Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-pr

[Vegan Joe]

The way this issue is addressed in this article really pisses me off.

Not once are the words herbicide or pesticide used.

And then they go on to say:

Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report's authors, comments: 'A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103728.htm

 

There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published July 29 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to-date been no systematic review of the available published literature.

 

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focussed on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.

 

Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigour the ...

[michaelhobson]

Nutritional superiority has never been my reason for buying organic, mostly an environmental reason really. Then there are the conditions forced upon farm laborers, sometimes having herbicides and pesticides sprayed on them while working in the fields. Try telling them that there is no reason to buy organic! And anybody remember DDT? Agent Orange? Not to mention better tasting organic veggies, local organic farms, community supported agriculture...

[Fallen_Horse]

"The review focused on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens."

Oh so we don't care about the CHEMICALS in our foods?

 

"a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 2008...55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality"

So we looked at 55 studies total, some from the 1950's and 1960's. I'm glad that's applicable to today. Oh wait, it isn't.

[MartinVegartin]

The agrichemical and GM producers have a lot of power. Just like the corrupt drug companies.

 

Strange that crops from decades ago had more nutrients - including the time when all farming was organic-ish.

 

An article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in September, 2007, highlighted some of the findings of The Organic Centre's report, 'Still No Free Lunch.' This examined studies done recently by food scientists and plant breeders. It found that as crop yields have increased, nutrient value has actually fallen. The taste and smell of food has also diminished. They found that the heavier a tomato is, the lower its concentration of lycopene, vitamin C and beta carotene. Sweet corn, wholemeal bread and potatoes have drastically less zinc, calcium and iron than they used to have.

 

Researchers at Washington State University in one of the studies looked at how wheat has changed in the last 100 years. The researchers concluded that you would have to eat twice as many slices of modern bread to get the same nutritional value as bread from the earlier varieties of wheat. It would seem that bread can no longer be classed as the 'staff of life'.

 

Researchers at the University of Texas in another of the studies compared nutrient content of 43 fruits and vegetables. Using data that covered 50-70 years, they found declines of 5% to 40% or more in vitamins, minerals and proteins in groups of foods, particularly vegetables.

 

These declines have occurred over different time scales ranging from 50 to 100 years. More crops can now be grown per acre but at what price? Even some organic crops show a reduction in nutrients.

 

http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=115

[MartinVegartin]

A cancerous conspiracy to poison your faith in organic food

 

By Joanna Blythman

 

Last updated at 10:00 AM on 03rd August 2009

 

Despite its obvious benefits for our health and for the environment, organic food continues to be denigrated by the political and corporate establishment in Britain.

 

The food industry, in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies, has waged a long, often cynical campaign to convince the public that mass-produced, chemically-assisted and intensively-farmed products are just as good as organic foods, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

The latest assault in this propaganda exercise comes from the Food Standards Agency, the government's so-called independent watchdog, which has just published a report claiming that there is no nutritional benefit to be gained from eating organic produce.

 

Those forces bent on promoting GM crops and industrialised production, would have been delighted by the widespread media coverage of the Agency's report, portraying enthusiasm for organic foods as little more than a fad among neurotic consumers that would pass once the public is given the correct information.

 

But what is truly misguided is not the increasing popularity of organic goods, but the Food Standards Agency's determination to halt this trend and instead promote genetic modification.

The new report from the FSA highlights this. For all the publicity it has attracted, the document does not contain any new material.

 

In fact, it is just an analysis of existing research carried out by other bodies. Moreover, the organisation that conducted this second-hand study, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is not renowned as a leading centre in this field.

 

Indeed, there is far more significant work currently being done on organic foods by several other bodies, some of it funded by the European Union, though the FSA has chosen to ignore it.

 

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the FSA has decided to give such loud backing to this report because it can bend the findings to suit its political, pro-GM, anti-organic agenda.

 

Ever since its creation in 2000, the Food Standards Agency has been biased against organic farming. The first chairman, Sir John Krebs, was supportive of the biotechnology lobby and only too keen to promote GM as the future of farming.

 

In fact, one early review of the FSA's work, by the Labour peer Baroness Brenda Dean, warned there was a risk of the Agency losing its 'objectivity' and 'rigour' in its support for GM crops and its opposition to organic production.

 

The departure of Sir John Krebs has not brought any change in policy, since the Agency is now largely run by plodding bureaucrats all too keen to follow the correct official corporate line.

 

Yet even in the context of the latest report from the FSA, the spin does not match the reality. For, contrary to all the hype this week, the Agency's own published research shows that organic foods are clearly far better for the consumer even just in nutritional terms.

 

According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones.

 

Similarly, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins.

 

In addition, an in-depth study by Newcastle University, far deeper than the one conducted by the FSA, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods, research the FSA appears to have overlooked.

 

But the concentration solely on nutrition is to play into the hands of the anti-organic, pro-industrial lobby.

 

As most of the British public understands, but the FSA fails to acknowledge, the benefits of organic food go far beyond this narrow point.

 

The fact is that organic production is much better for personal health, food quality, the environment and the welfare of livestock.

 

Organic farming works in tune with the rhythms of the earth, gently harnessing the changing seasons, the natural cultivation of crops or the rearing of animals for our benefit.

 

In contrast, the vast biotech, processed food industry is at permanent war with nature, continually trying to manipulate, overwhelm and conquer. Organic farming is all about harmony, non-organic about chemicalised ascendancy.

 

The most obvious way this difference is manifested is in the use of pesticides on crops, banned from organic farming but eagerly promoted by big industry.

 

Fifty years ago, agro-chemicals hardly existed in British farming, but today they dominate this sector. But their rise has not been without justifiable concerns about the side-effects.

 

There is now a wealth of evidence to show that pesticides not only poison the soil and harm wildlife, but also promote cancer and a host of other diseases because of their toxicity.

 

This is, after all, only common sense. Anything that can kill insects is bound to have an impact when consumed by humans.

 

It has been shown that ordinary pears are sprayed with pesticides no fewer than 17 to 18 times during one seasonal growing cycle. A third of all the food we eat, and no less than half of all our fruit and vegetables, contains such chemicals.

 

The Government airily dismisses any worries about the risks, but this kind of complacency is based on old, outdated science.

 

As the agro-chemical industry tightens its grip, the worse the dangers become. Organic farming, however, offers the opportunity to eat without these dangers. All organic food is free from chemical residues and thus the health threats are much lower.

 

Even the most die-hard GM enthusiast would have to admit that organic meat, fruit and vegetables taste much better than the mass-produced fare turned out by major suppliers.

 

Non-organic produce is not just grown with chemicals, it is also filled with additives, colourings, flavourings, salt and water simply so it has an acceptable appearance to the consumer once it reaches the shelves.

 

Again, this battery of synthetic additives which appears in many processed foods, ready meals and take-aways has a detrimental effect on our health, something that is avoided with organic produce.

 

Intensive farming also has a brutal impact on the well-being of animals, which in turn undermines both the quality of meat and our own health.

 

Organic poultry, eggs and bacon not only taste much better, but they have also not been pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics, like industrialised produce.

 

Putting pigs and hens in battery cages inside vast hangars is a sure recipe for the spread of disease, akin to locking up a large group of children in an overheated, overcrowded nursery.

 

In this environment, the only way to combat germs is to dish out the antibiotics, but there are now scientific concerns that the overuse of such chemicals is weakening resistance in animals and also reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics among humans.

 

Giving animals a decent life through organic, traditional husbandry is better for them - and for us. All the cheerleading for the agro-chemical giants cannot hide the fact that industrialised farming represents a cul-de-sac for mankind.

 

We cannot go on as we are, pumping chemicals into our livestock and into the earth. The future has to be organic.

 

If it has any genuine interest in nutrition, the Food Standards Agency would be supporting a shift away from intensification, not pushing for more of it.

 

The FSA was meant to be an organisation for improving our food. Now it is just getting in the way.

 

dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html

[CollegeB]

I just want less toxic crap on my food. And organic apples usually cost the same as conventional. That's about all I buy organic anyhow. From what I hear this study was pretty limited in the nutrients it investigated, and is not giving a complete picture of organic vs. conventional. However some of the pesticides approved as organic are heavy metals so you're probably still not really clean until you grow it yourself.