from reuters
Organic food is no healthier, study finds
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
"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," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
"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."
first off the title is BS.
second they took it from this BBC article (which also has a BS title) and left out all the quotes that show the study was flawed
The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".
But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.
Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
Dr Dangour, said: "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."
He added that better quality studies were needed.
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added.
when i read the reuters article my first thought was who funded the study because as any thinking person should know by now you need to follow the money
from an article i found at huffpuff:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The FSA is a branch of the government of the United Kingdom, but states on it's website that it "works at 'arm's length' from Government because it doesn't report to a specific minister and is free to publish any advice it issues." With no oversight, influence over the selected research could have been a factor in the outcomes. A look at the profiles of the head of FSA reveals former employees of agribusinesses like Arla Foods (now part of Europe's largest dairy), Sarah Lee Corporation, and UK grocery giant Sainsbury's. Therefore it is not hard to assume that the perspective may lean towards what is best for agribusiness interests.
The FSA report was commissioned to determine whether or not the nearly 4 billion dollar organic industry in Great Britain could claim higher health benefits when selling its products. By rendering the playing field equal for conventional farmers, the government and the agricultural sector wouldn't have to begin the difficult work of shifting the unwieldy agricultural system towards sustainability.
please go read that huffpuff link. it is by Paula Crossfield of civileats and is an excellent rebuttal of the BBC article & is full of information. & please buzz-up or digg or tweet or whatever to get this article the attention it deserves.
**update 7/31**
please also go read Graham Hill's article Science Fails to State the Obvious: Organic is Healthier also at huffpuff & buzz, digg & tweet it also!
here is the actual UK study
neither the authors nor the study itself make any such claim (that organic has no more nutrients) at least in its abstract or any portion actually quoted in any of these articles. it is a review of analysis of nutrient quality only, and that only with respect to eleven nutrients. it is also not a synthesis of gajillions of papers, as the articles imply.
on another blog someone said
Of COURSE the NUTRIENT content is the same.
The NUTRIENT content of ANY two exact same compounds is the same!!!!
Jesus.
they they go on to make some BS claim about the nutrient content of Ann Coulter & this person would be exactly the same.
jeezaflyinspaghettimonster!!
this was my reply
no, i disagree
these are not "the exact same compounds."
no, the nutrient content of you & ANYone else will not be the same.
it all depends on YOUR intake.
if all you consume is vitamins in capsules & pills (or cheesey-poofs & beer) you will contain less nutrients than someone who eats a balanced diet of real foods.
just as nutrient content in plants differ by what type of soil they are grown in, what types of fertilizer & when it is applied & how much water & when in the growth cycle it occurs.
it is only logical that food grown in soil that has been drenched with round-up (poison) & given only chemical fertilizer will have less nutrients than food grown in soil enriched with mulch & compost, that contains worms & bugs.
please see this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
& this about eggs:
http://www.motherearthnews.com...
eggs from hens raised on pasture may contain:
• 1/3 less cholesterol
• 1/4 less saturated fat
• 2/3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene
and this on agri-business:
http://www.motherearthnews.com...
This shift in production methods is clearly giving us less nutritious eggs and meat. Beef from cattle raised in feedlots on growth hormones and high-grain diets has lower levels of vitamins E, A, D and betacarotene, and twice as much fat, as grass-fed beef. Health writer Jo Robinson has done groundbreaking work on this subject, collecting the evidence on her Web site, www.eatwild.com, and in her book "Pasture Perfect."
Similar nutrient declines can be documented in milk, butter and cheese. As one researcher writing in the Journal of Dairy Research explained, "It follows that continuing breeding and management systems that focus solely on increasing milk yield will result in a steady dilution of vitamins and antioxidants." (Today's "super-cows" are bred and fed to produce 20 times more milk than a cow needs to sustain a healthy calf.)
How much, and why, the nutrients in vegetables and fruits may be declining is less clear. Comparisons of 2004 data from the USDA's National Nutrient Database, with numbers from 1975, show declines in nutrients........
i just don't understand how anyone could NOT get this. how anyone could believe bigAg is telling the truth. they are paying gajillions to lobbyists to tilt legislation in their favor & keep small farmers from getting ahead. they're paying off news orgs to report only what they want the public to see & 'spin' the rest.
i just wish people would wake up & realize that you can't take ANYthing at face value anymore. you've got to follow the money and fer gawds sakes do some research for yourself! |
