How long does it take to find scientific research references about the nutritional advantages of organic foods?
Before I answer this question, let me ask another on a totally unrelated topic: How long does it take to find out when Singapore imposed a ban on fire crackers?
I raise this topic of fire crackers because recently, a friend needed to know, and she gave up looking after quite a few days. She not only searched the Internet but also official government documents such as the Singapore Government Year Book. When she told me this, I went to my computer, called up Google, typed in something like "fire crackers ban Singapore", clicked "Pages from Singapore" and got the answer in maybe less than two minutes.
The answer: A partial ban was imposed in March 1970, after a fire in Febraury killed some people, injured many others, and caused extensive property damage. But the partial ban did not solve the problem of fires and accidents, so a full ban was imposed in June 1972.
Now here is an interesting twist. Just before I started writing this blog, I thought I'd do the same search again on fire crackers.
This time, I could not find the same article that provided the above answers. I found several artciles that put the date as "some years ago" or "more than 30 years ago". After about 20 minutes - and after trying various combinations of keywords - I finally found one that said the ban was imposed in 1972 after an explosion caused by fire crackers that year. I have a feeling the explosion was the one that took place in 1970!
So maybe it is not that easy after all.
With regards to organic foods, you won't be very successful if you search Google for, say, "organic foods" or "organic food benefits". But try something like "organic foods nutritional advantages" and you will be on to something.
So, it can be done. If you are smart or lucky with keywords, it might take you a few minutes. Otherwise, maybe an hour or two. It should not be so tedious as to take you days, weeks or months.
Why do I raise this issue?
First, because a friend, when I told him about this blog, suggested that I post yet more research citing organic foods to be superior. My initial reaction was to ask him to find it for himself. Then I realise I could find the information because others had taken the trouble to compile them. So maybe I should as well.
So watch this space. I will put up something soon.
The main reason why I raise this issue is that some civil servants - not just in the Health Promotion Board but also the Public Utilities Board, Agri-Food and Vetenirary Authority, National Environmental Agency, etc - somehow feel they can simply assert their official views as "the complete truth".
They simply make statements without substantiating them, statements such as:
organic foods offer no nutritional advantages over non-organic foods,
pesticides are harmless
chlorinated water poses no health problems
fluorides in water are good for the teeth
fogging is effective...
It is not just the civil servants who do this. But the people who represent large commercial interests do likewise with statemens such as:
MSG is harmless and even good for health
Aspartame (Equal) has been scientifically proven to be safe
Milk is the best source of calcium
Microwave cooking is harmless
Mobile phones are harmless...
All it takes is a bit of research on the Internet to discover that such statements are, to put it mildly, one-sided. They merely present one small aspect of a much bigger picture. And the bigger picture often tells a completely different story.
The thing is, most people allow them to do this. They simply accept what has been said, especially if the person saying it is in a position of authority, or carries an honourific such as "Dr".
Sometimes, when I feel strongly enough about an issue, I will write to the press. Some other people do so too. But there are so few of us. And we don't want to be seen as if we have a bone to pick with the particular civil servant, governmental agency or product.
Also, we do not want to be suspected - or worse, wrongly accused - of having vested interests, when our only vested interests are our health and well-being. For example, when I wrote an article recently about the need to filter tap water, certain people immediately suspected that I was in the business of selling water filters.
In any case, if we write to the Straits Times Forum, our chances of getting published are about 10-15 out of 70, slightly more if we now count the on-line forum. Moreover, we are limited to 500 words and to two letters a month.
So do something about this. Don't just sit there and wait for people like me to dig out information for you and debate with the authorities on your behalf.
If more and more of us stop blindly accepting what they say, perhaps they will stop treating us like children and asking us to accept only their versions of the truth.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
All fruits have power
By way of background, this was the exchange of letters in the press recently:
3 weekends ago, on Sep 4, the Sunday Times carried an article saying the Health Promotion Board has drawn up a list of 13 "powerhouse" fruits that are superior to all others, because they are rich in phytochemicals.
________
I wrote the following letter to the editor which was published 2 weekends ago, Sep 11:
All fruits have power
The durian is supposed to be the king of fruits. Alas, it does not seem to have much power, for it failed to make it to the Health Promotion Board's list of 13 “powerhouse” fruits that are supposedly superior to all others (Power Play, ST 4 September).
Also failing to make the grade were the chiku, rambutan, duku-langsat, mangosteen, jackfruit, dragon fruit and most other tropical fruits. Are they all inferior? Is God or nature is so prejudiced against us as such that the best fruits are found in a Western, temperate climate, diet?
The real reason, I suspect, is that the HPB's list has been imported wholesale from either the US or UK, where scientists might not have even heard of, let alone studied, those tropical fruits that we enjoy when they are in season.
We are told that strawberry, cherry, orange, papaya, rockmelon, mango, pineapple, starfruit, kiwifruit, grapes and plum are the best fruits because they are more densely packed with phytonutrients than others.
Do we know this for a fact? Have scientists in Singapore and elsewhere in the tropics thoroughly analysed the phytonutrient content of durians and other tropical fruits?
Also, apart from phytonutrients, other factors need to be considered as well.
The US-based Environment Working Group has published a list of 12 fruits and vegetables that are most heavily contaminated with toxic pesticides. They are, in descending order: apples, bell peppers, celery, cherries, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, potatoes, red raspberries, spinach, and strawberries.
So unless we go organic, it may not be such a great idea to eat plenty of “powerhouse fruits” like cherries, grapes and strawberries.
Meanwhile, Patrick Holford, a UK-based nutritionist and author of The Optimum Nitrtion Bible, tells us that “An orange may provide between 0 mg and 180mg (of vitamin C) the average being around 60mg. Yes, it's true. Some supermarket oranges have spent so long in transit that they contain no vitamin C!"
So while an orange in the ideal world might be a “powerhouse fruit”, in the real world it may have lost most of its power. “Better” to eat fruits freshly harvested from our own backyards.
I write “better” between inverted commas because the whole idea of some fruits being better than others is, in fact, quite meaningless. It is equivalent to saying that electricians are better than carpenters, or that lawyers are better than doctors.
Each has its specific purpose and role to play.
I remember watching Michael Chang on TV the year he won the French Open tennis, and I remember seeing him eat bananas. Many endurance athletes do the same because bananas provide a quick supply of energy.
I remember also travelling in Europe in the early 1980s when there was a terrible heat wave. One afternoon in Italy, I gobbled down half a water melon and it left me feeling totally refreshed.
Would some pesticide laden grapes or plums have done a better job?
Richard Seah
_________
Finally on Sep 20 the HPB responded to my Forum letter with the following:
List of 13 'powerhouse' fruit not exhaustive
I REFER to the letter, 'All fruits have 'power' (The Sunday Times, Sept 11), by Mr Richard Seah.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) supports the view that different varieties of fruit should be included as part of a total diet.
We would like to highlight that the list of 13 'powerhouse' fruit is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to illustrate the point that it is advisable to eat certain varieties of fruit that are brightly coloured more frequently than others.
There is good scientific evidence to suggest that fruit with coloured flesh are generally better sources of phytochemicals than those with white or pale-coloured flesh.
This has been borne out by laboratory analysis of phytochemical levels in different varieties of fruit, including many tropical fruit.
Those that make it to the 'powerhouse list' include mango, papaya, pineapple and jackfruit. HPB will certainly update the list as more data become available.
Phytochemicals often occur as colour pigments that give fruit their bright colours. Many phytochemicals function as powerful antioxidants in our body to help slow down the process of ageing and reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases such as certain cancers and heart disease.
The pesticide levels in food are carefully regulated and monitored by the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority, and pose little risk to public health. Nevertheless, it is a good practice to wash fruit before eating or cooking. A combination of rinse, soak and rinse will help to remove pesticide residues.
Organically grown food also offers no nutritional advantages over non-organically grown food. Organic food refers to produce grown without the use of man-made fertilisers or pesticides. Nonetheless, individuals may have philosophical and environmental preferences on the way food is cultivated.
We thank Mr Seah for his feedback and would like to invite him and other interested members of the public to visit HPB's website www.hpb.gov.sg for more information on healthy living.
Dr Annie Ling
Head, Nutrition Department
Health Promotion Board
_________
I responded with another letter, to take issue with the statement about organic foods, which was published today, Sep 22:
Organic fruit and vegetables are superior
THE Head of Nutrition at the Health Promotion Board contradicts herself in her letter, 'List of 13 'powerhouse' fruit not exhaustive' (ST, Sept 20).
She talks about the value of phytochemicals in slowing down ageing, reducing the risks of chronic disease, etc, and tells us that 'phytochemicals often occur as colour pigments that give fruit their bright colours'.
Yet she goes on to make the totally unsubstantiated claim that 'organically-grown food ... offers no nutritional advantages over non-organically grown food'.
It is precisely because of the presence of phytochemicals that organic foods are obviously superior. In many cases, one glance is all it takes to see that organic fruit and vegetables have more colour pigments - and therefore more phytochemicals.
Organic versions of carrot, celery, etc, typically have deeper, darker colours, compared with regular, chemically-grown versions. Even a 'pale' vegetable like cauliflower - which has health-enhancing/disease-preventing value despite its paleness - is creamy yellow versus the chemically-grown version whose colour is closer to white.
Apart from visible - and taste - differences, there are, of course, scientific studies that show organic foods to be superior.
As long ago as the early 1900s, agricultural scientist Albert Howard demonstrated this when he raised cattle on organically-grown fodder, and then set them free to literally rub noses with cattle infected with foot- and-mouth disease. Nothing happened. His cattle did not get infected. Dr Howard conducted a series of similar experiments over a period of 16 years.
More recently, in February this year, European scientists at the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming found that rats given an organic diet had a better immune system, slept more soundly and were slimmer than rats given conventional foods.
In February 2003, the Journal Agricultural Food Chemistry reported that organic corn, strawberries and marionberries had 'significantly higher levels of cancer-fighting antioxidants'.
I can go on and spend the entire day digging out scientific research about the value of organically-grown food. But this is a job more appropriate for the people at the Health Promotion Board.
Richard Seah
_________
Let's see what happens next....
3 weekends ago, on Sep 4, the Sunday Times carried an article saying the Health Promotion Board has drawn up a list of 13 "powerhouse" fruits that are superior to all others, because they are rich in phytochemicals.
________
I wrote the following letter to the editor which was published 2 weekends ago, Sep 11:
All fruits have power
The durian is supposed to be the king of fruits. Alas, it does not seem to have much power, for it failed to make it to the Health Promotion Board's list of 13 “powerhouse” fruits that are supposedly superior to all others (Power Play, ST 4 September).
Also failing to make the grade were the chiku, rambutan, duku-langsat, mangosteen, jackfruit, dragon fruit and most other tropical fruits. Are they all inferior? Is God or nature is so prejudiced against us as such that the best fruits are found in a Western, temperate climate, diet?
The real reason, I suspect, is that the HPB's list has been imported wholesale from either the US or UK, where scientists might not have even heard of, let alone studied, those tropical fruits that we enjoy when they are in season.
We are told that strawberry, cherry, orange, papaya, rockmelon, mango, pineapple, starfruit, kiwifruit, grapes and plum are the best fruits because they are more densely packed with phytonutrients than others.
Do we know this for a fact? Have scientists in Singapore and elsewhere in the tropics thoroughly analysed the phytonutrient content of durians and other tropical fruits?
Also, apart from phytonutrients, other factors need to be considered as well.
The US-based Environment Working Group has published a list of 12 fruits and vegetables that are most heavily contaminated with toxic pesticides. They are, in descending order: apples, bell peppers, celery, cherries, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, potatoes, red raspberries, spinach, and strawberries.
So unless we go organic, it may not be such a great idea to eat plenty of “powerhouse fruits” like cherries, grapes and strawberries.
Meanwhile, Patrick Holford, a UK-based nutritionist and author of The Optimum Nitrtion Bible, tells us that “An orange may provide between 0 mg and 180mg (of vitamin C) the average being around 60mg. Yes, it's true. Some supermarket oranges have spent so long in transit that they contain no vitamin C!"
So while an orange in the ideal world might be a “powerhouse fruit”, in the real world it may have lost most of its power. “Better” to eat fruits freshly harvested from our own backyards.
I write “better” between inverted commas because the whole idea of some fruits being better than others is, in fact, quite meaningless. It is equivalent to saying that electricians are better than carpenters, or that lawyers are better than doctors.
Each has its specific purpose and role to play.
I remember watching Michael Chang on TV the year he won the French Open tennis, and I remember seeing him eat bananas. Many endurance athletes do the same because bananas provide a quick supply of energy.
I remember also travelling in Europe in the early 1980s when there was a terrible heat wave. One afternoon in Italy, I gobbled down half a water melon and it left me feeling totally refreshed.
Would some pesticide laden grapes or plums have done a better job?
Richard Seah
_________
Finally on Sep 20 the HPB responded to my Forum letter with the following:
List of 13 'powerhouse' fruit not exhaustive
I REFER to the letter, 'All fruits have 'power' (The Sunday Times, Sept 11), by Mr Richard Seah.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) supports the view that different varieties of fruit should be included as part of a total diet.
We would like to highlight that the list of 13 'powerhouse' fruit is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to illustrate the point that it is advisable to eat certain varieties of fruit that are brightly coloured more frequently than others.
There is good scientific evidence to suggest that fruit with coloured flesh are generally better sources of phytochemicals than those with white or pale-coloured flesh.
This has been borne out by laboratory analysis of phytochemical levels in different varieties of fruit, including many tropical fruit.
Those that make it to the 'powerhouse list' include mango, papaya, pineapple and jackfruit. HPB will certainly update the list as more data become available.
Phytochemicals often occur as colour pigments that give fruit their bright colours. Many phytochemicals function as powerful antioxidants in our body to help slow down the process of ageing and reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases such as certain cancers and heart disease.
The pesticide levels in food are carefully regulated and monitored by the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority, and pose little risk to public health. Nevertheless, it is a good practice to wash fruit before eating or cooking. A combination of rinse, soak and rinse will help to remove pesticide residues.
Organically grown food also offers no nutritional advantages over non-organically grown food. Organic food refers to produce grown without the use of man-made fertilisers or pesticides. Nonetheless, individuals may have philosophical and environmental preferences on the way food is cultivated.
We thank Mr Seah for his feedback and would like to invite him and other interested members of the public to visit HPB's website www.hpb.gov.sg for more information on healthy living.
Dr Annie Ling
Head, Nutrition Department
Health Promotion Board
_________
I responded with another letter, to take issue with the statement about organic foods, which was published today, Sep 22:
Organic fruit and vegetables are superior
THE Head of Nutrition at the Health Promotion Board contradicts herself in her letter, 'List of 13 'powerhouse' fruit not exhaustive' (ST, Sept 20).
She talks about the value of phytochemicals in slowing down ageing, reducing the risks of chronic disease, etc, and tells us that 'phytochemicals often occur as colour pigments that give fruit their bright colours'.
Yet she goes on to make the totally unsubstantiated claim that 'organically-grown food ... offers no nutritional advantages over non-organically grown food'.
It is precisely because of the presence of phytochemicals that organic foods are obviously superior. In many cases, one glance is all it takes to see that organic fruit and vegetables have more colour pigments - and therefore more phytochemicals.
Organic versions of carrot, celery, etc, typically have deeper, darker colours, compared with regular, chemically-grown versions. Even a 'pale' vegetable like cauliflower - which has health-enhancing/disease-preventing value despite its paleness - is creamy yellow versus the chemically-grown version whose colour is closer to white.
Apart from visible - and taste - differences, there are, of course, scientific studies that show organic foods to be superior.
As long ago as the early 1900s, agricultural scientist Albert Howard demonstrated this when he raised cattle on organically-grown fodder, and then set them free to literally rub noses with cattle infected with foot- and-mouth disease. Nothing happened. His cattle did not get infected. Dr Howard conducted a series of similar experiments over a period of 16 years.
More recently, in February this year, European scientists at the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming found that rats given an organic diet had a better immune system, slept more soundly and were slimmer than rats given conventional foods.
In February 2003, the Journal Agricultural Food Chemistry reported that organic corn, strawberries and marionberries had 'significantly higher levels of cancer-fighting antioxidants'.
I can go on and spend the entire day digging out scientific research about the value of organically-grown food. But this is a job more appropriate for the people at the Health Promotion Board.
Richard Seah
_________
Let's see what happens next....
Why the Health Promotion Blog? (hpb)
These past few days, I have been (once again), having an exchange of letters in the Singapore press with the Health Promotion Board (HPB).
It set me thinking... what is the real aim of the Health Promotion Board? Is it to promote health by encouraging healthy diets and lifestyle? Or it is to be politically correct in not going against the interests of certain other government bodies and commercial organisations?
A few issues made me think about this.
1. The Head of Nutrition at the HPB publicly declared, in a letter to the Straits Times Forum on Sep 20 that "organically grown foods offer no nutritional advantages over non-organically grown foods."
2. On the same day, the same person was quoted in TODAY newspaper as saying that tap water is the best drink. In doing so, the person totally avoids the issue of possible dangers associated with chlorination. At the same time, she declared that fluoride added to tap water is good for the teeth, again totally avoiding the controversy surrounding fluorides.
3. In researching the nutritional advantages of organic foods, I came across a website called Nutrition Australia - a non-government, non-profit, community-based organisation.... www.nutritionaustralia.org and I thought how different Nutrition Australia is compared to a government-linked health promotion organisations like the HPB.
I feel there is a need for a similar organisation for Singapore - but of course, the information it provides can be useful for anyone, anywhere in the world.
Then the name Health Promotion Blog came to mind. I got to my computer, registered this blog, and here it is.
To differentiate between this and the Health Promotion Board (HPB), I use the acronym hpb, with lower case letters, for Health Promotion Blog.
********
A bit about myself...
My biggest achievement in life is that I have stopped seeing medical doctors and taking their medicines for the past 20 years, ever since I discovered natural health in 1985, and macrobiotics shortly after.
Before that I was sickly, always getting the flu and visiting the doctors every two to four weeks. I do fall sick still, especially when I am overworked, like right now. But now I either take care of myself or, if it gets too serious, consult a Chinese sinseh or some other complementary healthcare practitioner.
Through my study of macrobiotics, I have also helped a number of people reverse various health conditions. So even though I do not have formal qualifications in any field of healthcare, I dare say I know a fair amount about health.
I am a writer by profession. I used to publish a printed newsletter on natural health called The Good Life, between 1989 and 1997. Now, I contribute occasional articles to newspapers and magazines, and also occasional Letters to the Editor.
My latest letter, the one that led to the creation of this blog, was published today, Sep 22. You can read it here:
http://www.straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,342294,00.html?
I am familiar with many complementary and alternative healthcare practitioners in Singapore and will invite them to air their views here as well. If you have comments to offer, feel free to post as well.
I am new to blogging. So give me a while to set this up properly.
I hope to make this blog both enjoyable and useful. Do come back regularly.
Cheers,
Richard
It set me thinking... what is the real aim of the Health Promotion Board? Is it to promote health by encouraging healthy diets and lifestyle? Or it is to be politically correct in not going against the interests of certain other government bodies and commercial organisations?
A few issues made me think about this.
1. The Head of Nutrition at the HPB publicly declared, in a letter to the Straits Times Forum on Sep 20 that "organically grown foods offer no nutritional advantages over non-organically grown foods."
2. On the same day, the same person was quoted in TODAY newspaper as saying that tap water is the best drink. In doing so, the person totally avoids the issue of possible dangers associated with chlorination. At the same time, she declared that fluoride added to tap water is good for the teeth, again totally avoiding the controversy surrounding fluorides.
3. In researching the nutritional advantages of organic foods, I came across a website called Nutrition Australia - a non-government, non-profit, community-based organisation.... www.nutritionaustralia.org and I thought how different Nutrition Australia is compared to a government-linked health promotion organisations like the HPB.
I feel there is a need for a similar organisation for Singapore - but of course, the information it provides can be useful for anyone, anywhere in the world.
Then the name Health Promotion Blog came to mind. I got to my computer, registered this blog, and here it is.
To differentiate between this and the Health Promotion Board (HPB), I use the acronym hpb, with lower case letters, for Health Promotion Blog.
********
A bit about myself...
My biggest achievement in life is that I have stopped seeing medical doctors and taking their medicines for the past 20 years, ever since I discovered natural health in 1985, and macrobiotics shortly after.
Before that I was sickly, always getting the flu and visiting the doctors every two to four weeks. I do fall sick still, especially when I am overworked, like right now. But now I either take care of myself or, if it gets too serious, consult a Chinese sinseh or some other complementary healthcare practitioner.
Through my study of macrobiotics, I have also helped a number of people reverse various health conditions. So even though I do not have formal qualifications in any field of healthcare, I dare say I know a fair amount about health.
I am a writer by profession. I used to publish a printed newsletter on natural health called The Good Life, between 1989 and 1997. Now, I contribute occasional articles to newspapers and magazines, and also occasional Letters to the Editor.
My latest letter, the one that led to the creation of this blog, was published today, Sep 22. You can read it here:
http://www.straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,342294,00.html?
I am familiar with many complementary and alternative healthcare practitioners in Singapore and will invite them to air their views here as well. If you have comments to offer, feel free to post as well.
I am new to blogging. So give me a while to set this up properly.
I hope to make this blog both enjoyable and useful. Do come back regularly.
Cheers,
Richard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)