About Organics
A large part of the Organic and Cosmetic Markets over the past few years has been rapidly evolving. Not due to any significant marketing, celebrity endorsed ad campaign or technological breakthrough – It’s due to consumers on a global scale standing up and simply asking more questions!!
Even 10 years ago, people understood and related to a brand of skincare or everyday toiletries which their family may have used for many years. People were geared to know and commit to a particular purchase, even before they walked into a Pharmacy or supermarket. The overwhelming majority of people did, and have, neglected to read the labels and therefore could not fully appreciate or recognize….what they were putting on their skin!
The old saying “You are what you eat” is more relevant every day- with greater access to food. Most of it being of low nutritional value and while it’s a quick fix- customers tend to loose out in the long term.
This exact cycle applies to our Skin Care products!
If you were offered to eat or rub Propylene Glycol, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Diethanolamine, or Isopropyl myristate on your Skin- You would inevitably refuse. And with very good reason- They are not good for you!!! Yet, these are some of the most commonly found ingredients in all the major skincare products.
Why do they use them? When producing such a tremendous volume of product to ship from a central factory- a very high standard of ease and consistency is required to ensure production is continua’s. Using Highly chemical based ingredients stabilizes the process and reduces costs….Your Skin quality is not the Number One priority Here, as ultimately, these Chemicals is what is absorbed through your skin!
We are commonly asked by customers and people in general why consumers fall into the trap of desirable marketing (catchy slogans, glossy ad’s and Rock star endorsements), when we experience such great results from natural and simple approaches to skin care-
We commonly reply:
‘We are ultimately very lucky to live in such a beautiful country – surrounded by such healthy and ‘end-product’ conscious farmers, growers, suppliers and Manufactures of many goods such a Honey, Coconut, Fruit and Other Raw Materials – These Materials are the foundations of Premium and Super High Quality Skin Care. This is due to the quality of Key ingredients, Manufacturing and bottling process and Avoidance of Pesticides, Preservatives, Perfumes and Artificial Flavors. Take note;
When you travel through some of the South Pacific nations you will notice an avoidance and absence of the very large commercially driven Skin Care companies-
Very quickly you will also notice the wonderfully glowing healthy skin of the peoples, both young and old!
They have relied on tried and tested methods for generations- using exactly what the Major Skincare brands do not: A mixture of Quality Natural and Organic Materials, which are non-synthetic, non-processed and ‘consistency of quality’ is ensured from grower to customer!
They, like other consumers, would not know what an “amino-peptide maximum French volumisation formula” was- nor would they care to know, it would be seen as a ridiculous spin to drive sales and coax experimentation. Again, starting a long process of trial and trial again with the many chemical formulations!
Why Organic
It is commonly stated Organic and Natural Ingredients are more effective than the petroleum derivatives, chemical bases (E.g. propylene glycol, mineral oil) and synthetic fillers found in conventional skin care. It is stated that ‘Natural ingredients tie-in with your skin’s makeup and overall condition to enhance your body’s natural healing, skin strength and regenerative abilities’. Look at some recent data over the past few years relating to Organic Produce;
A scientific study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition in 1993 clearly showed that organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. Organically and conventionally grown apples, potatoes, pears, wheat, and sweet corn were purchased in the western suburbs of Chicago, over two years, and analysed for mineral content. The organically grown food averaged 63% higher in calcium, 73% higher in iron, 118% higher in magnesium, 178% higher in molybdenum, 91% higher in phosphorus, 125% higher in potassium and 60% higher in zinc. The organic food averaged 29% lower in mercury than the conventionally raised food.
Research published in 2001 showed that conventionally grown fruit and vegetables in the USA have about half the vitamin content of their counterparts in 1963. This study was based on comparing published US Department of Agriculture figures.
A study by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Research and the University of Newcastle's showed that cows raised on an organic diet produce milk with 50% more Vitamin E and 75% more beta carotene than conventionally farmed cows. The organic milk has two to three times more zeaxanthine and lutein, which are powerful antioxidants. Higher levels of omega 3 essential fatty acids, that provide protection from heart and other diseases, are also found in organic milk.
A recently published review of scientific research by Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. reveals that on average organic foods contain about one-third higher in antioxidants than comparable conventional produce. These phyto-nutrients have been shown to have major roles in preventing and reversing diseases such as heart disease and arterial diseases. They are important for preventing and reducing inflammatory and auto-immune diseases such as asthma and arthritis. Most significantly they are shown to have anti cancer and other protective properties for our health and well being.
A scientific article published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry stated that organically grown corn, strawberries and marionberries have significantly higher levels of cancer fighting antioxidants than conventionally grown foods.
Two comprehensive studies have been published that compared the differences between organic and conventional foods. Both studies analyzed around 40 previously published studies, each independently of the other. One study was conducted in the UK by nutritionist Shane Heaton and the other in the USA by Virginia Worthington as a peer reviewed university graduate thesis. Both studies came up with similar conclusions showing that there is overwhelming evidence that organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. Heaton stated: ‘On average our research found higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and higher phytonutrients – plant compounds which can be effective against cancer.’
Organic Foods do Taste Better
Many studies have found levels of specific vitamins, flavonoids or antioxidants in organic foods to be higher than the levels found in matched samples of conventional foods.
Many of the antioxidants are poly-phenols, flavonoids and other volatile compounds. They are compounds that are responsible for a high proportion of the flavours in the foods we eat. The greater the amount of these protective compounds, the greater the flavor.
Pathogens
It is a requirement of organic certification systems that animal manures are composted, or that two non-food rotations are grown on a heavy manure site before it can be used for crops. A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report concluded that the superior management practices of organic agriculture reduce E. coli and mycotoxin infections in food.
Food Additives
The use of antibiotics, anti-microbials, hormones and other growth promotants are prohibited in organic production. Where animals are treated with veterinary chemicals, they are not allowed to be sold as organic. Similarly the use of synthetic chemicals as preservatives, colourings, antioxidants etc are prohibited in the processing of organic foods. There is an increasing body of concern about these synthetic compounds in the diets of humans and animals used for human food.
Research the University of Hawaii has found that people who consume processed meats have a 6,700% increased risk of pancreatic cancer over those who consume little or no processed meat products. The researchers concluded that sodium nitrite, a chemical used in nearly all non organic processed meats was the cause of alarming cancer rates.
Chemical Residues
Many studies show that most conventionally farmed foods have pesticide and other chemical residues. Repeated tests show that many of these foods can carry a cocktail of synthetic poisons.
Studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found a cocktail of many toxic chemicals in the blood and urine of most Americans that they tested. Studies show that most living organisms carry a cocktail of synthetic man made chemicals.
A growing body of science is showing that exposures to cocktails of minute amounts of synthetic chemicals have a range of adverse health effects. A recently published study shows that as little a one tenth of a part per billion of a common herbicide can damage reproductive systems.
Peer reviewed published research has demonstrated that many of these types of chemicals are known to disrupt the hormone, nervous and immune systems. The escalating increase of certain types of cancers such as lymphoma, leukemia, breast, uterine and prostate cancers are linked to agricultural and other synthetic chemicals. Similarly, a good body of scientific research also links these chemicals to the dramatic increases in autoimmune diseases such as asthma and chronic fatigue syndrome. Cancers such as Non Hodgkin’s lymphoma have gone from being one of the rarest cancers to one of the fastest growing cancers amongst people exposed to agricultural chemicals.
Reduced Exposure to Residues
A detailed scientific analysis of organic fruits and vegetables in the USA, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Additives and Contaminants, showed that organic foods have significantly less pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods.
A similar study in Australia by Ruth McGowan for the Victorian Department of Primary Industries conducted 14000 tests on 300 hundred samples of certified organic produce. The study concluded that: “The results demonstrate that Victorian organic produce is virtually ‘chemical free’.”
Both of these studies showed that vast majority of organic foods have no residues. Where residues were found these were due to the widespread contamination caused by several pesticides used in conventional farming. Even then, these residues were substantially lower in organic foods than in conventionally produced food.
Most importantly scientific studies are beginning to show that that eating organic food results in lower levels of these pervasive chemicals in humans.
A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that children who eat organic foods have lower levels of pesticides in their bodies. The University of Washington researchers who conducted the study concluded ‘The dose estimates suggest that consumption of organic fruits, vegetables, and juice can reduce children's exposure levels from above to below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines, thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk. Consumption of organic produce appears to provide a relatively simple way for parents to reduce their children's exposure...’
Conclusion
The United Nations FAO states the case very succinctly. ‘It has been demonstrated that organically produced foods have lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues and, in many cases, lower nitrate contents. Animal feeding practices followed in organic livestock production, also lead to a reduction in contamination of food products of animal origin.’
The facts show that organic foods have significant health benefits because of higher nutritional values. They excel in the antioxidants that prevent heart disease, cancers, anti-inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.
References:
Baker B, Benbrook C.M, Groth III E, and Lutz Benbrook. K. (2002), Pesticide residues in conventional, IPM-grown and organic foods: Insights from three U.S. data sets, Published in: Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 19, No. 5, May 2002, pages 427-446.
Benbrook C.M. (2005) Second State of Science Review (SSR), Organic Centre, USA www.organic-center.org/stateofscience.htm
Buznikov G A, et al (2001), An Invertebrate Model of the Developmental Neurotoxicity of Insecticides: Effects of Chlorpyrifos and Dieldrin in Sea Urchin Embryos and Larvae, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number 7, July 2001.
Cabello G, et al (2001), A Rat Mammary Tumor Model Induced by the Organophosphorous Pesticides Parathion and Malathion, Possibly through Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number 5, May 2001
Charizopoulos E. and Papadopoulou-Mourkidou E. (1999), "Occurrence of Pesticides in Rain of the Axios River Basin, Greece," ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY [ES&T] Vol. 33, No. 14 (July 15, 1999), pgs. 2363-2368.
Colborn T., Dumanoski D. and Myers J. P., (1996) Our Stolen Future, www.OurStolenFuture.org, March 1996
Curl, C. L, Fenske F.A, Elgethun K, Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure of Urban and Suburban Preschool Children with Organic and Conventional Diets, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number 3, March 2003
Faloon W. (2001) Vegetables Without Vitamins, Life Extension Magazine, Florida March 2001
FAO (2000) Twenty Second FAO Regional Conference for Europe, Porto, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000 Agenda Item 10.1, FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY AS AFFECTED BY ORGANIC FARMING
Garry V F, et al, (2001), Biomarker Correlations of Urinary 2,4-D Levels in Foresters: Genomic Instability and Endocrine Disruption, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number 5, May 2001.
Hardell L. and Eriksson M. (1999), "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and exposure to Pesticides," CANCER Vol.85, No. 6 (March 15, 1999), pgs. 1353-1360.
Harras A.et al, editors, (1996), CANCER RATES AND RISKS 4TH EDITION, NIH Publication No. 96-691, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 1996, pg.17.
Hayes, T.B., et al. (2002). "Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 99:5476-5480, April 16, 2002,
Hayes, T.B., et al. (2003), Atrazine-Induced Hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens): Laboratory and Field Evidence Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number 4, April 2003
Heaton, S (2001), Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health, Soil Association, Bristol House, 40-56 Victoria Street, Bristol, BS1 6BY, United Kingdom
Journal of Applied Nutrition (1993); 45:35-39. Organic Food is More Nutritious Than Conventional Food
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, (2003) February 2003
McGowan Ruth, (2003),“Government test prove…”: Results of Victorian Government chemical residue survey substantiates ‘clean’ claims for organic produce. Published in the proceedings of the Organic Futures for Australia, 2nd National Organic Conference, Adelaide 2-3 2003. Organic Federation of Australia 2003.
Nordstrom M. et al, (1998), "Occupational exposures, animal exposure, and smoking as risk factors for hairy cell leukaemia evaluated in a case-control study," BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER Vol. 77 (1998), pgs. 2048-2052.
Paterson, J (2002) European Journal of Nutrition (vol. 40, p 289)
Pearce F. and Mackenzie D, (1999), "It's raining pesticides; The water falling from our skies is unfit to drink," NEW SCIENTIST April 3, 1999, pg. 23.
Porter W, et al. (1999), "Endocrine, immune and behavioral effects of aldicarb (carbamate), atrazine (triazine) and nitrate (fertilizer) mixtures at groundwater concentrations," Toxicology and Industrial Health (1999) 15, 133-150.
Short K. (1994), Quick Poison, Slow Poison, 1994, ISBN 0 85881 127 8
Steingraber S (1997), LIVING DOWNSTREAM; AN ECOLOGIST LOOKS AT CANCER AND THE ENVIRONMENT, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Worthington, V (2001) ‘Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional
Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains’ THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Volume 7, Number 2, 2001, pp. 161–173