Is Organic Food Good for You Essay Example for Free

Is Organic diet Good for You EssayWhat is natural f atomic number 18? (1) Organic food is food which has been produced to standards designed to keep the production to a greater extent natural. Fewer, if any, chemicals atomic number 18 used and most pesticides be banned when they atomic number 18 used they are very carefully controlled.(2)Organic food costs more then non-Organic food. This is non everlastingly the case simply on average entire farmers generally charge more for their produce because oMany original farming practices take a bit longer and produce lower yields oIt is more research laboratoryor intense than conventional agriculture oFields have to be taken out of food production while they go through three years of entire conversion or for fertility building. Here you will set out out if organic food is good for you or not, there will be the science rump it, advantages, and disadvantages say and a conclusion. The science behind it In the rush to pr oduce more and more crops to encounter growing demand producers have had to resort to using a lethal cocktail of pesticides to control disease and sucking louse attack.Good news for their bank balances perhaps tho not good news for your health, this is why you contend to be informed of the advantages of organic food. Did you know that if you consumed an average apple you would be feeding over 30 pesticides, so far after you have washed it? Organic food is known to contain 50% more nutrients, minerals and vitamins than produce that has been intensively farmed. You will have to eat more fruit nowadays to make up the deficiency, merely unfortunately that means eating more chemicals, more detrimental affects on your health eating something that should be good for youSome more startling facts now. Pesticides in food have been linked to umpteen diseases including ? Cancer ?Obesity ?Alzheimers ?some birth defects There are probably others but if you gauge about it, how jackpot it be okay for you to eat chemicals and not expect some form of answer in your body. Our bodies are delicwonderful machines. Any form of foreign chemical is bound to cause irritation at the least. (3)Some organic foods, including fruit, vegetables and milk, may be more nutritious than non-organic produce, according to an investigation by British scientists. earlier results from a ? 12m deliberate showed that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than non-organic varieties, according to Professor Carlo Leifert at Newcastle University, who leads the EU-funded Quality Low Input Food project. Larger differences were found in milk, with organic varieties containing more than 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids, he said. Antioxidant-rich food is often promoted as healthier because in lab tests the compounds neutralize free radicals that are thought to contribute to ageing.(4) Ben Gold acre says the Soil Associations criticism of the recent Food Stand ards Agency research on nutrients is not about organic food and that the emotive commentary in favor of organic farming bundles together diverse and legitimate concerns about unchecked capitalism in our food supply, In fact, our argument with the FSA research is about whether it gives a fair and accurate picture of organic food. Gold acre. First, he said we were trying to change the argument by saying that the important neck with organic food is not personal health benefits, but rather benefit to the environment.More ploughland wildlife, high animal welfare and lower pollution were not mentioned in our own initial response, but were put forward strongly by the government when the FSA launched its report, and we repeated it as the governments view, with which I agree. Second he argued that absence of pesticides, no routine use of antibiotics on farm animals and far fewer additives allowed in organic food all deliver health benefits. Goldacre says that as these cannot be measured by the FSA research, mentioning them is gamesmanship.These are veridical benefits, confirmed by other research. The organic movement represents a spectrum of practices, attitudes, and philosophies. On the one hand are those organic practitioners who would not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides under any circumstances. These producers hold rigidly to their purist philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, organic farmers espouse a more flexible approach. While striving to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, these practitioners do not rule them out entirely.Instead, when absolutely necessary, some fertilizers and also herbicides are very selectively and sparingly used as a second line of defense. Nevertheless, these farmers, too, consider themselves to be organic farmers 6. For raising animals, antibiotics would not be consentted as growth stimulants but would be permitted to counter infections. The rules permit up to 20% of animal feed to be obtained from no n-organic sources. This was done because some nutrients (such as trace minerals) are not always available organically.Irradiation, which can reduce or eliminate certain pests, kill disease-causing bacteria, and hold out food shelf-life, would be permitted during processing. Genetic engineering would also be permissible. More Nutritious? Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious The nutrient depicted object of plants is determined primarily by heredity. mineral content may be affected by the mineral content of the soil, but this has no substance in the overall diet. If inseparable nutrients are missing from the soil, the plant will not grow.If plants grow, that means the essential nutrients are present. Experiments conducted for many years have found no difference in the nutrient content of organically grown crops and those grown under standard agricultural conditions. Safer? Many organic proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pestic ide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of handicapful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances .To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in foods and conducts frequent market basket studies wherein foods from regions throughout the United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997 tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables had no detectable pesticides and only about 1. 2% of domestic and 1. 6% of imported foods had violative levels 13. Its annual make out Diet Study has always found that Americas dietary intakes are well within international and environmental Protection Agency standards.Most studies conducted since the early 1970s have found that the pesticide levels in foods designated organic were confusable to those that were not. In 1997, Consumer Reports purchased about a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell p eppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides. Traces were detected in 77% of conventional foods and 25% of organically labelled foods, but only one sample of each exceeded the federal limit Pesticides can locate on the mount of foods as well as beneath the surface.The amount that washing can remove depends on their location, the amount and temperature of the rinse water, and whether detergent is used. Most people rinse their fruits and vegetables with plain Tastier? Organically grown foods are not inherently tastier than conventionally grown foods. Taste is influenced by freshness, which may depend on how far the products moldiness be shipped from farmer to consumer. What kinds of locally grown fruits and vegetables are available varies from community to community. Whether they are organically or conventionally produced is unlikely to make any difference.In the early 1990s, Israeli researchers made 460 assessments of 9 variant fruits an d vegetables and no significant difference in quality between organic and conventionally grown samples. The Consumer Reports study found no consistent differences in appearance, flavour, or texture. Better for the Environment? Many buyers of organic foods deal that the extra money they pay will ultimately benefit the environment by encouraging more farmers to use organic methods. But doing this cannot have much effect because organic agriculture is too ineffective to meet the worlds food needs.Moreover, the dividing line between organic and conventional agriculture is not sharp because conglomerate practices are not restricted to one or the other. For example, organic farmers tend not to use pesticides, but faced with threatened loss of crops, they may change their mind. If certain patterns of pesticide use cause more harm than good and there is a way to remedy the situation, the people concerned about it can seek regulatory solutions. I dont believe that paying extra for food wi ll benefit anybody but those who plow it.This research shows there are benefits, said Dr Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University, which led the research. The reason why its such a blue-eyed(a) area is because its extremely difficult to measure the health benefit in any food, but we can say that if you eat 400g of fruit and vegetables per day you would get 20 per cent more nutrients in organic food. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, welcomed the new research. He said There is clear evidence that a range of organic foods contain more beneficial nutrients and vitamins and less of things known to have a detrimental health effect.