Propaganda Alert: Organic 'has no health benefits'

E

Erna

The Living Force
I heard this in the radio yesterday. They're certainly broadcasting it far and wide...

_http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm

Organic 'has no health benefits'

Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

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.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.

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.


Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.

"This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food.

"What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."

She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.

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.
Click to expand...

These 'British scientists' are relentless in their health propaganda with the help of their lying megaphone - the BBC. Recently they likened homeopathy to placebos.

...all in the name of profit as always...
 
Even if the nutritional benefits are negligible, eating organically grown food means consuming less chemicals and pesticides. Surely that’s where real benefit is to be had.

I work in the fruit industry, and know growers and farmers all over the world. If one looks at table grapes for example, realistically, most producers will treat their farms with anything they are allowed to legally get away with. Even post-harvest, they spray the trees with pesticides and insecticides to protect them from infestations of insects that destroy the leaves and sap the nutrients. Then they spray them to put them into dormancy – to rest the plants - until they spray them again to wake them up, so they can spray them yet again to ensure the fruit does not grow too small or too big. Then when they are packed, they often gas them to kill spiders or place a pad in the box to slowly release sulphur and prolong the shelf life of the goods in transit. It is pretty much the same story for all tree or vine fruit.

The many producers that I have met, do take pride in what they grow, but for them it is a commercial enterprise and the goal for them is to maximise returns for their produce. A few organic growers are idealists, but most commercial organic farmers that I have come across are not much different in that respect from their non-organic colleagues. In both cases they will do what they think they need to do, to maximise profits, and sometimes, the reason for choosing to grow part of their production using organic methods is to raise their average returns because they can make a higher premium from organic sales, even though yields are generally lower. I am not judging them in this respect, just recounting my interpretation of what I have seen.

In common with each other, neither producer want to be “caught” exceeding the limit of chemical residues, set by, for example in the case of the UK, the European Union, because their whole “lot “ would have to be destroyed as unfit for consumption. (Or in the case of fruit claiming to be organic, it might have to be re-labelled, if it was still within the limits set for non-organic fruit). The responsibility of ensuring the “food safety” is mainly on the receivers of the produce, who, if they are following due diligence recommendations, send samples of each of the first lots of a new season, from a new source, for lab testing to check the residue levels. However any one selling the fruit can be held responsible, from the farmer to the retailer.

The test for all fruit is the residue levels that can be detected by laboratory analysis.

So this is where companies selling the chemicals have to be clever. Their technologists instruct the producers on what “safe” levels of their products can used, so that the tested final product comes in below the set limits on the Levels of Detection in the labs. For organic fruit, usually the LOD’s are set at zero. The Chemical companies, supplier the growers with information on factors like “the Degredation Curve” that is to say, the number of days after treating the fruit , that the chemical residue is no longer traceable by current testing methods, and the growers if responsible, usually stick closely to that advice.

It is therefore often the case, that a given chemical has been used, it is simply that the use can’t be detected, or that the labs are satisfied it was used in a quantity that allows the residue level to come in at what they call “safe” levels, that is to say below the tolerance set by the regulating authority.

Many farmers argue that the tolerances are set too low, and that yields are lowered or more work has to be done in orchards, lowering profits and increasing costs.

The European Union tell us that they are constantly lowering the LOD’s and setting many of the limits at zero for both organic and non-organic production. Also, many Chemicals can be traced if used in any amount at all, because they do not degrade quickly enough. As a result he UK supermarkets have become the un-elected custodians of our health. Not because they “care” about us, but because they don’t want to be sued or gain negative publicity. So we find our trust placed in companies that exist principally to satisfy their shareholders through dividends and share prices.

Fresh fruit and vegetables are important to our diets. Most people don’t have the land to grow their own, (although even a window box can grow tomatoes or salads) but organic reduces the risks we are exposed to, as does washing even pre-packed produce. And we all need all the help we can get. Congrats if you made it this far, if nothing else I may have helped the insomniacs amongst us by boring you to sleep!
 
But organic or home grown stuff tastes so much better! I suppose I could take all the vitamins and supplements that a tomato has and get the same nutritional value but it wouldn't be the same as eating a "real" tomato. I recently joined up with a food co-op where I live and the spotty unattractive looking produce that supermarkets would reject is usually the best. The left over local stuff that a co-op member has supplied with fungus spots, strange shapes etc.

In short natural food is grown for eating not profit, transport and storage in the "supply chain".I have a feeling that some of nature's "hyrdogens" are lost in these food factories.

Tasteless, thick skinned, appealing looking tomatoes stored in controlled atmospheres have come under fire here for years. A lot of people are growing their own. Same goes for various varieties of strawberries, I have two, one produces good looking large fruit which tastes rather bland and woody, the other which produces rather small unattractive looking berries which tastes wonderful!
 
Johnno said:
I suppose I could take all the vitamins and supplements that a tomato has
Click to expand...

According to some, that is not the case. I posted this in the 'Session 3 January' thread as well.


The synthetic vs natural debate:

_http://www.ghchealth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3554&sid=4d205b1b73ff9c3e20096b6b94805724

Your daily dose

Despite the newly revealed vitamin C benefits, it's not a green light to load up on vitamin C supplements. The best way to get the vitamin C you need is by eating more fruits and vegetables, advised antioxidant expert John Erdman, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The clinical trials using vitamin C supplements to explore the nutrient's role in reducing the risk of cancer and heart disease have been "very disappointing," Erdman said. The only clear pattern of risk reduction is when researchers have looked at fruit and vegetable consumption, he said.

According to Erdman, who served on the panel that established the recommended daily intakes for vitamin C and other antioxidants, the answer is simple: Load up daily on "whole" foods like fruits and vegetables. They contain a complex mixture of vitamins, minerals, fiber, phytochemicals and other compounds that can't be captured in a pill.
Click to expand...

And this:

_http://www.ghchealth.com/natural-health/synthetic-vs-natural-vitamins/

:)
 
I posted in the Swine Flu questions post regarding a book that I thought was interesting regarding the quality of fresh produce, Dairy and meat called "We want Real Food" by Graham Harvey.
It highlights that if the soil that produce is grown in, or that grazing animals graze on has very low levels of minerals and nutrients that it makes for low nutritional value in the end product regardless of whether it is organic or conventional.

Whilst practicing organic farming is undoubtedly beneficial for the benefits of less pesticides, to be more completely beneficial the soil must contain optimum levels of minerals and nutrients replaced regularly by using green compost and animal waste. The author suggests that in the past this was done naturally on mixed farms because they kept animals alongside growing crops and used their own manure and compost to re energize their soil.

He further suggests that the use of nitrogen fertilizers and monoculture farming has left most soil "dead" in that the whole system of living microorganisms that are so important to the wildlife and insect population which further re energize the soil is wiped out. Leading to the need for more chemical fertilizers and insecticides.

If our organic farmed food is being grown on soil deficient in the minerals and nutrients that good healthy soil needs to grow strong healthy food of course it "appears" to have no identifiable benefits.
 
I think alphonse got it, "eating organically grown food means consuming less chemicals and pesticides. Surely that’s where real benefit is to be had." The whole headline is a twist of words. True, but only half the truth. When they talk about benefits, they're talking only about the positives. They're not figuring the negatives of artificial growth-enhancing methods into the equation.
 
There's a lot of newspapers propagating this article, here in France.
Asking myself why :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom