EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed
A report issued Wedneday [PDF] by Dr. Alan Dangour of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK, claims that there is no substantial difference in nutritional content between organic and conventional food. The report was based on the review of fifty years worth of research papers on the subject. But reading it makes one wonder if influence caused a misreading of the findings, and in addition, if the agency has addressed the wrong questions entirely.
Even with very few studies comparing organic to conventional out there, evidence has proven that certain nutrients, such as Vitamin C and antioxidants, are on average higher in organic food. For example, a US study released in 2008 by The Organic Center focused on the nutrient quality of plant-based organic versus conventional foods, using matched pairs, “crops grown on nearby farms, on the same type of soil, with the same irrigation systems and harvest timing, and grown from the same plant variety.” According to their report,
“Across all the valid matched pairs and the 11 nutrients included in [The Organic Center] study, nutrient levels in organic food averaged 25% higher than in conventional food. Given that some of the most significant differences favoring organic foods were for key antioxidant nutrients that most Americans do not get enough of on most days, the team concluded that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, in particular, offered significant health benefits, roughly equivalent to an additional serving of a moderately nutrient dense fruit or vegetable on an average day.”
The Soil Association in the UK also pointed out yesterday that the FSA left out a more rigorous report commissioned by the European Union that found a range of “nutritionally desirable compounds” like antioxidants, vitamins, and glycosinolates were present in greater amounts in organic crops, while the amount of “nutritionally undesirable compounds” like mycotoxins, glycoalkaloids, cadmium and nickel were present in lower amounts by comparison in organic crops.
For research purposes the FSA report took into account studies beginning in 1958, from before we knew about the role certain nutrients played in our diet. In addition, studies show that nutrient content of our food overall has been going down over time. According to Michael Hansen of Consumer’s Union, “including older studies, with crop varieties that no longer are on the market, and which did have more nutrients, only serves to lessen the possibility of finding any significant differences between organic and conventional foods.”
The FSA study also ignored the 15 relevant studies that have come out since their February 2008 cut off date that could have changed the outcome of the report. In addition, the FSA analysis actually found that organic food contains more phosphorus, a beneficial nutrient, while conventional food on average contains more nitrogen, which scientists have linked to cancer. (Read more here) Why wasn’t this information considered before issuing a substantial equivalence?
Aside from nutrients, contaminants are not considered in the FSA report. It has been proven that antibiotics are being taken up by plants via manure application on fields. The study did not address this or the unhealthy side effects of continued intake of pesticide residues, which accumulate in our bodies. There are a lack of studies on this subject, and investigators’ claimed that these questions were “beyond the scope” of this report, but that also might be due to a certain interest in keeping the scope small and thus the outcomes skewed.
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 leans 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.
One of the biggest hurtles to reforming our food system in the United States is our unwillingness to acknowledge at the governmental level the superiority of sustainable agriculture. Leaving aside the nutrient question, organic agriculture helps improve the soil, protects farm workers from exposure to toxic chemicals, places an emphasis on animal welfare, and keeps toxic runoff out of our waterways. In so doing, sustainable agriculture improves not just our personal health, but our collective environmental health.
The nutrient content in our food is going down because our soil is being degraded. Sustainable agriculture, by contrast, improves the food we eat by improving our environment. Instead of focusing on puny reports that tell us next to nothing and yet dominate the media with simple binaries, we should be taking an integrative approach to analyzing data and therefore face the hard truths before us. Sustainable agriculture improves the food we eat by improving our environment. As Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson, two of our countries most respected voices on our soil wrote in a New York Times op-ed back in January, which continues to be as scary as it is relevant: “Civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland.”
So we have a decision to make. If we chose business as usual, it will be at our own peril.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
50 Comments so far
Show AllWith all due 'respect', Paula Crossfield, I do not believe you know the shit of it. Come out to MY farm and let me show you....
sincerely,
nedlud
Come out to MY farm, Paula Crossfield, and I will SHOW you the consequences of poverty and the consequences of love. I can show them to you, both. For I know them both and know them well. Then you can decide, better (I hope), whether the consequences of love are worth fighting the consequences of poverty, and, by extension, worth fighting HARDER against avarice and greed and; the blind bureaucracy, the tendency for words and papers and regulations that masquerades as 'good' yet that enables those evil things--poverty, greed and avarice.
I can show all of this to you amongst the shit....the shit that is my farm. Are you afraid? ?? Of a little shit like me? I might have e coli!
nedlud
There was probably a study somewhere that showed inorganic foods have more toxins than organic so the industry released the report to distract from that and steal the moment. A common tactic of big corporations. Often large corporations speak to the public and sponsor studies to misguide and obfuscate.
One wonders why the organic stuff looks and tastes so much better.
For those of you extravagant enough to still get "Showtime," I recommend the current edition of "Penn & Teller's Bullshit" who did a blind test of whether organic food really tastes detectably better. The result: 80 or so percent of those who took the test got it wrong.
Maybe Penn Gillette is a shill for big agri and big food production, but he's the least likely shill there has ever been.
Penn Gillette is a Republican. He produced a movie that blasted Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 several years ago.
As to taste, I choose organic food primarily for health and nutrition reasons, and also for sustainability, safety of farmers and workers, ethical treatment of animals and environmental protection. Better taste is last on the list.
However, I know that a conventional orange tastes like cardboard compared to an organic orange, and organic skim milk tastes like milk, while conventional skim milk tastes like milky water.
20 bucks you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.
You could make it $2000 and I'd still take that bet. There's not doubt I can tell the difference when it comes to oranges and skim milk. I can't even eat a conventional orange. I spit it out. They have no taste. Organic oranges are deliciously sweet.
I've brought organic skim milk to family gatherings to make believers of the skeptics. So far, everyone has been amazed. People who wouldn't drink regular skim milk because of the taste agreed that organic skim milk tastes great.
You should try both.
I have and obviously my sense of taste is not as acute as yours.
But please, don't spit it out. I hate wasting food ;)
This specious study is the same ol same ol put out by the propaganda networks for the corportocracy. This so called study is nothing but bs given to a gullible public.
People of Earth.....may I say it is all about microbes.....
A healthy soil is loaded with microbes, munching away at the bits of organic matter and converting it into nutrients for the plants to take up and grow healthy and strong. Chemical based farming kills the microbes leaving the soil inert and nutrient poor. The green bounty that results from chemical fertilizers is a shadow and an illusion of real food. And of course, there are the pesticides.....yummmmm! Hey, with GMO's
we can get our pesticides to grow IN the food and IN our digestive tracts....talk about efficiency. Big AG is feeding the world......a ration of poison which is making us sick and then the pharmacons are lining their pockets as we line up at the doctor's office. This ain't rocket science. Read Michael Pollen's "In Defense of Food". Start a garden. Discover the delights of organic, flavorful, nourishing FOOD.
Don't eat any food you see advertized on television.
Thanks for this article, Paula. Food is so fundamental. It may not have the glamor appeal of more juicy topics, but it will be the only thing on our mind when we run out of it.
Sioux Rose
CPADDOCK: Right-on post!
"Don't eat any food advertised on T.V.". Like my Mother use to tell me about Wonder bread: " It is a wonder it doesn't kill you ". Cpaddock, excellent post!
Another phrase to LIVE by:
"Do not buy anything you do not truly need."
Amen to that.
It's the influence theory of findings that I suspect.
Even if there were no difference in nutritional benefits between conventional and organic foods, the benefit of organic is in getting poisons out of our air, water, soil and food, all the pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Conventional growers sterilize the soil, then feed in petroleum based fertilizers. The aerially sprayed pesticides are among the many toxins and carcinogens out there, causing health problems, cancers and fertility problems, not to mention the damage to wildlife, including bees and other beneficial insects. Then there is the runoff of ag chemicals into our streams and rivers, finally running off to produce dead zones in the oceans. Conventional farming also feeds into our reliance on petroleum products, which we must break.
But I've seen many studies that do show improved nutrition from organically grown foods, not to mention that the fruit and veg just taste better.
Dozens of papers have been written about the potential health effects of Bisphenyl-A (the plastic inner lining in most steel cans). 100% of the studies funded by the industry have found no adverse health risks. 100% of the independent studies have all found adverse health risks to humans.
Sort of gives the term "Political Science" a whole new meaning.
The problem I have with eating organic foods is that it is much harder to get my minimum daily requirements of toxic substanaces.
So I have to watch Faux News to supplement my diet.
Gee, a US study, funded by the Organic Center, discovered that organics were a little better. Who would have guessed? Hey, don't get me wrong, my gardens are nearly "organic." But a bit of chemical fertilizer or a dash of pesticide where NEEDED, is of no concern to me or anyone who has ever partaken of any of my food. My garden food tastes wonderful. If one plant gets a bit of chemical fertilizer or a touch of pesticide, no one could tell the difference in taste from a neighboring plant that was entirely "organic." No one. And I must mention one more time, the "weed," purslane, is a wonderful vegetable.
And I must mention one more time, the "weed," purslane, is a wonderful vegetable.
Thanks for mentioning that. I'll have to try it.
Thanks, Pesticide Greg, for telling us that a "Touch of Poison" is swell. Is it kind of like Kellogg's Corn Flakes with a Touch of Honey?
You should be working for the pesticide industry's PR firm. Or, are you already?
We all get lots and LOTS of touches of poison everyday. The air we breath, things that touch our skin, and things we eat. And guess what, there's even poisonous substances in 'organic' food. Try to live sensibly in all ways, and avoid too much 'poison.'
That's a great rationale for choosing to eat toxic pesticides, which numerous scientific studies have linked to the cancer, neurological disease and birth-defects epidemics plaguing the U.S. today.
Public health be dammed. It's more important to prop up the profits of pesticides manufacturers and industrial mega-farms. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Thanks, Pesticide Greg, for that insight.
"It's more important to prop up the profits of pesticides manufacturers and industrial mega-farms."
Where do you think most of this "organic" produce comes from?
First, all USDA-certified organic food is produced without pesticides.
Second, organic farming is the opposite of factory farming. Much organic food comes from family farms. Much comes from coalitions of small farmers. Some comes from larger-scale operations. All must pass inspections to maintain their organic status.
That means they can't use pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, antibiotics, genetically-modified organisms, and feed containing animal "byproducts," all of which are staples of factory farming.
"First, all USDA-certified organic food is produced without pesticides."
You need to get your facts straight:
"Organically grown" food is food grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Pesticides derived from natural sources (such as biological pesticides) may be used in producing organically grown food.
U.S. EPA, Agriculture/Organic Farming
For more info on Biopesticides: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html
If you wish to consume organic, that's fine. Bio-pesticides obviously have their advantages. But don't go making statements that Organic Farmers do not use any pesticides. That is flat out wrong.
When scientists link pesticides to cancer they mean synthetic chemical pesticides, not natural substances. That's clearly what I was referring to. You're just trying to mislead with your obtuse interpretations.
"You're just trying to mislead with your obtuse interpretations."
LOL! Okay Sparky, you have a nice day.
Runoff from organic vegtable gardens do not create large dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
DDT was proven perfectly safe in the US from 1939-1972.
Of course, even after it was known to cause cancer, environmental devastation and many other problem - the rest of the world was told it was safe to use - until 2004 when it was banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day and remains controversial.
Hey, I'm glad eagles are back, but a lot of people in sub-Saharan Africa are glad their family members are alive.
DDT is not the answer to malaria. Malaria in Africa is related to poverty, poor housing and bad sanitation. The cure for malaria is, as is the cure for many things, social justice, not cancer causing poisons. In areas where people live on lots where brush is cleared from around the house, have screened windows and good sanitation with regard to water use and disposal, malaria does not take peoples lives.
"Of course, even after it was known to cause cancer,"
No it wasn't:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1780&page=578
d-63,
The book you cite was published in 1977. Reams of research since then has tied DDT exposure to increased cancer rates.
A simple Google of "DDT cancer" brings up numerous articles published in the decades since the book you cite, with citations relating increased human exposure to DDT to increased rates of cancer. Here's one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009082406.htm
Even the book you cite states that experiments with mice showed increased cancer rates, and also states that studies at that time about human exposure are "limited by time factors" - meaning the workers who were exposed still have long lives ahead of them and may develop cancers. The authors of the book you cited conclude that DDT exposure increases the risk of cancer, and recommend that "very strict criteria be applied when limits for DDT and DDE in drinking water are established."
So what is the point of your citation?
You did not read the article you just posted to me did you?
"Many in the scientific and medical communities had concluded that DDT exposure does not cause breast cancer," said Cohn who directs the Center for Research on Women’s and Children’s Health at the Public Health Institute. "The publication of our study could re-open this debate."
The study "suggests" there may be a link. No conclusive evidence was given.
The authors of the study I posted says "be careful" but don't panic. (That is of course unless you have a pink nose and whiskers).
You made no point with your citation.
Big fan of Penn & Teller.
http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=14033851001&bclid=30410932001&bctid=30452406001
If you get Showtime it's a worthwhile watch.
I'm a fan too, but sometimes their libertarian politics are a bit annoying.
I agree :)
It isn't too surprising that little difference was found between the chemical content of conventional and organic growing methods since they tend to approach the actual plants in a very similar way which is to treat it as a collection of minerals.
What is sustainable about the many organic fertilizers that are extracted from the earth like coal or oil or things like ground up fish? And how are the way these are applied any different than applying some synthetic chemicals? Everyone wants their NPK; some make it, others take it from the Earth. As far as organic insecticides go, they don't all sound so friendly. Just because they are natural doesn't mean they are always less toxic. Their main objective is still to kill insects.
If we want to be honest with ourselves we aren't going to have sustainable agriculture until we have farms that can sustain themselves and overflow into their communities. Conventional farms don't pretend to strive for this. Do organic farms?
And why should anyone really care about this FSA research anyway? It misses the whole point of agriculture by reducing the vegetables to the dust of whatever chemicals happen to appear in their analysis. Is that really how we should judge nutrition; is that how we experience nutrition? We should be looking at what foods actually nourish us in the way that we live our lives; whether they actually sustain us or just get us through the day. What would be the difference between a person who eats from a nearby self-sustaining farm, a person who eats from a farm using natural minerals taken from unique places around the world, and a person who eats from a farm using synthetic chemicals?
What really are you when you eat?
I've never heard of coal or oil being used as organic fertilizers. It's the synthetic fertilizers that are derived from petroleum.
Organic farming is about building up the soil with compost, mulch and natural fertilizers like manure, about using companion planting to deter or distract harmful insects and to attract beneficial insects, about planting the crops that are compatible with your soil and weather conditions, to yield more food per acre, as opposed to trying to increase the yield of a mono-crop.
Conventional farming sterilizes the soil, then replaces the microbes, which created soil fertility in the first place, with synthetic fertilizers which get into our water and eventually run off to create anoxic dead zones in the sea. The crops are then regularly sprayed with carcinogenic poisons that harm everyone, including humans and wildlife. The residues of those poisons remain on the foods that we buy.
I agree with you that some of the so called organic pesticides are dangerous, but in organic farming you only use them if needed, and as the science of organic farming is developed, I expect that they will be used less and less. In conventional agriculture the petroleum based pesticides are sprayed on a schedule, whether or not they are needed, and without regard for the collateral damage to wildlife. The poisons are sold by profit making companies who have no stake in reducing their use.
I disagree with you on a couple of points. Conventional farming does not "sterilize" the soil. At certain times it likely contributes to a lessening of the microbes, but they bounce back and thrive. I don't know if any studies have been done to analyze the myriad types of microbes and their relative numbers under different farming systems. Your statement, "In conventional agriculture the petroleum based pesticides are sprayed on a schedule, whether or not they are needed, and without regard for the collateral damage to wildlife," is misleading. It is rare when a pesticide is sprayed when not needed. It is true that most consumers do not want worms in their food, and they will avoid a product with obvious "disease" blemishes, thus ensuring a higher use of pesticides. Like it or not, it's a capitalist world, money rules. If it makes money, you spray. A great deal of farmland is rented land. He who maximizes profits, farms this land. Research is constantly being done to minimize "collateral damage to wildlife." Most seriously bad chemicals have been banned.
Sorry to be late replying. I usually don't have time to blog on the weekends.
Conventional farming does sterilize the soil, and when the microbes "bounce back", that's only until the next scheduled application of herbicide, when the microbes are wiped out again. This is why organically grown food has better nutrients, as shown by many other studies.
Yes, the pesticides are sprayed on a schedule, whether or not there is an infestation of pests, and I think you know that.
Yes, most consumers don't want worms in their food, but I'd rather cut out the worm bite than add pesticides to the load of all the other toxins and carcinogens out there. I would, in ever single case, choose the organic fruit with blemishes over the conventionally grown fruit with the perfect appearance. Most organic consumers feel as I do.
As for all that jazz about capitalism and money, well one hopes for shift, and tries, as a consumer, to make the right choices while they are still available.
I didn't mean to imply that coal or oil are used as organic fertilizers, rather that some organic fertilizers are basically mined from the earth.
I would be very interested in the number of organic farms that actually use compost also. I am unable to find any. Compost is only one of several approved fertilizers for organic farming, but I would say it is the only one that is actually sustainable.
I don't know how to find out the actual number of organic farms using compost, but I don't see how they can keep from using compost, since it fertilizes the soil, rather than chemical fertilizers. Building up the soil is the top priority of organic farming. Everything I've ever read on organic gardening and organic farming indicates that they all use compost.
I understand the ideals of organic farming and I totally support compost, I love compost. I'm trying to draw attention to actual practice and the fact that compost is only one of several approved organic fertilizers and that many of those that are approved are mineral in nature and would be similar in certain ways to using chemical fertilizers, because of the fact that they do not contain anything of a vital nature that a plant can live off of healthily, ie humus. I haven't read many books on organic farming or gardening but I know a lot of farmers and I know people who make compost and their biggest customers do not grow food, rather they grow pot. I am more going off of a feeling I have for what is going on and so would really like some numbers as to how much compost is actually being used, because you can be organic and not use compost.
Veggies from my organic garden are wonderful and very healthy. No thanks to the GMO's.
The report is flawed. Go to:
http://organicconsumers.org
and click on the article "A Cancerous Conspiracy to Poison Your Faith in Organic Foods".
The report (flawed as it is) was reported on the news. Will the criticisms of the report also be reported? Probably not.
The House just passed the "food safety bill". I agree that it has some important food safety provisions. It also gives a lot of power to the FDA to control farming and supplements. Some of the provisions will make it harder for small farms and organic farms to exist. The FDA is associated with big pharma, big food, and factory farms. At one time, it was referred to as "Monsanto's eastern branch office". I keep wondering if, from the point of view of government, I am no more than another factory farm animal existing to consume garbage and then, when I become ill, give big drug in business.
I-ganic! Ital food I'n'I growin' the irie way. You know?
No ferti. Totally Iganic. No problem.
From Jamaica to Montana.
Irie.
Rastafari!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHUHAEtKH5c
Another good report, which refutes the FSA report, is here:
http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/07/organic-food-is-all-that-and-more-just-eat-it/#more-1948
A July 31 report in London's Daily Mail newspaper debunked the pro-GM food "study" commissioned by the British government-agency FSA.
Google "A cancerous conspiracy to poison your faith in organic food, by Joanna Blythman" to find it.
Thanks, RuthK for your link to OCA. The above link to the original story has accompanying photos.