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.”

##

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."

##

Is venting good for you?

Is venting good for you?

When we’re frustrated or angry, we all vent.  But is it good for us? 

The notion is familiar enough: when anger starts to build, it’s best to let off a little steam; otherwise, if we let it build, our system might overload, and burst. It’s called the hydraulic model of anger and was popularized by Dr. Sigmund Freud (though it dates to the Greeks). Explains Dr. Tammy Lenski, who specializes in conflict resolution:

“[Freud] believed that, much like hydraulic pressure building up in a closed environment, anger builds up inside people. Unless released via some kind of emotional catharsis, explosion would be the ultimate outcome.”

By and large, psychologist agree that, if done in the right manner, blowing off some steam can be cathartic. But they caution that we shouldn’t overdo it.  Venting, they say, can be a fly-trap, preventing us from taking needed action.

According to an article at www.youarenotsosmart.com: “Catharsis will make you feel good, but it’s also an emotional hamster wheel. The emotion which led you to catharsis will still be there afterward, and if it made you feel good, you’ll seek it out again in the future.”

Said psychologist Leon Seltzer, in a recent Psychology Today article on the virtues and vices of venting:

“Generally, it’s better to let things out than hold them in. And doing so feels almost akin to problem-solving – in the moment, at least. Venting your frustrations alleviates tension and stress. You almost feel better – and ‘lighter’ – after sharing some perceived threat, indignity, misfortune or injustice.

“Yet ventilating, when it’s confined to repetitively self-vindicating messages, can also be self-limiting. . . it can become little more than an excuse for not acting to resolve a problem or confront an issue that requires confrontation.”

Benefits/Drawbacks of Venting

What are some benefits of venting? According to Seltzer, it releases frustration, can restore your equilibrium and might lead to new ideas (suggested by your friend). Plus, of course, taking immediate action (e.g., confronting the boss that you can’t stand) might not be the wisest course of action.

A piece at wisegeek.net adds: “Anger can sometimes be a catalyst that moves a person to positive action.” And Lene Lynn, writing for hubpages.com, points out: “. . . all manner of health professionals say that releasing the rage is way more beneficial to the body than keeping it inside and creating a ‘stack attack’”, that is, allowing issue after issue to build up inside of us. 

But venting has its drawbacks.  Maintains Lenski: “The value of venting is a myth. The theory on which the idea of venting anger is based has been repeatedly disproven since the 1950s. While it may feel cathartic, venting anger doesn’t purge aggression from your system or improve psychological state.”

Lenski cites research which demonstrates that rumination (the act of focusing on your angry feelings) has been shown to increase angry feelings and increase displaced aggression. And she adds that using substitute targets (e.g., punching a pillow, pounding a nail) “don’t reduce arousal.” Further, Lenski says, “if the act of venting becomes repeated, it risks becoming a habit.”

Seltzer adds a host of negatives: venting can damage or destroy relationships, can actually increase your level of distress, can delay needed action, and allows people to deny personal responsibility. Plus, as Lenski noted, the more you do it, the better you get at it – and the more likely you will be to use it.

What then, are we to do when emotions build?

The key, of course, is knowing when to vent, and when to act. And, certainly, learning a few new techniques, for releasing our emotions, won’t hurt. Here then are a few tips to consider:

·         Cooling off: “Take your anger off the stove. Let it go from a boil to a simmer to a lukewarm state where you no longer want to sink your teeth into the side of buffalo.” (from www.youarenotsosmart.com)

·         Taking action: “. . . cooling off is not the same thing as not dealing with your anger at all.  [Psychologist Brad] Bushman suggests you delay your response, relax or distract yourself with an activity totally incompatible with aggression.” (from www.youarenotsosmart.com)

·         Journal entries – if you’re angry at another person, life coach Lene Lynn says to try this three-step approach: 1. Write down what you’re feeling; 2. Write from the other person’s perspective (e.g., how you think they might resolve the problem); and 3. How you think a third person (totally objective party) might view the situation.

It’s always a good time, it seems, to rein-vent yourself.

##