"Organic milk can lead to lower IQ of unborn babies"

[Bobian123]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11566395/Organic-milk-is-less-healthy-than-regular-milk-and-could-harm-child-IQ.html

FFS! I switched to organic milk about a year ago as read it contained more nutrients and the cows were better treated. Am 29 weeks pregnant and now see this story appear....

Was panicked at first but now think "oh for gods sake" - it seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. So I've decided not to worry too much about it. Would it put anyone else off though?

[Bobian123]

Sorry for link fail. Not sure why that happened...

[demystified]

Just more guilting of women isn't it. There are some obvious ones like smoking and drinking that are fair enough, the rest seem to change regularly.

[Bobian123]

That's exactly what I thought demystified. The guilt trips are never ending

[slicedfinger]

Plus, I strongly suspect that anyone taking organic milk, is also likely to be taking prenatal vitamin supplements anyway.

[AuntieStella]

It's a good example of bad science reporting.

It seems to be saying that organic milk contains less iodine than other milk. Iodine deficiency is a Bad Thing. So far, OK.

What it doesn't say is that, although a major source of iodine, it's not the sole source (fish being the other main one). Also that it depends far more on the amount of milk you drink, as shown by including the bit about levels of deficiency in teenage girls, which is attributed to the levels they consume not the type of milk.

[diamondsinthedust]

Iodine deficiency is what leads to lower IQ.

Organic milk happens to have less iodine than non-organic milk. But then they both have less iodine than white fish.

It's not even news - this fact sheet mentions the difference and it's dated 2013.

www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/Iodine

[DayLillie]

Surely it is only a problem if all you have is milk? There are other foods with iodine in them. I don't think most people drink that much milk.

[DayLillie]

Cow’s milk 200ml 50-80mcg
Organic cow’s milk 200ml 30-65mcg

So some organic milk may have more iodine than some non organic milk, some of the time?

[meditrina]

From the linked article:

'Dr Sarah Bath, Medical Research Council Population Health Scientist Fellow, at the University of Surrey, said: "While there are limitations in this study, the lower iodine concentration in organic milk may have implications for risk of iodine deficiency, as milk and dairy products are the principal source of iodine in the UK diet.'

Which means that it doesn't show there is a link between type of milk and risk of deficiency. Nor does this newspaper piece say what the risk is, or how much it might increase by. Nor how important it is when set against all the other things that are involved in healthy cognitive development.

[Gileswithachainsaw]

I don't drink milk at all. can't stand the stuff. unless chocolate counts and the odd bit of cheese, then my dosy as hell dd debunks that myth.

[Tanith]

Really, this kind of silly reporting is best used as my granny would have done - neatly cut up into squares, with pinking shears for posh, and put in the loo for toilet paper.

[popalot]

But how much milk do pregnant women drink? I drink loads and others just have a bit in tea. So surely if I was drinking organic and the tea drinker normal, I would end up with more iodine?

Sounds like a load of bollocks to me and potentially damaging for organic dairy farmers.

[ragged]

Yup, this bothers me, I knew about it ages ago. Oh well, it's done now. Sheesh, nobody gets it perfect.

[Bobian123]

Interesting-thanks for your replies. I saw the headline this morning and worried. But thinking it through more, and seeing your replies, feel much better about it!

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

God how ridiculous.

This is just more scaremongering. I almost never drank milk while pregnant, but had iodised table salt and took my multi vitamins. So it's extremely unlikely that the very small amount of organic milk I did drink would have materially affected anything.

FFS.

[Charis1]

There is nothing new or sensational about these claims, the organic fad has been seriously bad news since the word go. terrible for the environment, and highly suspect for its effect on human health.

[meditrina]

Non-organic UHT milk has similar levels of iodine to organic milk, but that seemed less reported. Odd that, anyone would think there were agendas in play. Especially as the range found in organic/UHT and non-organic milks overlap ie some organic milk has higher levels than non-organic.

(see thread in 'Pregnancy' on this)

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

PMSL at Charis - because all that usage of pesticides etc. has been just great for the environment, hasn't it. Glyphosate effect on bees, anyone? To say nothing of the other, less well known, pesticides.

[artex]

Congratulations on your pregnancy Bobian. And welcome to the world of headline inducing guilt

Just do what you feel is right based on info & instincts. The guilt will still happen, but that's because it's an unwritten bit of the job description ...

[Charis1]

Thumbwitchesabroad. yes, go ahead, PYL, it clearly makes you feel big and clever. If it works for you as a substitute for genuine knowledge and understanding, then I'm very happy for you.

[makeminea6x]

Charis are you able to tell me any more about organic being bad for the environment? It would potentially affect my choices.

Is it just about food miles?

[Charis1]

makeminea6x

food miles are one of many issues with organic produce.

One of the main issues is about the type of pesticides used. This is not just a question for organics, but a far more general question about what is considered acceptable and unacceptable in a pesticide.

Pesticides that build up in the environment are considered "bad" -but why?

it is the old deldrin story. A long lasting anti locust pesticide which was found in the eggshells of some birds of prey was banned, and a fast acting. fast breaking down one was brought in instead.

The new one was extremely toxic to humans and animals, meaning protective clothing and to be brought and transported by those who could afford it, whereas those who couldn't simply have to take their chance.

The new one broke down and disappeared from the crop quickly, meaning more kept needing to be bought, transported and applied.

The old one was already in situ when locusts arrived, whereas the new one had to be applied in anticipation, and then stored then applied again when locusts appeared, and was often too late.

Undoubtabley thousands of humans have lost their health or their lives, from using toxic pesticides in an inefficient system which does not offer full protection to their crops, and in fact it has now been shown that the pesticide residue in the egg shells is completely harmless to the birds anyway. It only kills locusts.

That is just a clear example of the type of priorities that can be put in place when using pesticides.

The type of pesticides "approved" by organic farmers are often either in the toxic, temporary group, (ineffective, and involving much more transport and use of fossil fuels) or in the long term but very weak group ( the worst of both worlds really, ineffective, and build up in the environment)

The development of safe effective pesticides is a world wide concern, and the organic movement not only use pesticides considered far more damaging than the long lasting ones that can leave a residue in the environment, but they also waste a lot of time and money in propaganda against developing pesticides.

I think of it like electricity, in a way. Obviously, it would be better if we could do without it, but the population we have has grown to this level depending on it, and realistically, we can't survive without it now. Same as pesticides.

Sorry, I don't feel I am making myself very clear! I will end this post and start a new one, so this one doesn't become an unending rant.

[Charis1]

OK, I'll try and make my next point slightly more succinctly.

land use.

organic farming is very inefficient, so uses far more land, so puts pressure on remaining non organic land ( often the same owners) to produce ultra intensively. Or to just destroy more wild life habitat.

Farming animals is an inefficient use of land, and many people limit their meat intake or become vegetarian for this reason. This is because you need ten time more crop to feed to animals to feed to humans, than you would need it you just fed the crop to humans.

So organic farming uses up huge areas of land, destroying habitats, damaging wildlife, ruining the countryside, and organic farming of animals is absolutly the worst of all worlds, in many cases. So basically rich people to pay to fund their faddy eating by ruining the ecology of our country or any other country for everyone else.

The politics are also very unhelpful and obstructive to anyone working in the area of attempting to manage food production and supply at any level in any economy across the world.

[Charis1]

There are more reasons that organic food is damaging, but I'm not explaining very well, so you can look those up.

Basically, I'm not against people having a choice, but most people who make that choice don't really know what they are choosing. The industry is very aggressive in its propaganda and marketing.

And I do think the volume of organicly farmed areas need to be limited more strictly, because of the knock on damage. That would obviously put the price up, but I don't think that is a problem, because it eating organically is a hobby for the rich, anyway!

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

YY, which company do you work for, Charis?