Can organic food help you lose weight?

I love the nutters who believe that everyone is out to kill them.

I tend to go local produce because it tastes better. It's also dirt cheap. The organism labeled stuff at the supermarket (Aus) is not as good.

At my age I need all the preservatives I can get so I never buy organic,

plus the only lb's I would lose would be £ financial ones

Challenging the 'Conventional' Wisdom: One Farmer's Take On The Stanford Organic Food Study

Much has already been written about the recent study from Stanford University claiming that organic foods are no more nutritious or healthy than non-organic foods. In short, the researchers concluded that an apple is an apple and all lettuce was created equal -- no matter the food's provenance, how it was chemically treated in the field, or how many miles it traveled to reach your table.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the study.

As a farmer and a father, I strongly disagree, and I think the Stanford study sends a terrible message to U.S. consumers.

Here's why:

The word "conventional" may sound relatively harmless when used to describe the food we eat, but the reality is our nation's "conventional" factory farms use far more pesticides, herbicides and fungicides than most consumers realize when shopping for produce or preparing a family meal.

Granted, conventionally grown foods have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's minimum safety threshold when it comes to the amount of traceable pesticides. But the Stanford report fails to appropriately consider the compounding effects that multiple chemicals ingested through different foods may have on our long-term wellbeing, or the effects they have on vulnerable populations like pregnant women and small children.

As a parent of two young boys, I for one don't think the minimum requirements are anywhere near sufficient. Consider the chemical chlorpyrifos, an insect-killing organophosphate that has been approved for use in "conventional" American agriculture for more than four decades.

In 2009, more than one million pounds of this pesticide were used in California alone. Yet according to researchers at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, minimal chlorpyrifos exposure, even at very low levels consistent with standard agriculture use, has been proven to cause adverse impacts on brain development in ways that interfere with academic achievement, reading and learning comprehension, and even sexual development. Not to mention the adverse impact that millions of pounds of this chemical, and hundreds of others like it, can have on the soil and watershed that supports delicate ecosystems for hundreds of miles or more. San Francisco Bay? Puget Sound? Gulf of Mexico? These chemicals eventually end up there, many times with devastating effects.

Agricultural chemicals are designed to kill things. They are toxic substances that come with skull-and-crossbones on the containers. Farm workers commonly wear futuristic-looking "hazmat" suits as protection when they spray the fields. In some cases, farmers, workers and even pets are not allowed to enter the fields for hours after treatment.

Farmers and food producers in this country have an opportunity, and an obligation, to provide consumers incentives for making the healthiest choices possible. The debate should not just be about whether a strawberry produced at a factory farm is more or less nutritious than its organically grown equivalent. We should instead be asking: "How can we grow and provide families with the freshest, cleanest, and most flavorful, strawberries possible?"

It's something we take very seriously at Full Circle, the 400-acre organic farm I founded in Carnation, Wash. My wife and brother were there at the beginning with me, helping to sow the fields from day one. It just didn't make sense to me to expose them, our customers, our land or our community watershed to toxic chemicals in the name of yield and cost. We're about purity. Flavor. Freshness. Stewardship.

Full circle. Farm to table. Cradle to grave. These are not concepts that have much resonance in our nation's industrial food system. But in the words of food advocate and organic pioneer David Lively, "Conventional agriculture is based on a lot of non-sustainable limited-resource practices and principles, and the chickens are coming home to roost."

It doesn't take a bunch of academics to tell us that industrial farming isn't working on many levels. We need to stop debating and measuring how "un-harmful" chemical pesticides are in our food. We need to instead focus on how we can best grow and distribute fresh, pure foods that are as inviting, delicious and healthy as possible, encouraging people to eat more of them and make better overall food choices. We should be giving folks incentives to eat those apples, greens and strawberries - not more reasons to fret over and avoid them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-stout/farmer-stanford-organic-study_b_1901677.html?ref=topbar

I love the nutters who believe that everyone is out to kill them.

Just because some of us are concerned about our health and the purity of the food we buy is no reason to call us "nutters"---why the insult? Does that make you feel better about yourself that you can insult others on an anonymous forum?

Challenging the 'Conventional' Wisdom: One Farmer's Take On The Stanford Organic Food Study

Much has already been written about the recent study from Stanford University claiming that organic foods are no more nutritious or healthy than non-organic foods. In short, the researchers concluded that an apple is an apple and all lettuce was created equal -- no matter the food's provenance, how it was chemically treated in the field, or how many miles it traveled to reach your table.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the study.

As a farmer and a father, I strongly disagree, and I think the Stanford study sends a terrible message to U.S. consumers.

Here's why:

The word "conventional" may sound relatively harmless when used to describe the food we eat, but the reality is our nation's "conventional" factory farms use far more pesticides, herbicides and fungicides than most consumers realize when shopping for produce or preparing a family meal.

Granted, conventionally grown foods have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's minimum safety threshold when it comes to the amount of traceable pesticides. But the Stanford report fails to appropriately consider the compounding effects that multiple chemicals ingested through different foods may have on our long-term wellbeing, or the effects they have on vulnerable populations like pregnant women and small children.

As a parent of two young boys, I for one don't think the minimum requirements are anywhere near sufficient. Consider the chemical chlorpyrifos, an insect-killing organophosphate that has been approved for use in "conventional" American agriculture for more than four decades.

In 2009, more than one million pounds of this pesticide were used in California alone. Yet according to researchers at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, minimal chlorpyrifos exposure, even at very low levels consistent with standard agriculture use, has been proven to cause adverse impacts on brain development in ways that interfere with academic achievement, reading and learning comprehension, and even sexual development. Not to mention the adverse impact that millions of pounds of this chemical, and hundreds of others like it, can have on the soil and watershed that supports delicate ecosystems for hundreds of miles or more. San Francisco Bay? Puget Sound? Gulf of Mexico? These chemicals eventually end up there, many times with devastating effects.

Agricultural chemicals are designed to kill things. They are toxic substances that come with skull-and-crossbones on the containers. Farm workers commonly wear futuristic-looking "hazmat" suits as protection when they spray the fields. In some cases, farmers, workers and even pets are not allowed to enter the fields for hours after treatment.

Farmers and food producers in this country have an opportunity, and an obligation, to provide consumers incentives for making the healthiest choices possible. The debate should not just be about whether a strawberry produced at a factory farm is more or less nutritious than its organically grown equivalent. We should instead be asking: "How can we grow and provide families with the freshest, cleanest, and most flavorful, strawberries possible?"

It's something we take very seriously at Full Circle, the 400-acre organic farm I founded in Carnation, Wash. My wife and brother were there at the beginning with me, helping to sow the fields from day one. It just didn't make sense to me to expose them, our customers, our land or our community watershed to toxic chemicals in the name of yield and cost. We're about purity. Flavor. Freshness. Stewardship.

Full circle. Farm to table. Cradle to grave. These are not concepts that have much resonance in our nation's industrial food system. But in the words of food advocate and organic pioneer David Lively, "Conventional agriculture is based on a lot of non-sustainable limited-resource practices and principles, and the chickens are coming home to roost."

It doesn't take a bunch of academics to tell us that industrial farming isn't working on many levels. We need to stop debating and measuring how "un-harmful" chemical pesticides are in our food. We need to instead focus on how we can best grow and distribute fresh, pure foods that are as inviting, delicious and healthy as possible, encouraging people to eat more of them and make better overall food choices. We should be giving folks incentives to eat those apples, greens and strawberries - not more reasons to fret over and avoid them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-stout/farmer-stanford-organic-study_b_1901677.html?ref=topbar

I salute you, sir, for trying to make a difference. Many people prefer to be told what "their" opinions should be and resent anyone who tries to challenge those "opinions". Many, many health professionals are belatedly trying to raise the alarm over the quality and purity of our foods. But most of the populace has been so brain-washed by the big corporations who speak through the big media corporations (most people are quite unaware that the vast majority of mainstream media outlets are controlled by only FIVE huge conglomerates). Their methods for persuading the populace include, character defamation, calling knowledgeable people "nutters" or "nut cases" using dishonest "science" to "prove" their case, etc. And then, they turn around and accuse other honest and knowledgeable people of the same thing that they themselves are doing. I gain nothing AT ALL from any health interest, but because I am concerned about the world that my children and grandchildren will inherit, I am called a "nutter". Pathetic. :brokenheart:

Nope ! It has the same nutritional content as conventional food but it is more healthier in the sense that it can reduce toxins in your food which is more dangerous than getting overweight,

http://organicfoodshealth.com/blog/best-organic-foods-for-a-weight-loss-program

Gary Taubes, a research physician? Wow, Taubes has exactly ZERO medical training or education. He is no kind of doctor at all, never mind a physician. He has a masters degree in journalism, and degrees in engineering and physics. He has exactly no qualifications to talk about human nutrition or biology. Please stop making things up, you just make yourself look more and more ignorant, especially when you level completely baseless accusations against anything that discredits your opinion.

Who says Lustig and Taubes actually have any education or knowledge of nutrition? Lustig isn't a dietician, he's a pediatrician. Maybe you never noticed, but children are not adults, and a child's physiology and an adult's physiology are completely different. Taubes has no medical training at all. Alan Aragon has advanced degrees in human nutrition. I'd say he's infinitely more qualified to talk about this subject. The fact that you have to try and claim that his education is fake completely kills your entire argument. You have absolutely no defense, so you resort to personal attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354959
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622544

There's 3 studies that completely discredit Lustig's and Taubes' position on sugar and fructose.

In addition to misrepresenting what Lustig and Taubes and Johnson are saying, you have misrepresented what I said and NOW you are misrepresenting what these studies show. The first study you cite is merely suggesting that those with normal glycemic responses may be helped to burn calories from a heavy meal by ingesting SMALL amounts of fructose (the amount that was used in the study was 10 grams---the typical amount in a serving of fruit. Lustig, Taubes and Johnson are NOT suggesting that we cut out all fructose. I'm sure all three must eat fruit as they appear to be healthy gentlemen. What they object to is the CONCENTRATED sugars that are showing up in the processed food that many people eat---they are concerned about the total AMOUNT contained in the typical modern diet delivered to us by mega-corporations who care MUCH more about profits than public health. The amount of fructose contained in a can of soda pop is equivalent to about TEN oranges and the fructose in the orange is bound in fiber and is released slowly as digestion occurs. Think of the situation as a little bit of morphine dulls pain and is beneficial in the small amounts used in the case of an injury---but a large amount of morphine will kill you. Your cited abstract from the second study doesn't include enough information to make any kind of an judgment--for or against. What was the amount of fructose used, for example? On cursory examination, I did not see the amount listed. I haven't reviewed the third abstract yet, but I would expect a similar result as from the first two. Hardly a refutation of Lustig, Taubes and Johnson. You are attempting to refute something that you don't understand with studies which you also don't understand.

Johnson's studies showed that some obese individual's metabolism can actually convert blood glucose into fructose so it would be very important for those individuals to avoid eating large meals and to limit simple carbohydrates as they raise blood sugar (glucose) precipitously.

I guess it does stop your buying too much food cause its so damn expensive lol!

True dat

Actually, we find that our total food budget is only slightly higher than it would be with conventionally raised food (and we try to buy as many organic foods as possible). We consider it an investment in our health. Of course, we have cut out all junk food so we have a saving there.

I live in the country, surrounded by agricultural crops. One of my neighbors grows certified organic, but his farm is also surrounded by non-organic farms. I regularly see pesticides blowing free over this "organic" crops from adjoining fields as they are being sprayed. You can also watch the the pollen from GMO crops float on the breeze into the organic crops.

Yes, that is why a number of organic growers are fighting class action lawsuits against Monsanto and others. Originally, Monsanto took them to court for "stealing Monsanto technology" in their fields, as the GMO pollen wafted over them. A total miscarriage of justice---the individual farmers were helpless against the aggressive lawyers of the agribusiness giants. But then, they decided to band together and launch class action suits. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful but if they fail, I will firmly conclude that there is no justice left in the land. :brokenheart:

Gary Taubes, a research physician? Wow, Taubes has exactly ZERO medical training or education. He is no kind of doctor at all, never mind a physician. He has a masters degree in journalism, and degrees in engineering and physics. He has exactly no qualifications to talk about human nutrition or biology. Please stop making things up, you just make yourself look more and more ignorant, especially when you level completely baseless accusations against anything that discredits your opinion.

Who says Lustig and Taubes actually have any education or knowledge of nutrition? Lustig isn't a dietician, he's a pediatrician. Maybe you never noticed, but children are not adults, and a child's physiology and an adult's physiology are completely different. Taubes has no medical training at all. Alan Aragon has advanced degrees in human nutrition. I'd say he's infinitely more qualified to talk about this subject. The fact that you have to try and claim that his education is fake completely kills your entire argument. You have absolutely no defense, so you resort to personal attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354959
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622544

There's 3 studies that completely discredit Lustig's and Taubes' position on sugar and fructose.

In addition to misrepresenting what Lustig and Taubes and Johnson are saying, you have misrepresented what I said and NOW you are misrepresenting what these studies show. The first study you cite is merely suggesting that those with normal glycemic responses may be helped to burn calories from a heavy meal by ingesting SMALL amounts of fructose (the amount that was used in the study was 10 grams---the typical amount in a serving of fruit. Lustig, Taubes and Johnson are NOT suggesting that we cut out all fructose. I'm sure all three must eat fruit as they appear to be healthy gentlemen. What they object to is the CONCENTRATED sugars that are showing up in the processed food that many people eat---they are concerned about the total AMOUNT contained in the typical modern diet delivered to us by mega-corporations who care MUCH more about profits than public health. The amount of fructose contained in a can of soda pop is equivalent to about TEN oranges and the fructose in the orange is bound in fiber and is released slowly as digestion occurs. Think of the situation as a little bit of morphine dulls pain and is beneficial in the small amounts used in the case of an injury---but a large amount of morphine will kill you. Your cited abstract from the second study doesn't include enough information to make any kind of an judgment--for or against. What was the amount of fructose used, for example? On cursory examination, I did not see the amount listed. I haven't reviewed the third abstract yet, but I would expect a similar result as from the first two. Hardly a refutation of Lustig, Taubes and Johnson. You are attempting to refute something that you don't understand with studies which you also don't understand.

Funny that you ask about the dosage of fructose, because that was the number one concern that Alan Aragon had about Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" video. He never once mentioned a dosage amount, he used studies that had ridiculous dosages of fructose per day (well over 100 grams,) and when point blank asked about it (Aragon and Lustig had a direct conversation on the topic) Lustig's response was "my video has a million views, the facts don't matter, I'm right." Yeah, real credible source that one. This is the same Robert Lustig who insists that they don't eat sugar of any kind in Japan, which is totally false, and when confronted with that information, insisted he was right anyway. You're defending people who don't have credibility. Gary Taubes has had many issues with unethical behavior in the past, with several of the books he has written. You're not defending "muckrakers," you're defending people that are making things up out of the air to profit off of fear. They are more concerned with profits than facts, the exact thing you are accusing Big Agra of.

Also, that first study was 10 grams of fructose per meal, 36 grams of fructose per day, which is actually only slightly below the national average for fructose consumption, which is about 50 grams per day. Also, 10 grams of fructose is about 3 times more than you would find in a piece of fruit. Your information is inaccurate.

If we only have Alan Aragon's word that the conversation with Lustig took place, then we don't have much. And it is possible that the same individuals who have gone after Lustig have gone after Taubes. But it will be difficult for them to go after Richard Johnson (although I'm sure they will try). You are correct about the fructose content but that makes an even stronger case for limiting the amount of fructose in processed food. A typical orange has a little over 3 grams of fructose---but as the fruit gets riper, the fructose content increases. But an average pear or apple have about 11 grams of fructose. From Livestrong.com:
"Despite their sweet taste, bananas are only moderately high in fructose. A medium-sized pear or apple, each with around 11 g of fructose, is richer in this sugar than a medium-sized banana." The article goes on to say that a banana would likely contain more fructose than an apple or pear---if fully ripe. BUT, a 16 oz. Coke has about 60 grams of sugar, 55% of which would be fructose. And an 8 oz. serving of chocolate milk would have about 29 grams of sugar. Lustig says that it is not just fructose that is the problem but the total of added sugars in processed food. THEY PUT SUGAR IN SALT FOR PETE'S SAKE! And many people eat a lot of processed food so they are getting a lot of sugar every day. And HFCS is a convenient additive because it is so cheap and worse, because it appears to be addictive.

From an article on Yahoo.com about the dangers of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in soda pop:

"Consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, contributes to weight gain.The trial tested the effect of sugar water on the livers of mice, while a comparison group of mice were fed artificially sweetened water. Examination of their livers showed an increased incidence of fatty liver disease, especially among mice that were given water sweetened with fructose. Upon dissection, the animals on high-fructose diets had livers that looked similar to those of alcoholics. The researchers concluded that high fructose consumption may be directly toxic to the liver.

In separate studies, scientists at the University of California in Berkeley and the University of Cincinnati have also confirmed that consuming large amounts of fructose skews the American diet toward metabolic changes encouraging fat storage. This is likely due to the long-term absorption of fructose, causing enzyme adaptations that increase fat and VLDL (bad cholesterol) formation. These changes lead to high triglycerides in the blood, decreased glucose tolerance and excessive amounts of insulin in the blood. In addition to promoting obesity and fatty liver disease, this physiological shift primes the body for insulin resistance and eventually, diabetes development. So yes, there does seem to be concrete evidence that shows drinking soda pop, due to the High Fructose Corn Syrup is harmful & can lead to Fatty Liver Disease or Degeneration."

There are a number of articles on Science Daily on the dangers of HFCS or even fructose itself: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm There is a strong link between HFCS and kidney disease. Johnson has been granted funding to study why there appears to be an epidemic of renal failure in a number of poor tropical countries and he strongly suspects that the ingestion of large amounts of fructose/sugar will be the culprit. From his laboratory studies he has determined that it damages the tubules in the kidneys. He gives the example of sugar cane workers in Nicaragua who drink large amounts of sugar-sweetened fruit juice or colas while working in the fields. They are experiencing kidney failure at an alarming rate---so too workers in other hot climates.

By the way, I stand by what I said before, the amount of fructose in a can of soda is about equal to that which is in TEN oranges, as you will see if you look at what I have cited. While someone might sit down and drink a can of soda, I never knew anyone who would sit down and eat 10 oranges at a time (unless he was an orangutan).

Food is food. Regardless if it makes you lose weight or not, it still maintains on your behalf. Your portion controls, your habits, little changes make a huge difference. You could be having a weight loss bar but probably eat the calories in something else. It really all depends on the person, not the food. Food is not to blame. It's the person.

[/quote]
^ This is a great post.
[/quote]

No. There is a bit of distortion there. The bottom line is that sugar and especially high fructose corn syrup (which is included in an astounding array of foodstuffs) is very detrimental to health. The "corn sugar" industry (Cargill makes rail car loads of the stuff) can try to lie their way out of it by giving it a different name but it is still High Fructose Corn Syrup and they are directly profiting off of the misery of the people who do not understand its deadly effects.

Tigersword, you said: "Also, that first study was 10 grams of fructose per meal, 36 grams of fructose per day, which is actually only slightly below the national average for fructose consumption, which is about 50 grams per day..."

The reason why the "national average" of fructose consumption (and remember, it isn't just fructose that is the problem) is only 50 grams per day is because the word is out on the dangers of sugar for those who are informed enough to know about it and take in ZERO amounts of added sugar per day. There are clearly others who take in much more (I've known some people who likely take in 100 grams at a minimum since they drink at least 24 cans of cola every other day--totally addicted). And the epidemic of obesity, Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular and renal disease is only going to get worse because of it. Our food industry has a lot to answer for.

That would be an interesting theory, except for the fact that fructose (and sugar in general) consumption has held steady since 1970. In fact, in 1970, people averaged 0.5 grams of sugar more than they do today. Sorry, sugar is not the evil boogeyman you are trying desperately to make it into, neither is HFCS, which the body digests in the exact same way as sucrose (biology fact, fructose and glucose are absorbed in a one to one ratio by the body, as fructose transporters can only move very small amounts of fructose, and glucose transporters pick up the extra, meaning any fructose above and beyond the amount of glucose consumed travels through the intestine and is eliminated without being absorbed or processed.)

Again, your information just doesn't agree with the actual data available. People have been eating refined sugar for around 4,000 years. The current epidemics honestly have a very simple root cause. People are eating more calories today than they were 40 years ago, while becoming more sedentary (eating more calories, burning less calories.) Every single disease you mentioned is caused by or aggravated by obesity. It all comes back to eat less, move more. Not "OMG THIS FOOD IS EVIL, DON'T EAT IT!" I mean, after all, you are making the EXACT same arguments that were made regarding fat in the 1980's, and we know how well that has stood up to scientific scrutiny, don't we?

Tigersword, you said: "Also, that first study was 10 grams of fructose per meal, 36 grams of fructose per day, which is actually only slightly below the national average for fructose consumption, which is about 50 grams per day..."

The reason why the "national average" of fructose consumption (and remember, it isn't just fructose that is the problem) is only 50 grams per day is because the word is out on the dangers of sugar for those who are informed enough to know about it and take in ZERO amounts of added sugar per day. There are clearly others who take in much more (I've known some people who likely take in 100 grams at a minimum since they drink at least 24 cans of cola every other day--totally addicted). And the epidemic of obesity, Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular and renal disease is only going to get worse because of it. Our food industry has a lot to answer for.

That would be an interesting theory, except for the fact that fructose (and sugar in general) consumption has held steady since 1970. In fact, in 1970, people averaged 0.5 grams of sugar more than they do today. Sorry, sugar is not the evil boogeyman you are trying desperately to make it into, neither is HFCS, which the body digests in the exact same way as sucrose (biology fact, fructose and glucose are absorbed in a one to one ratio by the body, as fructose transporters can only move very small amounts of fructose, and glucose transporters pick up the extra, meaning any fructose above and beyond the amount of glucose consumed travels through the intestine and is eliminated without being absorbed or processed.)

Again, your information just doesn't agree with the actual data available. People have been eating refined sugar for around 4,000 years. The current epidemics honestly have a very simple root cause. People are eating more calories today than they were 40 years ago, while becoming more sedentary (eating more calories, burning less calories.) Every single disease you mentioned is caused by or aggravated by obesity. It all comes back to eat less, move more. Not "OMG THIS FOOD IS EVIL, DON'T EAT IT!" I mean, after all, you are making the EXACT same arguments that were made regarding fat in the 1980's, and we know how well that has stood up to scientific scrutiny, don't we?

It is your information that does not agree with the facts and the newest research. It is true that people have been eating HONEY for a very long time, but refined sugar? No. The industrial processes that made it cheap and easily available did not exist until the 20th century. And people haven't even been eating honey in abundance at any time as it was expensive even when available. It was a food for kings and the wealthy--and we know that there was a significant problem with obesity among the wealthy for many centuries. The rise of obesity in the general population perfectly tracks with the consumption of refined sugars. I am not "desperately trying to prove" anything. I am merely trying to get the word out that eating processed food that has "hidden" sugar and many chemicals included, will cause disease and early death. But this thread is about organic food and how eating it can impact weight loss. Modern food growing and processing done by the corporate food industry is and will be hazardous to everyone who does not eat organic---it affords at least some protection--especially from GMO. GMO IS A TOTAL WILDCARD---no one knows what horrific outcomes it might cause. This is a report on just ONE study that would support the eating of organic produce--from Blue Heron Health News:

"The newest chemical in the list of “used to be safe but now we don’t know” is the fungicide tolylfluanid. This is a synthetic pesticide used commonly on farm crops. A recent study linked this chemical to insulin resistance...insulin resistance is the beginning of type 2 diabetes. This was revealed in the Endocrine Society’s 94th annual meeting in July, 2012.

The scientists applied this tolylfluanid to fat cells and discovered that the fat cells became resistant to insulin. The cells also began storing more fat. The good news is that using tolylfluanid is actually forbidden in many western countries – including the USA because it has been found to cause various health issues in rats. But don’t be too quick to celebrate.

Why? Two reasons:

1) Tolylfluanid is only one of many chemicals used on crops. And like other chemicals used today, it used to be considered completely safe. So what does that tell us about other chemicals that are considered completely safe today?

2) Tolylfluanid is used on fruits and vegetables all over the world. Products that are most likely imported into your local supermarket. Or used in packed fruit juice concentrate. And regulating import of crops or products produced using tolylfluanid is almost non-existent in spite of there being a ban on its use here.

And it isn’t just type 2 diabetes that’s affected by these chemicals. They contribute to all health issues such as high blood pressure, cancer, arthritis, thyroid problems and even erectile dysfunction."

an organic carrot has the exact same number of calories as a none organic carrot...

True, as far as actual carbs, protein and fat are concerned. But the non-organic carrot may have been sprayed with a fungicide (like the one mentioned in my last post) and who knows how they disrupt the endocrine system and possibly disrupt weight loss?