Organic food has no health benefits

[Georgiana]

According to research for the FSA...

Organic food has no health benefits, study finds - Times Online

[pinkfusion]

I wouldn't spend my money on it. I think people are mostly concerned, though, with the pesticides used, and this study doesn't address that. I personally suspect that the affect is probably marginal though.

[Georgiana]

I do try to buy organic when possible (often it's above my budget). I only buy organic eggs; they are not as good as farm eggs, but I have no idea from where to get farm eggs in Germany. Organic veggies also taste better, in my opinion... although not as good as those grandma has in her garden. And I usually buy organic butter (from the milk of grass-fed cows, which is pretty common around here) and I think it tastes better.

I didn't read the report yet, so I'm not sure what foods they looked at. I know they didn't look at taste.

From what I read, if one wants to buy something organic, eggs would be the first thing on the list. But as usual, there is contradicting info on the topic.

[sallyseachange]

Wow! Interesting. I bet that article will stir up a hornets nest in some quarters!

[susan423]

Find the sponsor of this research and I would not be suprised at all if it were a big food PRODUCT producer. (NOTICE I said producer). If we cook and make our own stuff from REAL (real food, what a concept) stuff, they lose out on big change, therefore, the results of studies (including most Scientific research) is heavily skewed, because the cost of sponsoring it is less than they lose by not doing so. As a friend once told me "Keep in mind, most of our great grandparents havent even heard of 90% of the STUFF on our supermarket shelves." Dont believe everything you read.

[Georgiana]

Episode 2: Organic food 'no better for health than factory-farmed food' says report - Times Online

[Aways2Go]

I suppose I should state at the outset that over several generations and decades, my family has been involved in organic farming, both certified and non-certified, old-fashioned traditional farming, and for a time, "conventional" farming. That being said...

I would find it a stretch to believe that organically or bio-dynamically grown crops grown in fields fertilized with composted plant and animal waste and recieving either no or very little poisons/pesticide applications would not be healthier and more full of micronutrients and other beneficials than huge monoculture crops grown in the same soil for decades, with little or no naturally occuring nutrients ever added back to the soil, as is often the case, and fertilized only with petroleum derived chemical fertilizers. If you grow a vegetable plant in soil which is lacking in many nutrients due to depletion, you may be able to make it grow and produce by throwing enough chemical fertilizer at it, but the resulting produce can not, in my mind, actually be the same, even if it LOOKS the same either on your plate on in this report.

There are many recent studies that in fact have found this to be the case. As an example, beef cattle that are raised and finished on grasses, as they are meant to be, have been found to have a much more beneficial profile of omega 3 versus omega 6 fatty acids in the meat produced versus that of cattle crammed into feed lots and fattened quickly on corn and corn by-products, which is an unnatural diet for them but makes for cheap meat prices. The same has been found in numerous studies comparing the eggs of free range chickens versus battery caged (factory farmed) chickens. Mother Earth News magazine has been taking egg samples from farmers all over the country for some time now and doing their own research and finding much more positive nutritional profiles from the eggs of pasture raised chickens versus commercially produced eggs, regardless of what big business says.

I have no doubt the same types of things will be found (have been in some research already, though the studies may be smaller and less well-publicized) in regards to fruits and vegetables.

It is the interest of big business and mega-farms for research and the talking heads to keep trying to convince the public that "an egg is an egg" or that "broccoli is broccoli" no matter what type of soil it is raised in, what sort of chemical pesticides are used on it, etc. I am not convinced whatsoever, despite what they may say or what these larger studies may be reporting. I keep in mind that it wasn't that many decades ago that cigarettes were stated to be non-harmful, and that margarine loaded with trans-fats was declared a healthier choice than natural butter. Obviously now we know better - it just takes time.

I also notice this in the article -
The Soil Association challenged the conclusions that some nutritional differences between organic and conventional food were not important. It said it was particularly concerned that the researchers dismissed higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic food — such as 53.6 higher levels of beta-carotene and 38.4 per cent more flavonoids in organic foods — according to the mean percentage difference of samples analysed.
Dr Dangour was adamant that these were not relevant because of the level of standard error in the research — which was 37 per cent for beta-carotene and 10.6 per cent for flavonoids.

Maybe it's just me, but a 53% higher score being seen as not relevant seems rather large. I understand the "standard error" issue, but still...

Mainly I think I question the study in that there are so many factors that go into what makes something healthier than something else - I feel certain there are many, many factors that are yet to even be identified, much less studied in this research, that contribute to overall health. The complexities of plant biology and human nutrition are just not understood well enough at this point that I would automatically accept that "conventionally grown" produce or animal products would equal more naturally produced foods, even if the nutrients looked at in the study appear basically the same. (I am still appalled that farming practices which make use of little to no natural fertilizers and liberally use petroleum derived chemical fertilizers and a wide variety of lab created poisons is called "conventional," since it never occurred in the history of the world until basically post-WW2).

And in the end, it wouldn't matter to me if they WERE identical nutritionally, and if it didn't make any difference health-wise if I were constantly eating genetically modified crops loaded with pesticide residue. I can't support the continued use of pesticides and poisons and the resulting environmental damage, genetically modified seeds which we barely have any understanding of, and the horrible treatment of farm animals as is now the standard in large commercial farming practices.

I eat locally grown when I can, choosing bio-dynamic/organic (certified or not - the certification process does not always mean as much to me as knowing the farmer and their beliefs and practices), free range/pastured and/or sustainably grown food products as much as my budget and time to hunt it down will allow. I grow some of my own vegetables and herbs as well, so I know what is on them or in the soil. Extended family used to raise beef cattle, and I had full access to naturally raised beef products for many years. Now I have to make effort to hunt it down, and pay the higher price for it when I can.

If research hasn't borne out the wisdom of these choices yet, that is alright - I can wait. I do it for my own health, and to hopefully not contribute to the suffering of animals raised in a factory-farm style nor to add anymore than necessary to the poisoning of the environment and other life on earth. I don't make "perfect" choices by any means, nor can I always afford them, but I do give it thought and try to do the best I can.

For further reading on these topics, I enjoyed Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" and Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma".