Skeptic Project

Tasting good doesn't mean the nutrient level of the meat hasn't lowered.

If it lowers the label will reflect that.

"Of course, since we're talking about McDonalds, there is no label (unless you can find data indicating nutrition level of the meat, where it came from, how it was raised, etc)."

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/nutrition_choices.html</p>

There you go sir.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of/your_questions_answered/meats.html</p>

You didn't click far enough in, broseph.

From what I've read, there is evidence showing that stress affects quality of meat and egg production.

Yes, thankyou Aaron.

However, I'm not sure where you're going with the vegetables and fruits. Not only are organic fruits and vegetables sprayed with 6-8x the amount of pesticides as conventional,

1. Thats interesting, if true it would mean that organic wasn't really organic as the label suggests and therefore not really what Im talking about.

2. Are you sure that's true?

What you said doesn't seem to be true, or at least misleading in terms of accuracy:

Food Standards Agency, UK:
http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/pesticides/pesticidesmainqa/org</p>

Are pesticides used on organic food?

In most cases, organic food is produced without using pesticides. However, EU organic food regulations do allow a very limited range of pesticides in organic food production that may be used as a last resort, but only on some types of crops.

Some organic foods are sampled as part of the official residue monitoring programme overseen by the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC). In addition, some pesticides approved for use in organic production have recently been included in the range of pesticides that are looked for in the official monitoring programme. For more information on organic food, see the link below.

and..

Are pesticides used on organic food?
Most organic food is produced without using pesticides because organic methods avoid using them. There are strict standards on what farmers are allowed to do when producing food that will be sold as ‘organic’. Farmers are allowed to use a very limited range of pesticides on organic crops, but this is as a last resort and only on some types of crops.

And it seems that pesticide use in organic food is not meant to happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/business/20organic.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1296269089-MjTuy5mbd+HlASdgGHVvSA

U.S. Plans Spot Tests of Organic Products

The Department of Agriculture said on Friday that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.

[...]

The report pointed to numerous shortcomings at the agriculture department’s National Organic Program, which regulates the industry, including poor oversight of some organic operations overseas and a lack of urgency in cracking down on marketers of bogus organic products.

[...]

The audit also highlighted numerous inconsistencies in the way that certifiers operating in the United States enforced organic regulations.

The report warned that officials must tighten oversight of the industry to give consumers the assurance “that products labeled as organic are meeting a uniform standard.”

The Food Marketing Institute also seems to say that synthetic pesticides is not truly Organic:

"Organic' refers not only to the food itself. but also to how it was
produced . Foods labeled organic must be certified under the National Organic Program (NOP), which took effect October 21, 2002. They must grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources and promote biodivesity --- two key elements of environmentally sustainable agriculture . Crops must be growing without using synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers and sewage sludge-based
fertilizers . Organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and be given no antibiotics or growth hormones . Organic foods may not be irradiated.

The FDA says this:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5086874

The National Organic Program (NOP) regulations currently allow use of inert ingredients which appear on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) List 4A – Minimal Risk Inert Ingredients and List 4B – Other ingredients for which EPA has sufficient information to reasonably conclude that the current use pattern in pesticide products will not adversely affect the public health or the environment – in a variety of applications, primarily as pesticides in organic production operations. These lists are maintained and managed by EPA.

Is that what you're referring to perhaps? The use of "Minimal Risk Inert Ingredients" for pesticides?

A "USDA Study Team on Organic Farming" report makes a point to distinguish strict organic producers from farmers that "espouse a more flexible approach" to pesticides.

The study team found that the organic movement represents a spectrum
of practices, attitudes, and philosophies. On the one hand are
those organic practitioners who would not use chemical fertilizers or
pesticides under any circumstances. These producers hold rigidly
to their purist philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, organic
farmers espouse a more flexible approach. While striving to avoid the
use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, these practitioners do not
rule them out entirely. Instead, when absolutely necessary some
fertilizers and also herbicides are very selectively and sparingly
used as a second line of defense. Nevertheless, these farmers, too,
consider themselves to be organic farmers. Failure to recognize that
the organic farming movement is distributed over a spectrum can often
lead to serious misconceptions. We should not attempt to place all of
these organic practitioners in the same category. For example, we
should not lump "organic farmers" and "organic gardeners" together

You wrote:

Why would it be a good idea to eat a vegetable / fruit that wasn't sprayed during growth?

Some chemicals are worse than others, but its well known that there is some risk, even if that risk is minimal. Here's a journal article examining the relationship between pesticides and breast cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240541/. Here's another, "A Review of the Acceptable Daily Intakes of Pesticides Assessed by WHO " - http://tinyurl.com/6d8unjd

From a BBC article:

The role of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is to protect consumers by ensuring that pesticide residues are as low as practically possible and within safe limits.

The FSA's Sam Montel, a nutrition expert and a registered public health nutritionist, says the risk from eating unwashed fruit is minimal but getting into the habit of washing and - where appropriate - peeling fruit and vegetables is simple good hygienic practice.

"It ensures that they are clean and that bacteria that might be on the outside are removed," she says. "If a vegetable or piece of fruit is especially dirty, washing might not be enough to get it clean, so then you could peel it." "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5153554.stm</p>

Washing fruit doesnt remove all the pesticides, but its good practise. The reason why raw foodists, if they really must do it, should actually eat organic is because eating raw means your exposure to pesticides is far greater while cooking on the other hand helps decrease the amount of pesticide residue.

In the end pesticides on food isn't that bad, if I thought it was I would be concerned about eating non-organic food which I am obviously not. I just think I would prefer not to, if I didn't have to. In the end its best to eat vegetables which is well known to be cancer preventative while meat is far less required in our diet and specific ways of cooking meat like grilling increases our cancer risk. This is not a endorsement of vegetarianism, its just the facts. Eating non-organic vegetables far out weighs any benefits of not doing so simply because they have pesticides on them and the risk seems pretty low.

But yes, stressful animals is well know to have an affect on the quality and safety of meat:
"Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk?"
- Marcos H. Rostagno. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2009.0315

McDonalds food provides nutritional value. Your body will process McDonalds and receive nutrients from it. In moderation, just like anything, McDonalds is not inherently "unhealthy" to eat.McDonalds food provides nutritional value. Your body will process McDonalds and receive nutrients from it. In moderation, just like anything, McDonalds is not inherently "unhealthy" to eat.

And I can say that about just about any food you care to mention, seriously try name a food that has no nutrients in it whatsoever that you consider to be unhealthy.

The fact is McDonalds is not a healthy food, you almost admit that by saying its not a healthy choice but cant bring yourself to acknowledge why. You also said you agreed with Dunning who believes a McDonalds cheeseburger is a well rounded meal rich with just about every nutrient where the cheese means it contains all four food groups. Total nonsense. He really probably believes that iceberg lettuce or a pickle or the French fries constitutes a portion of veg. He clearly knows nothing of nutrition and dare I say with that comment sounds even more ignorant than raw foodists I've encountered.

Its a stupid fucking chicken, what's it gonna do? Sunbathe?

This isn't about ethics, its about the health of the animals and therefore how healthy your meat is that you eat. Stress affects the health of the animals and the quality of the meat.

@Ed your wrong Matt's right, that's how this site works. Give up...

Aaron,

Don't jump to hurting the environment, I found various articles saying it was harmful to the environment and to people who work with it. The question is if the food itself became harmful, I specifically said "the risk seems pretty low" so I don't feel the need to argue the point.

The point I guess is your claim about pesticide use in organic foods doesn't seem to match up to the law or regulations that I posted.

@Bill: haha ;)

Crops must be growing without using synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers and sewage sludge-based
fertilizers .

The USDA law specifically bans synthetic pesticides. Therefore, "natural" pesticides are allowed. What I'm reading in your post regarding the lack of pesticide use among organic farmers is strange. Are these farmers local, small time people? Is this the norm for organic producers? What I've read and heard contradicts the information you presented.

All we know for sure is that the USDA does not ban "natural" pesticides.

Is this the norm for organic producers? What I've read and heard contradicts the information you presented.

Read the links I provided, such as this one:

A "USDA Study Team on Organic Farming" report makes a point to distinguish strict organic producers from farmers that "espouse a more flexible approach" to pesticides.

The study team found that the organic movement represents a spectrum
of practices, attitudes, and philosophies. On the one hand are
those organic practitioners who would not use chemical fertilizers or
pesticides under any circumstances. These producers hold rigidly
to their purist philosophy. At the other end of the spectrum, organic
farmers espouse a more flexible approach. While striving to avoid the
use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, these practitioners do not
rule them out entirely. Instead, when absolutely necessary some
fertilizers and also herbicides are very selectively and sparingly
used as a second line of defense. Nevertheless, these farmers, too,
consider themselves to be organic farmers. Failure to recognize that
the organic farming movement is distributed over a spectrum can often
lead to serious misconceptions. We should not attempt to place all of
these organic practitioners in the same category. For example, we
should not lump "organic farmers" and "organic gardeners" together

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/USDAOrgFarmRpt.pdf

Aaron,

Dunning also said that a fucking McDonalds cheeseburger is "actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups." :D

You'll never find research that will back that up, he may have quoted some sources but not in reference to that. Its totally crazy insano land stuff nutritionally.

Also, at the end of your article it may well reference all those organic institutions or whatever, but unless I can see some evidence it actually is the case in regulation and the law or have this backed up anywhere else I don't see why I should trust it, especially as it seems to be contradicted by stuff I posted. Who even wrote that article? I know its on an edu site, but other than that?

And even if it was true, it just means that organic doesn't really mean organic and I wasn't really referring to that anyway.

Other than that we both seem to agree that organic/free range animal farming is better because stress affects the quality and safety of the meat.

So then, that out of the way, who still thinks McDonalds is 1. pretty healthy like Dunning at Skeptoid or 2. not unhealthy? Seriously, I can argue a Mars bar isn't unhealthy for the same reasons people are trying to argue a McDonalds burger is not unhealthy. Someone needs to post some examples of foods they think ARE unhealthy but are void of any nutrition.

Its not just foods that are unhealthy its diets. The Atkins diet is regarded by many to be unhealthy, yet you still consume nutritious foods. The raw food vegan diet also isn't considered healthy in the scientific literature, yet how can this be if they are eating such nutritious fruit and vegetables? Could it be that there is a deeper aspect here to nutrition and how healthy we consider foods to be?

Dunning also said that a fucking McDonalds cheeseburger is "actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups." :D

I've come to the conclusion that while Dunning was sloppy in that podcast, he wasn't wrong. There is a difference between being nutritious and being healthy. He never said McDonalds products are healthy. Something can be extremely nutritious (filled with nutrients) and not be healthy.

So, that's somewhat of a strawman only because you're portraying him to claim something he isn't. Then, it's another fallacy to say that because he was seemingly wrong about McDonalds, his podcast on organic food is unreliable.

I've come to the conclusion that while Dunning was sloppy in that podcast, he wasn't wrong. There is a difference between being nutritious and being healthy. He never said McDonalds products are healthy. Something can be extremely nutritious (filled with nutrients) and not be healthy.

Aaron, I quoted him verbatim. He said those words, what he said is stupid. He isn't right about the cheeseburger in anyway shape or form.

However, it doesn't affect Dunning's argument.

Adding burger cheese to the cheeseburger does not mean it now has all 4 food groups. It reads like a parody, like next he'll say "only joking!". Also, where is the vegetables for him to say that?

He is taking the most stupidly simplistic approach to assessing how healthy a food is, its retarded.

Ed,

Dunning also said that a fucking McDonalds cheeseburger is "actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups." :D

I explained earlier how one could conceivably argue for balance, and it does contain many nutrients. Neither nutritious nor balance means healthy. You're inducing that he meant McDonalds is healthy. It's a fine line because while he makes it seem that way, he never actually says so.

He's technically not wrong is all I'm saying. The McDonalds nutrition PDF will show how nutritious its products are and how many food groups they meet.