Is Organic Food Necessary?

Generally, whenever you try to bring up the organic vs. conventional argument, people will put their fingers in their ears and go “La la la la la la! I’m not listening!” or “I don’t really pay attention to that kind of stuff” or spout something about you having to eat organic or else you’re a cultist pet sacrificer or something.

However, have any of you objectively thought long and hard about it? Is organic food really necessary?

My opinion is both yes and no.

Yes, because in one of my past posts; I have pointed out evidence that it can uncover techniques for more eco-friendly farming practices. These are practices that all farms could be using and that everyone could benefit from. Would we have discovered them without organic farming? Eventually. When people are willing to pay more for their produce, I’m guessing that gives the producer a lot more leeway to being careful about the growing methods they use, and I like that.

With that, though, comes the almost religious-like transcendence of making a good decision. Some people seem to get a ‘spiritual high’ from it. That can be a good thing in its own right, except when said people proceed to nay-say anyone who does otherwise; calling them “shills” and “sheeple” and that they’re poisoning their children if God forbid, they ever let a conventional morsel pass their or their family’s lips. Some people think that by eating organic, they have become a deity. Others are more cool about it and have their favourite organic granola bar but don’t frou-frou those who still eat Kraft Dinner from the pot, because that’s their choice, and they understand that. However, this argument is not solely about people being judgmental about food, so let’s try and set that one aside for now.

Interestingly enough, there may in fact be more nutrients in organic food. Other studies say it’s not enough to make a difference in blood plasmaOne study says it may have lower levels of organophosphorus pesticides, but then again, I don’t tend to trust studies that come from ‘3 days of parents keeping a food diary’, because that doesn’t seem like an isolated scientific experiment to me. People can say or write just about anything in a loosely controlled study. Still, it is intriguing nonetheless.

Organic crops may have up to 34% less yields than conventional. Not a good thing when the world is currently increasing in population by about 80 million people per year. Thankfully, population growth is on the decline, which may give us time to think about how we can fix that.

Organic milk may have a more favourable fatty acid contentand organic pork may have more fat marbling, a lower pH, and redder meatThese studies also point out that there are numerous factors to consider when it comes to different nutritional content of animal products, so the results may not always be the same. Some of these factors can be implemented by conventional farming as well, such as removing synthetic amino acids from feed.

When it comes to taste of organic vs. conventional, there are many similarities (I love the blog I just linked, btw!). Many people may not even be able to tell the difference (and I like how some people get so angry about it that they feel they need a justification; like in the video about the guy rambling about ‘moral choices’, and some in the comments accusing them of being paid actors).

So do organic foods have benefits? Possibly.

Are those benefits worth a mean cost of 68% more  than conventional produce?

That decision is up to you.

Advertisements

Are artificial sweeteners evil?

Sweetener

Are artificial sweeteners evil?

It is a debate that has been going on for decades.

Oddly enough, the word ‘artificial’ creates hostility on its own. Many people associate ‘artificial’ with something bad. You know what is artificial? Flying on a plane and getting to the other side of the world in 16 hours or less. Driving a car. Eating cereal that came in a printed, pre-packaged box. Having a skin graft or a lung transplant. Taking medicine. Having a blog.

Are half of these things bad? No. But they don’t have the word ‘artificial’ in them, so they seem less likely to be misconstrued. Call it ‘artificial transport’ and then see what people say after a few years. Probably either hostility defending it, or a lot more people choosing to walk.

However, I digress. I must admit to being the neutral party when it comes to the actual subject matter. I believe artificial sweeteners are both good and bad.

Why?

The good:

They can help with weight loss and blood pressure reduction. Alternatively, though, so can reducing your sugar intake. I would call it a moot point, then, but do acknowledge the fact that they can indeed help dieters with poor impulse control when it comes to sweets. This may be a good thing for those with a risk of diabetes.

The aspartame -> brain tumour ‘link’ is likely a fallacy. There were simply not enough potential causes isolated to garner it a real concern.

Sucralose is proven safe to consume, even in ridiculous amounts. A packet of Splenda contains 12mg of sucralose. Scientists were having subjects safely consume up to 500mg per day (that’s 41.6 packets in a day!).

Men who drink diet soda instead of regular soda might have a reduced risk of heart disease. However, this seems to depend on other factors as well, so I wouldn’t call it the be-all end-all to your current soda habit.

The bad:

They might actually make you more hungry. Artificial sweeteners have no effect on ghrelin, the hormone that makes us hungry. Real sugars, however, can reduce it; making us less hungry. Marginally so, but still enough for a statistical difference.

They might cause you to eat more fat. They are also not very useful when it comes to people who aren’t dieting, as they will usually end up ‘eating back’ the ‘missing’ calories later in the day.

Artificial sweeteners mixed with alcohol cause you to get drunk more quickly than their sugar-sweetened counterparts. Why is this bad? Those who ‘go big or go home’, or are known to start a party with a rapid succession of alcohol consumption may be at higher risk of alcohol toxicity without even knowing it. In fact, this effect may be even worse when caffeine is addedsuch as in the case of mixing diet cola and alcohol.

There is also some evidence that those who regularly consume artificial sweeteners may not feel as satisfied when they consume real sugars, causing them to over-indulge. They may even lose interest in less-sweet foods that may be necessary for good health.

There are other things out there to discuss as well, such as how they purportedly increase incidences in cancer. However, I did not find any studies concrete enough about that for me to feel worthy of linking. There is still a lot of controversy about it, even in the scientific world, it seems. I suppose we’ll just have to wait to find out more.


So should you consume artificial sweeteners or not?

Well, that is completely up to you.

As noted by my introduction postI believe in moderation. I think they’re fine, but I prefer having them in foods where they’re already mixed in – I still use sugar in recipes. When I consume artificial sweeteners in ‘regular’ foods, my preferences are varied. I might put a packet of sucralose-based sweetener in my oatmeal every couple weeks, because stevia can taste like vomit to me (at least in oatmeal .. oddly enough, I am fine with using it in hot chocolate or smoothies). I use both sucralose and stevia-sweetened protein powders equally enough. When it comes to sodas, I prefer sugar alcohols. They seem to make me crave less sweet stuff afterwards, compared to acesulfame-potassium. That is just me, though. You could be completely different in your preferences, and I am a-okay with that.

Whatever you do, just make sure not to over-do it. That goes with both sugar and artificial sweeteners; as both have their upsides and downsides.

Is your favourite health blogger or website promoting disordered thinking?

There are a lot of health food websites and blogs out there these days, and with that comes both new information and misinformation. Short of realizing that some of these folk are commanding death threats towards corporations such as Starbucks and Monsanto, how exactly do you tell?

1. Threats. If you have to threaten someone to get your point across; that is extortion, not information. If somebody disagrees with you (and decides to, say, vaccinate their children or something) and you feel the need to threaten them or wish harm upon them or their child, that is disordered thinking. You might want to re-check your sources and get a level head before going onward with your debate. It is good to be passionate about something; but being passionate to the point of irrationally threatening someone is beyond healthy, and unfortunately, all too common on the internet in this day and age.

2. Cult-ism. Now, in extreme cases, cult-ism and threats tie together. If somebody decides to stop eating vegan or vegetarian, for example, and someone begins wishing death upon them, that is cult-ism, and the perpetrator is likely feeling threatened that the ‘offending party’ is leaving their ‘group’ or ‘niche’, and thus begins to threaten them. However, this is an extreme example. You may see this happening in politics all the time (people threatening those who are liberals, conservatives, pro-choice, etc.). Does that mean politics are a bunch of tiny cults? Well, maybe.

3. Fear-mongering. When you come out of any website feeling frightened about food or medicine, that is because of fear manipulation, not education. When you are educated about something, you may feel inclined to change your point of view on something. However, when someone is trying to guilt you (a.k.a. threatening that vaccines will give your child autism) when there is no evidence for it, then they are trying to strike fear into your heart to manipulate your point of view.

There are indeed realistic things to be afraid of (such as inactivity causing risk of heart disease); but you will find these things in studies, not a blog or news article willing to manipulate data for hits.

4. Lack of critical thinking. As mentioned in #3, sometimes people claim stuff without a lot of thought behind it. When you see a health article or blog that says something to the extent of, “Artificial sweeteners are bad bad bad bad!” without any studies or proof linked to it, then there is no reason for it to be taken seriously. A good example of this is the ‘gluten sensitive’ fallacy. Many health-food pages will gladly link you to a list of 100 or more ‘symptoms’ of gluten sensitivity .. however, there is often no proof that any of these symptoms are actually linked to dietary sensitivity. This can lead to a lot of people going on a gluten-free diet for no reason at all which can actually be unhealthy for you (and reading the comments on that article, it seems to circle right back to ‘cult status’ argument). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discrediting the existence of gluten-sensitivity and celiac disease, or the benefits of reducing refined grains .. I’m merely pointing out that if someone tries to ‘diagnose’ you online, there is no way to be certain you actually have it.

5. Exaggeration. I’m sure you’ve seen this one happen before. One study gets published, and then the entire scientific, news-journalism, and blogosphere blows up about it. This can be both good — say the study has merit and free press leads to donations that can aid further research. Or it can be bad, in the case of the single study that came out linking vaccines to autism; which people still believe 16 years later.

6. Buzz-words. When a website, blog, or product promises that you’ll lose 10lbs in 3 days, or that it’s a ‘secret your _____ (doctor, dermatologist, etc.) doesn’t want you to know about’, or uses the word ‘miracle’ too many times — they’re trying to sell a product to you, not educate you. In real, non-biased studies, you’ll find that those words hardly ever appear. Because the physical, chemical, and hormonal make-up of each individual person can vary so dramatically, it is often unlikely you will get the exact same results as someone else. You might get similar results to someone who has similar traits as you — similar weight, activity level, body fat content, muscle mass, etc. — but there is no guarantee. You might think there’s no harm in trying, but then again ..

7. Lying. One of my favourite comic book characters is the ‘lying cat’ in the comic book series ‘Saga’. It meowls out the word ‘lying’ whenever someone is, well, lying. Sadly, the lying cat doesn’t actually exist, so there are still a lot of people who lie. Especially about things that may or may not be good for you. For some, lying is a harsh word, and they are simply misinformed. For others, they are blatantly lying, they know it, and they keep lying. This is often revealed by the overuse of buzz-words, lack of evidence, exaggeration, fear mongering, and hiding of information. How can you tell someone is lying? Well, you can’t. However, Google Scholar contains a search bar for many studies about people’s claims these days. How can you tell someone on Google Scholar is lying? It’s a trademarked, company-funded study for a product, with lots of buzz-words calling it a ‘miracle’. That, or the control/sample size is very small, while the claims are very big. This isn’t a sure-fire way to tell if someone is lying or not. However, it’s better to try to find the evidence to back up their claims, than to believe absolutely everything you see or hear (imagine if people went around believing absolutely everything that happens in ‘Weekly World News’! You remember that paper, don’t you? The one that claimed the existence of ‘bat-boy’?). At least then you can learn something new in the meantime, and be better educated for the next time it happens.

There are a few other things I have left out, such as labelling (calling things ‘Big Pharma’ or ‘Monsatan’ in order to try to stir up fear or hatred of a corporation or company), and paranoia (believing that every streak in the sky is a ‘chemtrail’, for example) — but those things are both blatantly obvious, and another conspiracy theory, for another time. I hope that you have learned things from this post, and while somewhat controversial, that you will stay with me to learn more things in the future. Oh yeah, by the way — do not be scared to be critical about my blog, too. In a conductive manner, that is. If you’re going to spit poison saying that gluten and vaccines have killed your family and that I’m the devil .. I will probably be sad, but those are things I have heard before, and have enough evidence not to believe. However, if you kindly link me to another study that has any of the following: large sample size, is not on a biased website or one that can’t have certain valid credibility like ‘natural news’, youtube, or a Facebook meme; and is placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed, or double-blind .. then I will probably be more inclined to believe you, and will likely enjoy friendly debate if any happens to ensue.

Until next time, internet friends!