I'm in London and this week's tabloid Daily Express has a headline in type two inches high: "ORGANIC FOOD NO HEALTHIER." The article begins, "Eating organic food in the belief that it is good for your health is a waste of money, new research shows."
There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.
In a statement accompanying release of the report, the Food Standards Agency says:
The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.
I'm surprised that investigators of this caliber would focus so narrowly on nutrient content. There is no reason to think that organic foods would have fewer nutrients than industrially produced foods, and there are many reasons to think that organics have greater benefits for the environment, for pesticide reduction, and for taste, all of which affect human health at least as much -- or more -- than minor differences in nutritional content. I buy organics because I want foods to be produced more naturally, more humanely, and more sustainably. I see plenty of good reasons to buy organics and this study does not even begin to address them.
Fine, but do animal welfare and environmental concerns not matter? The authors of the report summarize their findings in a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The paper concludes:
On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.
Oh? I thought that's what organic foods were about - production methods: no antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge. I thought better production methods were the precise point of organic foods.
But these authors did not compare amounts of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge. They did not look at any of those things. They only looked at nutrients. This is an example of nutritionism in action: looking at foods as if their nutrient content is all that matters - not production methods, not effects on the environment, and not even taste.
The British tabloid took a legitimate meta-analysis and made it seem that nutritional value is the end-all of factors when choosing organic or non-organic foods. The study itself made no such statement; it even made it a point to acknowledge the variety of reasons why people choose organic. Choose to be frustrated with the perveyors of misinformation and misinterpretation, who increase ignorance and mistrust of science for financial gain, not with scientists whose intentions are to inform.
I see your point on aiming the frustration at the news media and not at the scientists. Point well taken
Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer
I buy organic in many things and I do it not for more 'nutritional' value...I do it because of the pesticides, the hormones, the antibiotics, and the environmental concerns with conventional farming.
Saying that "Organics are no healthier" misleads the general public about what organic food is really about. Shame on them for only looking at the 'nutritional value' and then making such a large claim about not being any 'healthier'.
Are there any studies that suggest such things as irradiation, genetic modification, hormones, and antibiotics in foodstuffs are deleterious to the public health?
There is always controversy as to what is actually bad for us and what is good for us. There are many reports that some of those things do not pose human health risks and there are many reports that substantiate the human health risks...it is up to us as individuals to get informed and make a personal decision.
Here is one link to the antibiotic debate:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html
Here is a link to the hormone debate:
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm
As for pesticide use, similar debates are had...but I look at it from the environmental point of view on that one...don't just think of the health risks to myself, but at the effects on the environment of using pesticides (to an extreme...I am not saying NO pesticides...)
Hope that helps
Found another link you might read about a particular pesticide that is FDA approved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mairi-beautyman/keep-yourself-and-your-ch_b_233693.html