difficult (and why talk otherwise) then youre going to talk about things that are offensive to people.

And youre going to do it badly, youre going to stumble around when youre formulating your thoughts and thats horrible, it makes people anxious, it alienates them but its better than pain and death. And thats the alternative.

This is why eclectic mixers like Sluggermatter. As Fast Company notedpeople are much more likely to share something that accords with something they already think. They also prefer stories that come from someone within their peer group.

Photo by Pixabay is licensed under CC0

Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty

See the original post:

Friday Thread: A reminder that robust political dispute is [much] better than war - Slugger O'Toole

With our collapsing democracies and imploding biosphere, its no wonder that people despair. The Austrian psychoanalyst and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl presciently described such sentiments in his book Mans Search for Meaning (1946). He wrote of something that so many patients complain [about] today, namely, the feeling of the total and ultimate meaninglessness of their lives. A nihilistic wisdom emerges when staring down the apocalypse. Theres something predictable in our current pandemics, from addiction to belief in pseudoscientific theories, for in Frankls analysis, An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behaviour. When scientists worry that humanity might have just one generation left, we can agree that ours is an abnormal situation. Which is why Mans Search for Meaning is the work to return to in these humid days of the Anthropocene.

Already a successful psychotherapist before he was sent to Auschwitz and then Dachau, Frankl was part of whats known as the third wave of Viennese psychoanalysis. Reacting against both Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, Frankl rejected the firsts theories concerning the will to pleasure and the latters will to power. By contrast, Frankl writes that: Mans search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a secondary rationalisation of instinctual drives.

Frankl argued that literature, art, religion and all the other cultural phenomena that place meaning at their core are things-unto-themselves, and furthermore are the very basis for how we find purpose. In private practice, Frankl developed a methodology he called logotherapy from logos, Greek for reason describing it as defined by the fact that this striving to find a meaning in ones life is the primary motivational force in man. He believed that there was much that humanity can live without, but if were devoid of a sense of purpose and meaning then we ensure our eventual demise.

In Vienna, he was Dr Viktor Frankl, head of the neurology department of the Rothschild Hospital. In Auschwitz, he was number 119,104. The concentration camp was the null point of meaning, a type of absolute zero for purpose in life. Already having developed his theories about logotherapy, Frankl smuggled a manuscript he was working on into the camp, only to lose it, later forced to recreate it from memory. While in the camps, he informally worked as a physician, finding that acting as analyst to his fellow prisoners gave him purpose, even as he ostensibly assisted others. In those discussions, he came to conclusions that became foundational for humanistic psychology.

One was that the prisoner who had lost faith in the future his future was doomed. Frankl recounts how even in the camps, where suicide was endemic, the prisoners who seemed to have the best chance of survival were not necessarily the strongest or physically healthiest, but those somehow capable of directing their thoughts towards a sense of meaning. A few prisoners were able to retreat from their terrible surroundings to a life of inner riches and spiritual freedom, and in the imagining of such a space there was the potential for survival.

Frankl imagined intricate conversations with his wife Tilly (who, he later discovered, had been murdered at another camp), or of lecturing a future crowd about the psychology of the camps which was precisely his work for the rest of his life. Mans Search for Meaning with its conviction that: Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions became a postwar bestseller. Translated into more than two dozen languages, selling more than 12 millions copies, and frequently chosen by book clubs and college psychology, philosophy and religion courses, Mans Search for Meaning has its place in the cultural zeitgeist, with whole university and hospital departments geared around both humanistic psychology and logotherapy. Even though Frankl was a physician, his form of psychoanalysis often seemed to have more in common with a form of secularised rabbinic Judaism than with science.

Mans Search for Meaning is structured in two parts. The first constitutes Frankls Holocaust testimony, bearing similarity to writings by Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi. In the second part, he elaborates on logotherapy, arguing that the meaning of life is found in experiencing something such as goodness, truth and beauty by experiencing nature and culture or by experiencing another human being in his very uniqueness by loving him, not simply in spite of apocalyptic situations, but because of them.

The book has been maligned as superficial pop-existentialism; a vestige of middle-brow culture offering platitudinous New Age panaceas. Such a reading isnt entirely unfair. And seven decades later, one might blanche at the sexist language, or the hokey suggestion that a Statue of Responsibility be constructed on the US West Coast. However, a fuller consideration of Frankls concept of tragic optimism should give more attention to the former rather than the latter before the therapist is impugned as overly rosy. When he writes Since Auschwitz we know what man is capable of. And since Hiroshima we know what is at stake, its hard to accuse him of being a Pollyanna.

Some critics accuse Frankl of victim-blaming. The American scholar Lawrence Langer in 1982 even wrote that Mans Search for Meaning is almost sinister. According to him, Frankl reduced survival to an issue of a positivity; Langer argues that the book does a profound disservice to the millions who perished. A critique such as this has some merit to it, and yet Frankls actual implications are different. His book evidences no moralising against those whod lost a sense of meaning. Frankls study doesnt advocate logotherapy as an ethical but as a strategic response to tragedy.

When identifying meaninglessness, it would be a mistake to find it within the individual who suffers. Frankls fellow prisoners werent responsible for the concentration camps, just as somebody born into a cycle of poverty isnt at fault, nor is any one of us (unless you happen to be an oil executive) the cause of our collapsing ecosystem. Nothing in logotherapy implies acceptance of the status quo, for the struggle to alter political, material, social, cultural and economic conditions is paramount. What logotherapy offers is something different, a way to envision meaning, despite things not being in your control. In his preface to the books 2006 edition, Rabbi Harold Kushner glosses Frankls argument by saying that: Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation.

Far from being obsessed with the meaning of life, logotherapy demands that patients orient themselves to the idea of individual meaning, to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life daily and hourly, as Frankl writes. Logotherapy asking patients to clear an imaginative space to orient themselves towards some higher meaning provides a response to intolerable situations.

Frankl writes that he grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. It is easy to be cynical about such a claim, proving Frankls point. In our small, petty, limited, cruel era, it seems hard to come across much collective human affection, and yet our pettiness, limitations and cruelty are in their own way a response to the looming apocalypse. Every age has its own collective neurosis, Frankl writes, and every age needs its own psychotherapy to cope with it. If were exhausted, fatigued, anxious, enraged, despairing and confused at the collapse of our individual fortunes, our social networks, our communities, our industries, our democracy, our very planet, its no wonder weve developed a certain collective neurosis. Yet humanistic psychology has not been in vogue for decades; in its place, we have fashionable sociobiology and misapplied neuroscience in the form of the Panglossian Steven Pinker and the Svengali platitudes of Jordan Peterson.

In one of the books most remarkable passages, Frankl recounts how, when his work group was allowed a meagre few hours of rest, a fellow prisoner interrupted them and asked us to run out to the assembly grounds and see a wonderful sunset. With a prose style that tends towards the clinical, albeit with a distinct sense of the sacred, Frankl here gives himself over to the transcendent:

Standing outside we saw sinister clouds glowing in the west and the whole sky alive with clouds of ever-changing shapes and colours, from steel blue to blood red. The desolate grey mud huts provided a sharp contrast, while the puddles on the muddy ground reflected the glowing sky.

From this vision, here in a place whose very definition was the nullification of meaning, another prisoner remarked: How beautiful the world could be! Such is the promise of logotherapy not to ensure that there will be more sunsets, for that is our individual and societal responsibility. What logotherapy offers, rather, is the promise to be in awe at a sunset, even if it does happen to be our last one; to find wonder, meaning, beauty and grace even in the apocalypse, even in hell. The rest is up to us.

Ed Simon

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Read the original here:

What Viktor Frankls logotherapy can offer in the Anthropocene - AlterNet

What are the standards for organic foods?

Have you ever wondered why certain foods are classified as "organic"? According to surveys, over half of Americans have purchased organic food products in recent years. Since Oct. 21, 2002, any food that is sold in the U.S. -- whether produced locally or imported -- must meet specific standards defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry the label "organic."

Organic foods are grown and processed differently than regular foods. The USDA definition of organic food states that:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.

While you may see labels that assert that a food is "natural," "pesticide-free," or "hormone-free," these terms should not be considered synonymous with the term "organic." The USDA defines organic foods as products that are at least 95% organic according to the standard usage of the term. If manufacturers wish, they may use the USDA organic seal when marketing their products. Products that contain 100% organic ingredients may be labeled as "100% organic." Use of the USDA seal is not mandatory, however, so you may not see the seal on all organic products.

In the U.S., the most commonly purchased organic foods are fruits and vegetables, which account for over 70% of organic food purchases. Because of the standards required to produce organic foods, these foods are generally more expensive than their non-organic counterparts.

While the USDA strictly regulates the use of the term organic in reference to food products, the agency itself does not make any claims that organic foods are healthier or safer than foods that do not carry this label.

For related information, please visit the Nutrition Center.

CONTINUE SCROLLING FOR RELATED SLIDESHOW

Read more here:

What Is Organic Food? Natural vs. Organic Food

"Organic" technically refers to any material that is carbon-based. That said, organically raised food follows a set of prescribed practices that differ in a number of ways from industrialized agriculture.

Only farms that go through the certification process of their country or state can label their food organic. The process is expensive. There aresmall farms that follow sustainable agriculture practices choose to forgo certification even though their own practices meet or exceed those required.

Organic standards vary from country to country, but food labeled organic in the United States must be raised following some specific guidelines, including:

In the United States, for producers to label processed food "organic," it must contain 95% organically grown ingredients; they can use the label "contains organic ingredients" as long as 70% of the ingredients are certified organic.

Note that some states (I'm looking at you, Oregon!) and many countries have stricter standards than these for their certified organic labeling, specifically, many standards require land to be free of exposure to synthetic chemicals and other banned substances for five years instead of three.

Food raised following organic standards and bearing the organic label does, more often than not, still cost more than food raised using industrial methods. So why pay more?

Many people will answer for their health, to avoid putting chemicals (in the form of pesticide residue) in their bodies. And that's not a bad reason at all.

Most organics advocates, however, will point to larger issues. Healthier farmland, a less toxic environment in general, farmers' and farm workers' health, and a more vibrant and varied food system are all reasons to consider looking for foods that are certified organic.

* This three-year lag time between when a farm must start following the more expensive practices and when it can reap the benefit of labeling the resulting food "organic" is one of the stumbling blocks to some farm converting fully to organic practices.

See the original post:

Organic Food Definition and Standards

Myths and Misconceptions

For some consumers, the mere act of shopping at the supermarket can be full of overwhelming decisions. After extended debate in the grocery aisle, after attempts to parse through the misleading packaging, you might end up choosing the organic tomatoes over the conventional ones. Theyre twice the price, so theyve got to be better, right?

But its not so simple. Celebrities, anti-GMO groups, and food trends have spread misleading information and myths about the food we chose to eat every day. Do foods labeled organic actually make us healthier? Are they free of pesticides? Should we be afraid of pesticides in the first place?

Recently, singer/actressZooey Deschanel made headlines because her docu-series about organic food, called Your Foods Roots,was riddled with errors and misinformation. In a recent Facebook video, Deschanelmisleadingly claimed that people should eliminate the 12 vegetables and fruits most likely to have the highest amounts of pesticide residues in order to keep healthy. The list, dubbed the dirty dozen, is reportedly curated annually by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit focused on health advocacy and research.

That claim isnt in line with the consensus of the scientific community, however. Toxicologists have long discredited any ill effects of eating foods that happen to be on that list79 percent of the members of the Society of Toxicology said that the EWGoverstated the health risks of chemicals,according to a 2009 survey by George Mason University. In 2016, theAlliance for Food and Farming, a non-profit that represents organic and conventional farmers, repeated calls for the EWG to consider the USDA guidelinesbefore renewing its dirty dozen list, arguing that the produce on it has repeatedly been shown to have no negative health impacts.

Even more concerning, Deschanel urges consumers to strictly buy organic foods to avoid pesticides. Thats bad advice backed by faulty reasoning. Many studies have shownthat just because a food is labeled organic, that doesnt mean it was grown without pesticides (more on that later). In any case, scientists notethat limiting the consumption of fruits and vegetables for fear of pesticide use could be much worse for consumers health than inadvertently consuming a little bit of pesticide.

My biggest concern is that a lot of these reports may [produce] a negative effect in that they may discourage people from consuming what are perfectly healthy, conventionally-produced [non-organic] fruits and vegetables, Carl Winter,food toxicologist at the University of California, Davis and member of the Institute of Food Technologists, told Futurism. While everybody wants to do what they hear is the right thing, they could be doing themselves more harm than good in the long term.

Here are four common, pervasive myths about GMOs and organic foods. Understanding what the science says can help consumers ensure that they choose the food that will best keep them healthy.

At the grocery store, consumers are given the option to buy conventionally-produced food or its (often pricier) organic counterpart. The distinction between these two choices is closely regulated. For food manufacturers to label their items as organic, the products must meet the standards set by organizations and governments.The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certifies foods as organic if they are shown to be protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only approved substances. In the U.S. and Canada, any food labeled as organic must be devoid of GMOs.

Organic foods, by that definition, cant have had synthetic fertilizers or pesticides applied to them for three years before they are harvested. But just because a crop fits the definition of organic doesnt mean its totally free of fertilizer residue. USDA organic certification allows for natural substances such as pheromones, vaccines for animals, and a limited number of natural pesticides as well, but a 2011 survey by the USDA showed 39 percent of 571 organic samples were found to have pesticide residues, but well below tolerance set out by the EPA.And yet, a 2005 market trends survey by Whole Foods found that more than 70 percent of consumers bought organic food to avoid pesticides.

Exposure to a little pesticide isnt necessarily toxic for people.The big question from a toxicological standpoint is how much are we exposed to? The first principle of toxicology is the dose makes the poison, Winter said. While studies have shown that conventional, non-organic foods do indeed come with a greater likelihood of exposure to pesticide residues compared to their organic counterparts, the health risks of exposure are often exaggerated by organizations such as the Environmental Working Group and food safety associations. The levels we are exposed to are far, far less than levels that would be expected to cause any harm to our population. So reducing our exposure a little bit morein this case by purchasing organic foodreally isnt going to cause any appreciable health benefit to us as consumers, Winter added.

That is not to say pesticides pose no risk at all. Since the 1930s, synthetic pesticides, most famously DDT, were linked tobirth defects and depleted biodiversity. People working in the fields, who spend the most time exposed to pesticides, are often hospitalized for related illnesses;in 2006 in the state of California, as many as 1,310 people were hospitalized due to pesticide-related illnesses and injuries, and 23 of them died.Today, scientists are still working to understand how high doses of pesticides can affect childrens development.

Little of this applies to the average consumer, however. First, farmers use fewer pesticides today than they did even a decade ago, and the pesticides themselves must be proven to have a low impact on human health to meet the USDAsstringent guidelines.Althoughhigh doses of these pesticides may pose a health risk, the remaining residues that make their way into our food have been repeatedly shownto have virtually no effect on health. The World Health Organization notes that none of the pesticides currently authorized in international food trade are damaging to humans on a genetic level, and only become dangerous to workers who are directly exposed to them in much higher quantities in the field.

From a consumer standpoint, our levels of exposures are very, very low, Winter said. But that doesnt mean farmers can just dump the stuff willy-nilly. Im not here to say pesticides are fine and we shouldnt worry about it. We need to regulate them.

Since the U.S. government began regulating organic products in 1990, proponents have claimedthat eating organic food makes us healthier. That claim, as difficult as it is to nail down, is ultimately misleading.

When comparing (organic) apples to (conventional) apples, the evidence simply doesnt suggest that organic makes people healthier. After analyzing 240 studies about the nutritional value of organic food, the authors of a2012 review study published in the Annals of Internal Medicineconcluded that they [lack] strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. (The researchers did conclude, however, that eating organic could reduce consumers exposure to pesticide residues and the possibility of ingesting antibiotic-resistant bacteria).

But defining what makes a consumer healthy or at least healthier than someone else is not always clear. Additional nutrients may in fact be good for us, but does that mean we require them to be healthy, or are we just fine without them?A 2016 review study published in the British Journal of Nutritionanalyzed 170 studies, concluding that organic dairy and meat had higher levels of omega-3s acids that have been linked to lower rates of heart disease and better immune function than their conventional counterparts. While increased levels of omega-3s have been shown to be good for you, it doesnt necessarily justify paying the premium for organic dairy and meat conventional meat and dairy are not entirely devoid of omega-3s.

The ability to alter the genetic makeup of a crop has been the topic of heated debate for decades. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) crops with genomes that have been augmented with DNA from other organisms have permanently changed the agricultural industry. Scientists have created genetically engineered (GE) varieties of crops containing genes that protect them from pests, weeds, or even certain plant viruses.

Even though the first GMOs hit the market 23 years ago, the debate surrounding their safetystill rages, fueled bymisinformation about the impact they have on health.

Genetically engineering crops allows scientists to transfer desirable traits individually a much more efficient processthan cross-breeding, a less high-tech method that may also transfer anumber of traits that may pose a threat to the newly created plant. Cross-breeding also limits the palette of new traits to traits that are already present in either the male or female plant; genetic engineering, on the other hand, allows for scientists to use foreign but desirable traits.

GMOs are also not limited to unnatural, synthetically engineered uses they can take advantage of natural processes as well. For instance, the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was discovered to be a naturally-occurring insecticide more than 100 years ago. Recently, bioengineers have modified the genes of crops such as corn to express the insecticidal protein present in this natural microorganism, foregoing the need to physically spray crops with it separately. As a result, the crop itself is toxic to insects, and neighboring fields and ecosystems are largely unaffected.

Fear of GMOs, and their purported effects on health, gives consumers another reason to stick to organic. The European Union prohibits farmers from growing GMOs; other nations like India have dragged their feet in allowing the cultivation of GMOs because of vehement backlash. In the U.S., products that contain GMOs will soon berequired by federal law to be labeled as such.

These precautions, however, are woefully unfounded; as of right now, there is no trustworthy evidence that any GMO-derived food poses health risks to humans. If anything, genetic modifications make crops safer for agricultural workers (genetic tweaks make crops more resistant to damage from insects and viral infections, so plants need fewer pesticides) and even make them more nutritious, bringing a healthful variety to more people worldwide.According to the WHO, no foods available today based on genetically modified crops have been shown to have a negative effect on human health in the countries in which they have been approved.

Ihave yet to see any evidence that suggests that GM crops are any more dangerous than their conventional counterparts, Winter said.

So why do the anti-GMO myths persist? A group of biotechnologists and philosophers from Ghent University hypothesized that negative portrayals of GMOs are intuitively appealing. The idea of introducing foreign genes into the food you eat, the researchers argue, is notmeddling with the characteristics of organisms seems unnatural, and scientists are often accused of overreaching their boundaries, playing God.

While GMOs have so far not been shown to harm consumers, thats not to say they never could. There is no evidence of any harmful impacts from eating genetically engineered crops that are grown today, but I cant say that about crops from ten years from now, Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), told Futurism. Food safety regulation, then, will become even more important as new genetic modification tools like CRISPR become more common. Regulators will need to apply a case-by-case approach to ensure the safety of consumers and producers alike when it comes to genetically engineered crops, Jaffe said.

People who oppose GMOs often note their purported effect on the environment. They fear that genetic modifications could jump from farms to the larger natural environment, or that GMO crops suppress the natural biodiversity of an area. Perhaps most cuttingly, they note that GMOs demand a greater use of herbicides, which reduces biodiversity and makes weeds more resistant to the chemicals.

These criticisms do have a modicum of truth to them. Genetic modifications have jumped from crops to local varieties, albeit infrequently, and farmers are leaning heavily (arguably too heavily) on the same types of crops, which leaves them vulnerable to disease. A 2016 study foundthat farmers who raised genetically-modified soybeans used more herbicide than farmers who didnt adopt the herbicide-resistant GM strains.Researchers admit that we still have a lot to learn about the environmental impacts of GMOs.

But overall, GMOs dont cause as much damage as their critics may have you believe. The same 2016 study found that GMOs actually reduced the amount of pesticides needed to raise the same amount of maize compared to crops that didnt use GM strains of maize engineered to resist pests. Another 2014 study found that genetically modified crops had a 22 percent greater yield than non-GM varieties. More food per square meter could mean that less land is needed worldwide for agriculture, leaving more habitats undisturbed or allocating more land for natural reserves or wildlife corridors. Plus, many GMO crops need less water than organic or non-GM varieties, which will help feed everyone in a warmer world.

Scientists are still not completely sure if GMOs are better for the environment than other types of crops. But they at least demand fewer resources than organic crops.

At the end of the day, organic food isnt a bad option. And neither are GMOs. But consumers should make their food choices based on science, not hearsay. Many myths persist around the risks of GMOs and the benefits of organic foods. But one thing is clear: eating fruits and vegetables is the most important thing, no matter if theyre organic or GMO.

View original post here:

Is Organic Really Better? 4 Food Myths Debunked By Science

We all want to provide the best and most nutritious food for our families along with minimizing or totally eliminating the toxins to which we are exposed. Grocery shopping can be difficult and expensive, especially if we are constantly worrying about whether we should purchase organic vs. non-organic foods. Lets talk about the difference between organic and non organic foods.

Im sure that many of you are like me and are a little skeptical of the crunchy, Yoga Mom, gluten-free, organic craze that we find ourselves in the middle of. So is organic worth it?

Lets get to the bottom of the organic trend. Whats the difference between organic and non organic foods?

In my quest for the truth on the organic food issue, I soon found a raging debate about the difference between organic and non-organic foods that usually centers around these 3 concerns:

Chemicals in Organic vs Non Organic Food

In the words of the University of Arizonas College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: (1)

Organic foods are defined as those foods that are grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, genetic engineering, pesticides, or drugs. Pesticides are chemical or control agents made to kill insects, weeds, and fungal pests that damage crops.

Non-organic foods, therefore, are either directly manufactured with or are indirectly contaminated by synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, genetic engineering, pesticides or drugs.

Aesthetics of Fresh Produce

Many people argue that organic food looks and feels differently than non-organic food. They feel conventional food items almost look too perfect; whereas organic produce resembles the fresh fruit and veggies in your back yard garden with non-symmetrical shapes, varying colors and even some blemishes. Food Sentry offers one explanation why this is so:

The short version is that much non-organic, unprocessed or minimally processed produce is treated with a variety of growth-enhancing substances and is also commonly subjected to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grading and quality standards (voluntarily), while organic produce is not. (2)

We cannot prove whether or not this is true, but it does give some credence to the Ugly Food Movement, doesnt it? (3)

Nutrition Quality of Organic Food

The Mayo Clinic claims that organic foods are not more nutritious than non-organic varieties. A recent study examined the past 50 years worth of scientific articles about the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods and the conclusion was that there was not a significant difference in the nutrient content. (4) Yet, this perspective isnt supported by everyone.

The British Journal of Nutrition published a paper that evaluated 343 studies on the topic, and decidedly concluded that organic foods are truly the healthier option because they contain up to 69% more antioxidants than non-organic foods. (5)

Because of the importance that antioxidants have in the prevention and successful treatment of chronic illnesses such as heart disease, neurodegenerative disease and cancer this information should not be taken lightly. The study also showed that organic foods have considerably less cadmium (a toxic metal) and, of course, pesticide residue.

The important message is this: When you consider the amount of research that has been done pinpointing the specific dangers associated with eating conventional, pesticide-ridden foods, why would anyone purposely choose non-organic food if they were able to choose organic?

When we keep in mind that we are what we eat, it shouldnt be a surprise to find out that the risks associated with pesticides are dramatic and widespread. According to a recent article in the journal IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology:

The World Health Organization estimates that there are 3 million cases of pesticide poison in each year and up to 220,000 deaths, primarily in developing countries. The potential health effects of pesticides include asthma, allergies, and hypersensitivity, and pesticide exposure is also linked with cancer, hormone disruption, and problems with reproduction and fetal development. Children are at greater risk from exposure to pesticides because of their small size: relative to their size, children eat, drink, and breathe more than adults. Their bodies and organs are growing rapidly, which also makes them more susceptible; in fact, children may be exposed to pesticides even while in the womb. (6)

Because of modern landscaping and farming practices, pesticides are so invasive that virtually no one is safe from them. How many of the above health conditions can be directly caused by eating non-organic food? No one knows.

A 2000 report from the Greater Boston Physician for Social Responsibility emphasizes that using organophosphates, especially around the home and at school, can put children in a dangerous situation. (7)

Just imagine the consequences if we added non-organic foods to the mix! These are just the side effects of kids being exposed to pesticides on their playgrounds.

Since it is impossible to avoid pesticide exposure entirely, it is very important to limit the exposure in our food supply. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has developed a list called the Dirty Dozen that helps consumers have full disclosure on the levels of pesticides in their foods, and which foods contain the most pesticides. (8)

1. Apples 2. Strawberries 3. Grapes 4. Celery 5. Peaches 6. Spinach 7. Sweet bell peppers 8. Imported nectarines 9. Cucumbers 10. Cherry tomatoes 11. Imported snap peas 12. Potatoes

This doesnt mean that other non-organic produce items are not a problem. The point of this list is to highlight the significant dangers that these 12 foods contain.

The most notable findings according to EWGs research were: (8)

During the third year of the EWGs listing research, they expanded their Dirty Dozen list by adding a plus category to document these additional food items: (8)

The two foods that contain trace levels of highly hazardous pesticides. Leafy greens kale and collard greens and hot peppers do not meet traditional Dirty Dozen ranking criteria but were frequently contaminated with insecticides that are toxic to the human nervous system. EWG recommends that people who eat a lot of these foods buy organic instead.

At the rate that food manufacturers are going, you can only guess how long this list will stay to just 14.

On the other end of the spectrum is what the EWG calls The Clean Fifteen, fresh fruits and vegetables that are the least likely to contain significant pesticide residues. (8)

1. Avocados 2. Sweet corn 3. Pineapples 4. Cabbage 5. Frozen sweet peas 6. Onions 7. Asparagus 8. Mangoes 9. Papayas 10. Kiwis 11. Eggplant 12. Grapefruit 13. Cantaloupe 14. Cauliflower 15. Sweet potatoes

Overall, these 15 foods can be eaten without worrying about harmful chemicals, which makes sense. Most of these foods have thick protective skin layers or shells, which naturally ward off pests. The others are buried deep in the soil and, as long as the soil isnt irradiated with Round Up or some other harmful chemical, the fruit should be fine.

Some notable findings from EWGs research on the Clean Fifteen: (8)

We must be cautious when we shop for our groceries as these harmful pesticides can be hidden ingredients. As a consumer who is concerned with natural health and disease reversal, it is important to educate yourself on what you and your family are eating.

Although organic foods are more expensive and can be more challenging to find at the grocery store, buying organic is definitely the easiest decision you can ever make for you and your familys health.

Remember to grow your own food as much as possible and join a local, organic co-op if you can. If you absolutely must purchase non-organic produce, stay away from the Dirty Dozen Plus 2 and keep in mind that organic grains, dairy and most other products are certainly the healthiest way to go.

Continued here:

The Difference Between Organic And Non Organic Foods

Organic foods are widely available in supermarkets as well as specialty health food stores and farmers markets. People purchase organic fruits, vegetables, grains, and meats for a variety of reasonsamong them the perceived benefits of organic food. Some studies suggest that organic produce and meat contain higher levels of nutrients that promote health and wellness. Organic fruits and vegetables can also contain fewer residues of pesticides used in conventional farming.

Organic foods can cost up to twice as much as conventional foods, but are they actually healthier? Based strictly on scientific evidence, the truthful answer is maybe. But there are other reasons to buy organic, toolike supporting local agriculture and protecting environmental quality.

Technically, organic just means that something comes from living (or formerly living) matter. But organic foods are grown and processed with organic farming methods, which exclude certain practices that are normal in conventional agriculture. The no go list for organic farming include:

The results of an online consumer survey by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) suggests that about half of Americans who buy organic food do so because they believe it offers health benefits. Organic can be up to twice the cost of conventional foods, but what are you getting for your money?

Organically raised meat may also contain higher amounts of healthy fats. A review in the British Journal of Nutrition examined 67 published studies of organic and conventional raised meat from beef, pigs, poultry, lamb, goat, and rabbit. Saturated fat content in organic versus conventionally raised beef were similar or lower, while the percentage of omega-3 fatty acid was 47 percent higher on average across all types of meat.

Studies like these support the public perception that organic produce and meats are more nutritious. But there is an important caveat: Higher levels of certain nutrients in a food does not necessarily mean that eating that food will improve your health or prevent chronic illnesses like heart disease and cancer.

The organic foods, such as fruits and vegetables, were 30 percent less likely to contain detectable levels of pesticide residues. Two studies found higher levels of pesticide traces in the urine of children who ate non-organic foods. However, no more than 6 percent of the foods covered in the studies exceeded allowable limits of pesticide residues.

The bottom line: In the study cited above, organic foods contained lower levels of contaminants, but with no strong evidence that it prevents health problems. The researchers noted, Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this perception.

That may sound pretty damning, but this is just one review and the jury is not in. The complex scientific issues and politics of the organic food movement can make your head spin. But since there arent any obvious risks associated with properly grown and processed organic foods, many people opt for organic and are willing to pay a premium for it.

And dont forget there are other appealing benefits of organic food besides your own health. People perceive it as a way they can help to help preserve the health of the environment, too. Others like the idea of supporting local organic farmers.

For related reading about the benefits of organic food, visit these posts:

Follow this link:

Benefits of Organic Food: What Research Tells Us ...

Organic foods are more nutritious compared to conventional food products. People have been demanding for organic foods since they believe grown and processed firm products are healthy.

Organic food products do not contain any preservatives and have fewer pesticides.

To ensure safety, all organic food products should be produced and processed according to USDA set standards. The products not only have health benefits but also has some constraints.

1. Environmentally friendly: Farm practices boost plant growth, reduce pollution and soil erosion. Few pesticides and fertilizers used to create a friendly environment.

2. Animal-friendly: Carrying out organic farming ensures there are high nutrient foods for animals. No need for antibiotics or growth hormones.

3. Better taste: Production of food products and preservatives can make them lose the original taste. Organic foods taste much better than non-organic foods.

4. Fat-free: Organic foods do not have hydrogenated fat which causes heart disease. This makes organic farm produce good for human consumption and reduce the risk of a heart condition as compared to other non-organic products.

5. Fewer pesticides: Few pesticides with low levels of chemicals are used to produce organic foods. The chemical component cannot be detected in almost 70% of the products.

6. Healthy food product: Compared to other conventional food products, organic foods have high nutrition value. Low levels of pesticides and fertilizers enable the plants to produce a phytochemical substance to increase resistance against weed and bugs.

7. Fresh food: There are no additives or preservatives added to the organic food to extend the shelf-life. This makes the food products from the farm produce more fresh.

8. GMO-free: Organic food products are free from any genetically modified organisms (GMO). This makes them more nutritious.

9. Safer meat: There are no antibiotics, hormones or pesticides added to the organic meat.

10. Rich store for minerals: Organic farming increases soil nutrients and the nutrients are passed to what you eat.

1. High costs: Organic food products are very expensive compared to non-organic. The cost of production is very high making the final products very expensive to the consumers.

2. Spoil easily: Organic food products dont have any preservative making the food go bad or decay.

3. No proof nutrition: On a recent research, there is no proof on the safety of the organic foods compared to foods produced through conventional methods. Organic food is just as nutritious as any other non-organic food.

4. No-health benefits: Although many people believe organic foods are more healthy compared to non-organic, there is no report conducted to link organic foods to health benefits.

5. Fewer chemicals: There are fewer chemicals and fertilizers are used in the production of organic foods. Only a small amount of chemical is added to the product.

6.Water contamination: Pesticides from the plants can end up in the water. No matter how small the contamination, it can have a huge impact on human and animal life especially if it ends up in the drinking water.

7.Low levels of pesticide affect children: Even if the quantity of the pesticide is very minimal, it can affect pregnant women and children. It affects the immune system of the fetuses.

8. Ingestion of bacteria: There are a lot of bacterias in the organic food substances. Taking more organic food products can lead to ingestion of e-Coli bacteria into your digestion system. This affects individuals with a low immune system including children and pregnant women.

10. Pesticides causes cancer: More exposure to pesticides can cause Leukemia, breast cancer, brain tumor, and even prostate cancer.

View post:

Pros and Cons of Organic Food - Pros an Cons

4 years ago 0 Food and nutrition

The organic food becomes more and more popular. Demand for it now is higher than ever. This part of food industry is booming.

Organic food is made without genetic engineering, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, radiation, sewage sludge and preservatives. The product or produce is certified organic by USDA, only if it contains at least 95% organic ingredients. And if its said that an item is made with organic ingredients, they must be at least 70% organic. Organic food has to be produced and processed according to strict USDA standards and be inspected to be certified.

Pesticides are used to prevent damage from insects, rodents, weeds and fungus, and are designed to be toxic. Conventional crops are 4 times as likely to have pesticide residues on them than organic crops, according to a study in the British Journal of Nutrition. Produce like avocados, sweet corn, and asparagus are the least likely to have pesticide residue, according to the Environmental Working Group. They also found that leafy greens and hot peppers are the most likely to be laced with especially toxic pesticides. There are no long-term studies about the potential impacts of pesticide residue on human health, but, according to a recent study, there is growing evidence that concentrated pesticide exposure is related to increased rates of chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimers. Pesticides are especially dangerous for children and pregnant women. One of the main reasons to buy organic food is to avoid possible exposure to pesticides.

Its well known that pollutants from agriculture cause widespread environmental damage. The United Nations says that in many agriculture areas, the groundwater is polluted with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming significantly reduces the risk of water pollution and also prevents damaging soil erosion.

According to this study made in 2014, organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and other nutrients. Many of these antioxidants protect cells and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, Alzheimers disease and some cancers. Organic milk has more than twice as much omega-3 fatty acid as nonorganic milk, according to this recent study. This omega-3 fatty acid is also found in yogurt and cheese made with organic milk. The researchers believe the difference in nutrients is from the organic feed.

Organic meat is raised without antibiotics, hormones, or food treated with pesticides.

It is not required to label GMOs in foods in the United States. So when you buy organic food you make sure that you eat GMO-free. Organic certification rules also ban or severely limit the use of food additives like preservatives, colorings, flavorings, MSG, and artificial sweeteners. Many of these ingredients also dont have to be labeled on nonorganic products.

Yes, organic foods are obviously more expensive. Such high prices are caused by high demand for organic produce combined with lower yields than conventionally farmed crops. Organic foods are also typically more expensive to produce because they often require more labor.

Organic food in not necessary safer and has the same risk for food-borne bacteria (E.Coli, salmonella, listeria, and others) contamination as nonorganic foods.

Organic fruits and vegetables spoil faster than their conventional analogues, because they are not treated with waxes and preservatives which are supposed to keep them on the shelves longer.

And dont forget just because the package says organic, doesnt mean its healthy. Carefully read food labels and do not buy organic food that is high in salt, sugar, or calories.

Link:

The pros and cons of organic foods - LifeProviDR