Another news story about how organic food is of no extra health benefit

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Debbie Took on July 30, 2009 at 9:59am

Can't find the yahoo news page on this any more, but the BBC report says:

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce

There is 'little' difference. So surely this is saying that organic produce DOES have more nutrients than non-organic. I wonder what 'little' actually means.

They are also saying there's no 'evidence' of any extra health benefits. That doesn't mean to say there aren't benefits - just that they haven't yet mounted the sort of studies that could 'prove' it either way.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance

Word used are 'a small number of differences'. I'm going to guess that they do mean the differences are in favour of the organic produce (as, if it were the other way round, I think they'd make sure we knew that!). But they say they are not 'large enough to be of any' relevance. Who's decided what's 'large enough' to be of relevance? What criteria have been used?

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

Key word is 'most'. So they are saying there are differences in nutrients in some nutrients. Again, I'd guess that they are in favour of the organic. I wonder which were the nutrients they did find differences in.

The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.

Er, no...

Here's a different spin on it (mine):

'A recent study, in line with a wealth of other findings, reports that organic food does contain more nutrients than non-organic food! However, those carrying out this particular study believe that these differences are not significant. As to whether organic food is 'better' for you than non-organic, many believe it is, but there is no evidence to date of health benefits, as it is difficult to assess long-term health of those eating organic v non-organic as there are so many confounding variables, so...more research needed! Let's also remember that this study focused on nutrients only. Organic food is free of pesticides, and kinder to the environment, which of course benefits us all.'

Contrast this with the statement 'Organic is no better for you than non-organic - it's official' (the Daily Express screamed today exultantly.)

Does anyone have the time to find out what the study actually said?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SyLL on July 30, 2009 at 10:04am

I agree, it does taste way better and most organic fruits are smaller in size compared to the conventional...I don't know what's the deal anymore

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jodykwik on July 30, 2009 at 10:42am

yeah, in the nineties there was a study that sucrose had no effect on the behavior of young children too. the business and reporting methods of science are an entity unto themselves, fairly broken away from the actual science itself.

i remember writing for a magazine that was put out by Department of Environmental Protection in Connecticut...had this assignment to cover an educational program named Project Learning Tree. It was a way of working environmental topics into elementary school education...and the biggest sponsor of the Project in Connecticut was Champion Paper Company. Notorious polluters...and part of their deal was that when teaching about forests it should be emphasized that in order for forests to grow at their most optimum they should be cut back every thirty years of so. Basically institutionalizing the practice of clear cutting.

wonderful stuff.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Zoe on July 30, 2009 at 12:07pm

i read it and thought what a shame because i know how the organic farmers struggle and do so much more work than conventional farmers, and to see crap like this must be so demoralising.
When I switched to all organic I had flu type detox symptoms for a week, that convinced me right there and then! But there isn't the variety and availability of enough organic food where i live now -( in the middle of the countryside!!) for me to eat all organic.
There is an all organic supermarket 50 mins drive away, their fresh fruit and veg section is approximatley 1/8 of the total floor size.They sell tons of canned and premade food, organic ready meals, and meat. In fact the meat section is bigger than the fruit and veg, The prices they charge are ridiculous - £2.40 for a cucumber the last time I went in there a few days ago. £2.00 for an avocado. I told the cashier I normally to Tescos and she gave me a lecture about that, but for me, they sell lower price organic produce, it is still a bit crap, unripe and not local, but even if they are the devil, they feed me better than her little independent shop can.
It is starting to be clear to me that I need to organise some kind of wholesale scheme, for me and anyone else in the area who wants to eat all organic and who isn't Mr or Mrs Rockefella,

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by jodykwik on July 30, 2009 at 1:25pm

ha!...it's the same here, Zoe. i can go to the local market, pay 2$ for a non-organic avocado, only have organic bananas available sometimes, sometimes apples, and romaine. those are the organic choices available. and the prices just get crazy in the summer!...8^))

it seems the only answer is to organize from within like you said. whether it be food or energy production or whatever. i mean we all could generate sustainable energy at home with wind and sun and put the overload (if there is any) back into the power grid that exists. the method of net metering is there, has been for awhile...but if left to business to figure it out it won't happen because their market gets destroyed or heavily altered. but really, it's time, you know?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Zoe on July 30, 2009 at 1:41pm

yes it is. It doesn't take much effort really. I am sure that it takes more effort and energy for me to sit and worry and think about these problems - lack of good quiality food, energy bills and pollution, than it would to sort out a sustainable solution.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chicory on July 30, 2009 at 2:17pm

I can definitely tell a difference in taste between organic and non organic. I ate some conventional produce this past weekend and i could taste a weird perfumey chemical. I have noticed that especially tropical fruits like papaya have a horrid bitter chemical taste to them. The only problem with a lot of organic produce is that it is sprayed with MSG as a "natural" pesticide. I wonder if that is why we find certain fruits addictive! Apparently Auxigro is no longer made in the US, or used though.. although farmers can still use stores of whatever they have left, and it is still being used overseas.. on wine grapes etc.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Teresa on July 30, 2009 at 2:45pm

I heard on the news this morning that this study DID NOT test for antibiotics or pesticides on the organic food.....so I don't know how reliable this so-call study is...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Josh Fossgreen on July 31, 2009 at 12:21pm

Since our body does all the building, cleansing, healing, etc., and food is just there to provide raw materials, I like to think that even if the nutrient levels in organic aren't higher (which they are), they have much less toxic residue, and are therefore a superior food even if only on the basis that they interfere less with our natural state of health.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Zoe on August 1, 2009 at 2:43pm

i have also read that 'they' use human sewage to fertilise crops, i don't like the thought of that. I would prefer it if they used raw vegan cow manure!

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last