Why Does Everyone Hate Organic?

That would seem to be the case the last few days following the publication of a new study by researchers at the Food Standards Agency in England. The study (200+ pages! Click if you dare) analyzed the last fifty years worth of research on the nutritiousness of organic foods versus conventionally grown foods. A year and £120,000 later, what did they find? There are some differences between organic and conventionally produced food but these were not sufficiently important to make any difference to a person’s health or give nutritional benefit.

That is, as the Boston Metro put it, "Organics not really better for you."

Ok, so my first reaction was, "Duh." Food is food is food. An organic carrot is not more magically nutritious than a genetically modified carrot grown with pesticides. There seem to be slightly higher amounts of some minerals and other things, but overall, they typically provide the same amount of basic nutrients.

It is true that some organic products are purported to be more amazing than they actually are, and there are many people that swear by organic produce because of it's health benefits and whatnot. The one good thing about this study is that it silences those annoying people and products for now.

However, the retarded media is spewing the conclusions of this new study like they've just blown the lid off the Organic Industry's tightly sealed jar of LIES. Um, no, not really.

The Times Online says, "Shoppers pay more for organic fruit, vegetables, chicken, beef and milk but the food gives no nutritional enhancement to people’s diet." Who's talking about enhancement? Organic products are not like other items you might see on late night infomercials.

Or check out this short local news report from WPRI Channel 12 in Providence, Rhode Island:

"There is no compelling reason to buy organic." ????? And I thought the news media was supposed to be unbiased.

But don't take my word for it. Let us defer to an expert. I've been reading What To Eat by professor/food expert Marion Nestle and she discusses this issue in some depth. (In fact, she just posted on this very topic yesterday on her blog!) When asked if organic farming methods have any effect on the nutritional effect on foods, Nestle says, "Don't go there":

I can't think of any reason why organically grown foods would have fewer nutrients than conventionally grown foods, and I have no trouble thinking of several reasons why they might have more, but so what? I doubt the slight increase would be enough to make any measurable difference to health. Just as people differ, carrots or heads of cauliflower differ, and the differences in the nutrient content of one carrot or cauliflower and the next can be substantial.

The thing is, (HERE'S THE THING) there are other reasons to buy organic! Choosing fruits and veggies and dairy products and meats that are produced without pesticides and chemicals and hormones and other craziness may not have a huge health benefit to you personally, but that doesn't mean there are no reasons at all to buy organic.

To explain these reasons, Nestle quotes Joan Gussow, the former head of the nutrition department at Columbia University. She asks:

shouldn't we hope that people will choose organic foods on grounds more reliable than whether they contain a little more carotene or zinc? Isn't the most important story that organic production conserves natural resources, solves rather than creates environmental problems, and reduces the pollution of air, water, soil... and food?

Conservation of natural resources, eh? Resolving environmental problems? Reducing pollution? I would consider these to be fairly compelling reasons.

"But what's in it for ME?" you ask. Sure, organic products cost more and there may not be a direct benefit to your health by consuming them. What can you do? I'd say, the best you can, people! Obviously, no one can eat organic stuff ALL THE TIME without running out of money for their light bill.

So you do the best you can. Eat an organic potato once in awhile. At least now you know whats up. Don't be a h8r.

On Self-Pity

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

-D.H. Lawrence (1929)

Here we are with a particularly bad case of the Mondays. Missed my usual bus, late to work, forgot to process payroll last week, had to confess to forgetting to process payroll, etc. It's been a rough morning. Poor me!

But really things aren't so bad. They never are. I had an absolutely lovely weekend with friends and softball and booze and fun. For some reason, all those good times just go down the drain the moment that first ray of morning light hits the pillow, shortly followed by the annoyingly familiar melody of my alarm. Oh, poor me! I have to get up and go to work!

Fortunately, I snapped out of my own wallowing when I came across Judith Warner's Domestic Disturbances blog on the NY Times. In particular, her recent post on the supposed American hatred of educated women. Talk about self-pity.

Warner leads this rambling post with an anecdote about a female professor from Montana who was arrested two years ago for dropping off her 12-year-old daughter and friend at the mall... and putting them in charge of three younger children, 8, 7, and 3-years-old. She thought they would be safe at the mall while she went home and took a nap. Um, what?

Warner describes how the police intervened when the 2 older children wandered away from the younger ones (as you might expect 12-year-olds to do) and then called the mother at home. When the mother arrived, she wasn't allowed to explain herself. The police even told her to "Be quiet." Ouch! But she was really tired!

The state prosecutor (a successful woman herself?) seemed to have some sort of personal vendetta against the mother, and her attorney encouraged her to plea guilty to the child endangerment charges. And the worst of it? The mom was forced to take a parenting class. A PARENTING CLASS. Could there be anything more humiliating? (sarcasm)

Somehow for Warner, this story illustrates a growing theme in American society:

What really sent my head spinning after reading Kevane’s story was the degree to which it drove home the fact that our country’s resentment, and even hatred, of well-educated, apparently affluent women is spiraling out of control.

Warner goes on to lament about the Patriarchy, the history of misogyny, Sarah Palin and blah blah blah. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? Oh, here is it:

The hatred of women — in all its archaic, phantasmagoric forms — is still alive and well in our society, and when directed at well-educated women, it’s socially acceptable, too. Think of this for a second the next time you’re inexplicably moved to put an “elite” woman in her place.

Poor elite, educated women! How hard it is to know so much! The weight of the world is carried on their shoulders, and they can't be troubled with petty things like, say, RESPONSIBLY CARING FOR THEIR CHILDREN. So please, be nice to them. Especially when they hit you with their cars while you cross the street because they were distracted trying to find NPR on the radio dial. Or when their children run rampant through the shopping malls, unattended and hooting like baboons.

Just because you are educated and you are a woman and you are an IDIOT does not mean that when you get in trouble for being an IDIOT, the world is against you.

It just means you are a self-pitying idiot.

(Also, there is a magazine called "Brain, Child: The Magazine for Thinking Mothers"? As opposed to non-thinking mothers?)

Rethinking: Cohabitation, an Old Shirt, and Digging that Big Hole in the Sand

Today I give you a three part meditation. The theme? Things to re-think, or think about for the first time.

Re-Thought #1: Meditation on Cohabitation
I am currently cohabiting with my significant other, which is a recent development. This is not a meditation on regret, but rather a time to revisit the idea of this particular living arrangement, as it is not a situation to be entered into lightly.

The non-profit organization Child Trends recently published a study about young adults ideas about relationships and cohabitation. They surveyed 12,000 young adults ages 20-24. As you can see in Figure 1, about the same percentage of those young adults are married as are living together, 35% are currently in a relationship and a quarter are not currently in a relationship.

Interestingly, 57% of young adults think it's "all right" for unmarried couples to cohabit, whereas 24% disagree and 19% could care less about this issue (Figure 3).

So, ok. These numbers are higher than they were ten years ago, which were higher than they were ten years before that (source? common sense). Is this the decline of the American family in action?

The press release from Child Trends also pointed to a USA Today article which cites the study, among others.

The article vaguely cites a study conducted by researchers at the University of Denver, which found a couple pretty surprising things:

• Most couples didn't consciously decide to live together; two-thirds of cohabitors said they either "slid into it" or "talked about it, but then it just sort of happened." Just one-third talked about it and made a decision to live together.
• Almost half of cohabitors of both sexes in the study cite spending more time together as a reason they moved in together; just 9% of men and 5% of women cited "to test the relationship before marriage."

Well jeez you guys. Only 1/3 of couples talked about living together and made a conscious decision to do it?! Less than 10% of both men and women are actually living together to "test the relationship"?!

You know, I'm generally not super concerned about the rise of divorce and the "downfall" of the American family, but these statistics are a little shocking. Maybe if people weren't so blase about MAJOR LIFE DECISIONS, they would choose more wisely. Personally, I decided to make the jump into cohabitation for many practical reasons (it's cheaper to live, we practically lived together anyway, we both needed to get out of crazy living situations, etc.), but ultimately the Big Plan was TO FIND OUT IF THIS WORKS. If it does, fantastic. Full speed ahead. If it doesn't, then thank God we did this now and got it over with. Moving on.

(Disclaimer: I do not profess to be some sort of expert at relationships. Lord knows that I'm not even close. However, I do strive to act with intention and make big decisions with my eyes open. I'm only surprised that more people don't appear to act similarly.)

Re-Thought #2: Things I Used to Wear
This is a series that has played out infrequently between my other blogs over the last 6 months (which you can find here, here, here and here). It has been abandoned due to my lack of follow-thru, but I think it is relevant in this discussion in a sort of This-American-Life kind of way.

So. Here it is. My first ever Forever 21 shirt. Purchased 10 years ago on a shopping trip with a gal pal specifically intended to find "killer" outfits for a friends' upcoming 15th birthday party. But this was no ordinary 15th birthday party.

Oh. No.

First of all, this was a joint party. Question: What's more fun than one birthday girl? Answer: TWO birthday girls!!! Especially when those two birthday girls are arguably the most popular (and wealthy) in the freshman class and can therefore throw a party a'la my Super Sweet Sixteen.

With a DJ.
At a country club.
On a golf course reserved for the PGA tour.

Ok sure. So I got invited. Looking back, it was an invitation I accepted with delight and spent little to no time wondering why I had been put on the guest list. Now I suspect that it probably would have been awkward NOT to invite me, since one of the birthday girls in question was my co-captain on the freshman girls basketball team and we had 4 classes together.

In any case, I bought this shirt, threw on a knee length black skirt and these shoes (probably) and headed to the party.

Now, before we discuss the party, let's take a moment to ruminate on this shirt. I bet you didn't know that Forever 21 sold shirts that were this modest. Well, let me tell you -- this was the MOST modest shirt I could find. It was at the beginning of Forever 21's heyday, when the majority of their stock could only fit 90 lb sixth graders, everything was adorned with tiny, non-functional straps and rhinestones, and they sold specialty pieces like purple jumpsuits (see photo). Actually, I don't think anything has changed... now they just have MORE.

The good thing about Forever 21, which is still true for the most part, is that since everything is made by Chinese school children, it is SUPER CHEAP. I think I paid $9 for the shirt, hopefully less.

Anyway, back to the shirt. The fabric was a stretch poly-knit with a geometric + flowers pattern, accented by glittery threads. I thought it was delightful, albeit busy. The V-neck was fairly deep (although I had nothing in the way of cleavage) and it completely hid my bra straps, which was a middle school taboo that I had yet to relinquish.

The one reason I never, ever wore this shirt again (only one?) is because while the glitter thread allowed me to subtly sparkle in a shadowy corner while I gawked at boys, it was SO ITCHY. Like a wool sweater. I tried to wear a second tank top underneath, but it created unsightly bunches in odd places.

In truth, my shopping friend was not too supportive of my outfit decision, and tried to gently suggest a few strappy, rhinestony pieces. I did appreciate the attempt to make me less of a grandmother, but straps and rhinestones were in direct conflict with my entire moral code, as they still are today. I doubt there is anyone that would look like more of a jackass than me adorned in faux jewels.

Unfortunately, none of the other 15-year-old girls at the party had any moral qualms about straps or rhinestones in large quantities. They were all bustier, bolder, sluttier and drunker than I (the last one because I was not drunk at all... I probably just had a little indigestion from sucking down gallons of Sprite). No game indeed.

The one shining light of the evening was Erica: the girl in a pencil skirt and matching sweater set. Bless her Ralph Lauren heart, she managed to arrive in something more modest than me. I don't really remember much else about the evening, but I'm sure we spent it doing the shopping cart dance and making fun of the sluttiest girls and sweatiest boys of the bunch.

I'm just glad I survived to tell the tale.

Re-Thought #3: Meditation on Sand Castles

Children and adults who build castles and dig in the sand at the beach are at greater risk of developing gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhea than people who only walk on the shore or swim in the surf, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

People who played in the sand at the beach -- buried themselves, erected sand fortresses, dug big holes (the best!), etc. -- seem to have an increased risk of stomach problems in the days following their beach adventures.

The culprit? FECAL MATTER. In the sand. Awesome.

"Beach sand can contain indicators of fecal contamination, but we haven't understood what that means for people playing in the sand," said Dr. Heaney. "This is one of the first studies to show an association between specific sand contact activities and illnesses."

Oh man! That is pretty disgusting. I mean, it makes sense. If you sit down and really think about what is in the sand, especially at really crowded, sweaty beaches in the summer... wait. Don't do that. You might never go to the beach again.

But don't despair! Here is the good news: Less than 10% of people who played in the sand got sick later, so it's not necessarily a sure thing. Plus, Dr. Tim Wade, an EPA epidemiologist and the study's senior author, says

"People should not be discouraged from enjoying sand at the beach but should take care to use a hand sanitizer or wash their hands after playing in the sand."

And also, try not to eat the sand. Or get it in any major orifice. That is just my advice, though. The blurb for this new study was published in last week's Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Friday Letter.

"And I'm... I'm real. I'm a real boy!" -Pinocchio

Having recently taken my first biology class since I was 15 (how did I graduate from college again?) I've been getting inordinately excited about biology-related news, articles, references in conversation, etc. because now I GET IT. A little.

Naturally, I was interested in the chromosome talk in We're all intersex at Salon. Thomas Rogers interviewed Gerald N. Callahan, a professor at Colorado State University, about his new book "Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of the Two Sexes." As the title implies, Callahan argues that our strict male/female labels ignores a large amount of variation:

In between what we call the ideal biological male or ideal biological female, there's a whole range of other possibilities that don't differ from our basic preconceptions to the extent that we have names for them or call them a disorder. Just like with every other human trait, there are an infinite number of possibilities... We might say two people have brown eyes but that doesn't mean that they're brown in exactly the same way, or what is seen through those eyes is the same.

The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) goes on to explain this idea in terms of a spectrum:

Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. To better explain this, we can liken the sex spectrum to the color spectrum. There’s no question that in nature there are different wavelengths that translate into colors most of us see as red, blue, orange, yellow. But the decision to distinguish, say, between orange and red-orange is made only when we need it—like when we’re asking for a particular paint color. Sometimes social necessity leads us to make color distinctions that otherwise would seem incorrect or irrational, as, for instance, when we call certain people “black” or “white” when they’re not especially black or white as we would otherwise use the terms.

I highlighted the term "only when we need it" because I think that's the key here. We shouldn't be bothered by a person living their life part way between male and female, and I think most people probably don't care too much. However, feathers get ruffled when we try and classify or categorize people who can't or don't want to be assigned a gender.

I wonder... Could one even go so far as to relate this to Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale? You know, how everyone is just a little bit gay? JK! That's not exactly what the scale represents, but it does illustrate the idea that options exist outside the socially constructed labels. Beyond the gay-straight-bisexual labels exists a world of possibilities.

Furthermore, Deborah Blum's review of the book at New Scientist even pokes fun at the traditional gender binary:

Callahan's argument arises from the fact that human sexuality spans a slippery biological spectrum. The stereotypical view of two sexes - me Tarzan, you Jane - is not only cartoonish, it limits our understanding and appreciation of our own biology.

From a strictly scientific view, Callahan appears to have an important, well-documented point. There can be a large amount of variation at the chromosomal level beyond the perceived 46XX for a woman and 46XY for a man. In fact, statistics compiled by the ISNA suggest that 1 in 1,667 babies has a chromosomal variation other than XX or XY, and 1 in 100 babies have bodies that differ from the standard male or female (including genitalia that just look a little different, but still function normally; see What is Intersex?).

The problem arises when Callahan concludes that "In truth, we're all intersex."

I haven't read the book, so it's unclear whether he means this literally, or in a more euphemistic we're-all-children-of-the-world kind of way (i.e. the instance of intersex is so high that we probably know more biologically intersex individuals than we think/you may be intersex and not know it).

That statement is what really seems to piss people off, as witnessed in the letters section of the Salon article. One contributer, "aeschylus", writes:

Horse shit. Sometimes there's a glitch in our genes: a cleft palate here, a flipper baby there. They are deviations from the norm and we should want to correct/prevent them. And no, I'm not talking about homosexuality. But this type of transgender chromosomal mash-up needs to be recognized for the disorder that it is.

There are several offensive things about this comment (one being the fact that he/she didn't read the article well, because Callahan goes out of his way to say intersex does not equal transgender), but the biggest issue is that this person fails to make the distinction between "variation" and "disorder". A deviation from the norm does not a disorder make, but when a clear gender has not been chosen and adhered to, people get very uncomfortable. This is where the social-biological worlds clash, which is not always pretty. (At least he/she isn't "talking about homosexuality". Ha!)

In any case, I'd like to point out that I am not necessarily an intersex advocate. Like I said before, I have a new found appreciation for science-y news, and I also enjoy reading bone-headed comments like the one above. I don't know why.

The final thing that piqued my interest in this article, was Callahan's discussion of biological sex versus sexual preference.

Gay and lesbian people can fairly easily identify with the classic binary of male and female, and intersex people for the most part cannot. They have to me a much more complex and graduated series of events they need to deal with [than do gay and lesbian people]. I think that people have a tendency to group all of that together -- sexual preference, gender dysphoria, transgender, intersex -- and they're really in my mind very separate sorts of things.

Right. This is an idea that is very clear in my mind, that often gets muddled amongst the vast array (rainbow?) of GLBT issues. The "T" in GLBT doesn't exactly fit for me, because gender identity is a completely separate issue from sexual preference. It's true that all of the sexual and gender minority groups tend to get lumped together sort of reluctantly, even when the different facets have little to nothing in common with each other.

What I do understand is that the GLB community is very accepting and happy to include the transgendered folk in the parades and dance parties and whatnot, and I am happy to make their acquaintance at such events. This inclusion also provides greater awareness for trans issues and a bigger community to participate in. So, just to be sure -- I'm not complaining about the inclusion, just wanted to clarify for my own peace of mind.

To conclude the intersex discussion, let's just hope this never becomes a modern day witch-hunt, with mandatory genetic testing to see who is a "real" man or woman and who is NOT. That is a bad, bad idea. But personally, I'd be kind of psyched if I was a XXX superwoman, or if my legs had some XY cells. Maybe I would run better.