My first month as vegetarian is rapidly coming to a close. My intent this evening was to craft a few thoughts about the merits and value of organic produce, when I encountered this content on a Mayo Clinic web site. It was much better than I could have written so I edited it and provided it below. (Citation provided at the bottom of the page).

Organic or not? Check the label
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established an organic certification program that requires all organic foods to meet strict government standards. These standards regulate how such foods are grown, handled and processed. Any farmer or food manufacturer who labels and sells a product as organic must be USDA certified as meeting these standards. Only producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic foods are exempt from this certification.

Products certified 95 percent or more organic display a USDA sticker.
If a food bears a USDA Organic label, it means it’s produced and processed according to the USDA standards and that at least 95 percent of the food’s ingredients are organically produced. The seal is voluntary, but many organic producers use it.
Products that are completely organic — such as fruits, vegetables, eggs or other single-ingredient foods — are labeled 100 percent organic and can carry a small USDA seal. Foods that have more than one ingredient, such as breakfast cereal, can use the USDA organic seal or the following wording on their package labels, depending on the number of organic ingredients:

 100 percent organic. Products that are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients.

 Organic. Products that are at least 95 percent organic.

 Made with organic ingredients. These are products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The organic seal can’t be used on these packages.

 Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.

 Quality and appearance. Organic foods meet the same quality and safety standards as conventional foods. The difference lies in how the food is produced, processed and handled. You may find that organic fruits and vegetables spoil faster because they aren’t treated with waxes or preservatives. Also, expect less-than-perfect appearances in some organic produce — odd shapes, varying colors and perhaps smaller sizes. In most cases, however, organic foods look identical to their conventional counterparts.

 Pesticides. Conventional growers use pesticides to protect their crops from molds, insects and diseases. When farmers spray pesticides, this can leave residue on produce. Some people buy organic food to limit their exposure to these residues. Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk.

 Environment. Some people buy organic food for environmental reasons. Organic farming practices are designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil.

Cost. Most organic food costs more than conventional food products. Higher prices are due to more expensive farming practices, tighter government regulations and lower crop yields. Because organic farmers don’t use herbicides or pesticides, many management tools that control weeds and pests are labor intensive. For example, organic growers may hand weed vegetables to control weeds, and you may end up paying more for these vegetables. (Dave’s Editorial Comment - 1 bag of baby organic greens uses 57 calories of fossil fuel to bring you 1 calorie of food energy)

The above is derived from: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

Do any of our readers swear by Organics? I’d like to hear your perspective.

Tomorrow: Why do people keep tempting me to stray?

This food thing is getting more complicated by the minute.

Thirty five years ago most of the sugar we consumed was sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn, especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was 20% less expensive to produce than traditional sources. High fructose corn syrup is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods. It’s used in everything from soda, pasta sauces, cereal, meat products, chips, beer as well as in “health products” like protein bars.

In 1980 the average American consumed 39 pounds of fructose. By 1994, this increased to 83 pounds representing 19 percent of total caloric energy. Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the largest fraction coming as fructose.

Pure fructose contains no enzymes, vitamins or minerals and robs the body of other micronutrients. Some research suggests that HFCS interferes with the heart’s use of key minerals like magnesium, copper and chromium. Among other consequences, HFCS has been implicated in elevated blood cholesterol levels and has been found to inhibit the action of white blood cells.

Because it is metabolized by the liver, fructose does not cause the pancreas to release insulin. Fructose also converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.

During your next trip to the market - read the labels – you may be surprised just how many products contain HFCS.

Tomorrow: What can I eat?

You’ve seen the billboards and magazine ads. Models and athletes sporting those sexy milky mustaches. Got Milk may be the most effective ad campaign of my generation. But what exactly is the science behind this clever and influential public relations coup?

Now things get murkier than chocolate chip cookie debris suspended in a creamy white glass of chilled dairy beverage. I am reading a book entitled The China Study, written by T. Colin Campbell, a retired NIH-sponsored researcher. If Campbell is to be believed, dairy product consumption is related to a variety of health maladies. I am approaching the age where PSA results in my annual blood test mean more to me than a passing interest. According to a Harvard University review, 12 of 14 case-control studies and seven of nine cohort studies observed a positive association between dairy consumption and prostate cancer. Campbell goes on to make a compelling case that milk consumption in babies is also related to the risk of developing Type 1 Diabetes. Campbell completes his dairy coups d’état by suggesting that cows milk consumption is associated with Multiple Sclerosis.

I am not a nutritionist; can someone assist me with this Campbell conundrum? Is he a charlatan or have we been hoodwinked by the dairy industry?

Tomorrow: Four weeks of vegetarianism.