|
||||||||||
 |
Organic food 'better' for your heart  Tomatoes contain compounds which are good for the heart Organic fruit and vegetables may be better for you than conventionally
grown crops, US research suggests. A ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce found almost double the level of flavonoids - a type of antioxidant. Flavonoids have been shown to reduce high blood pressure, lowering the risk of heart disease and stroke. Writing in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, the team said nitrogen in the soil may be the key. Dr Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at the University of California, and colleagues measured the amount of two flavonoids - quercetin and kaempferol - in dried tomato samples that had been collected as part of a long-term study on agricultural methods. "These findings also confirm recent European research, which showed that organic tomatoes, peaches and processed apples all have higher nutritional quality than non-organic " Peter Melchett, Soil Association They found that on average they were 79% and 97% higher respectively in the organic tomatoes than in the conventionally grown fruit. New Scientist magazine reported that the different levels of flavonoids in tomatoes are probably due to the absence of fertilisers in organic farming. Flavonoids are produced as a defence mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency, such as a lack of nitrogen in the soil. The inorganic nitrogen in conventional fertiliser is easily available to plants and so, the researchers suggests, the lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by over-fertilisation. Conflicting evidence Flavonoids have also been linked with reduced rates of some types of cancer and dementia. The Food Standards Agency says there is some evidence that flavonoids can help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and they are currently carrying out a study to look at the health benefits in more detail. However, a spokesperson said there was no evidence that organic food was healthier. "Our long-standing advice on organic food is there can be some nutrient differences but it doesn't mean it's necessarily better for you." For example, a recent study found that organic milk had higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, but the FSA points out that these short-chain fatty acids do not seem to have the health promoting benefits offered by long-chain omega-3 oils found in oily fish. Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said: "We welcome the now rapidly growing body of evidence which shows significant differences between the nutritional composition of organic and non-organic food. "This is the second recent American study to find significant differences between organic and non-organic fruit. "These findings also confirm recent European research, which showed that organic tomatoes, peaches and processed apples all have higher nutritional quality than non-organic." "As further scientific evidence emerges from new research looking at differences between organic and non-organic food, the Soil Association will be asking the FSA to keep their nutritional advice to consumers under review." BCNH Comment While the jury is out, whether organic food is better for you or not, lets consider what we do not get by buying organic - eg pesticides, fungicides, colourings, preservatives, and many other toxic chemicals, known to be carcinogenic. Surely that cannot be a bad thing. TOP 22nd March 2007 BCNH Response to Roger Highfield’s article in the Telegraph 'Alternative medicine degrees anti-scientific?' As the Principal of BCNH (UK College of Nutrition and Health) I feel I need to respond to these comments and defend my college’s integrity. Our BSc (Hons) is in Complementary Medicine (Nutritional Health) and not ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE. Whilst I cannot speak on behalf of other colleges and universities, I would like to stress that our courses are scientific and evidence-based. We are not ‘anti-science’ in any way, we are quite the opposite. Our students are required to have an A-Level, or higher, in Chemistry. If they do not meet our criteria, they are required to take a Science Foundation Course. Without this, they would not be able to cope with the degree course which includes in-depth lectures by trained scientists, medical doctors, chemists and dieticians. Our mission statement includes the following objectives:-
I would ask how we could be seen as ‘anti-science’ when one of our aims is to work in partnership with orthodox medical practitioners. Breda Gajsek As mentioned, several of our lecturers are medical doctors, one of whom is an Emeritus Professor of Surgery at King’s College London and an Honorary Consultant Surgeon to King’s College Hospital. I feel that complementary therapies have a lot to offer as preventative measures in regard to health. It saddens me that some members of the medical community are dismissing them so lightly. The NTC (Nutritional Therapy Council), the new regulatory body for Nutritional Therapists, have set standards of education which all colleges will have to comply with in the very near future. We welcome and wholeheartedly support this. We also encourage our graduates to keep up to date with the latest scientific research and developments in medicine and nutrition. Working together with the orthodox medical establishment, we could greatly reduce the financial burden of the NHS and, most importantly of all, help the population as a whole to live healthier lives. Principal and Founder BCNH TOP February 28, 2007 BCNH Response to The Times article 'Supplements ‘raise death rate by 5%’ This is yet another example of scaremongering. I have been taking
supplements for twenty years and, at fifty, am healthier and more energetic than I was at twenty. However as a qualified nutritional therapist I buy my supplements from bonafide companies who use natural sources rather than synthetic ones. I would like to state at this point that I have no commercial interest in these companies. I believe the problem is not the supplements themselves but access to them. They should not be freely available to the public but on prescription from qualified BANT registered nutritional therapists. When used without guidance, supplements can cause damage, particularly fat-soluble vitamins, which are stored in the liver. There are also drug-nutrient interactions which a lay person would not be aware of. In short, the problem here is not the product itself but a lack of education about when it should be administered and for what. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/healthy_eating/article1449813.ece TOP Wednesday, 28th February BCNH comment CHILDHOOD OBESITY - WHO IS TO BLAME? Recent reports in the media have highlighted the escalating problem of childhood obesity. It is estimated by the British Heart Foundation that there will be over 1.7 million obese children in England alone by 2010. So who is to blame for the obesity epidemic? Is it the social services, doctors, the government, parents, food industry or even the children themselves? In my view, the true culprit is ignorance. This comes from a widespread lack of education about basic nutrition. There is still very little understanding about the benefits healthy eating can offer. The result of this is that parents with bad eating habits pass them onto their children, leading to a lifestyle where eating junk food made up of empty calories becomes the norm, in some case, an addiction. Because of the lack of preventative medical care in the UK, such addictions are allowed to go on unchecked. However, I do not think that punishing parents and children for this is the answer. Education is the real solution. Parents should have free access, via their GPs, to BANT registered nutritional therapists and counsellors who can work with them to correct their children’s biochemical imbalances. These can contribute to hypoglycaemia, food sensitivities and neurotransmitter imbalances amongst other problems which can exacerbate food cravings and binge eating. We need to educate children and parents about healthy eating and how it can improve their lifestyle. We also need to change the image which healthy eating and nutrition have in the popular imagination as a dull and boring alternative to the more ‘exciting’ junk foods advertised on television and in magazines every day. It is only then that we will see a reduction in the obesity of children and, through them, the population as a whole. Breda Gajsek Principal and Founder BCNH TOP Saturday, 2nd February 2007 BCNH comment IS ORGANIC FOOD BETTER? The jury is still out whether organic food contains more nutrients, or not. However, in our opinion, the most important reason for buying organic is for what it DOES NOT contain: Organic produce does not contain a cocktail of toxic chemicals such as pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones, etc, which are linked to the progression of diseases such as cancer.
Organic produce comes from farms that are eco friendly (pesticides and chemicals used in intensive farming are toxic to wildlife and many species are becoming extinct as a result). Organic growers are regulated by the Soil Association, which has very rigorous rules regarding chemicals permitted in organic farming. Farms are annually inspected to check that farmers are meeting the organic standards. We do agree that the prices of the organic products seem to be excessively high. However, we do hope that as more people switch to organic, the prices will be more affordable to the majority of the population. To ensure that the produce is genuinely organic, always look out for the Soil Association label:  Soil Association organic standards If you have any questions about the standards (or to order a copy) please contact the business development team on 0117 914 2407 (option 1) or email proc.cert@soilassociation.org.
And our final thought; organic food does look and taste better! Breda Gajsek Principal and Founder BCNH TOP Published 9th January 2007 Letter from BCNH student Peter Rafferty to the Times on the subject of organic diet as a lifestyle choice Sir, I would like to draw Mr Miliband’s attention to a report by the Medical Research Council and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food in the UK, which details the mineral depletion in conventionally farmed produce from 1940 to 1991. For example, the calcium levels in broccoli had dropped by up to 75 per cent, tomatoes in 1940 had 10 times more vitamin C than in 1991, and the iron content of spinach had dropped from 158mg per 100g to an average of 2.2mg per 100g. Of the 36 known minerals essential for human health, only three were to be found in artificial fertilisers. It was concluded that these depletions were a direct result of intensive farming. There are also pesticides and herbicides used that can interfere with the absorption of nutrients into plant material, as well as damaging ecosystems and ultimately the environment. The nature of farming organic produce would therefore result in a higher mineral content in fruit and vegetables. If it is a “lifestyle choice” to eat produce with a superior nutritional content, avoid potential carcinogens such as nitrates and chemical residues, and help in a little way to improve our countryside, then that is a choice I am happy to make. Peter Rafferty BCNH student BCNH Prospectus (10-11) |
|
|
|
    |
|
||||
