We’ve heard the argument and supporting evidence that claims organic food is no better for a person or the environment than food grown or raised using conventional farming methods. However, the debate is far from over. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association is taking defending the points made in the original article criticizing aspects of organic food and farmer. Instead, Melchett maintains it is the eco and health-friendly option when it comes to produce and meat consumption.

Is organic farming better for the environment?
Though organic farming is still a work-in-progress, supporters claim it still has significant environmental benefits. They say organic farming is still better for wildlife on the farms, as well as producing less dangerous wastes and carbon emissions, as well as lower pollution caused by sprays. Reports suggest organic farms have 30 per cent more wild species and 50 per cent higher number of those animals.

Is organic farming more sustainable?
Not only does Melchett say prior information claiming the growing of organic tomatoes takes twice the amount of energy is wrong, he also says it left out the very important point that a major benefit of organic farming is the storing of carbon in soil. This apparently reduces the climate change impact of organic food by anywhere from 12 to 80 per cent.

The association also says that 26 per cent less energy is used during organic farming as opposed to conventional farming and says the government believes organic farming is better for the environment.

Does organic farming use pesticides?
Under the Soil Association's guidelines, organic farmers may use only four pesticides (and only with permission) compared to the more than 300 pesticides used in conventional farming. Most organic farming does not require pesticides, but when it does, those used are either one containing rotenone and soft soap or others with simple chemicals such as copper compounds and sulphur. Rotenone and soft soap contain active ingredients that break down quickly in sunlight, while copper and sulphur occur naturally in soil already.

Last year only three percent of Soil Association members and two per cent of organic crops were sprayed.

Are conventional pesticide levels in food dangerous?
Melchett points out that more than 40 pesticides once approved for use have been banned or withdrawn in the past decade. Chemical "cocktails" are also not tested before pesticides are given the safe stamp of approval. A U.S. study recently found that children who switched from regular to organic food had no traces of pesticides in urine samples after just one day, however when they switched back, pesticides were once again found in urine.

Is organic farming healthier?
The Food Standards Agency actually says there is no difference in terms of food safety of organic and non-organic foods, however the Compassion in World Farming organization feels that animals under the Soil Association guidelines are raised in better conditions. Melchett also contends that animals are not smaller, nor do they suffer from more disease than conventionally-raised animals.

Does organic food contain more nutrients?
Vitamin C, calcium, magnesium, iron and antioxidants - all things you'll find higher levels of in organic food. Plus organic milk contains more Omega 3's, vitamin E, vitamin A and antioxidants than your regular run-of-the-mill milk. By consuming organic food you may also avoid unwanted additives such as hydrogenated fat, monosodium glutomate and artificial flavors and colors.

Is there a greater demand for organic food now than ever before?
The organic industry is one that is still growing - approximately 32 percent per year in fact. Three-quarters of parents buy organic baby food and parents and school officials are working to involve organic farms in the production of school lunches. 

It also turns out, costs isn't always the most important factor; even those in lower income brackets will go organic as much as possible despite the sometimes more expensive cost.

And despite claims of smaller crop yields for organic food, Melchett says long-term trials indicate that the yields of organic crops will be comparable to non-organic crops.

In the end it seems that there won't be a resolution to the organic vs. non-organic anytime soon. Each sides makes valid points and there does seem to be conflicting research. Regardless, we hope the discussion over the past two days has got you thinking about the issue (assuming you weren't thinking about it already that is) and has you thinking about the healthy food choices you make for yourself and your family.

» The Independent

Is it better to buy organic food? The debate continues to rage. On one hand you have the proponents of organic food saying it's much better for you and for the environment because traditional pesticides aren't used in the growing and farming process, and therefore humans aren't exposed to chemicals they are in regular food. On the other hand, supporters of traditional farming methods, pesticides and all, say that pesticides protect us from potentially harmful diseases found in plants and animals. So is organic farming and production one of those gray areas with no established right or wrong?

There are two sides to every story. Today we'll examine the supposed myths surrounding organic farming that maintain it is no better for an individual or the environment.

Is organic farming better for the environment?
Not according to the UK's Department for Environment, Food and  Rural affairs who say studies show that organic dairy production is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the production of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than regular milk, releases 60 per cent more toxins into water and is 70 per cent more likely to cause acid rain.

Cows that are raised in organic conditions also release twice as much methane into the air (methane is far more potent than carbon dioxide by the way) as cows raised in a regular environment.

Is organic farming more sustainable?
Even though the growing of organic potatoes requires less energy from fertilizer production, in the end the ploughing requires more fossil fuel than other potatoes. Not to mention that one hectare of conventionally farmed land will yield two-and-a-half more times the number of potatoes than those grown organically.

Likewise, greenhouses that grow tomatoes require 100 times more energy than ones grown in a field in Africa and yield only 75 per cent of the amount grown in other conditions. The nutrient pollution and amount of water used by organic tomatoes are also significantly higher than ones imported from another country.

Does organic farming use pesticides?
Apparently they do, however they fall under the label of "natural." However it has been suggested that these "natural" pesticides are far more harmful and toxic than those used in conventional farming and are used only because of special "grandfather" provisions in current regulations. Most traditional pesticides are considered biodegradable; organic farming uses pesticides containing copper, which will remain toxic in soil forever. However, neither these nor more commonly used pesticides have been given as a reason to avoid produce or meat altogether.

Are conventional pesticide levels in food dangerous?
Some opponents of conventional pesticides claim they have a "cocktail effect," that has led to an epidemic of cancer. Interestingly enough, cancer rates among farmers - the first of people who would be exposed to cancer-causing chemicals - are among the lowest of any groups studies. Plus, other cancer rates - including stomach cancer which could be indicative of carcinogenic exposure - have been dropping for the past 50 years. Then there's the fact that life expectancy in this day and age is into the eighties, whereas 60 years ago when pesticides weren't used and cases of food poisoning were prominent, the life expectancy of an individual was only in their sixties.

Is organic food healthier?
The University of Hohenheim in Germany is a major supporter of organic food, but has said:

"No clear conclusions about the quality of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature and research results."

What is clear is that Holland, Denmark and Austria conducted large studies and determined that organically-produced meat contained more bacteria that causes food poisoning, a higher risk of Salmonella and parasites. Add to that the potential of cross-contamination with conventionally-produced meat that is processed in the same facility and the fact that instances of disease in organic meat are higher because the animals are not treated with antibiotics. Therefore disease causes organic animals to often weigh far less than non-organic animals.

Does organic food contain more nutrients?
You can increase the concentration of nutrients found in any produce by letting it air in cupboards for a few days prior to consuming. Though organic tomatoes are said to contain more flavonoids than conventionally-grown tomatoes, but this could be due to a lack of nitrogen which causes a plant to stop producing flesh and instead produce defensive chemicals. One of these chemicals would be - you guessed it - flavonoids.

Is there a greater demand for organic food now than ever before?
The high point in organic food growth occurred in 2003, with less land being devoted to it each year since. Although it is supposed to increase once more, it appears more farmers are returning to conventional methods or growing.

The Soil Association in the UK may is also allegedly misinformed in the figures they released related to the sales in the organic market. They claim 2006 had sales of £1.937 billion, whereas the TNS Worldpanel who tracks actual sales puts the number around the £1 billion mark.

Well there you have it, the myths of organic farming supposedly busted. Check back tomorrow for a rebuttal claiming organic really is the way to go.

» The Independent

Do you remember the days of being 17? You and your friends would plan your next shopping excursion to the mall/marathon session of Super Mario Bros. Or if you're Maria Merziotis you discover a way to identify and maybe even fight flu infections. All in a day's work really.

Merziotis, a Grade 12 student, recently took first place - and a cheque for $5,000 - in a national science competition and will enter her findings in an international competition held in San Diego next month. Health Canada is already reviewing Merziotis' research, which could help with the diganosis and treatment of the flu.

The flu virus attacks human cells by binding to a compound called sialic acid, or sialyllactose, on the cell surface. Merziotis synthesized a floating form of the acid, which dupes the virus with an alternative attachment site.

"It can be used to detect what strain of influenza is responsible for a specific infection," she said. "It can differentiate between human and avian strains. It may also be possible to interfere with the infection process by administering the floating sialyllactose through injection, nasal spray or lungs with a pump. The flu virus would attach to the artificial receptor rather than the human cell."

Sure, didn't we all know that?

The second-place price went to a team of three Grade 10 students who were able to identify genes that help plants thrive in salty soil. Third place went to a 15-year old who found a human gene variation that could help deal with bipolar disorder.

Well now that people under the age of 18 are discovering potential cures for the flu and possibly revolutionizing the treatment of serious mood disorders, let's see a show of hands of those a decade or more older who feel somewhat inadequate for expressing excitement after finally figuring out how to properly set the timer on their coffee maker.

» The Star

Cindy Crawford is a long-time supporter of the safe water bottles produced by SIGG. Now she's joined forces with SIGG and Pur to raise money for the Children's Safe Drinking Water, a program devoted to solving the problem of water-related diseases in developing countries.

Cindy has designed a special edition "Thirsty for Change" SIGG bottle, of which all proceeds will be donated to Children's Safe Drinking Water. This will provide someone in need with 450 liters of clean drinking water - or in easier to understand terms, enough clean drinking water to last one children seven-and-a-half months! That's a pretty sweet deal considering you'll also be giving yourself the gift of a safe, non-toxic (as in no bisphenol A) water bottle.

Cindy is also promoting Pur's water filtration system, which can supposedly save a consumer $600 a year because it only costs one-tenth of what bottled water does.

So to sum up: You purchase a SIGG bottle and maybe even the PUR filtration system. The money raised from the bottle purchase will supply someone in need with clean drinking water. In return, you'll not only have that warm, fuzzy feeling from doing something good for someone else, you'll also have a safe water bottle to drink from and a new filtration system to provide you with water that can compete with your precious bottled water. Except when you put it in your new bottle, you'll be preventing plastic bottles from ending up in landfills. Sounds like a pretty good deal, no?

Hit the jump to purchase the limited edition "Thirsty for Change" bottle (sorry, no supermodel included with purchase) or learn more about the Thirsty for Change initiative by clicking here.

» SIGG (Official Site)

The George Bush administration is already catching flak from critics for being too soft on their environmental policies, but now it appears they may also be allowing the American public to be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, the White House actually dictates which chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency is permitted to assess for health risks. Meaning if they don't want to know the possible risks in a chemical that very may well cause cancer, they can quash the EPA's attempt to analyze it.

The report claims that the EPA is struggling to produce timely results of the assessments of chemicals because of involvement from the White House, and now (get ready for this big shocker), Democrat senators are pretty choked and accusing the Bush administration of allowing their political agenda to interfere with the assessment process. The report findings were revealed to a Senate committee by a congressional investigator earlier today.

"By placing politics before science, the Bush administration is putting the public in harm's way," committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said at the hearing. "By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals," added Boxer. "Instead, they're protecting the chemical companies."

The EPA's risk assessment process "never was perfect," Boxer said in an interview Monday. "But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside."

Representatives from the EPA and the White House fired back, claiming third-party involvement is beneficial to the assessment process and claiming the EPA still have full control over the work they are doing.

"Only EPA has the authority to finalize an EPA assessment," Kevin Neyland, deputy administrator of the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in response to the GAO. He called the interagency process "a dialogue that helps to ensure the quality" of the reviews.

Evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Currently the Pentagon, the Energy Department, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are among the groups involved in the assessment process. If it turns out the EPA discovers certain chemicals are toxic or provide a risk to the public, those groups, as well as the chemical producers and private contractors could face the arduous task of a major clean-up, as well as restrictions on the use of the chemicals in question.

The chemicals still being assessed for carcinogen risks include naphthalene, trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (perc), formaldehyde and Royal Demolition Explose (RDX).

So when we're told not to panic about bisphenol A in plastic water bottles potentially causing cancer, we have to assume the government isn't interfering and protecting their own interests? Right, that's completely, 100 per cent reassuring. So much so, that if you weren't convinced to find alternative uses for your plastic bottles until the U.S. government finally admits they are a hazard, you may want to consider it more carefully in light of this.

» MSNBC Environment

Some Canadian retailers yanked Nalgene bottles from store shelves months ago because they are made of polycarbonate plastic, which is known to contain the potentially toxic chemical bisphenol A. Now that Health Canada is also prepared to be the first country to label bisphenol A as hazardous, it appears Nalgene recognizes a sinking ship when they see one. The company has announced they will be pulling their hard plastic bottles from store shelves in the coming months. In place of the old bottles, Nalgene will introduce new products that do not contain BPA.

The hard plastic bottles made Nalgene a household name among outdoor enthusiasts who loved how light, yet durable the bottles are. It was only recently, as studies demonstrated the occurrence of cancer and obesity in animals exposed to BPA, that plastic products containing the chemical started to receive bad press, such as Canadian retailers refusing to sell the products. Nalgene reporesentatives hopes that by eliminating the plastic bottles people will see the company is serious about their commitment to the the healthy and safety of their customers.

“By eliminating containers containing BPA from our consumer product mix, our customers can have confidence that their needs are being met,” Steven Silverman, general manager of the Nalgene business, said in a statement.

» MSNBC Health

Let's face it, depending where you live, the winter can be painfully long and dreary. The sky is usually just starting to lighten when you arrive at work and by the time you leave, it's pitch-black, or pretty darn close at the least. The lack of sunlight is attributed to many problems, most completely depression and Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), however there is so much in the news about the harmful effect the sun can have on your skin, that people are starting to develop "sun phobia," which is especially problematic now that the days are (finally!) getting longer.

The fact is, humans needs some exposure to the sun. It is an important source of vitamin D, which helps fight diseases such as cancer. Exposure to sun that contains UVB for fifteen minutes is significant enough to stimulate vitamin D synthesis. And though the exact cause of SAD is disputed, exposure to the sun (or other bright lights that mimic it) is known to boost the mood and help fight depression.

That being said, exposure to the sun needs to be controlled and safe. Tanning beds mostly have UVA and little to no UVB, which means the only thing you'll likely gain from them is premature wrinkles, or in a worst-case scenario, skin cancer. All exposure to the sun warrants protection by the way of SPF, the level of which required is determined by how long you'll spend in the sun and how sensitive your skin in. Many people end up with a nasty sunburn because they wrongly assume a high SPF level in sunscreen will protect them all day and do not re-apply. Sunscreens should always be re-applied according to bottle instructions and for any prolonged time spent in water.

So don't hide from the sun, especially now that you have long, gorgeous days to enjoy the warmth. At a minimum, 10 to 15 minutes per day is recommended to get the vitamin D benefits. Just make sure to put on that sunscreen (use a facial moisturizer in the morning that contains SPF), wear a hat and take any other necessary protection to prevent a burn.

» Scotsman.com

Jennifer Nicole Lee is a certified celebrity in fitness circles.  After having two kids, Jennifer was determined to get in shape.  She lost 70 pounds and one year later was crowned Miss Bikini America 2005.  Since then she's been featured on numerous magazine covers and has even appeared on Oprah.  Over at fitness supersite Bodybuilding.com Jennifer has posted her detailed program to get you ready for the beach this summer.

Now this isn't a fitness site, but I found her argument for eating 5-6 small meals a day pretty compelling.

How a Farmer Fattens a Pig

A farmer fattens a pig by starving it all day, not feeding it while they are forced to run around and keep moving. Then at night, the farm hands bring a huge container of "junk food" called "slop" to the pigs. They allow the pigs to eat as much as they want as long as they want. Sound familiar? We do this too! We don't eat all day, work all day long, and then sit down to a huge meal at night, eating enough for 5 people.

And no wonder we look like pigs! Farmers do this "fattening method" for 2 main reasons. Starving the pig all day long slows down the pigs metabolism. Therefore, when they are allowed to eat as much as they want, they hoard and hold onto the calories, and gain tons of weight in no time fast. Don't do this to yourself!

Remind yourself to eat every 3 hours, even if you are not hungry!

How A Small Japanese Baby Is Trained To Become A Huge Sumo Wrestler

Do you ever wonder how those tiny small cute little Japanese babies turn into 600 pound Sumo wrestlers? It's an actual science! These Sumo wrestlers undergo rigorous training and physical activities all day long, not eating until night time. Then they sit down to a huge 3 hour meal at night, falling asleep shortly after their humongous meal.

Again, does this sound somewhat similar to some of your days? Don't bloat out to be the size of a sumo wrestler! Eat to lose weight! Aim to eat every 2-3 hours!

Pigs and sumo wrestlers.  Noone wants to look like those!  Hit the jump to check out Jennifer's full article at Bodybuilding.com.

» Bodybuilding.com

It appears it's only a matter of time until Health Canada announces that bisphenol A is officially classified as a toxic and potentially dangerous chemical and Canadian retailers are already taking action. Several companies responded to the claim and have decided to yank products containing the chemical - commonly used in polycarbonate plastic  -from store shelves.

Sporting goods retailer Forzani Group Ltd., has said it will replace all water bottles containing BPA with non-toxic alternatives. Canadian Tire, Mark's Work Wearhouse and PartSource locations will also remove plastic water bottles, as well as food storage containers that have BPA. The Bay and Zellers - both of them owned by the Hudson's Bay Co. - will follow suit and offer customers refunds on products they have purchased that will no longer be sold due to their bisphenol A content. 

Yesterday the Globe and Mail reported that an announcement from Health Canada regarding the risk of bisphenol A was imminent, and would allow use of the chemical to be restricted. No other country has yet taken such extreme measures regarding the use of BPA in products that are used for food and beverages. In fact, the U.S. is only in the preliminary stages of evaluating the effects of the chemical.

Independent studies have linked BPA to the premature onset of puberty in girls, as well as to breast cancer, obesity and infertility. Though some countries seem wary of jumping on the bandwagon just yet, one has to wonder where the reluctance is coming from. Animal and test-tube experiments have linked low exposure to the chemical to illnesses including cancer. Research funded by the industry have not had the same findings, though often times animals were exposed to the chemical through injections, which is not believed to yield valid results since most humans come in contact with it orally.

Unfortunately while other countries drag their heels, more and more people are consistently exposed to chemical, which in all likelihood, will eventually prove to be detrimental to the health of humans. So please, by all means take your time. In the meantime, consumers will just have to fend for themselves and make a decision about BPA for themselves since intervention in other parts of the world doesn't appear to be on the horizon anytime soon.

» Globe and Mail

Graham Giles and other research nerds at the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne have spent the last few years checking men's prostates and measuring how much they masturbate and the strength of their ejaculations.  (Ew!  How do you measure that?  with an ejac-u-ometer perhaps?)  I know these guys are doing serious work but c'mon...

Anyways, the results of all their rectum-probing and penis-monitoring is that men who stroke the dolphin frequently have lower cancer rates than those who don't.  Men who managed to paddle their pickle at least five times a week were 1/3rd less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.

Here's what Anthony Smith, the deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe Univeristy had to say:

"If these findings hold up, then it's perfectly reasonable that men should be encouraged to masturbate."

I question their findings.  They say that having actual sex with another person is actually bad because of the possibility of catching an STD.  (Um, ever heard of condoms?)  I just think that the only college freshmen they could find for their study were the science nerds who spend all their free time engaged in one man tug-o-war.  All the cool Univserity students were probably too busy chugging Fosters and getting laid to participate.

I guess if nothing else this study gives you an excuse if you're ever caught doodling your noodle you can just say you're engaging in physical therapy to prevent prostate cancer.  Hit the jump so you can print out the article to prove you're not lying.

» BBC News