Organic or Non Organic?

[Marmora Man]

Today it has been reported that organic food offers no inherent benefits. BBC News - Organic Report

I know this was raised, briefly, under "I read the news today" thread but felt it deserved wider discussion.

For me - the report was not a surprise. If I buy organic (and I don't particularly make a habit of buying organic as a matter of course - I simply buy from good food shops where provenance and flavour is considered important) it's mainly because organic farmers tend to treat their livestock and land rather better and the resultant food has better flavour. It's not because I believe it will prevent or cure my cancer / allergy or particular disease.

If money's the question and you simply need enough protein and carbohydrates to subsist - go for the cheaper, non organic, option.

Views??

[louisiana]

Non-organic does not have a future. In coming decades we are going to experience shortening supplies of both oil (industrial extensive farming is 'no people, all machinery') and gas (fertilisers). What then?

[KatoTheCat]

well.

the main thought i have to share here is...

organic food isnt supposed to have superior benefits to the non-organic option.

in a way it is like fair trade. the animals are treated fairly.

with regards to vegetables and fruits and such, it is mainly the pesticides used (which have few government regulations) you can pretty much spray any chemical s**t on any plants.

this is where non-organics become detrimental to our health, in the medium-long term, and will most certainly do harm (personal opinion)

also, take a closer look at that article.

theres a lot of gaps, though the researchers claimed to "look at all the evidence".

that is impossible, that would require a major global study, looking also at cou tries that grow our fruit and veg, and export it to us.

thus, i am certain the report is rather sketchy, and is in some way funded by "non-organic food producers..."? just a hunch...

[Marmora Man]

-- moved topic --

[macroban]

Peak phosphate/phosphorus will be more serious than peak oil.

Agricultural output per hectare will start slipping backwards to 1880s levels even with extensive GM modifications to crops.

Morocco has about a third of the world's reserves of phosphate. No doubt the People's Republic of China will discover WMDs in Morocco and lead a coalition of the willing.

Edited: for slip of the finger

[mockney piers]

""Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added."

I'm pretty sure studies have been done linking this to reduced sperm counts/fertility levels, and possible links to increase in various cancer rates, but I'd have to dig around.

so it's ok to take scientists' word on this, but not, say, climate change?

[The Chair]

Please try and respect the ethos of the new room and stay relevant to the topic under discussion.

The Chair

[louisiana]

Another issue: there has been a significant decline in nutrients between 1950 and 1999, according to FDA-funded study (USA). (I don't think organic formed part of that study.)

[macroban]

I thought I was on topic.

I will try to explain.

The absence or restriction of supply of phosphates as inputs to fertilisers will make "organic" the default option thus reversing today's relationship between organic and non-organic.

As we move towards this position it will temper Marmora Man's statement: "If money's the question and you simply need enough protein and carbohydrates to subsist - go for the cheaper, non organic, option.".

[Huguenot]

Well said MacRoban.

No-one said that 'organic' was a treatment for cancer, so it's unworthy of discussion. It's more probably fodder for the wierdos in the League of Gentleman. I'm not sure how the Camberwell Conservatives fit into this ;-)

Having said that, 'peak food' is already an issue - because we're at it, notwithstanding distribution issues - and we're growing still. 6bn is already an afterthought, we're probably at 7bn and nearing 8bn. We were at 2bn in 1950.

In that sense the 'phosphorous' issue is out of the 1950s pocket. We don't increase production as a consequence of phosphorous, but as a consequence of a vast swathe of agricultural practices.

Whether people view this as organic or not is kind of by-the-by. Your children will be under threat mainly for any nutrition.

[Floating Onion]

Just wanted to point out that the original link only discusses the health benefits such as increased nutrients. It doesn't seem to discuss/consider the risks that may (not) be associated with non organic foods due to pesticides, etc.

Without the original study it's hard to be clear though.

[JamesG]

Irresponsible journalism! Well the headlines at least. The report states there are insignificant nutritional benefits to organic food! ?120,000 to tell us that? Forumites you are correct in that organic farmers tend to treat their animals with more respect. ?Tend?. I suspect most people buy organic because of this and because they don?t like the idea of chemicals being on their food, not because an organic orange has more vitamin C.

This research which is being misrepresented buy the media I have seen totally misses the point. Do the chemicals used in modern industrial farming definitely have unpleasant side effects? Intuitively middle class middle England thinks so.

[Floating Onion]

I like organic & free range meet because it tastes yummy. Not for health reasons.

[JamesG]

Do the Pepsi challenge on free range and yes I reckon the conclusion is a resounding thumbs up but organic alone?

[Huguenot]

Yay! JamesG is back!

I knew a Drawing Room would suck him in!

Apologies for offtopication and unruly behaviour.

I do, of course, ask all combatants to recognise the straw man in action.

[JamesG]

Yes I'm back!

Straw man? A bit harsh.

I believe that "Views??" was simply an introduction to discuss this issue.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Views??

[louisiana]

Links to the two parts of the report (which was basically a literature review) can be found at the foot of this page.

[Nero]

It is not irresponsible journalism. The BBC reported the story and included a clip from the Soil Association boss who explained that regardless of what the study found, at least some people choose organic over normal food because of what they see as its benefits - non-use of pesticides, emphasis on quality and taste, higher regard for the environment.

The story was discussed at high level at the BBC, with managers stressing that the taste angle was only one reason why those who eat organic do so.

Whether or not pesticides are damaging to human health and the environment at the level they are used in non-organic farming is another argument, but the very fact that it was referred to at least demonstrates the news provider acknowledges it is an element of the discussion.

[Mellors]

I think what we really need are more allotments - growing your own = cheap, no food miles, organic (if you choose), delicious, and nutritious. The excercise in digging your spud bed is enough to fulfil anyone's weekly quota, and I've never met a child yet who won't eat a fruit or veg its grown itself. Surely it would save the NHS gazillions?

[Floating Onion]

Not sure I'd go as far as irresponsible reporting, but the tagline "Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded" is misleading. The study did not appear to investigate potential impacts of non organic food.

[Asset]

I agree Onion, that's what I thought when listening to the reports.

It's all very well saying there are no more nutrients but that doesn't acknowledge the many more chemicals present in non-organic food.

And as has been pointed out, this study is just a review of studies that have been done over the last few years and not a scientific exercise.

Personally I know which I choose most of the time.

[Huguenot]

All fair points, the straw man allusion was only an attempt to highlight that an organic food debate shouldn't start and end with a scientific study into 'health benefits'.

As a heterodyne empiricist, I believe that all elements should be considered, and their contribution proven.

Nero highlighted a couple of other angles, and Mellors noted an essential element of humanity in terms of investment and reward.

[Floating Onion]

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that it was all about health benefits. Thought that would have been clear by my second comment.

[Moos]

Surely an analysis of a series of studies into one big conclusion is still a scientific exercise?

[annaj]

And as has been pointed out, this study is just a review of studies that have been done over the last few years and not a scientific exercise.

The study is a systematic review which, if done well, is considered the highest level of evidence. Rather than just being a review of other studies it's an analysis both of the quality of previous studies and their findings. It provides a better reflection of the population than a single study, because it includes data from mutliple samples. There is a set process to producing a SR which involves formulating a specific question, searching published and unpublished literature for relevant studies, critically appraising all the sutdies individually for their relevance to the question and scientific validity then statistically analysing the results of all the trials to see if, taken together, they give a consistent result.

The question of harm resulting from pesticides has been ignored, because that wasn't the question in this review. To work a SR has to be specific and has to stick to the question it is trying to answer. Using data that was collect to answer one question and extrapolating to draw a conclusion on another is one of the big mistakes in research.

Sorry if that explanation is off topic, but I thought it really important to understand that, far from diminishing it's validity, the fact that this study is a SR makes it probably the best scientific evidence we can get.

Anyone who wants to read the SR for themselves you can, surprisingly, download it for free here if you click on the pdf link on the right.

My personal opinion is that the organic food industry should focus on the very valid environmental, ethical and taste benefits rather than make unproven health claims and argue with scientific research

Edited because the quote function didn't work and it looked messy.