Learning Biology

You find your self in the produce isle, again asking the same question as always. Is organic really better for you and your family? Maybe I can help!
Most people’s fight about organic vs. conventional is the pesticides, and other harmful chemicals. Also the residue left behind from these pesticides witch people want to limit their exposure to.
The truth is yes; there are chemicals, pesticides and residue on conventional food. That’s not rocket science! But what people don’t know is that yes, organic is said to be better for the environment, but there is no scientific proven evidence. However it is true that organic farms use natural pesticides that are proven to be harmful/toxic to wildlife. There fertilizers also contain bacteria witch can also be harmful to us humans.  But yes they do have less chemically altered ingredients going into the food.
http://www.cnn/2007/HEALTHdiet.Fitnes/04/13/cl.organics/index.htm
http://cnn,health.printhis.clickbility.com/pt/cpt?.action=cpt&tit
Also people wonder about the nutrition of the product, once again there is no evidence to back that organic food has more nutrition then convention, and as fare as freshness, that depends on the fact, were is it grown and shipped from.
It was also proven that organic spoils faster, simply because it was not treated with the preservedives. The perservideves and pesticides have no affects on your heath ether.
The only difference you really to worry bout is your wallet, simply because of the fact you will pay more for organic if that’s what you chose. Organic cost more because it makes more work for the farmers to produce, and the taste is completely up to you.
Me personally why make more work for the farmers, and if there’s no risk to my heath why should I pay the extra cash? But the chose is clearly yours.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/print/organic-food/Nuoo255/ME
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/organic-farms-produce

Becca Miles

A pesticide is a substance or mixture of substances used to kill pests. For example, they are used to kill mosquitoes that can transmit potentially deadly diseases like west Nile virus. Pests include insects, plant pathogens, weeds, molluscs, birds, mammals, fish, nematodes, and microbes that compete with humans for food and destroy property. With pesticides there are good qualities and bad qualities and I am going to share these with you.
When using pesticides some good qualities they bring are that pesticides kill herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, avicides, harmful food parasites, and rodenticides that can harm a human’s health. Pesticides can prevent sickness in humans that could be caused by moldy food or diseased produce. Pesticides are used in grocery stores and food storage facilities to manage rodents and insects that infest food such as grain.
Pesticides can present danger to consumers, bystanders, or workers during manufacture, transport, or during and after use. The World Health Organization estimated that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of them die. Licensed pesticide applicators that used chlorinated pesticides on more than 100 days in their lifetime were at greater risk of diabetes. Also, another problem is that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides because their bodies are immature and rapidly growing and their immune system is incapable of handling the toxicity.
In my opinion I believe that pesticides are an important thing to have in our world, although they can be harmful to us, they also take away a good amount of the harm that we could in counter without pesticides. If we did not have pesticides in our world then we could be getting sick from the diseased and moldy bacteria that would be on the fruit and vegetables we eat today.
In conclusion, there are good and bad qualities that deal with pesticides but without them we would be in so much more danger than we are with them. So if you are against pesticides being used in our society, maybe think again, do some more research and realize that pesticides aren’t that bad.

Anthony Pascuzzo

Pd.5

Issues with our Food

A pesticides, is a substance(s) used to kill pests from destroying crops. A pesticide may be a virus or bacteria used as a disinfectant used to exterminate pests. Some pests that you may encounter are insects, birds, and mammals but you know that there is a catch.
The good thing about using pesticides is that you don’t have to worry about pests destroying your crops. Another reason is that if you follow laws of using pesticides there is on harm that can be done to the human body.  The last reason is that you may kill off harmful pests that harmful to the human body.
Here is the catch; the pesticides may be harmful to you and animals. Also pesticides may take away some of the nutrition out of the food. Some people may have an allergic reaction to some of the pesticides.  Another reason pesticides may be bad is that they could not be completely clean and you might get poisoned from them.
My opinion on pesticides is that they should be used because even if they aren’t clean you can clean them at home. Another reason is that if you don’t use pesticides, the pests may destroy your crops. Therefore I think that pesticides should be used for the safety of our crops.

<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide<ref>

<ref>http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/<ref>

Additives that inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds in foods are known as perservatives. Salt an example of an additive has been used for years to lower the water activity of meats and foods that inhibit the growth of bacterial growth. Adding acids like vinegar lowers the pH levels in food which also helps lower bacterial growth. Additives are used maintain nutritional value, control pH, enhance flavor, and provide color. Some foods additives are antimicrobial agents, antioxidents, artifical colors, artifical flavors, bleaching agents, nutrient additives, and thickening agents. The FDA has to approve all additives before they can use them in foods.

http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/A-Ap/Additives-and-Preservatives.html

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/foodaddi.html

Additives can be good but they also can be harmful. Additives like sodium nitrate used in hot dogs and luncheon meats contains small amounts of cancer causing chemicals called nitrosamines during cooking. Tests have been done that show that some additives can cause cancer like six artificial food colorings that include blues #1, #2, and #3, green #3, red #3, and yellow #6. Two artificial sweeteners saccharine and acesulfame K, or acesulfame potassium, and potassium bromate in white flour products. Monosodium glutamate (MSG) can cause headaches, nausea, and difficulty breathing for people. Artificial coloring which is another additives has been shown to cause children to become more hyperactive and can worsen asthma. Aspartame an artifical sweetener has been reported that it has cause seizures, headaches, nausea, and mood disturbances.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1671688,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/22/health/webmd/main4682996.shtml

Additives can be good in some foods but not all additives are safe. I think that additives should be tested more thoroughly before they are put into the foods we eat. Food additves might help how our food tastes or looks but certain additives are being added like sodium nitrate that can cause cancer. When studies show that these additives are causing side effects as serious as cancer, worsening asthma, seizures, head aches, nausea, and others then they need to stop putting them in foods and find the problem with the additive. Additives are causing people’s health to get worse. Some additives may be safe but for the additives that aren’t safe they should be tested or even stop being used in foods. I think additives are bad because they cause health problems that can not be fixed.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Natural-Health/2008-04-01/Food-Additives-Hyperactivity-ADHD.aspx

http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/101/food-safety/are-additives-bad-for-you.aspx

Chelsea Shaffer pd1
What are hormones? Hormones are naturally occuring chemicals that are produced in the bodies of all animals, and humans. They are chemical messages released into the blood by hormone-producing organs that travel to and affect different parts of the body. They control important body functions such as growth, development and reproduction. Hormones can be steroids or proteins. Steroid hormones are active in the body when eating. For example, birth control pills are steroid hormones. On the other hand, protein hormones are broken down in the stomach, then lose their ability to act in the body when eaten. Therefore, protein hormones need to be injected into the body to have an effect. For example, insulin is a protein hormone. Diabetics need to be injected with insulin. Now when hormones are used in food there are some pros to the issue <ref>http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm<ref/> they can make small young animals gain weight faster, and help reduce the waiting time and the amount of feed eaten by an animal before slaughter in meat industries. Hormones that include three which are naturally occurring—Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone—and three which are synthetic—Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol. Hormones can be used in dairy cows to increase milk production. Hormones can can then increase the profits made by the meat and dairy industries. <ref>http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/<ref/> On the other hand the cons of the hormone enhanced animals and what we don’t realize is what these hormones do to us. There is a concern that because of increased milking in cows, hormone-treated cows may become more prone to infection of the udders. This could lead to more antibiotics being used to treat the cows, in turn leading to more of antibiotics to remain in the milk. Over a long period of time the bacteria in your stomach that help with digestion are exsposed to the antibiotics and become immune to it. Which will cause the bactiria to not react when you take antibiotics when you are sick and will make you get healthy slower. Yet another concern is the cows manure. The hormones are also passed through the cow when it excretes its wastes, then the farms will use the manure to fertilize the fileds of their crops, then the cosumer gets even more of the growth hormones from eatting the crops that are grown with hormone contaminated manure. Children, pregnant women and the unborn are thought to be most at risk to the negative health effects. Hormone residues in beef have been the cause of early puberty in girls, which could put them at greater risk of developing breast and other forms of cancer.

In conclusion I belive that hormones should not be givin to animals, the only people that the hormones give an advantage to are the farmers because they make the animals grow bigger quicker, and get to the slaughter house faster so they eat less food so the farmer can spend less money. In the long run all it does for us is put us at risk for major health problems like breast cancer, and immunity in our bodies to antibiotics and make us more prone to infecctions. So as you can see growth hormones should not be used in animals for it can harm people over a long period of ingesting them. A few ways to avoid eatting to many of these growth hormones are to eat a varied diet rich in fruits, grains and vegatables, eat meats in moderation well cooked, and eat more lean muscle meat rather than fat.

Other site references
<ref>http://www.fda.gov/cvm/hormones.htm<ref/>
<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006111300824<ref/>

Shannon Carpenter   pd. 3

Biology: Issues in Food- Growth Hormones

Do you really know what’s in your food?  Think again.

   Did you know that in 2005, over 32.5 million cattle were butchered to provide beef for the U.S. and that about two thirds of that number were injected with growth hormones to speed up they’re growth rate?  It has been an issue for quite some time now on debating whether or not growth hormones are an advantage in beef and milk production or a huge failure to keep our food safe and overall the consumers who purchase this hormone-exosed food safe.

   I believe that using growth hormones in the production of beef and milk is not worth all of the risks that come attached to it.  Studies show that the exposure to growth hormones in beef could put Americans at risk for infertility and/or women who eat beef regularly are more likely to have boys who grow up to have lower-than-normal sperm counts.  Not only are humans affected, but the animals treated with these hormones are prone to tremendous stress which could cause the cow to loose weight, become infertile, and be infected by a disease more easily.  When a cow gets a disease such as mastitis, the farmer must give the cow antibiotics to help treat it which results in antibiotic residues in milk.  This suggests the idea, that humans can develop health problems from drinking that milk as well as an antibiotic resistance amongst bacteria in the person’s body.  Hormone residues in cow manure can also be a disadvantage in the production of milk and beef.  Apart from the cow manure changing the reproductive capacity and gender of fish, there are also scares of the hormones finding their way back into our foods.

   Although I believe growth hormones mostly cause bad effects on us, animals, and our ecosystem, there are a few beneficial reasons why we use growth hormones.  Milk and beef producers usually inject their cattle with hormones such as rBGH (Posilac) because they help improve the quality of the meat by decreasing the fat content and increasing the creation of lean meat.  Growth hormones can also increase feed efficiency in cows which therefore allows more growth in an animal with less feed.  Last but not least, these hormones reduce the prices for consumers and producers.

   In conclusion, I believe using growth hormones in cattle for the production of beef and milk is not worth the risks that come along with it.  If you agree with me on this issue, there are many ways to take a stand and protect yourself but also decrease the amount of animals who must go through the process of growth hormones.  One way in particular is to buy from your local dairy and beef farmers who don’t use growth hormones in they’re production of foods; this alternative is also sometimes cheaper in the long run.

Resources:

http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Growth_Hormones_in_Food#How_growth_hormones_boost_production

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2004-04-01-veal_x.htm

http://www.orpheusweb.co.uk/john.rose/rbgh.html

http://cahi-icsa.ca/pdf/Beef-Hormones-Factsheet.pdf

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/

http://www.beefmyths.org/beefmyths/cattlegrowthhormones/

       Have you even wondered about how many of our fruits and vegetables make it through the growing season without being eaten by bugs. One of the main reasons this is true is becuase of the application of pesticides to them. I will now tell you the pros and cons of this type of farming.

       I will start off by taking about some of the positive effects of pesticides. Pesticides allow farmers to grow a much larger crop due to the ability for the pesticide to kill pests such as insects, plant pathogens, birds, mammals, and microbes. With the ability to lessen damage to the crop farmers are able to ship more of their crop around the world allowing them to make more money.

     Now for some of the negative effects. Pesticides are an effective method for killing pests, but many other animals can get caught up in the pesticide. One of the hardest hit innocent animals are the birds. This is the case mainly because of the food chain. Many small animals such as rodents or worms get sprayed by the pesticide and when the bird eats the poisoned wormed it then becomes ifected by the pesticide causing the bird to die. This is no more evident than in Europe, there are more than 116 types of threatened bird and most of these birds’ deaths can be linked to pesticide poisoning. Pesticides also attribute to birth defects in embryo birds. Another type of animal that is effected by these pesticides are the aquatic animals mainly due to pesticide run-off. This run-off can wipe out entire ecosystem by killing all of the fish and alges in a river. My last point I wish to address is air contamination. Many of this air pollution is due to pesticide drift, which is when wind gusts pick up pesticides and spreads them everywhere.     

    I believe that pesticides are helpful in producing more crops for farmers to sell, but that can’t make up for all of the pollution and the killing of innocent animals it does. So as for me I am firmly against pesticides.

<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_pesticides<ref>

<ref>http://www.angelfire.com/az/Sindh/envi11.html<ref>

<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticides<ref>

Easton Renwick
Period 3
Academic Biology

Issues with our Food

Have you ever gone to the grocery store to get food? How about a container of strawberries? Did you know that strawberries are among the top fruits sprayed with pesticides! In the article I will introduce to you the pros, cons, and what the main types of pesticides that are used in strawberries.

Strawberries are not only one of the top choices of all Americans for a summer time snack, but are a huge gain in profit for many large businesses that spray pesticides.  Companies across the United States make up to 50 billion dollars just in pesticide production.   About 40 percent of what they make is in fact exported to other countries, making the United States the largest manufacturer of pesticides.  This also creates jobs for many Americans in pesticide production plants.  It has been estimated that approximately millions of lives have been saved from malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, black plague, and typhoid all from spraying pesticides.  In early years, before spraying of pesticides was common, about 35% of the annual crops that farmers grew were killed.  Now, because of pesticides only 20% of the crops are damaged.  There is also one other strong point that makes pesticide use more acceptable.  While spraying pesticides, it had reduced the number of Spruce budworm and gypsy moth that have infected many parts of trees and farms. The links for the information about the good effects for spraying pesticides is found here: http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eh01/pesticides/pro,consof_pesticides.html
Although there are many good side effects to spraying pesticides there are also harmful ones. Studies in several animal species have shown that the major three pesticides sprayed on strawberries is rapidly absorbed in the our blood stream from the gastrointestinal tract and is rapidly metabolized.  Pesticides are also very harmful to our lungs, they irritate the lung tissue and can cause severe coughing.  The information about spraying pesticides can be found here.
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/carbaryl.htm
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/benomyl.htm
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/captan.htm

I believe that spraying pesticides are good to use because they have prevented many deaths and prevented many diseases .  That is why I believe that spraying pesticides is a good idea.

Jake Ferko, Period 3

Are we really desperate enough to lose weight in which we will consume a fat substitute eliminating the needed nutrients to help fight off cancer? That fat substitute is called olestra.  Olestra is a “fake fat” recently approved by the FDA; however, it is very dangerous and redundant. Procter and Gamble mistakenly discovered this additive in 1968 while researching fats that can be more easily digested. Olestra can be found in WOW brands by Frito Lay.

At first it was supposed to be a positive thing that can help people stay healthier without giving up the snacks you love. The industry and public were excited about olestra because of the possibility that it would help people eat diets lower in saturated fat and prevent obesity and heart disease. Also it tastes great, has no fat, and no calories. 1998 was when olestra was first permitted to be marketed in stores. Within two years of being marketed, sales of products containing olestra brought in over 400 million dollars. But by the year 2000 sales nearly cut in half because of the further knowledge of olestra.

That’s where the negative part of Olestra comes in. Well, whenever you consume olestra as it passes through your body it connects itself to beneficial nutrients called carotenoids, which help prevent such diseases as lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and macular degeneration. Which means that the side affects of olestra can be fatal. It is so bad that this substance has become banned in all of Europe and Canada. Recently there has been some studies undertaken in Holland where six potato chips with sucrose polyester, the general name for olestra chemicals, where it caused a 20 percent decrease in beta-carotene levels and a 38 percent decrease in lycopene, another important carotenoid.

Another problem with olestra is that it can cause gastrointestinal agitation. This leads to overbearing diarrhea, fecal urgency, and more consistent, looser bowel movements. This might not sound that bad to you but it can be very problematic, repulsive, disturbing, and bothersome. And as long as these olestra products are being marketed in stores nation wide new customers will frequently be experiencing these annoying problems.

So is it really worth it to lose weight through products with this additive called olestra? Even after having the knowledge of these extreme side effects such as higher risk of cancer or heart disease and the disturbing gas problems, I don’t think so. So the next time you’re at your local grocery store check the label to see if there are any olestra substances in the product before you purchase that item.

<ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra <ref>
<ref> http://www.sweetpoison.com/food-additives-to-avoid.html <ref>
<ref> http://www.cspinet.org/olestra/11cons.html <ref>

Haylee Peace                                     Issues With Food                                Period 3

Why are Organic Foods the Better Choice?

            When you go to the grocery store the healthier choice is always what you want for your family. This is why organic foods have increased in their number of purchases over the last few years. It has been found that organic foods in the United States have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years. This may be surprising to some with the price of organic foods typically having a cost that is 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products. So the question is why is organic the way most people are going with their food purchases if it is so costly? <ref> http://www.redbookmag.com/recipes-home/truth-about-organic-foods  </ref>   

<ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food </ref>

            There are many advantages of organic farming, and one of those advantages is that organic foods haven’t been exposed to pesticides; actually organic farms ban artificial pesticides. Another would be that they use a different method of keeping the pests away.  On the conventional side, they use chemicals and things that are unhealthy for our body.  The organic side, however, used manure and crop rotations.  Organic farmers try to conserve water as much as they possibly can.  Conventional farmers are all about using chemicals to speed up growth in not only their plants, but the animals too.  They don’t take care of their animals right.  Organic farms keep an open space for their animals, and feed them correctly. Organic food is more natural, and the way of the organic farmer is better for nature.  Organic food is shown to not spoil as fast. I found this information on this website:  <ref> http://www.healthy-eating-made-easy.com/advantages-of-organic-foods.html </ref>

            Although I believe that organic farming is the better choice, I can see the other side of the argument.  Conventional farming has some advantages too.  Yes, they use chemicals to increase growth, but sometimes that is more efficient.  We need so much food to survive in this world.  If organic farming was the only kind of farming known, billions of people would perish.  Since conventional farming is faster, it can produce for the whole world.  Also, there is no difference between the taste in organic and conventional foods.  There is also no evidence saying that one is more nutritious than the other.   Organic foods have more illness-causing bacterias, and chicken from organic farming has 300% more Salmonella than conventional farming.  I used these two websites to find my information:

<ref> http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/natural-health-articles/nutrition/pros-cons-organic-foods-00313.html</ref>

<ref>http://altmed.creighton.edu/OrganicFood/perceived_pros_and_cons.htm </ref>

            In conclusion, you can see both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. However, in my opinion organic is the way to go. Even with the high cost, organic foods are better for you, and better for the environment.