Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Organic foods: are they safer?



Organic foods: are they safer?

The logic is compelling.  Food grown without the use of pesticides and insecticides should be healthier, and more nutritious.  And it makes sense that we pay a little more for them.  But the question remains: are organic foods safer than conventional foods?  And if so, how significant is the difference?

In a report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a team led by Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler analyzed 240 studies that compared organic and conventional foods (17 studies dealt with human subjects, 223 measured nutrient and contaminant levels). Their conclusion:

“Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this perception. Of the nutrients evaluated, only one comparison, the phosphorus* content in produce, demonstrated the superiority of organic foods.”

The report added:

“The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The analysis was prompted by the explosive growth in the sale of organic foods. Said the report: “Between 1997 and 2010, U.S. sales of organic** foods increased from $3.6 billion to $26.7 billion.” They added: “Although prices vary, consumers can pay up to twice as much for organic than conventional foods.” (Author’s note: on a morning shop at Publix, I took note that a 9 oz. bag of conventional baby spinach cost $2.49 (26.7 cents per ounce) while a 5 oz. bag of organic baby spinach cost $3.69 (73.8 cents per ounce).

Before we turn to the report’s specifics – on allergies, nutrients, contamination and bacteria-resistance – it’s worth reflecting on two points made by Edward, a cashier at the Daniel Island Publix. At a recent visit, I shared the findings of the report, after which Edward quickly posed these two pointed questions: 1. “Who funded the study?” (I explained that it wasn’t a singular study but instead was an analysis of relevant studies to date – with no outside funding); and 2. “What are the long-term effects?” The short answer is that we simply don’t know. Acknowledged the authors: “There have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of populations consuming predominantly organic versus conventionally produced food, controlling for socioeconomic factors.”

That said, here are the report’s chief findings:

1.       Vitamin content. “We did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products.”

2.       Allergies, food-poisoning: The authors noted that only three of the 17 human studies examined clinical outcomes, but of those three they found “no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection” (known more commonly as food poisoning).

3.       Pesticide levels:  “Conventional produce has a 30% higher risk for pesticide contamination than organic produce,” said the report. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear because the difference in risk for contamination with pesticide residue exceeding maximum allowed limits may be small.”

4.       Pathogenic bacteria. “We found no difference in the risk for contamination of produce or animal products with pathogenic bacteria. Both organic and conventional animal products were commonly contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter species. . . .”

5.       Bacteria-resistance. “We found that conventional chicken and pork have a higher risk for contamination with bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than were organic alternatives. This increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance may be related to the routine use of antibiotics in conventional animal husbandry.  However, the extent to which antibiotic use of livestock contributes to antibiotic-resistance pathogens in humans continues to be debated because inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans is the major cause of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans.”

*The authors added: “Higher levels of phosphorus in organic produce than in conventional produce is consistent with previous reviews . . . although it is unlikely to be clinically significant because near-total starvation is needed to produce dietary phosphorus deficiency.”

**USDA’s definition of organic agriculture: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.”

##

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Hypnosis: About to go mainstream?



Hypnosis: About to go mainstream?

Just a suggestion, but it might be time to start taking hypnosis seriously. 

A recent report by two British researchers provides compelling evidence that hypnosis is a legitimate technique that will, in the coming years, be used increasingly as a rehabilitation tool to treat both physical pain and psychological disorders.

The report, by David Oakley (University College London) and Peter Halligan (Cardiff University), first debunks myths related to hypnosis (e.g., it is not a form of sleep) and makes clear that hypnosis is a distinct form of consciousness.  Said an article in nature.com, reviewing the Oakley/Halligan report: “These data are consistent with the view that hypnosis involves a 'special' cognitive state in the sense that it is associated with an altered pattern of brain activity.”

Added the UK’s National Council for Hypnotherapy: “This research suggests how hypnotherapy can cause changes in the brain, indicating that hypnotherapy can show genuine, positive results for patients. While more serious conditions should be dealt with by visiting your GP, conditions such as anxiety and depression can be helped through complementary therapy such as hypnotherapy.”

Oakley and Halligan explain that suggestive statements can indeed alter perceptual or bodily sensations. And they’re not taking the participants’ word for it – brain images (while hypnosis is in progress) demonstrate that the effects are real.  Here’s one example, drawn from Christian Jarrett’s article in BPS’ Research Digest: “. . . told that their arm is getting heavier and they cannot move it, a suggestible participant may experience paralysis of the arm.” Adds Jarrett: “Skeptics may wonder about the veracity of these experiences but brain imaging results are indicating they are real and not merely imagined.”

Because the hypnotic state alters brain function, Oakley and Halligan envision a host of potential benefits:  

1.       Hypnosis can serve as a research tool to help us learn more about brain structure, brain function, psychology phenomena (e.g., memory, perception, pain and hallucination) and neurological issues (partial blindness, deafness or paralyses);
2.       Hypnotic suggestion may play a useful role in the emerging study of the neuroscience of emotion; and
3.       Hypnosis can serve as a rehabilitation tool, particularly in the case of “functional pain” (e.g., facial pain or low back pain where the pain persists long after injuries have healed).

Explained Oakley and Halligan, in the report’s abstract:

“For more than a century, hypnotic suggestion has been used successfully as an adjunctive procedure to treat a wide range of clinical conditions. More recently, hypnosis has attracted a growing interest from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Recent studies . . . can provide insights into brain mechanisms involved in attention, motor control, pain perception, beliefs and volition.”

In 2006, Oakley issued this prediction: "As researchers who are not familiar with hypnosis gain confidence in its strategic use in mainstream psychological and neuropsychological work we can expect to see a resurgence in its popularity as a practical tool."

##