One Reason Why Organic Foods Are More Nutritious

For years, dietitians, pesticide makers, junk food companies, and Big Agriculture have argued that organic foods are a waste of money. They often point to the enormous crop yields – i.e., supposed superiority – of conventional corporate farming.

Organic farming is based on sustainable agricultural methods, in which soil nutrients are replenished with natural fertilizers and chemical pesticides are avoided.

A few small studies have strongly suggested that organic foods have higher levels of many nutrients. Several years ago, researchers found that plants increased their production of antioxidants to protect against weather and insect stresses. Pesticides obviate the need for these natural defenses, resulting in lower antioxidant levels.

New research points to a fundamental flaw in high-volume farming. Biochemist Donald R. Davis, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, and his colleagues analyzed levels of 13 nutrients in 43 food crops between 1950 and 1999. They used U.S. Department of Agriculture data for their comparison.

Although overall crop yields increased many times during this time, levels of six nutrients decreased. For example, protein declined by 6 percent, and vitamin B2 went down by 38 percent. Calcium, phosphorus, iron, and vitamin C also had substantial declines.

After further investigation, Davis and his colleagues attributed the decrease in nutrient levels to a “dilution effect.” Although plant yields per acre increased, the root systems of plants were not able to improve their assimilation of nitrogen and minerals, which are needed to make protein and vitamins. In other words, growing more plants per acre is equivalent to having more mouths for the soil to feed. That means smaller portions of nutrients per plant.

The lesson? You can’t fool Mother Nature.

A Sea of Pills — Natural and Unnatural

Too often, health magazines and alternative medical journals read a little too much like conventional medical journals. The parallel is odd, even uncomfortable.

Most medical journals publish drug ads for a variety of ills, along with articles describing the benefits of various drugs. The ads are doctor-oriented versions of the commercials you frequently see on television – ads to help you sleep better, have less heartburn, lower cholesterol, improve your mood, be less shy, and have better erections.

The pitch is not just for the seriously ill. The underlying message is often based on arousing your fear of disease, discomfort, or, as the case may be, a soft penis. Take a lot of pills and all your problems will disappear, assuming that the side effects don't produce new problems.

Health magazines and alternative medical journals often follow a similar tack. An ad in a recent consumer health magazine pitched products for blood sugar, eye health, sports injuries, hormone replacement, bone health, immunity, and prostate health – on a single page!

Articles in some of the alternative medical journals aren't much better. They commonly include long lists of vitamins, minerals, and herbs – a natural polypharmacy for preventing and reversing the same health problems described in conventional journals.

Granted, I think there's research behind these supplements, and they're safer than drugs. But when both conventional and alternative recommendations point only to pills, something is seriously wrong.

We live in a pill-oriented society. We've been bred to believe that a pill, whether natural or synthetic, is the solution for our health problems. It's easy to forget that the foods we eat – wholesome versus junk – is of fundamental importance. After all, a dinner of fish and veggies provides a diversity of nutrients not found in any supplement. Similarly, physical activity and stress reduction foster good physical and mental health.

I'm a firm believer in the health benefits of nutritional supplements. The scientific evidence behind their use is sound. But let's be careful to not use supplements only as a natural way of mimicking drugs. Fostering good health demands that we eat, not just swallow.

Does Cholesterol Matter? Apparently Only If You're On a Cholesterol-Lowering Drug

The makers of Zetia and Vytorin (which combines Zetia and Zocor) recently announced that their aggressively advertised cholesterol-lowering drugs failed to slow the development of fatty plaque in arteries. In fact, the drugs actually promote the formation of plaque in arteries, which fuels heart disease and increases the risk of a heart attack. The announcement – in a news release, not a medical journal – came after long delays in reporting the findings of their study.

Why the delays? Follow the money. Sales of the two drugs added up to $5 billion in revenues in 2007.

The news release was the first of several fascinating and bizarre reports on Zetia and Vytorin. Even though the drugs don’t prevent heart disease, the American Heart Association quickly issued an official news release in defense of the drugs.

If you’re confused by that, just follow the money trail again. According to an article in the New York Times, the American Heart Association gets $2 million a year from Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical group that markets Vytorin.

The failure of this and other recent cholesterol-lowering drug trials has renewed a long-simmering debate about the role of cholesterol in heart disease. Cholesterol is a symptom -- get that, a symptom -- not a cause of heart disease, and Vytorin and other drugs merely alter a symptom. In fact, cholesterol has long been known as only a weak indicator of heart disease risk (American Journal of Epidemiology, 1977;105:281-9). Half of the people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels.

What then causes heart disease? The answer is a variety of factors, most of which are no-brainers, such as prediabetes and overweight, which result from excess intake of refined sugars, processed sugar-like carbohyrates, and trans fats. This dietary pattern elevates blood sugar, insulin – and, yes, cholesterol. Even the oft-recommended high-carb diet for preventing heart disease raises cholesterol and triglyceride levels. That's because, in most people, elevated cholesterol and triglyceride levels reflect sugar and carb intake, not fats.

If all this isn’t strange enough, consider one more recent report. The average cholesterol level of Americans is now lower than it was back in 1960 because of all the cholesterol-lowering drugs that have been prescribed. At the same time, two-thirds of Americans are now overweight –- the number one risk factor for diabetes and heart disease. In effect, Rome is burning while medicine fiddles with cholesterol.