“Organic ≠ Pesticide-free”

“Organic” doesn’t mean pesticide-free! Organic farmers are allowed to use commercially manufactured pesticides that are obtained from the natural sources that are not synthetically produced.

Natural does not mean safe. Snake venom is toxic and poison ivy is dangerous. Similarly, organic pesticides are not necessarily safe.

While synthetic chemical pesticides have been studied and regulated to safeguard human health, the negative impacts of naturally occurring chemicals in organic pesticides have been hardly examined. Natural chemicals are known to be carcinogen to rodents. Some organic pesticides have shown adverse effects. Here are some examples:

Copper sulfate has shown to cause liver damage in exposed vineyard workers in excess and kills earthworms since it remains in soil. Rotenone, derived from seeds and stems of plants such as the jicama, is suspected to induce Parkinson’s disease. Natural pyrethroids are chemicals component of many insecticides. They have similar adverse effects on human health as their synthetic counterparts. Yet, as these “natural” chemicals are not created to target a specific organism, they are often used at a higher dose.

Does organic also mean safer? The general perception that natural organic pesticides work with nature and are environmentally friendly is  not based on science. We  don’t look at the organic pesticides in the same way as they look at conventional pesticides. We don’t know how long organic pesticides persist in the environment or the full extent of their effects on our health.  And since these natural ingredients are not scrutinized or regulated, we certainly don’t know which is more harmful. The use of organic pesticides over synthetic ones may not reduce health or environmental risks.

I am not discouraging anyone from buying organic produce. It’s up to an individual to decide what to eat, be aware of that it may not be “organic” pesticide-free.

P.S. Besides organic pesticides, synthetic substances are allowed in organic crop production, provided that such substances don’t contaminate of crops, soil, or water. Some of them include;

Alcohols (ethanol, isopropanol) are used for disinfection, chlorine compounds (calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite) are allowed for preharvest use as long as they do not exceed threshold level under the Safe Drinking Water Act, copper sulfate, hydrogen peroxide, ozone gas, peracetic acid; cleaning only, sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, ammonium carbonate; as insect traps only, potassium silicate, boric acid, pheromones. vitamin D3, ferric phosphate, eracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria, potassium bicarbonate, streptomycin and tetracycline; until October 21, 2014, humic acids, lignin sulfonate, magnesium sulfate, micronutrients (soluble boron products, sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt), vitamins, B1 , C, and E, sulfurous acid, ethylene gas.

The proposition 37 is a “mandatory” labeling of genetically engineered food initiative put on 2012 ballot in California that:

• Requires labeling of food made from plants or animals with genetic material manipulated in specified ways.
• Prohibits labeling such food as “natural.”
• Exempts certain foods that are certified organic; animals fed with genetically modified organism (GMO) feed, contain small amounts of GMO ingredient; restaurant food, and alcoholic beverages.

I do not support the proposition to label all food for the following reasons:

• Scientific evidence. There is no credible scientific evidence that genetically engineered foods are harmful to health or have higher adverse effect on environment. If there was any, I will be in first to oppose GMOs.(All types of food were genetically modified at some time through traditional methods). National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization believe that GMO foods don’t poses risks to human health.
• Flawed labeling. Organically produced foods are voluntarily labeled “organic”, instead of requiring “non-organic” labeling on all other foods. So, why not label GMO-free food as “non-GMO” for those who want to know the GMO status of their food? Requiring “mandatory” warning-type labeling of every food about their GMO status is flawed.
• Limited resources. The additional cost for labeling GMO status of the food will come from somewhere, most likely other critical area of food security.

Voices heard on proposition 37 campaign ads are sharply divided according to commercial interests. Here are some of the biggest donors on the issue of labeling; 

I can’t vote on the proposition 37. Those who will, please weigh in carefully before your vote. Don’t give in to loudest announcements of fear. Listen to the reasonable perspectives of experts – not activists or lobbyists. Outcome of proposition 37 will affect how we’ll eat, probably more than the upcoming presidential election.

Without going into any political or philosophical discussions, let’s explore a simple question, why McDonald’s burgers simply don’t  taste good?

The taste of burgers depend on couple of things, which are;

Quality of meat
McDonald’s uses corn-fed American beef  with a small percentage of grass-fed imported beef from Australia and New Zealand. [1] Burgers are made of 100% beef that are normal, mass produced, mass distributed, and mass consumed. Everyone else use the same beef. Don’t expect to get any different meat unless in a very high-end restaurants or boutique ones.

Cooking method
McDonald’s uses a state-of-art double sided electric griddle, where burger is pressed between two heated metal plates for a defined period of time. Burgers are never flipped and cooked from the top and the bottom at same time reducing total cook time. This  foolproof cook sequence ensures burger is cooked samer every time without any culinary skills. The state of art grill needs a single push of the button to cook and sets the right gap and cook cycle for A.M. (sausage) and P.M. (burger) menus automatically. [2]

Skill of cook
The main reason restaurant burger taste better is because of skill of the cook, who can grill your burger according to your demand; medium rare, is that what you want? However, use of sophisticated timed grill somewhat compensate for the skill of the cook as long as the cook follows the direction.

Serving burger
This is where McDonald’s fails. McDonald’s stores its burger warming trays. Burgers are kept in innovative universal holding cabinet hard anodized heating surface. [3] In my view, keeping burger in these  heat compartment long will result in slowly evaporating out of hot meat, leaving it dry. McDonald’s try to counterattack this dryness with a coat of thick mayo but all it does is coat the meat without providing any moisture to the burger meat. Five Guys cook their burgers to-order, it takes a few extra minutes, but result in juicy burgers.

In McDonald’s, burgers are grilled in batches, assembled, and stored in the warming trays. During rush, burger may sell soon, but at slower times, they will sit there until sold .To maintain quality, there is a limit (30-minute limit) on how long they can stay in warming tray. But do an average worker care if burgers get out after 2 minutes or after 29th minute?

This is a systematic failure on McDonald’s part, if they can cook their fries just few minutes before serving, why can’t they do with burger? It is estimated that due to their innovative double-sided grill, the total time to make McDonald’s burger, from the freezer to a customer, is about one and half minutes. Perhaps warming cabinet suits for dollar menu item, but we sure can wait a minute and half for better burger, especially those made with angus beef.

Source:
[1] Mcdonald’s Meats
[2] Garland 3 platen electric clamshell grill
[3] Frymaster universal holding cabinet uhc-hd 

Images: Pharaoh Ptolemy by M. Licht, burger by B.Villegas, and other from promotional material of respected company.

Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives is a scientific literature review recently published by respected Annals of Internal Medicine. Organic generally means food produced without synthetic chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones.

This review has caused tumultuous stir in both pro and anti organic camps.  Here’s my attempt to bring “neutral” summary of what the review really says.

Does shape of glass effect how fast you drink beer?

“Glass shape influences consumption rate for alcoholic beverages” reports a research.

Does shape of beer glass matter?
People drink beer 60% slower from a straight glass in contrast to a curved glass (convex).  Interestingly, people were slower drinking full glass but not a half-full glass of beer. This effect was also not seen for a non-alcoholic drink.

The Beer Experiment
For experiment, volunteers drank either Biere de France (4% alc.) from Brasserie de Saint-Omer brewery or 7-Up chilled at a same temperature. They drank while watching BBC documentary Earth: The Journey of a Lifetime to avoid any difference in drinking rate due to external factors.  Don’t we all drink faster during a boring conversation?

Why does shape of glass matter?
This is a first study to show that subtle factors such as shape of glass directly influence drinking behavior. Researchers believe the difference is perhaps due to the fact that people pace their drinks, especially alcoholic beverages. The curved nature of glass skews people judgment on how much of drink has been consumed up to the mid-point. However, more research is needed.

So my question is will you drink your beer from a curved or as straight glass?