Organic food no healthier than the 'conventional' crap we eat

[LynnieD]

LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

"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."

The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.

The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.

Organic food is no healthier, study finds | Science | Reuters

[twitchy2.0]

Hmmmm.

It's a British study which makes me wonder what the differences are there between conventional and organic farming. Are those differences as substantial as in North America where factory farms compared with organic (which tend to be much smaller) would be farmed completely differently?

Another article mentions this:
"The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions."Source
So it looks like they ignored some of the facts in making their announcement.

It's an odd study since most people who buy organic food tend to do so not because of what's in it as because of what's not on it. People are trying to avoid pesticides, hormones, etc. People buy it because of concerns about animal welfare and sustainable farming practices. Any nutritional benefits would just be bonus.

[greysfang]

For me, its not the nutritional content that's the issue, its the lack of chemical-additives and pesticides.

[celeb_2006]

For me, its not the nutritional content that's the issue, its the lack of chemical-additives and pesticides.

That is what draws me to organic products.

[SweetPea]

Same here.

[travelbug]

An apple is an apple...however, one is sprayed with pesticides and the other isn't. This is just a misleading PR statement put out there by the large farms coalition to try and put the nail in the coffin of small farmers. Bastards.

My main concern is meat. Hormones and antibiotics in meat. Meat injected with 8% saline solution. We eat a lot less meat than before because I buy the meat that's free of that stuff, and it is damn expensive.

And at my local natural grocery, organic apples cost the same per pound as regular apples at Harris Teeter.

[cupcake]

Ill never ditch my oragnaic food...ever!

[mrsJB]

i couldn't give a fuck less about eating organic. thats why i found this interesting because that organic shit is so much more expensive. i cant bring myself to spend the extra cash.

if its not one thing its another in the news that causes this disease or that disease. i feel like i cant do anything right to keep myself healthy anyways. damned if you do damned if you dont. besides, if anything's gonna kill me it will probably be the alcohol or smoke that does it. so fuck it.

[sputnik]

For me, its not the nutritional content that's the issue, its the lack of chemical-additives and pesticides.

exactly. that and hormones and antibiotics in meat.
not to mention, the environmental impact of conventional farming v. organic.

[Tati]

It's an odd study since most people who buy organic food tend to do so not because of what's in it as because of what's not on it. People are trying to avoid pesticides, hormones, etc. People buy it because of concerns about animal welfare and sustainable farming practices. Any nutritional benefits would just be bonus.

For me, its not the nutritional content that's the issue, its the lack of chemical-additives and pesticides.

I agree. I've heard a few of these studies now, and they all seem to go into it under the assumption that people buy organic because they think it's healthier. That seems like a faulty assumption to me, and I don't know why these studies insist on perpetuating that as if it's fact.

I buy organic, when it's reasonable, because I like to support organic agriculture as a practice and because I want to avoid pesticides, hormones and antibiotics in my food where I can. I've also started growing my own organic produce, and it certainly isn't certified or anything (an expensive process) but it's free of any chemical additives whatsoever.

Also, as Twitchy suggested, the country your food comes from can affect the degree of impact the agricultural methods used to grow it will have. For example, in Canada, hormones are not allowed in any meat except for beef - so people might not bother seeking out hormone-free pork or chicken, if the hormones were their main concern. I think the UK has even stricter standards, so there might not be as much of a difference between the organic and conventional produce or livestock. But in some countries, or some subsets of the industry (like Canadian beef), going organic could make a much bigger difference.

[sputnik]

^^
the EU has the strictest sanitary and agricultural standards in the world. they get shit from it all the time in trade meetings because other countries claim these overly stringent standards constitute non-tariff barriers to free trade but i for one think that's one reason food tastes better there and on the whole is less likely to be loaded with crap. not that it's paradise either and that they haven't had their fair share of scandals (mad cow anyone?)

[travelbug]

I don't know why these studies insist on perpetuating that as if it's fact.

Because journalists are lazy as hell these days and they don't bother doing any kind of investigative reporting at all. They take everything at face value and don't dig deeper. It's despicable.

[ConstanceSpry]

We've been sticking with organic fruit/veggies from a local co-op. First off, they're pesticide and herbicide free, and second, they taste A LOT better than regular produce at the grocery store. Even hub, who is not a vegetable fan, will eat the organic stuff because he says it tastes good.
As for meat, we've cut back a lot, but when I do buy beef, it's grass-fed happy cows.

[lurkur]

Organic is about avoiding artificial pesticides, herbicides, hormones, etc. thereby achieving a healthier life by hopefully not ingesting tons of toxins and carcinogens.

And how about how the runoff containing pesticides and herbicides in particular affect the health of local eco-communities and human communities?

Organic is healthier measurable more than immediate nutritional value. What a one-dimensional piece.

[McJag]

I want the natural stuff-no poisons added. I don't CARE if it is the same,otherwise. I want free range,cage free eggs. Milk from real cows.Veggies that might have an actual worm hole here & there. Stuff my Grandmother would approve of.