"Organic food loses our taste test – surprised?" - Which?

[alan refail]

Organic food scores low in limited research by Which?

http://conversation.which.co.uk/energy- ... surprised/

[oldherbaceous]

There's one thing for sure from all the comments, organic gardening is far from dead.

It would also be interesting to read the report as a whole, as i would be very interested to see what the organic crops were fed at that very crucial time when they are starting to produce their crop.

Nice to see Ceri Thomas again, i wondered where she had got to.
Those high cheek bones......

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
I find it totally amazing that whenever Organics comes under criticism the net result is tears in their beer.
So convinced are they that organic produce is superior in all respects they find all manner of ways to cry fowl!
As you appreciate I am a Pragmatic Gardener but I do not normally use insecticides on my crops but do not rule out their use altogether.
Some organic gardeners are under the misapprehension that conventional gardeners use neither compost or FYM. They simply cannot get it into their thick organic heads that all gardeners use compost and FYM if they can get it. It is generally the inability to make either enough compost or obtain FYM forces gardeners to use Made Made Fertilizers.
To an organic person this is a sin and is more than frowned upon.
I say stop crying in your beer and stop making out you, as organic, are far more superior beings than none organic gardeners. It booooring!
Reading the comments below the article shows how many Organic gardeners actually fool themselves with their thoughts.
JB.

[PLUMPUDDING]

More twaddle for the newspapers to make a song and dance about.

When you grow your own you know your own produce tastes far better than bought stuff. How many times have you been disappointed when you've used up all your carrots or tomatoes or leeks or potatoes and eaten the tasteless things from the supermarket?

I just enjoy growing my favourite varieties of fruit and veg for the very best flavour, safe in the knowledge that they haven't been sprayed with a raft of chemicals, have been allowed to grow at their own pace without being forced along with lots of water and fertilizers, and are full of vitamins when cooked and eaten within minutes of picking.

If you like to spray chemicals with gay abandon then that is your choice, but think of your neighbours. Likewise if you are only happy growing to strict organic rules just enjoy it, but don't try to impose your ideas on everyone else.

Ethically, eating food grown "organically" appeals to a lot of people as many people are concerned about the damage we are doing to the planet and want to do their bit, and this is a good thing. It is a pity the press seem to relish undermining Organics in general rather than looking at the basic idea. On the other hand the organic movement has got a bit too extreme with what is and isn't allowed which is also irritating.

Sorry for the waffle. I think most of this has already been said in a previous related subject.

[Shallot Man]

Johnboy. Hear Hear.

[John Walker]

The response to this Which? Gardening report is fascinating on a number of different levels.

I've struggled to find any justification for Johnboy's peculiar outburst against organic gardening. It's clear to me that he appears not to have even read the information on the initial link provided, or the comments that follow it. It's yet more loud opinion masquerading as fact and strikes me as overwhelmingly negative rather than constructive. In contrast, Primrose's thoughtful comment, in which she makes her case for why she grows her food without the use of chemicals, comes across as positive and constructive. She also reminds us that undermining organic gardening on principle is a distraction from talking about the sound and wider motives for doing it in the first place.

But the comments on the Which? Conversation site are well worth looking through. What strikes me is the thoughtful, considered and respectful way that a wide variety of people have joined in with what is a robust but healthy conversation. This is a great example of just how good a virtual conversation can be.

On the Which? site some people have made deeply heartfelt and refreshingly lucid comments on exactly why they garden organically and how this fits with how they see their own place in the wider natural world. Others have robustly but politely (and quite rightly in my view) challenged the way in which the trial was carried out. On an equally positive note, Which? Gardening's editor and other Which? staff have taken the time to contribute and answer, constructively and candidly, some of the challenges and criticisms put to them.

The comments include those from individual gardeners as well as from organisations such as Garden Organic and the Soil Association. Together, the comments make a 'good read' of divergent and challenging viewpoints conducted with an air of positive engagement. Yes, there are a few ranting comments that add very little, but they're more than muffled by the overwhelmingly positive debate.

My tip is that if you read nothing else in the next few days, you set aside a few minutes to look through this Which? Conversation thread. Not to be won over by the earth-friendly case for gardening organically (compelling as it is!), but to see how a healthy and constructive online conversation can happen. It's certainly given me some food for thought on how I can improve on my own conversational skills.

Wouldn't it be good to see more of that happening on this forum? What do other forum members think of how the Which? Conversation is unfolding in general terms?

http://conversation.which.co.uk/energy- ... surprised/

[Shallot Man]

Surely the best test is two plates of veg dished up, one organic, one run of the meal veg. Do a blind taste.

[Elle's Garden]

Well, I have ploughed through the article and comments and my initial thought is that our conversations on this forum have a similar base of experience, knowledge, scepticism and fervour as any contributed to Which.

I have read the 'study', but it seems rather a storm in a teacup to me. There is no real explanation of what was done to the vegetables to make them inorganic apart from spraying the potatoes with a fungicide and using non-organic slug pellets. These veg don't appear to have been force fed chemical fertilizers, just protected from a couple of potential pests/problems - so perhaps that would allow them to grow a bit better as they were already growing in well looked after soil??

The organic tomatoes didn't taste as good and they were grown in peat free compost?? That is rather unfortunate isn't it?

Who knows, it is all too unscientific to be published really. It sounds like an excellent experiment to do in your own home/plot and draw your own conclusions, but to try and publish the 'findings' in fairly well respected magazine seems a bit odd to me.

In my own little plot all my veggies were grown last year in pure compost from the bottom of the garden, made with all the garden trimmings that have not had a hint of chemicals for years and years. Does that make them 'organic'? It made them taste fabulous and grow fantastically well but the only conclusion I draw from that is that it was excellent compost!

[Johnboy]

John Walker,
I am not against Organics as a method of growing I am totally fed up with the Organic Gardeners who simply cannot except that in the 'Which Test' they came second.
To me the comments are totally full of anti-chemical rhetoric and not organic growing.
I appreciate that people do not like chemicals and there is really no reason for a home grower to use chemicals on productive land.
I now use organically accredited slug pellets and I use herbicides on non productive land. The very mention of the use of a herbicide, if put in the newspaper, would bring the same comments as those below the Which article.
Now I can see how well you read the postings on this forum because try as I have I cannot find a posting from Primrose. On the other hand I did read and agree with the one from Plumpudding!
Elle sums it up very well, her produce was wonderful because she used her own made compost but disqualifies herself as organic because she used non accredited slug pellets and we do not know what fungicide she used on her Potatoes. So Elle must go down as a Pragmatic Gardener or even worse a Conventional gardener.
This is as stupid as it is boring and it is not me trying to put a down on organics as you well know John Walker as you trying to highlight the difference between the two systems to your own ends.
Power to your elbow Elle because you have used your common sense and that is the one thing that seems to be missing with organics.
JB.

[JohnN]

Perhaps an easy experiment as to taste would be to take a bog standard supermarket carrot and an organic garden carrot, both cleaned with a light scrub and eaten raw? I haven't tried it, just suggesting!

[John Walker]

My apologies to PLUMPUDDING and Primrose for mixing you up in my previous comment I was of course referring to PLUMPUDDING's comment of 24.2.

@Johnboy
I'm sorry that your last unconstructive comment only serves to reinforce the points I made in my previous one. You still haven't been able to place your initial outburst in any context and you don't seem interested in joining a conversation about the quality of debate.

Those who commented on the Which? trial were commenting on the fact that the trial was so small that it was all but scientifically meaningless. You would have gleaned this from reading the comments on the Which? Conversation thread. Elle's Garden agrees that it's 'all too unscientific to be published' and rightly questions the validity of the trial as have many other gardeners, some of whom are unashamed of being organic. But, like many others, you have grasped the wrong end of the stick and used it to beat organic gardeners yet again. You claim the comments are 'anti-chemical rhetoric' but most are clearly not, although much of what you provide us with is pure anti-organic rhetoric.

So it wasn't a case that organic gardeners couldn't accept that they came 'second', it was the flawed methodology of the trial that they are challenging. And of course as we all know, earth-friendly organic gardening is about far more than just what fruit and vegetables taste like. As the Soil Association points out:

This is an unscientific study of an extremely limited sample of vegetables. Which? Gardening admit the narrow scope of their research, which does not address the main reason people choose to garden organically - namely that the absence of chemical pesticides and artificial fertilisers means it is better for the environment, better for wildlife and safer for all the family, including pets. It is a much wider issue than just taste and health.

Full SA statement: http://www.soilassociation.org/News/New ... fault.aspx

You make the odd suggestion that there's no need to use chemicals on 'productive' land but that you can on 'non-productive' land. This rather overlooks the fact that land is land and that when you apply synthetic chemical substances to it they can travel around and move out into the wider environment (a good example is metaldehyde slug pellets, which are polluting groundwater supplies. Incidentally, this actually happens, it is nothing to do with rhetoric).

Organic gardeners choose to find non-chemical solutions because they're concerned about wider issues than simply what happens in their own garden.

Elle sums it up very well, her produce was wonderful because she used her own made compost but disqualifies herself as organic because she used non accredited slug pellets and we do not know what fungicide she used on her Potatoes...Power to your elbow Elle because you have used your common sense and that is the one thing that seems to be missing with organics.

As far as I can see Elle's Garden didn't, as you seem to suggest, actually use any chemicals. She was in fact referring to what happened in the Which? Gardening trial. You've rather badly misrepresented her actual words (although I'm sure it won't be held against you).

This is as stupid as it is boring and it is not me trying to put a down on organics as you well know John Walker as you trying to highlight the difference between the two systems to your own ends.

I'm sorry you feel that an important conversation which is of interest to tens of thousands of gardeners (millions worldwide) is 'stupid' and 'boring'. I do indeed want to discuss the ways in which we garden and their differences because they have profound implications, some positive, some negative, for the health of the natural world around us. In your first post you also accused us of 'crying into our beer', of having 'thick organic heads', of being 'superior beings' and of 'fooling' ourselves.

To claim your constant and embittered remarks toward growing organically are not a 'put down' does make me smile.

[Colin Miles]

I don't think that Johnboy is in any way embittered. Totally exasperated yes, as I am by John Walkers comments.

Please Johnboy, don't be put off and do continue with your sensible, pragmatic comments.

[Elle's Garden]

Elle sums it up very well, her produce was wonderful because she used her own made compost but disqualifies herself as organic because she used non accredited slug pellets and we do not know what fungicide she used on her Potatoes...Power to your elbow Elle because you have used your common sense and that is the one thing that seems to be missing with organics.

As far as I can see Elle's Garden didn't, as you seem to suggest, actually use any chemicals. She was in fact referring to what happened in the Which? Gardening trial. You've rather badly misrepresented her actual words (although I'm sure it won't be held against you).

Just to be clear - I was in fact referring to the study about slug pellets and fungicide. That said, I happily made use of organic slug pellets on my veg bed last year - excellent things - the pellets that is .

JW is absolutely correct that I won't hold it against you JohnBoy, I instead apologise for the rather rambling nature of my post that obviously misled you. In truth that rather reflects my thoughts on the matter, a bit muddled. This has more to do with the posts that preceded my reading of the study and its comments than the study itself.

I think I would probably describe myself as a pragmatic gardener like JB. I have no wish to use chemicals on food that I and my children are going to eat - however, if I suddenly find that all my best efforts and time invested are about to be ruined by something awful then i would probably be straight down to the garden centre to find something to help. After stopping by here to check advice of course . Thankfully, it hasn't happened yet.

However, I do find rather preachy posts unhelpful. I would much prefer useful, helpful experienced advice about the growing problems and queries that get posted on here. I find the suggestion that we could be communicating with each other even better if we just copied other people patronising. This forum is the most welcoming place for novices such as myself, and that is down to the patience and experience of long standing members who take the time to provide useful advice and suggestions that can be easily adopted. There are such wonderful characters on here with great banter in amongst the wisdom.

I agree that we should be stimulated and challenged to consider some wider issues that have bearing on gardening as a whole - but surely that can be done without preaching (which implies that all other methods/thoughts are wrong/mistaken). I am thinking rather of Jeremy Vine who has to provoke the debate - but should not be divulging his own views or allowing them to impact the debate (much as I like him he does occasionally fall down here !). The point being that people can then debate and discuss freely without feeling that they will incur the wrath of the most vocal few.

[Johnboy]

My Apologies go to Elle 'cos I made the mistake of reading her letter just after it had been posted and then replying the following morning without rereading it.
I have PM'd Elle and apologised to her on a more personal basis.
JB.

[Johnboy]

John Walker,
I wonder what you will make from this fascinating letter that appears below the "Which Report" that is causing so much trouble.
JB.
From Vic Shorrocks
The Gardening Which trials set out to assess the crops for yield and quality, taste and nutritional value and to determine which growing method, organic of non-organic, came out on top. Nothing more.
Sadly the design of the trials did not allow any conclusions whatsoever to be drawn that could be extrapolated to your garden or mine. This was because they did not make sure that the amounts of nutrients supplied by the two methods were the same. Organic materials when added to the soil provide nutrients and can with some soils improve structure and water holding capacity. The results will be skewed according to the amounts of nutrients applied and interpretation made impossible.

For many years, at least up to the 1950s, the advocates of organic farming in the UK believed that the soil fungi which were intimately associated with crop roots via the fungal threads (hyphae), brought an unspecified health-promoting chemical or chemicals from the organic matter in the soil. The chemicals was supposed to enter the root then the shoots and seed and ultimately into the diet where, according to Balfour, there would be dramatic improvements in the health of the nation. They even believed, and said they had evidence, that animal diseases such as foot and mouth could be prevented if animals were fed on organically grown crops. It is possible that some believe this nonsense today.

Believers in the organic food and farming will continue to find a basis for their beliefs regardless of the evidence. I will address one such belief which is that eating organically grown crops means eating pesticide-free food.

This is not correct.

If you wish to ensure you consume the minimum amounts of hazardous pesticides (both natural and man-made) you are advised to eat vegetables and fruit crops (in fact all crops) that have been treated with synthetic pesticides.

This advice is the inevitable conclusion from the evidence that has been building up over the last 20 years on the quantities and properties of natural pesticides in plants.

All plants contain a formidable array of natural pesticides which protect them from pests and diseases. When a plant is attacked they produce more of their particular set of natural pesticides.

The concentrations of natural pesticides are much higher than those of synthetic pesticide residues. The result is that daily we consume about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides compared with 0.1 mg of synthetic pesticides.

Natural pesticides are just as hazardous as synthetic pesticides in that they have been found to be carcinogens, mutagens etc in rodent tests. As is the case with all chemicals, whether man-made or natural, 55% of natural pesticides are known to be hazardous when assessed by rodent toxicological tests.

It is therefore far more important to reduce the amount natural pesticides in the food you eat than that of synthetic pesticides if you want to restrict your intake of hazardous pesticides.

A crop that has not been treated with synthetic pesticides, as is the case in organic farming, is likely to contain more natural pesticides because any attack by a pest or disease will have stimulated the production of more natural pesticides. It is therefore preferable to eat food produced from crops that have been sprayed with synthetic pesticides.

Removing the pesticide-rich skin of a vegetable or fruit will reduce the amount of natural pesticides consumed.

It is estimated that there are thousands of natural pesticides in plants. It would be an enormous task to study them all but much more work is clearly required on the natural pesticides that are judged to be the most hazardous. At the moment it can be said that about 55% of the natural pesticides are hazardous. All crops contain hazardous natural pesticides and therefore all crops are potentially hazardous.

Finally all believers know that the Haughley experiment (concluded by the Soil Association) which lasted 30 years did not show any benefits of farming organically in terms of crop or animal production or health. Moreover when organic matter was used soil fertility fell.