Is organic food healthier?
A British watchdog says you're wasting money if you buy expensive organics thinking they're more nutritional.
Organic produce: When is a carrot just a carrot? (Corbis)
Tough break for the organic food industry, said Britain's Marie Claire magazine. It was "already struggling in the economic downturn as shoppers turn away from more expensive goods," and now the British government's food watchdog, the Food Standards Agency, has declared that organic food is no healthier than conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. This should come as a blow to organic farmers at the worst possible time.
These "shock" findings ought to wake up parents, said Ruki Sayid in Britain's Mirror, who have been shelling out extra money to buy organic because they thought it was better for their children. The study should also serve as a slap in the face to "the green lobby and high profile organic gurus like chef Jamie Oliver."
"Here we go again," said Leo Hickman in Britain's Guardian. This latest study has inspired "predictable front-page headlines implying organic food is little more than a myth and a rip-off," but the food watchdog agency has long banned organic food producers from claiming that their fare was nutritionally superior to comparable non-organic produce. But there are still plenty of reasons to go organic, including "the avoidance of pesticide residues" and the greater attention to "animal welfare" on organic farms.
And don't forget the environmental benefits of organic farming, said John-Paul Flintoff in Britain's The Times. All those pesticides and fertilizers dumped onto non-organic farms wash into our rivers and lakes. And if that doesn't convince you, consider this: If you try it, you might find that organic food simply tastes better.
Show: Oldest | Newest
11 Comments
Posted by Jake, Thursday, July 30, 2009, 11:51 am that was the most worthless study. The only reason to buy organic is to avoid pestisides, treat animals fairly, and help the enviroment. Please study this and let me know if I am getting my money's worth. This worthless report will only make people who dont buy organic to remain in the dark, and feel good for the wrong reasons.
Posted by Steve Savage, Thursday, July 30, 2009, 12:25 pm Organic is NOT better for the environmentOrganic fertilizers have been shown to be worse in terms of leaching into ground water or into streams. They emit more nitrous oxide from the soil a potent greenhouse gas. When manures are stored for use on Organic crops they emit enough methane to have a carbon footprint 38 times as high as synthetic nitrogen. When composted the footprint is 14 times as high.Organic growers have to use tillage for weed control which leads to soil erosion and more water pollution.
Posted by Randy , Thursday, July 30, 2009, 12:26 pm The problem with this study is that we readers don't really get to look at the criteria used to draw these conclusions nor do we get to look at the raw data.I suspect that the study looked at a limited set of nutrients and compared this against a daily RDA list. Did they look at what is toxic in the food ? Did they look at types of carbohydrates, types of fats. Did they look at polyphenols? Did they look at the environmental impact that ultimately will impact our health?Finally, are they already biased? Our beliefs lead to our destiny
Posted by Rob, Friday, July 31, 2009, 12:18 am I eat organic and non organic most of the time. The organic food that I buy usually tastes tons better than the other stuff. I feel better about not putting chemicals into my body that have scientifically proven harmful effects or unknown effects. Locally grown organic vegies stay fresh about two to three times as long in my fridge as other produce. Eating healthy is about common sense and being in touch with yourself. I don't need a study to tell me what to eat.
Posted by Ash, Friday, July 31, 2009, 4:20 am Steve savage can you please quote the source of your comment? Not sure what is it when you refer to Organic Fertilizer. Organic Farms use compost which is simply rotten matter something which is found in plenty on forest floors and is a part of what people waste as a result of urban life. Just that should be convincing enough to say that it actually reduces the carbon foot print and not increases it. You are forgetting what happens when excess nitrous and phorporic chemical fertilizers are added to the soil, what happens then?
Posted by AG, Friday, July 31, 2009, 1:42 pm It is so sad that research like this gets disseminated in the mainstream media to befuddle unassuming consumers. Sixty years ago, organic WAS conventional. If anything, it's the pesticide laden produce that should carry labels.
Posted by Brett, Monday, August 3, 2009, 9:11 am Take it from one of the many, many people who has been able to restore good health largely from going completely organic. The group that came up with the conclusion that organic is no healthier is probably funded by chemical agribusiness. When you use pesticides, fungicides, and synthetic fertilizers you kill the microflora in the soil, which is where a lot of the trace nutrients come from that simply are not present in nonorganic produce. The absence of the microflora also contributes to increased soil erosion. Don't be fooled by greed.
Posted by Aaron, Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:08 pm AG, you are absolutely right. The NPK industry had to find another use for itself once WWII ended, and lo and behold, it landed on agriculture. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium make for prettier and easier crops, with little to none of the tste and benefit.
Post a Comment