# Organic coffee or not??



## Mikey finn (Jul 9, 2020)

Recieved an email from bb advertising the fact that they are 100% organic now with their beans and roasting process. It also said that coffee is one of the most heavily sprayed products behind tobacco and cotton. Do you think we should be considering a switch to organic only, or is it just marketing? Must admit it freaked me out abit the thought of pesticides in my morning espresso.


----------



## jonr2 (Jan 6, 2021)

hey - i got the same email and had a similar thought. Honestly it is probably quite subjective - i have switched to organic veg and i only get organic milk and meat so i am not going to give a completely unbiased opinion.

The chemical side of things - i am sure someone could do some analysis about whether it gets inside the bean but i think the coffee is treated by washing so i am not particularly concerned about chemicals on the outside of the beans.

That said - i will give them a try and it wont take much to tip me over the edge to only buying organic. Honestly though from my perspective one of the biggest attractions of organic is that it tends to go hand in hand with better welfare for people in the supply chain but thats just me.

I am not sure if this helps you at all - i would say however if there is anything sinister which is getting into standard coffee it is so widely drunk that i am sure there would be evidence by now, so i wouldnt worry unduly.

Jon


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

Mikey finn said:


> Recieved an email from bb advertising the fact that they are 100% organic now with their beans and roasting process. It also said that coffee is one of the most heavily sprayed products behind tobacco and cotton. Do you think we should be considering a switch to organic only, or is it just marketing? Must admit it freaked me out abit the thought of pesticides in my morning espresso.


 Got the same email and thought it was just marketing BS bordering on false advertising. All that crap about "makes you feel better, tastes better" etc and all the other stuff applies to coffee that isn't certified organic too e.g. mineral content, so it's a combination of BS and spin. The RFA certified coffees aren't organic and pesticides are only used as a last resort with restrictions on the most hazardous pesticides. How much pesticide makes it into the bean and survives roasting and makes it into the brew? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26344013/#:~:text=Twelve pesticides%2C including metabolites and,local market in southwestern Ethiopia. this study suggests roasting removes 99.8% of pesticide of 'spiked' coffee beans. *There's probably more pesticide in your tap water.*

The overblown fear mongering and cherry picking of 'information' in the email left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I'm fairly certain there are laws against these types of claims:



> Boost imune system
> 
> 
> Gives a better energy boost
> ...


 In coffee, I think organic certification is mostly about protecting the environment/ecosystem.


----------



## stingray (Aug 4, 2020)

Coffee is one of the most heavily sprayed crops on the planet. Yes, washing and roasting removes most pesticides from coffee beans but consider the impact on coffee workers of this method of production. Good research here:

https://old.danwatch.dk/en/undersogelseskapitel/brazilian-coffee-is-sprayed/

It's a sorry tale of banned chemicals, absence of protective equipment and ill health

"A survey of coffee workers taken in southern Minas Gerais in 2011 hints at the scope of the problem. Out of a group of 412 workers, 59 percent experienced at least one typical symptom of pesticide poisoning. "

I would welcome recommendations from the forum for UK organic coffee suppliers.


----------



## SupraMan (Mar 9, 2021)

When considering pesticides we must consider the rules of toxicology.
I.e. it's the dose that makes the poison.

For almost all products, be it coffee or foods there is no evidence that the incredibly tiny amounts of pesticides present in the final food are harmful to humans.
That doesn't mean they aren't but there is still no evidence for it.

It's also important to remember that the court cases against companies like Monstanto were due to workers who were daily exposed to high doses.

So, yes, we should be trying to help the market move towards safer practice for workers, whether that is better protective clothing or less chemicals.

The other thing to remember is coffee is most certainly not the only thing that is like this, cashew nuts, avocados. etc. All these 'exotic' foods are produced at massive health cost to workers in developing countries, all so we can enjoy our brew.....


----------



## Mikey finn (Jul 9, 2020)

Rob1 said:


> Got the same email and thought it was just marketing BS bordering on false advertising. All that crap about "makes you feel better, tastes better" etc and all the other stuff applies to coffee that isn't certified organic too e.g. mineral content, so it's a combination of BS and spin. The RFA certified coffees aren't organic and pesticides are only used as a last resort with restrictions on the most hazardous pesticides. How much pesticide makes it into the bean and survives roasting and makes it into the brew? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26344013/#:~:text=Twelve pesticides%2C including metabolites and,local market in southwestern Ethiopia. this study suggests roasting removes 99.8% of pesticide of 'spiked' coffee beans. *There's probably more pesticide in your tap water.*
> 
> The overblown fear mongering and cherry picking of 'information' in the email left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I'm fairly certain there are laws against these types of claims:
> 
> In coffee, I think organic certification is mostly about protecting the environment/ecosystem.


 Having travelled in south america specifically Brazil (where my favourite coffees are grown)stayed with local people over different areas of the country and seen and heard from locals the levels of corruption, i would be sceptical of the report. firstly the term "spiked" isnt clear enough and could mean they havnt applied pesticides in the same way as when coffee is grown. Also given that coffee is a multi million pound enterprise any bad press would be squashed quickly as there economy depends upon the sales. The question here is are you prepared to potentially risk your health on the findings of a low budget report/ experiment? Only 60 years ago our government were telling us smoking was good for us.


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

I think people need to be careful not to apply blanket statements and unnecessarily prejudice buying decisions against smallholder farms that cannot afford expensive organic or other certifications to market themselves towards 'ethical consumerism'. For example, almost all coffee grown in Ethiopia is produced without the use of pesticides or synthetic chemicals but that doesn't mean it's certified. It's similar to focusing on buying fair trade only because you care about the farmers without realising it is not necessarily beneficial (this article could be of interest).

Dr Wakefield has this point to make on the relationship between FT and Organic coffee. Dr Wakefield link



> ...it is claimed that over 80% of Fair Trade coffee is non-commercially organic. This is because Fair Trade coffee is usually produced on smallholder farms who are often unable to afford expensive pesticides rather than by design. According to Specialty Coffee Ethiopia, 95% of the coffee produced there can be considered as organic, although not yet officially certified. While this seems high to us, there are certainly many organic coffees produced which don't carry the label.


 While statistically "coffee" is one of the most sprayed crops in the world there is no distinction made between commodity grade coffee, robusta and arabica (and varieties within), low grown and high grown etc. With the amount of information provided along with specialty coffee you could likely perform research on specific farming techniques and working conditions relevant to each lot without having to rely on restrictive certifications to inform buying decisions. There are also certain things to look for that can indicate coffee is produced more naturally - e.g. shade grown means the soil isn't scorched by the sun (affecting reliance on chemical fertiliser), "sustainable" similarly would indicate coffee is produced without synthetic fertilisers and perhaps pesticides as these things are deleterious long term while providing short-term gains.


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

Mikey finn said:


> Having travelled in south america specifically Brazil (where my favourite coffees are grown)stayed with local people over different areas of the country and seen and heard from locals the levels of corruption, i would be sceptical of the report. firstly the term "spiked" isnt clear enough and could mean they havnt applied pesticides in the same way as when coffee is grown.


 I don't see the connection with what you're saying and the thing I linked to. It has nothing to do with Brazil. It doesn't appear that 'spiked' is applied in the same way when the coffee is grown, no. The coffee is sprayed, artificial fertilizer is in the soil. It's possible chemicals are used on the seeds when planting. If the coffee is sprayed the pesticide has to penetrate the fruit, the flesh, and finally get into the seed which is quite impermeable itself and covered in parchment. The pesticide has a long way to go. It seems this study applied the chemicals directly to the dried 'bean'.



> Also given that coffee is a multi million pound enterprise any bad press would be squashed quickly as there economy depends upon the sales. The question here is are you prepared to potentially risk your health on the findings of a low budget report/ experiment? Only 60 years ago our government were telling us smoking was good for us.


 I have no interest in engaging in rhetorical discussion. *To illustrate why:* Regarding your first question, what risk to health? Is there a risk because of extremely low levels of chemical (which may or may not be there) that may be harmful in greater concentrations (or may not). Do you have information that indicates there's a conclusive risk? The following foods contain 27 different naturally occurring chemicals that we know to be carcinogens: anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapefruit juice, grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lentils, lettuce, mango, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rosemary, sesame seeds, tarragon, tea, tomato, and turnip. ''The question here is are you prepared to potentially risk your health by consuming these things? There have been no studies conducted to confirm that these things are not harmful, and given that farming and agriculture is a multi-billion dollar global business, any bad press would be squashed quickly as the economies of many countries depend upon the sales.''

I read a short article from an organic-pro source yesterday which I unfortunately can't find now which said most coffee grown in Ethiopia and, from potentially faulty memory, Honduras (and some other place) is mostly organic but not certified, which is the point I'm making: certification isn't necessary. *Actually the point I'm making is the email from BB was awful which has nothing to do in general with pesticide use, environmental impact, risk to workers, or organic certification, it's entirely about the spin/scare tactics and cherry picking used in advertising and marketing delivered direct to my inbox.*


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Rob1 said:


> Dr Wakefield has this point to make on the relationship between FT and Organic coffee. Dr Wakefield link


 I'm sure it's accidental, but just in case people don't know Simon Wakefield is the current owner of DRWakefield (Founded by Derrik Wakefield).

No Doctors of any kind involved 🤣


----------



## stingray (Aug 4, 2020)

still waiting recommendations for fine organic coffee for sale ! or fair trade/shade grown


----------



## El carajillo (Mar 16, 2013)

I also had the email and considered it more spin, BS and advertising than accurate.

One thing I would say is if you are concerned about your food buying organic can leave much to be desired when you consider much of the residue from sewage works is 'land injected' where crops grow.

With all the medicines , pills, potions, bleaches, cleaners emptied down drains / toilets all the other assorted chemicals in addition to

diseases carried in waste organic does not sound so good.

The method used to remove the haulms (greenery) from potatoes before commercial lifting does not inspire.

Late one afternoon I saw a tractor/ sprayer, spraying the greenery, the next morning all lying blackened ready for lifting.


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

DavecUK said:


> I'm sure it's accidental, but just in case people don't know Simon Wakefield is the current owner of DRWakefield (Founded by Derrik Wakefield).
> 
> No Doctors of any kind involved 🤣


 I'd always assumed the Dr thing was just a name rather than an illusion to an actual title, didn't occur it would just be initials.



stingray said:


> still waiting recommendations for fine organic coffee for sale ! or fair trade/shade grown


 Sorry, I'm not aware of roasters current offerings as I haven't been looking at any since around October. Somebody else might be along to help or you could just check to see what your favourite roasters are currently offering, trace it back to the farm and see if you're happy to buy. A lot of specialty roasters provide info on the farms and practices to help you in your search.


----------



## Like Medium Strong Coffee (Feb 18, 2021)

IMHO, organic or otherwise is always an individual belief and choice. How is consuming organic coffee different to drinking organic milk or consuming organic vegetables / fruits? I would personally look at "does it help put a smile on the hard-working farm people?. If I think it does, I wouldn't mind paying more, as long as I meet the affordable rule.


----------



## SupraMan (Mar 9, 2021)

DavecUK said:


> I'm sure it's accidental, but just in case people don't know Simon Wakefield is the current owner of DRWakefield (Founded by Derrik Wakefield).
> 
> No Doctors of any kind involved 🤣


 Umm, does anyone not get why Dr Wakefield might be a terrible name???


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

SupraMan said:


> Umm, does anyone not get why Dr Wakefield might be a terrible name???


 Of course....


----------



## Mikey finn (Jul 9, 2020)

Rob1 said:


> I don't see the connection with what you're saying and the thing I linked to. It has nothing to do with Brazil. It doesn't appear that 'spiked' is applied in the same way when the coffee is grown, no. The coffee is sprayed, artificial fertilizer is in the soil. It's possible chemicals are used on the seeds when planting. If the coffee is sprayed the pesticide has to penetrate the fruit, the flesh, and finally get into the seed which is quite impermeable itself and covered in parchment. The pesticide has a long way to go. It seems this study applied the chemicals directly to the dried 'bean'.
> 
> I have no interest in engaging in rhetorical discussion. *To illustrate why:* Regarding your first question, what risk to health? Is there a risk because of extremely low levels of chemical (which may or may not be there) that may be harmful in greater concentrations (or may not). Do you have information that indicates there's a conclusive risk? The following foods contain 27 different naturally occurring chemicals that we know to be carcinogens: anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapefruit juice, grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lentils, lettuce, mango, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rosemary, sesame seeds, tarragon, tea, tomato, and turnip. ''The question here is are you prepared to potentially risk your health by consuming these things? There have been no studies conducted to confirm that these things are not harmful, and given that farming and agriculture is a multi-billion dollar global business, any bad press would be squashed quickly as the economies of many countries depend upon the sales.''
> 
> I read a short article from an organic-pro source yesterday which I unfortunately can't find now which said most coffee grown in Ethiopia and, from potentially faulty memory, Honduras (and some other place) is mostly organic but not certified, which is the point I'm making: certification isn't necessary. *Actually the point I'm making is the email from BB was awful which has nothing to do in general with pesticide use, environmental impact, risk to workers, or organic certification, it's entirely about the spin/scare tactics and cherry picking used in advertising and marketing delivered direct to my inbox.*


 Thanks for your imput Rob1, hopefully i can help explain myself more clearly as you arent seeing my point here,, The original question raises concerns about non organic coffee kick started by an email from bb, mine specifically advertises a blend called milk buster which is organic and made up of beans 70% of which are found in Brazil. I realise your article studied Ethiopian coffee beans, however i was merely making the point that regardless of the region the coffee beans are from, pesticides enter the beans systemically from applications applied to the leaves or watered into the soil. I was questioning the term "Spiking" as it very much seemed to me that the chemicals were applied to the finished product in which case they would be evaporated off during roasting no question. In terms of whether the amount of pesticide remaining in the finished product is its harmful or a safe dose, the question is has any proper research actually been done to find out how much pesticide residue once consumed is safe? It made me question whether it would be worth a potential risk consuming a non organic coffee. The same debate is currently underway with grain products sprayed with glyphosate, what are safe levels that can be consumed? The government has issued what is deemed to be a safe dose, but it has been questioned by medical experts that there has been no substantial research to back up these claims, and that there are health risks linked to a number of health problems. Thanks for the list of foods containing natural occurring chemicals but to be clear we are talking about man made pesticides. I have been drinking non organic coffee and the email simply made me challenge whether this was the best option for me.


----------



## ajohn (Sep 23, 2017)

At least weight wise people don't generally ingest the same quantity of coffee grinds extracts as say potatoes or bread. One that basis I considered the email BS, sales pitch. It's a sign of the times really. We are not doing anything with the fruit only the kernel that forms. It's generally been well known for a long that a number of substances that shouldn't get there finish up in human body fat and even breast milk. While this has been going on average life span has increased not decreased. Rather odd really considering some have been banned.


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

Mikey finn said:


> ... however i was merely making the point that regardless of the region the coffee beans are from, pesticides enter the beans systemically from applications applied to the leaves or watered into the soil.


 I'm not sure there have been conclusive studies conducted on the issue. I can only find things that seem to indicate there is none or very little present in raw coffee, and I can find some other things I don't really understand, like this.

From FDA back in 1992.



> The US Food and Drug Administration carries out incidence/level monitoring in order to acquire data on the presence and amounts of pesticide residues in particular commodity/chemical combinations. In the survey reported here, imported green coffee beans were analysed for a variety of pesticide chemicals. A total of 60 green coffee samples were collected from 21 countries that are major exporters of coffee to the United States. The samples were analysed for organochlorine/organophosphorus, _N_‐methyl carbamate, benomyl group and EBDC residues. Four samples had detectable residues: chlorpyrifos, 0.01, 0.02 and 0.04 ppm and pirimiphos‐methyl, 0.01 ppm. The majority (93%) of the green coffee samples analysed in this survey had no detectable pesticide residues.


 The EC Drinking Water Directive sets Maximum Allowable Concentrations of 0.1 µg/l for any pesticide and 0.5 µg/l for total pesticides in drinking water irrespective of toxicity. That's 0.0001 and 0.0005 ppm. Assuming all coffee you consume falls into the 7% that had detectable pesticides, if you consume 36g coffee a day and drink 3 litres of water how much pesticide are you potentially getting from the water compared to the coffee?

Then this from Australia/NZ



> The key findings from this survey are:
> 
> For the majority of analytes assessed, there were no detectable levels in any of the coffee types sampled. This included all 98 pesticide residues, 18 PAHs, beryllium, mercury and ochratoxin A. A small number of metals, furan and acrylamide were detected in some of the coffee types analysed, but at very low levels. The contribution of a number of metal contaminants to dietary exposure through the consumption of instant and espresso coffee in comparison to the relevant reference health standard will be assessed as part of the 23 rd Australian Total Diet Study (ATDS). However, it is anticipated that instant and espresso coffee are likely to be very small contributors to dietary exposure. For the metal contaminants analysed in this study, there are no established maximum levels (MLs) under Standard 1.4.1 - Contaminants and Natural Toxicants of the Code for coffee or coffee beans. This is generally reflective of low levels of contaminants in these products, and of coffee not being a significant contributor to exposure of these contaminants in the total diet. The overall levels of chemical contaminants identified in this survey are generally considered to be low and are consistent with those reported in other comparable surveys both in Australia and overseas.





> I was questioning the term "Spiking" as it very much seemed to me that the chemicals were applied to the finished product in which case they would be evaporated off during roasting no question.


 I'm not really qualified to question their methods. The beans probably absorbed the pesticide, especially if it was in a water solution/water soluble, but I'm just guessing. If a pesticide evaporated off during roasting conditions or was unstable at high temperatures there's no reason it wouldn't be the same if it were in the bean as the structure of the bean breaks down roasting allowing water and co2 to be released.



> In terms of whether the amount of pesticide remaining in the finished product is its harmful or a safe dose, the question is has any proper research actually been done to find out how much pesticide residue once consumed is safe? It made me question whether it would be worth a potential risk consuming a non organic coffee.


 I doubt anybody has carried out human testing. I believe the standard method is to test on animals, e.g rats, usually pumping them with something just below the lethal dose for their entire lifespan before dissection and testing for signs of abnormality. Needless to say there are flaws to this method. *Proving something doesn't exist is very difficult or even impossible, proving something exists (i.e a risk to health from consuming something) is much more reasonable to ask*. Without human testing the only way is to correlate medical conditions with repeated and low level exposure from consumption of contaminated products. This is is especially relevant as we are discussing an email which made several claims regarding risks and supposed health benefits to switching to 'organic', but as much as I've tried I can't find conclusive studies to back up these risks and benefits...

On the subject of "non-organic coffee" are you talking certification or coffee that is produced without the use of synthetic pesticides? Because they are two different things. Claiming there's a risk inherent to "non organic coffee" (as in certified) is a horribly unfair blanket statement to make when many coffees over the world are produced using natural and sustainable methods without the use of synthetic pesticides by farmers who have not, or are unable to, pay for certification. Coffee, whether organic or not, can contain acrylamide and ochratoxin as a natural product and from fungal contamination, so there is always a potential risk. There's a potential risk to drinking tap water, and a potential risk to consuming even organic certified products. Until somebody proves there isn't a risk there is always a potential risk, and how do you prove something doesn't exist?


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

My phone gave me an interesting article, good old google analytics.

https://www.comunicaffe.com/conventional-coffee-may-be-more-beneficial-to-health-than-organic-shows-german-study/

The takeaway is organic coffee has lower chlorogenic acid content. It's interesting because I was reading something recently that was about organic fruit and veg and how, because pesticides aren't used, the fruit/vegetables have to produce more natural pesticides to protect themselves at the expense of nutritional value. I don't know how reliable the research was but it was at least an interesting idea. Page here. Haven't bothered verifying things but references are provided for those with a genuine interest. I just find the views and ideas at least interesting like:



> Dr. Ames and his colleague Lois Gold decided to catalogue every known toxicity study done with rats, and they found something rather odd: 50 percent of all carcinogen studies show positive results-even for natural chemicals that we eat in far greater abundance than synthetics[1-8]. In other words, using this protocol is no better than flipping a coin and publishing a paper based on the outcome. (In our conversation, Dr. Ames suspects inflammation or nutrient malabsorption at MTD levels as the real culprit causing cancer and helps explain the coin-toss outcome.)
> 
> Dr. Ames and his colleagues went on to describe the relative dangers of synthetic pesticides compared to natural, and found that 99.99 percent of the carcinogens and poisons we ingest come from the plants themselves. Plants make poisons. For example, cabbage contains 49 naturally-occurring carcinogens. Broccoli contains 100 chemicals-half of which we classify as carcinogenic[1-7].


 Yeah, it's about quantity and concentration etc etc e.g. 100 chemicals barely detectable in parts per billion that are considered carcinogenic in much larger concentrations etc, but it's still interesting/surprising to me at least. It highlights the fallacy of that type of reasoning.

From a kind of pro-organic source I got some more free information rather than marketing spin. Full text here.



> Even foods with pesticide residue shouldn't necessarily be panic-inducing. While high amounts of pesticide exposure has been associated with increased cancer risk and other health effects, the EPA regularly tests samples crops to ensure pesticide residues fall within safe limits. A 2017 EPA report looking at more than 10,000 samples of conventional and organic food found that more than 99 percent were within safe and acceptable limits, *and more than half of the samples had no detectable pesticide residue.*


 Anyway, for anyone not wanting to wade through the rubble.

1) Organic certified coffee may still contain pesticides, but in lower amount than those present in conventional coffee, and the pesticides may be different. 'Conventional' coffee may be better for you and multiple studies indicate there are generally no pesticides detectable.

2) Studies on conventionally grown coffee, both raw and roasted, have shown either no (in the majority of samples) or very low detectable levels of pesticides. Studies on the effect of roasting have show a reduction of any residues present, however the studies on the effect of roasting seem quite limited and are of questionable reliability.

2) Coffee that is grown free from pesticides and fertiliser may not be certified organic (or FT or RFA) and restricting buying decisions based on certification may unnecessarily harm smallholders and poorer farmers who can't afford certification.

3) Pesticides are very likely a hazard to farm workers and the environment/ecosystem, and this may be something you wish to consider.

4) The biggest hazards to health in coffee are likely OTA and acrylamide.


----------



## TRatcliffe (Jun 15, 2020)

I think humans have distorted perceptions of what to prioritise when it comes to health effects. You have to laugh. We're pretty much all hypocrites. I think the benefits of buying organic coffee are going to be inconsequential if you drink it with a packet of biscuits, for example.


----------



## ajohn (Sep 23, 2017)

This thread made me think about this









Hotly debated subject in some areas, Why has it happened. Some say wealth but farming practice and maybe even health care probable figure and expected life span has increased all over the world. Why is the increase flattening? There has been all sorts of pesticides banned in that period and weed killers.

Then odd balls - Japan









Who still have high levels of smoking.

China has improved pretty rapidly and not far behind now. Probably due to a large reductions in poverty.


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

The increase is going to flatten at some point isn't it, lifespan can't just increase forever. But I'm going to hazard a guess and say the average Japanese diet is richer in healthier foods comparative to mass produced meat, e.g. fish and vegetables, compared to the average american diet. Alcohol intake is a mixed bag. Illegal drugs are interesting. In Japan, heroin and cocaine are rare but amphetamine use is higher than cannabis. People die from being overworked, they even have a word for it. Access to healthcare might be better...a quick search spits out things along the lines of "Japan's healthcare system costs half as much and produces better medical outcomes". There are also oddities too that can influence average life expectancy e.g. the number of intentional homicides in the USA was 5.30 per 100,000 in 2017 compared to 0.2 in 100,000 for Japan in the same year. I could find this relating to effect of homicide on life expectancy in LA, how that translates to comparisons between countries with significantly different rates of homicide...pass. Of course you can also compare the rates of suicide.



> We estimated the impact of homicide on life expectancy by demographic group and geographic area in Los Angeles County, 2001-2006. Life expectancy estimates were calculated using mortality records and population estimates for Los Angeles County. Cause elimination techniques were used to estimate the impact of homicide on life expectancy. Homicide was estimated to reduce life expectancy by 0.4 years for Los Angeles County residents and by 2.1 years for black males. The impact of homicide on life expectancy was higher in low-income neighborhoods. In some low-income urban neighborhoods, homicide was estimated to decrease life expectancy in black males by nearly 5 years.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Rob1 said:


> But I'm going to hazard a guess and say the average Japanese diet is richer in healthier foods comparative to mass produced meat, e.g. fish and vegetables, compared to the average american diet.


 I think the Japanese diet might be higher Transuranics as well and possibly mercury....Although their government says it's all perfectly OK. I was just thinking Fukushima Daichi....probably fine though. 🙄


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

DavecUK said:


> I think the Japanese diet might be higher Transuranics as well and possibly mercury....Although their government says it's all perfectly OK. I was just thinking Fukushima Daichi....probably fine though. 🙄


 Wow I can't believe that was 2011. Maybe we'll start seeing the effects of that in a few years time, if we haven't already.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Rob1 said:


> Wow I can't believe that was 2011. Maybe we'll start seeing the effects of that in a few years time, if we haven't already.


 I don't know about the human effects, for the sea surrounding the area, the effects were fairly immediate I think. Yes it was a long time ago... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-54658379

A novel way of dealing with contamination https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-54566978


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

@Rob1 If your interested this is a fairly good explainer of what happened, by someone who is objective although definitely pro nuclear. He does a lot of good lectures.


----------



## ajohn (Sep 23, 2017)

Nuclear is a tricky subject. I saw a strange documentary on Discovery years ago with 2 of the original Green Peace people apologising about campaigning against it due to the enormous amount of coal that was burnt instead. Sweden for instance established a number of nuclear plants as I think France did. Could that be a sensible weighing of evil factors. It still seems to be even here now going on intent to build. Life without adequate levels of power isn't tenable any.more.

Japan is curious. Lots of claims about diet but as mentioned not straight forward. Smoking is weird especially over those time scales. Nature reckons lower breast and prostrate cancer incidence is the reason. Is that diets or some thing specific that different races eat or how the food is processed. China I think illustrates what lifting poverty may achieve but they had a famine that killed millions but not sure when. That aspect is a vary variable in the USA and more of an issue here now.

Being "a bit" old all of the food fads that come and go interest me. They are more rammed down peoples throats these days than ever before. Some originally were aimed at reducing NHS loads. Lots do things that were aimed at a few.


----------



## Like Medium Strong Coffee (Feb 18, 2021)

In addition to the factors (driving life expectancy) discussed above, a few major variables are pollution, living conditions and standard of living make a huge difference to life expectancy.


----------



## Andrew Lance (12 mo ago)

Try organic coffee!

Certified Bird Friendly and Organic coffee promotes biodiversity, sustainability, fair trade, and contributes to a green morning routine.

Check this out *Birds and Beans Coffee 👈*


----------

