Organic food found to be better for us – and why this finding is unlikely to lead to an official endorsement of organic food
Posted on 31 October 2007
Published October 31, 2007 . Filed under: Food and Medical Politics, Healthy Eating, Organics
recent posts
- Having a ‘healthy’ BMI is not necessarily as healthy as we think
Weight Loss - Diabetes costs ‘out of control’, and why this is no surprise given standard dietary advice for diabetics
Diabetes/Metabolic Syndrome Food and Medical Politics Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction - Nonsense study being used to claim that meat causes weight gain
Food and Medical Politics Healthy Eating Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction Weight Loss - Low cholesterol levels associated with depression and other mental health issues
Brain and Behaviour Cholesterol and Statins - Multivitamin and mineral supplementation found to help fat loss and speed metabolic rate
Healthy Eating Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction Nutrients and Supplements Weight Loss Women's Health - More evidence suggests that rapid weight loss leads to better results than slower progress
Healthy Eating Weight Loss - Not just what you eat, but how much believe you’ve eaten, determines how satisfying food is
Healthy Eating Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction Weight Loss
It would be interesting to know if this new study has taken into account at all the quality of the sites used to grow the food, particularly the nutrient qualities of the soil. Would organic food grown in poor soil end up better than non-organic from great soil? It would be nice to know if organic methods are helping to improve soil qualities of farms.
Everytime there is a new report in the press about ‘blueberries are good for you’ (insert whatever fruit / veg etc) – there is always the issue that naturally, quality of food can vary greatly. Blueberries grown in great conditions in good soil for that plant are going to be much better than ones grown in bad climate and poor soil (and how many farms are right next to industrial sites?). Yet both get presented to the consumer in the same manner. Maybe organic producers could work towards minimum nutrient standards or something, but this is a very difficult thing to do at a practical level, especially with the fragmented nature of the organic industry.
About the scientists influence on the FSA, some credit should be given that at least their interests and sources of funding are declared. And the same criticisms can often be made about pro organic research. The mainstream media could do a much better job of presenting greater details of new research – from both sides – and who is behind each piece of research, rather than the focus of a good headline.
November 2, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
“I also suspect that less and less people give a toss about what the FSA says anyway as more and more is revealed about its close relationship with industry.”
Delicately put – and spot on.
November 2, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
[...] Organic food found to be better for us – and why this finding is unlikely to lead to an official end… [...]
November 2, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html
Vegetarian diets are almost always based on ‘organically’ grown produce. This is a system which does not allow the use of special chemical fertilisers and pesticides to increase crop yields, thus, we are told, protecting the environment and the ecological balance. In essence, farming methods are similar to those in use in the nineteenth century and, consequently, crop yields are significantly diminished. In the United States, the demand for organic or ‘natural’ foods has been growing for many years and farmers here are finding it economic to produce organically-grown produce to meet the demand. This may be another profit-making scheme, since less needs to be spent on chemical treatment while the poorer-quality food produced is sold at a higher price.
The word organic is a nonsense in this context. It is inorganic chemicals that are the food of plants. Plants take inorganic minerals such as nitrates, phosphates, potash and trace elements from the soil. Where organic materials such as manure or composted vegetable matter are used, they must first be broken down into the inorganic form before the plants can utilise them. And there is no evidence whatsoever that food grown ‘organically’ is superior to that grown inorganically.
Today, there are widespread concerns about the use of pesticides and artificial additives in food. This has made ‘natural’ seem a desirable attribute. We tend to believe that if anything is as nature made it, it is necessarily better and healthier for us. But scientists are concerned and are calling for more research into plants’ natural toxins. The belief that ‘natural’ means ‘healthy’ is not backed by research, it is fuelled merely by sophisticated advertising campaigns. Tests on animals have shown that natural toxins may be just as good at causing cancers as man-made ones. If we applied the same standards to the testing of naturally-occurring compounds as we do to artificial ones, many would be banned as dangerous to health.
Most people know that it is unsafe to eat certain naturally-occurring foods
November 5, 2007 @ 5:25 am
Sue. It is very easy to say that ‘there is no evidence’ for this, that or the other and all sorts of people say this all the time. I usually ask them whe was the last time that they visited the British Library where score of research papers sit slowly getting covered in dust. The fact is that there IS evidence . If you say there is not then its just that you haven’t read it.
No-one says that some natural foods don’t contain toxins but we have learned over the centuries not to eat them. Because they contain toxins is not a reason for adding to the toxins in our diet by eating even more.
Lastly the fact that money is made from food whether it be organic or nor is irrelevant. Money is made from all sorts of things , good and bad and does not really affect the argument as to whether organic food is better or worse (Neither in fact is the name!)
November 11, 2007 @ 12:34 am
The thing is, organic standards can mean different things. A friend of mine who’s a farmer reared animals for meat that lived freely outdoors and as natural as an animal would otherwise but just because he fed them some antidote to stop them catching a cold, he’s not allowed to sell them as organic.
February 27, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
David – I actually live reasonable near to Tor to Tor (the place you mentioned) and they do great organic food. Although in regards to organic food I would look for locally produced organic food as opposed to buying it in the supermarket, and that goes for all food really. But there’s some good advise on organic out there but be weary!
March 14, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
All good points guys…
David, it’s a real shame that your farmer friend’s produce would be regarded the same as some of the rubbish out there produced with complete disregard for animal welfare and health. The problem is that the prepacked bits of meat on a shelf in the supermarket are so detached from their source, people don’t think about where it comes from. Kids don’t even seem to realise it was once a living animal! It’s us, the consumers, who need to stop and think! Large supermarkets are putting more and more smaller businesses, well… out of business. I don’t eat meat myself but if I did, I would go to an organic butchers – if I couldn’t find one, I’d get it from a local producer, so I could see for myself how the animals are treated and what they are fed. We are all responsible, and we need to go back to basics – if we all change the way we buy (money permitting of course), we can change things on a larger scale.
November 8, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Sometimes its hard for consumers to sift through the politics of ‘big food.’ Its my opinion that it’s not what is ‘in’ organic food but what is ‘not’ in it (i.e. pesticides) that matters.
Recent UK report about organic food vs. non-organic food was misleading to the public due to the nature that I mentioned above. Link above is a great unbiased interview on the truth behind the difference between organic and non-organic foods.
Respectfully,
Dr. Ron
August 26, 2009 @ 2:10 am