NEWS: "Organic baby food 'worst for toxins' "

[SarahCaroline]

I just decided to relax and give DD a few organic jars at the weekend, as we were away on holiday - then saw \link scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=820492004\this!{}

Here it is!

Very interesting article. FFS what are you meant to do?

I have never understood the hype around organic food. There was no such thing around whilst I wsa being raised and so on and so forth for my parents and theirs before them.

In fact I remember my mum saying she used to eat mud pies, peagions her dad had hit in his car etc, etc, etc. It never did her any harm.

Damn, sorry about the link. Thanks Countess D. Great news huh

i used to buy organic for ds for the days we were out main reason they were on offer so worked out cheaper oh well if my cooking havent done him any harm i dont think the toxins in the jar baby food would the big hype on organic food is just crazy as far as im concerned because the only way you would get totaly organic food is to grow it your self and feed it with bottled water because research has found at the moment you cant get totaly organic because if the farmer next to you is useing pestisides the wind can blow it on to the organic crop plus the water that used to feed the plants you never can be exact whats in that

message withdrawn

Twiglett, errr DDT????

Twiglett, errr DDT????

It is already well known that organics have more toxins, this information is not new. But that is nature that puts them in there. Just because its a toxin does not mean it life threatening.

I have not researched this, but conventional foods are heavier in weight because of the additional water in the products to make them look all large and lovely. Water helps dilute toxins.

I would like to know which organic brands they tested. Supermarket organic standards can be different from independant labels. They may not come under the biodynamic or demeter standards.

To show some solidarity to the organic industry, the whole move to organic products has been a reaction to the high levels of pesticides used on conventional produce - they have not had the financial backing that conventional research has enjoyed.

Until a few years ago, if any pro-conventional consumers had known what was sprayed on conventional orchards they would not have eaten the product. Organophosphates is a good example - affects the nervous system - used in small amounts kills the insects in the orchard. Large amounts have been used to kill humans (WW2)

Sorry, just because something is put there my nature it doesn't make it safe.

Think of deadly nightshade, fly argaric, various mushrooms, snake venoms, and the most toxic toxin known to man, tetrodotoxin, found in puffer fish.

A toxin is a toxin is a toxin, and it doesn't matter where it comes from.

My body cannot tell the difference between salisilic acid manufactured in a pharamceutical company and that found in willow bark, it acts on the same receptors, with both good effects and bad.

Nature=natural=good is a falicy

Yes if course because it is natural doesn not mean it is good... do they put deadly nightshade and magic mushrooms in baby food in the UK

I think your point hmb emphasises how plants have different toxicity. Some worse than others - which is why we don´t eat some of them.

No, that is obvious, however i read you post as saying, if nature puts it there then it is OK, which it obviously isn't. I remember the huge fuss made in the state when apple producers used a chemical called Alar to slow the ripening of apples. People had a dicky fit, until someone pointed out that ordinary mushrooms have many thousand times the amount of Alar naturaly. Not logical to my mind. Either you are worried by a compound or you are not. How or what puts it there is imaterial.

Many of the tretments that organic farmers use for blights etc don't stand too much examination either. If a chemical is capable of getting rid of a pest, it generaly means that it is very chemicaly active, and has the potential to damage other living things. I'm not against the reduction in the use of chemicals, but that would be all chemicals.

Not some sort of 'four legs good, two legs bad' rhetoric.

I reckon I'll do as I always have, read it, sort it out in my head and make my own choices on what I believe best and safest for me and my family...
I mean test the rain that comes down, it is full of toxins!!!
It's all relative I expect...

i think that papillon's point about non-organic being more dilute is a good one. this looks like yet another piece of shoddy reporting to me. it really gets my goat that most people that don't use organic food seem to want it to fail or be proven rubbish (sorry cod, nothing personal), same with complementary medicine. it's as if there is some sense of threat (which of course there is) ie i don't use it/give it to my kids so it has to be crap as otherwise i will feel guilty (this is certainly not directed at you cod - you are officially a guilt free zone, and long may you reign so). totally the same with the vaccination debate: i have no problem at all with people that choose to immunise their children. the same cannot be said of their attitude towards my carefully considered and tortuous decision not to (yet). same with homeopathy: always being rubbished by those that don't use it. it's really sad i think.

Did not say OK... said not all are life threatening.

Anyway, this is a very complex issue. I feel it is very important to know how a compound effects the product, especially when it has been placed there by human intervention. There are so many influences we cannot calculate the outcome, long term effect or influence - it is in the theory of chaos. "Retain" on apples (another growth regulator also like Algar) inhibits ethylene production. This is a hormonal influence which has been introduced rapidly to a plant vs evolution.

Organics prefers to use no spray - it is best to encourage insects to inhabit the orchard environment. But commerical demand for organics has placed in a sense unbalance in the orchard environment which is why organics today no longer always means local or low level spray. In fact organic apple orchardist sit on their tractors alot more than the conventional orchardist. Why, because again, the lack of research means that organics has not been able to move with the times and are 2nd on the list with new spray releases. The conventional industry gets the new sprays first.

Most real organic products is not really commerically viable because most organic products have the pressure to perform on a global platform alongside conventional products. Organics is not about the end product, but about retaining land in a long term, sustainable manner.

I really find this a difficult subject to explain as it is so complex Different fruit, vegetable and animal organic production varies so much in success and labour input e.g. kiwifruit is very easy and cost effective to manage organically, while apples are extremely difficult.