UK's FSA Finds No Health Benefits To Organic Food 921
blackbeak writes "The UK Food Standards Agency's 'Independant Organic Review' results were just released, and the BBC rushed to publish the findings in the shockingly titled article, 'No Health Benefits to Organic Food.' From the article, 'There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.' A peek into the research at Postpeakpublishing provides a slightly deeper look."
Re:World improves (Score:2, Informative)
Organic food is. That's the point of it -- Making it as naturally as possible, without using extra ingredients and such to better it. Cow shit is one of the most used things the fields are filled with (so they dont use technogically improved soil etc)
Switch from Smarties to M&Ms (Score:3, Informative)
Yellow Smarties have same health qualities as red Smarties..
Put down the Smarties, pick up the M&Ms and eat the blue ones: http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/07/why-migraines-could-leave-you-blue-in-the-face.html [typepad.com]
Re:Main benefits are to the environment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so? (Score:3, Informative)
Tastes better, too.
I get lots of vegetables, olive oil and pork from my folks. They are retired, live in the country and farm for fun. After eating a tomato from them, you'll never want to buy tomatoes at the supermarket again. And olive oil is so expensive, I get the best, 100% pure olive oil in the world for free.
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
No need to expand anything. People just need to eat less meat. There's a conversion factor of around 8 to 15 converting plant-based food into any kind of meat. You loose around 90% of your nutrional energy by that conversion. We could easily feed the world if the industrial nations wouldn't insist on their daily hamburgers and steaks.
Re:They ignored the "weight of evidence" (Score:1, Informative)
The weight of scientific evidence against the use of pesticides is quite frankly, frighting. For a decent condensed summary of many scientific papers from many fields demonstrating the effects of pesticides, (especially on the endocrine system [wikipedia.org]) check out the book/collection of scientific reports Our Stolen Future [ourstolenfuture.org].
In 1995 worldwide pesticide sales were around 30 billion. Who knows what they are today?
Not so fast. If you're concerned with pesticides, you might want to brush up on what exactly constitutes an "organic" food.
Here is a Quackwatch [quackwatch.com] article about the subject. It also addresses pesticides directly.
Re:Not surprised, however... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. As I pointed out in my original message, antibiotic resistance is a real problem when they are used to promote growth rather than to fight disease. The use in agriculture is implicated in resistance in human pathogens too.
As for John Emsley's analysis. The man takes things to extremes. Am I suggesting that organic methods be foisted on sub-Saharan Africa to retain biodiversity? No (although they do get higher export prices for export crops) I'm explaining why there are ratioanal reasons in the UK to favour UK organic farmers. I hope that helps your comprehension.
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
You are dead right. I for one would call "not being poisoned by organophosphorus residues" a health benefit. I wonder who paid for this study and then chose the report's title.
If you follow the links (yes, I know, this is /.) you will find that it covered overall health effects, not just nutrition. You will also find that it was paid for by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA). I don't know who chose the report's title ("Organic Health Effects Review"). Presumably the FSA chose the title of the press release ("Organic Review Published"). Why? Do you find those titles biased or controversial?
However, the FSA press release doesn't seem to match the content of the report. The report was on a study of studies, looking at existing work rather than doing any new research. It found that the "because of the limited and highly variable data available, and concerns over the reliability of some reported findings, there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs". That is not the same as the FSA's claim that "there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food" as the FSA say on the press release. The study showed that we don't know whether there are any health benefits, not that there are no health benefits. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This suggests at least incompetence on the part of whoever did the press release, and possibly malice.
Re:so? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html [skepdic.com]
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019 [skeptoid.com]
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1190/news_detail.asp [acsh.org]
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162 [skeptoid.com]
Re:Personal experience with milk says article's BS (Score:5, Informative)
Check the milk you are drinking and you will probably find that it is lactose free. Alot of organic milks are this way because it is cheaper to throw everything into the same container than have multiple version. Organic milks are also ultrapasturized because they need the longer shelf life.
Re:from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
There were claims publicised in the UK that while organic and non-organic food had the same levels of major nutrients, organic food had higher amounts of trace nutrients -- the things you only need micrograms of (selenium was one, I think).
I haven't read the report, but my assumption from the summary is that these claims have been found to be false.
(I don't often buy organic food. I do try and buy properly produced food, e.g. the cheap and normal tomatoes in UK supermarkets have been artificially ripened, and don't taste of much. The more expensive ones have been ripened properly, and are far sweeter and tastier. That's useful in a salad, but if I'm going to cook the tomatoes I'm not so bothered.)
Re:from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They ignored the "weight of evidence" (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1567/organic-food-exposed?page=0%2C2 [cosmosmagazine.com]
Re:Switch from Smarties to M&Ms (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Title misleading (Score:1, Informative)
I'm afraid you're wrong.
Most research about the use of contemporary fertilisers show that they do not 'add' to the wealth of the soil. They in fact use the capacity of the soil and then fail to adequately repair it.
The ongoing deterioration of land is a basic story and is covered well in research. Peter Singer has written some interesting commentary.
The ongoing damage to soil fertility results in larger amounts of chemical fertilisation being used. Eventually the soil is exhausted and the owner merely sells if off. They are interested in business, not farming, therefore they do not have to consider the next 100 years of production.
The degredation of large areas of the food production areas of the USA and China is well documented. This is predominantly because of poor farming practices.
Eat less or no meat - if you wish to live as nature intended, get back in the forest and the plains and wipe your arse with your hands (or someone elses). Organic farming produces very high output and it is merely misleading and uninformed personal bias which causes people to state otherwise.
I don't know you. You don't know me. I've nothing personal against you. Please, like so many others, do some reading.
Re:from TFA - it tastes better too. (Score:3, Informative)
You are deluding yourself if you think organic == no pesticides, or if you think pesticides == cancer:
From a very lengthy article [cosmosmagazine.com] that probably won't be read or dismissed as casually as this current study.
Re:Title misleading (Score:3, Informative)
The other thing authors like Michael Pollan have been busy pointing out is that we don't know all the micro-nutrients in whole foods, so we actually can't know whether the contents of, say, organic lettuce, actually matches the contents of a conventionally grown lettuce because we simply don't know what all to look for. And those micro-nutrients make a big difference, as well as making the food taste much better.
Re:World improves (Score:1, Informative)
FYI, fertilizing with manure is standard practice in both organic and inorganic farming.
Bad summary (Score:4, Informative)
conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review", and it's not quoted text from the linked article.
The report was commissioned by the FDA, but actually produced by the London School of Economics; that's what makes it independent.
There's no need to go to postpeakpublishing (or Database Error as they seem to be called today) for a deeper look as you can read the whole report at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
Re:the organic lobby got one thing right. (Score:3, Informative)
Organic farming is clearly defined if you (in your infinite knowledge of all thing agriculture) cared to look it up.
When I was about 12 I was helping my uncle drench sheep - basically giving them a chemical shower. The chemical we were using caused me and my cousin to both have explosive diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea the instant we caught a decent whiff of the overspray. "You'll get used to it" was my uncles advice to us.
There's areas on farms where sheep dips stood that are now officially poisoned ground that food can never be grown in due to the arsenic levels in the soil, these old dip sites are tracked by the government where known.
But yeah, all the chemicals being sprayed all over your food are completely harmless, so to are the growth hormones and antibiotics your eating every day.
I bet you would have said the same thing about lead pipes 40 years ago.
It's you who wallow in ignorance I'm sorry. Have you even ever stepped foot out of the city?
Re:World improves (Score:3, Informative)
No I think you'll find that machinery (specifically the tractor, combine, header and truck) is the reason that it doesn't take 80% of the population to work the land anymore. Everything else you list gives insignificant increases in output by comparison.
My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have.
Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it.
I should remember I dun know nuthing about that that there food production like you edumacated city slickers do.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Informative)
Don't eat mushrooms then. They're not only made in cow dung, they're basically made entirely from cow dung.
Re:Organic food is selfish/elitist (Score:2, Informative)
the same enclave of hippy bozos that brought us organic food also vies for the prohibition of DDT in developing countries where over a million people, mostly children below the age of 5, [wikipedia.org] die each year from malaria.
Trolling much lately? DDT is still in use as malaria control. Quoting from the wikipedia link you so kindly provided:
The evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitos has greatly reduced its effectiveness in many parts of the world, and current WHO guidelines require that before the chemical is used in an area, susceptibility of local mosquitos to DDT must be confirmed.[83] The appearance of DDT-resistance is largely due to its use in agriculture, where it was used in much greater amounts than the relatively small quantities used for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural uses of DDT and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."
So, today's lesson: If you link something to further your bullshit agenda, you better read the linked content completely beforehand. Might save you from looking like an idiot.
organic effect or homogenization effect? (Score:4, Informative)
It's quite simple, when i drink standard milk i get horrible stomach cramps and other nasty digestive effects. When I drink organic milk (NOT SOY) I have none of that.
By the term "standard milk", do you mean homogenized milk? Homogenization breaks the suspended particles (typically fats with proteins) into much smaller sizes, greatly increasing the surface area presented per gram of solids. If you have a sensitivity to some substance in the suspended solids of cow-milk (e.g. a particular protein, sugar, or fat), then homogenization is likely to exacerbate your reaction to it. This effect will occur whether the milk is organic or not, but since organic milk is likely to be unhomogenized, it may appear to be an organic vs non-organic issue.
I also speak from personal experience. I can consume reasonable quantities of whole milk, but can tolerate only small quantities of homogenized milk before digestive problems occur.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Informative)
True. And we have diseases which were completely unheard of 30,000 years ago. Is there a point?
Sheer nonsense. First off, most of the food you eat has been genetically modified. It's just that silly buggers who don't know anything tend to get more upset about those eeeevil scientists in their crazy white coats than they do about farmer bob and his descendants selectively breeding plants for their own purposes. Anyone who eats seedless fruit while complaining about "GM food" is a fucking idiot.
And, second, the idea that all food which has been scientifically modified - regardless of what changes were made - is "bad for the environment" is so silly that it shouldn't really warrant a response.
Re:from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the hypoxic zone in the Gulf Mexico [carleton.edu], and tell me organic food is not more healthy.
Look at the meat-packing plants that moved away from large urban centres like Chicago and to small towns (and thus away from large city media and scrutiny), where illegal aliens are used as slave labour (and even recruited by company brass [ucdavis.edu]) mass slaughtering cattle sickened by corn on CAFOs [ecosalon.com]), and tell me organic food is not more healthy.
The arguments against organic food are legion; it's a shame that this study lacks a larger view of the health benefits beyond nutrition of organic food.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
But "nutritionally better for you" is one of the ways organics have been sold. Less so in recent years as more and more studies have shown it actually wasn't though.
Re:World improves (Score:2, Informative)
Manure enjoys widespread use regardless of whether the farmer has 'organic' in mind or not.
Organic foods have no poisons like insecticides. (Score:4, Informative)
There is no claim that organic foods are more nutritious. Organic foods are intended to be free of poisons like insecticides.
The idea is not that eating foods with traces of insecticides and other poisons would cause immediate sickness. The idea has been that, over time, avoiding poisons would be good for health. Testing that theory would take many years.
This is a comment posted to this Los Angeles Times article, Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown, review finds [latimes.com]: "I don't buy organic because I believe it has "extra" nutrients! I buy it because of the things it DOESN"T contain!!! Look at all the food recalls just this year."
Another comment: "I have a friend who lives near several farms. He and his wife are both dying of cancer. The health department checked their well water and found it with high levels of farm pesticides. THAT is the cost of conventional farming in addition to the pesticide residue that you consume each time you eat conventionally grown produce."
Re:World improves (Score:5, Informative)
>>>but for the last 3 or so months that you were in the womb, you were floating in your own excrement.
No your not. A baby's bottom is "plugged" with a semi-solid material that doesn't come-out until the first bowel movement (after birth). So no solid poop floating around. And all liquid waste material aka urea is removed directly from the baby's bloodstream by the umbilical cord.
Re:from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is not with the article or the study but from morons like yourself who extrapolate meaning outside the scope of the study and determine that because the study found there was the same nutritional value from organic and conventional foods that they were stating that conventionally produced food was just as healthy as organic.
Actually, that's what the article claimed. The title of the BBC article was "Organic 'has no health benefits'", not "Organic 'has no better nutritional value'". Furthermore, the article states:
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
(my emphasis)
I did read the article, but I wonder if you did.
-dZ.
Re:World improves (Score:4, Informative)
This study just showed that Organic food doesn't have significant more nutrients than non-organic.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
I'll modify their quote so it makes sense:
Really? I can give you two apples that have the same nutritional value but one has cyanide in it. Are you going to trust the study that doesn't look into the affects of poison in the food?
Re:from TFA (Score:1, Informative)
We could easily feed the whole world now if the corrupt third world governments weren't looting any aid they got sent. Sorry, but the problem is distribution, not production. Given population trends, we don't really need to worry about Malthus.
Misleading (Score:3, Informative)
OK, after reading comments I actually went back to read the fine article. Some points that struck me:
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.
Continuing the Mellchett quote: "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.
Re:World improves (Score:3, Informative)
You may already know this, but you wrote "I think" so I get an opening. Most tomatoes you buy in supermarkets are picked green and reddened with Ethlyene gas. That turns them bright red but doesn't change them structurally so they are still somewhat hard and transport well. They also don't develop as much fructose and taste like crap.
With beef the Angus craze gives me a laugh. Advertising has led people to think that as long as you buy Black Angus beef you are getting the best steak around. But the benefits of Angus cattle accrue mostly to the people selling the beef, since their main difference is that they put on weight faster than other breeds. The pork industry is actually worse off in this regard. Chickens and Turkeys less so on the flavor side but more so on the pump-them-full-of-chemicals-so-they-grow-fast side.
Utter Ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to popular belief, Organic food does use pesticides and fertilizers. They are just limited in which ones they are allowed to use. The pesticides are of older categories, derived from other plants, hence being acceptable as "organic". However, they are not as effective as the newer ones (which is why we use the newer ones in the first place) and in order to work effectively require much higher application rates (lbs/acre) and more frequent applications (10-12 times/season instead of 3-6).
Even with the use of these "Organic" pesticides and fertlizers, they cannot produce the same number of bushels/acre. That means that they need to use more acres to grow the same amount of corn or soy. Never mind all of the diesel fuel consumed by running the tractor over more land more frequently in a given season.
When it comes to animal agriculture it's even worse. Chickens have a Huge dietary requirement for the amino acid Methionine, but grains are poor sources of Methionine. In order to meet the requirement without doubling the number of days to market (from 7 to 14 weeks) all conventional, as well as all "Organic" broiler chicken diets contain a source of synthetic Methionine activity. All regulations governing organic animal production allow for a Methionine Exception.
Without these exceptions, producers would be forced to either double days to market or achieve adequate Methionine levels by dramatically over feeding crude protein (~30% vs. the normal of ~20%). The excess amino acids that make up the Crude Protein would be catabolized and stored as fat, with their associated Nitrogen groups excreted as waste. Excess waste Nitrogen is a Huge environmental issue because Nitrogen is usually the rate limiting nutrient in saltwater environments. Excess Nitrogen from fields and composting poultry litter can end up getting into local water and causing Eutrophication.
Alternatively in "Modern" broiler chicken diets you can actually feed diets containing as little as 12% Crude Protien, with extensive use of synthetic amino acids. This results in identical or occationally superior performance on the part of the growing birds, and Dramatically Reduced levels of Nitrogen in the animals waste. This also saves money for the producer, limits the potential for negative environmental impact, and is practically required if you are going to stay on the right side of environmental regulations here in the US.
There is nothing "Environmentall Friendly" about Organic food. Organic food and Sustainability are actually antithetical to each other. I would say that buying organic food is financial masterbation, except that's not fair to masterbation. They both make you feel good, but only Organic food is actually bad for the environment.
Re:World improves (Score:2, Informative)
Re:the organic lobby got one thing right. (Score:1, Informative)
omg [woodheadpublishing.com] chemicals [cspinet.org] are [fda.gov] teh [injuryboard.com] evilz [cornell.edu]
I'm sure the overwhelming quantity of available information on the dangers of chemical additives and pesticides in food has been planted only recently by the organic food lobbyists to sway the opinion of us ignorant plebes (kind of like how God put fossils in the Earth to trick people into believing that the Earth was more than 5000 years old). So good of you to point this out.
The higher price of organic food must also be a direct result of the organic food lobby. It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the true cost of pesticide-free food grown sustainably (which is what the fuck "organic" is supposed to mean, fyi). There is no way food grown in this manner could simply cost more to produce than pesticide-laden food grown in a manner that is environmentally destructive. Thanks for speaking truth to power.
Re:World improves (Score:3, Informative)
I go by the USDA grading system...not that market talk of "angus" this or that.
I recently bought a whole USDA Prime grade boneless rib roast and cut my own steaks from it. Yes, it was good...yes it was better than the choice or (ugh) select stuff.
But todays Prime grade beef, does not have NEAR the same marbling that Prime grade beef had say in the 60's and 70's.
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard your response many times as well - and it's wrong too.
Cows in feedlots (which is where they gain over 60% of the final weight) don't eat grass, they eat grain. They don't gain weight from plant cellulose, they gain weight from starches and sugars.
The grain they eat is grown on farming land that could be used to raise food directly for people, and consumes water that could be used to raise food directly for people. Which means rather than getting full value from that land and water - we get less than 10%.
Re:from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
"Plain wrong"? Nice try. Let's look at the inefficiencies of eating meat, shall we?
One acre of land could produce 25 tons of tomatoes, 20 tons of potatoes, 15 tons of carrots... or 250 pounds of beef. (Dworkin, Norine, "22 Reasons to Go Vegetarian Right Now," Vegetarian Times, April 1999, p. 91.)
It takes 100 times the amount of water to produce one pound of beef as to produce one pound of wheat. (Jeffrey Hollender. How to Make the World a Better Place, NY: William Morrow & Co., 1990: p. 122.)
To produce a year's supply of beef for a family requires over 260 gallons of fossil fuel, or approximately one gallon of gasoline per pound of grain-fed beef. (Ibid)
Two out of every three people in the world lead healthy lives eating primarily meatless diets. (2 Jeremy Rifkin. Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. Dutton: New York, 1992.)
As for the "what nature intended" aspect, a) what secondhand_Buddah said, or b) humanity is that which defies what "nature intends" otherwise we'd still be hunter-gatherers.
Re:Organic foods have no poisons like insecticides (Score:3, Informative)
Because antibiotics are given constantly, regardless of whether the animal is sick or not. Which is an excellent way of making the antibiotic in question useless due to immunization of the bacteria.
Being a farmer myself (Score:5, Informative)
I can say a few of things. First I'm totally in favor of organic food because it lets farmers make more money without having to do much of anything differently (a tax on the gullible). Interestingly enough, I doubt most organic food connoisseurs really know what makes organic food "organic." It's not quite as simple as just "no chemicals," although that's a key part.
Secondly the unwashed masses have pretty much demanded pesticides on fruits and veggies since blemished fruit doesn't sell (except in organic markets where blemishes and insect infestations are "features). Until we can convince people that it's okay for your apple to not be a perfect shade of red, there will continue to be unnecessary pesticide use.
Thirdly, in the realm of weed control, years of over-tillage and over-use of herbicides have led us to a situation where herbicide resistance is a massive problem. Ironically this means that we're now more dependant than ever on new herbicides. But compared to pesticides, herbicides are quite benign. Most of them are not toxic after they touch the soil and break down into their constituent organic parts. Herbicides work in different ways. Some grow the plant to death. Others target photosynthesis, or stop plant growth. Personally I hate handling any chemicals. I'd love to be able to farm without them. But with weeds if you don't use herbicides the next year has an order of magnitude more weeds. So I think if they are used wisely we can get the food we need without harming the environment.
Despite what people say about sustainable agriculture, "organic" farming as many people would like to see, is actually quite harmful (without controlling weeds) and certainly not sustainable as a food source for the whole world. Entropy and the principles of chaos rule this world, I'm afraid. Weeds thrive when we remove the native plants that previously held them at bay, for the sake of farming.
As an aside, if people really understood how the food supply works in the developed world, they'd immediately stock up on food, at least a few months' worth. Our system is completely "just-in-time." All it would take is massive hemisphere crop failures from climate change or a volcano causing a cold spell,a nd we'd all be out of food. in just 3 or 4 months. Just like that. And massive crop failures have happened before (particularly in the southern hemisphere). I read once that the world wheat supply at any given time is about 3 months. Scary stuff.
Re:Utter Ignorance (Score:4, Informative)
In order to actually be organic, they have to spend a lot of time and money getting approval from the USDA.
This is inaccurate. To be certified organic, they would need to spend this effort. I find the whole "certified organic" thing to be dubious at best. I know some of the farmers I buy from. Many of them grow using the best practices of organic farming. They do not go through any effort to be "certified organic" because they don't market their produce through main stream grocery store chains. Word of mouth on the quality of their produce is good enough.
Re:Organic foods have no poisons like insecticides (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, if you are like me and 'eat to live' instead of 'live to eat' any percieved difference is usually not worth the cost.