Be nice to see Vic Shorrocks letter in KG. And will we now see the argument that natural pesticides are better for us since we've evolved to cope with them, whereas synthetics....
I looked on-line for info on the Haughey Experiment and the best that I could come up with was http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrar ... peech.html by Lady Balfour herself. Some of the later comments by her are quite interesting in view of the current SA attitudes and guidelines. On Wiki the experiment is described but the conclusions appear to be suppressed.
"Organic food loses our taste test – surprised?" - Which?
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
Hi Colin,
I should have said that the letter comes from Dr Vic Shorrocks who although now retired (and is catching me up in years) is a highly respected person of infinite wisdom and very capable of making the observations he has. Like me he has a very good memory of the shenanigans of the Soil Association of old!
JB.
I should have said that the letter comes from Dr Vic Shorrocks who although now retired (and is catching me up in years) is a highly respected person of infinite wisdom and very capable of making the observations he has. Like me he has a very good memory of the shenanigans of the Soil Association of old!
JB.
-
Westi
- KG Regular
- Posts: 6549
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:46 pm
- Location: Christchurch, Dorset
- Has thanked: 1673 times
- Been thanked: 619 times
All taste is subjective so this same test could be duplicated on different folk and get a different result - need we go back to the Marmite thread to highlight this? 
I never take notice of any 'taste test' until I am a taster then I make my decision and it is often different to others'
Westi
I never take notice of any 'taste test' until I am a taster then I make my decision and it is often different to others'
Westi
Westi
You will note that John Walker appears to be avoiding answering the position posed by Dr Vic Shorrock's letter which appears below the "Which Organics /Conventional Test" and rather puts the Soil Association and Organics in a bad light.
I do feel that an answer is required.
JB.
I do feel that an answer is required.
JB.
-
Parsons Jack
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1075
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:03 pm
- Location: St. Mary's Bay, Romney Marsh
Kevin wrote:Hi Johnboy,
You can always catch him on twitter
Regards
Kevin
I look forward to Johnboy's response
Cheers PJ.
I'm just off down the greenhouse. I won't be long...........
I'm just off down the greenhouse. I won't be long...........
Hi Kevin,
I don't really want to catch John Walker anywhere but I feel that the Dr Vic Shorrock's letter has obviously got him thinking.
I think the letter is really telling the Organic Hierarchy where they have been going wrong and making over calls on the wonders of organics over the years.
Dr Vic Shorrock is a very eminent person who cannot be ignored but just at present he is being ignored for want of the right words to use.
JB.
I don't really want to catch John Walker anywhere but I feel that the Dr Vic Shorrock's letter has obviously got him thinking.
I think the letter is really telling the Organic Hierarchy where they have been going wrong and making over calls on the wonders of organics over the years.
Dr Vic Shorrock is a very eminent person who cannot be ignored but just at present he is being ignored for want of the right words to use.
JB.
Another letter from Dr Vic Shorrock from a little back in time.
Absence Of Evidence Of Consistent Differences Between Organic Food And Traditionally Produced Food.
posted by Victor M. Shorrocks M.A. D.Phil. M.I.Biol. on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:53 pm
There have been many attempts over the years for advocates of organic food to highlight particular studies that show organic food to be more nutritious in one way or another but the overall picture is one of no consistent differences. In very many studies organic food has been found to be inferior. I would refer readers to the review in 1997 by Woese et al. in J.Sci.Fod Agric. 74, 281-293 in which the results of more than 150 separate studies, comparing organic food with traditionally produced food, were assessed.
I would also like to recall the experiment started by Lady Eve Balfour (the Haughley Experiment) in 1947 which was designed to prove that organic farming was better for crop and animal health and productivity and by implication for humans; this experiment lasted 22 years before being stopped by the Soil Association. Although it may be argued that it was not stopped because it was not providing any evidence of the superiority of organic farming it is unlikely that it would have been terminated if there had been any indications of benefits of organic farming; in fact it was acknowledged that soil fertility was falling on the organic areas.
Balfour had been absolutely convinced that organic farming was the way to improve the health of the nation - the subtitle of her 1943 book "The Living Soil" was "evidence of the importance to human health of soil vitality, with special reference to post war planning".
After the experiment had been stopped in 1969 Balfour published, in 1975, her second book entitled "The Living Soil and the Haughley Experiment" without any subtitle. In this book Balfour repeated much of the background to her beliefs about the merits and importance of organic farming that was in her 1943 book and at the same time gave an honest assessment of the results which did not show the benefits she expected and hoped for.
It is curious, if not misleading, that in 2006 the Soil Association republished the 1943 book "The Living Soil" and NOT the 1975 edition which contained much of the same material AND the results.
In 1965 a member of the Soil Association was honest enough to write to me to say .. �we know what we think should be, or we should like to be the truth about the questions being asked there (i.e at Haughley) but we do try to accept the answers and go on probing, whether we like them or not�. This was before the experiment was stopped when the Soil Association realised that the results that they were getting did not fit in with their preconceived ideas.
One question can also be asked about soil fertility on organic farms in the UK. Is it possible that organic farmers are benefitting from the build up of soil fertility by many years application of fertilisers, particularly with respect to phosphorus? They may be in for a rude shock one day as happened at Haughley.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy reading.
JB.
Absence Of Evidence Of Consistent Differences Between Organic Food And Traditionally Produced Food.
posted by Victor M. Shorrocks M.A. D.Phil. M.I.Biol. on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:53 pm
There have been many attempts over the years for advocates of organic food to highlight particular studies that show organic food to be more nutritious in one way or another but the overall picture is one of no consistent differences. In very many studies organic food has been found to be inferior. I would refer readers to the review in 1997 by Woese et al. in J.Sci.Fod Agric. 74, 281-293 in which the results of more than 150 separate studies, comparing organic food with traditionally produced food, were assessed.
I would also like to recall the experiment started by Lady Eve Balfour (the Haughley Experiment) in 1947 which was designed to prove that organic farming was better for crop and animal health and productivity and by implication for humans; this experiment lasted 22 years before being stopped by the Soil Association. Although it may be argued that it was not stopped because it was not providing any evidence of the superiority of organic farming it is unlikely that it would have been terminated if there had been any indications of benefits of organic farming; in fact it was acknowledged that soil fertility was falling on the organic areas.
Balfour had been absolutely convinced that organic farming was the way to improve the health of the nation - the subtitle of her 1943 book "The Living Soil" was "evidence of the importance to human health of soil vitality, with special reference to post war planning".
After the experiment had been stopped in 1969 Balfour published, in 1975, her second book entitled "The Living Soil and the Haughley Experiment" without any subtitle. In this book Balfour repeated much of the background to her beliefs about the merits and importance of organic farming that was in her 1943 book and at the same time gave an honest assessment of the results which did not show the benefits she expected and hoped for.
It is curious, if not misleading, that in 2006 the Soil Association republished the 1943 book "The Living Soil" and NOT the 1975 edition which contained much of the same material AND the results.
In 1965 a member of the Soil Association was honest enough to write to me to say .. �we know what we think should be, or we should like to be the truth about the questions being asked there (i.e at Haughley) but we do try to accept the answers and go on probing, whether we like them or not�. This was before the experiment was stopped when the Soil Association realised that the results that they were getting did not fit in with their preconceived ideas.
One question can also be asked about soil fertility on organic farms in the UK. Is it possible that organic farmers are benefitting from the build up of soil fertility by many years application of fertilisers, particularly with respect to phosphorus? They may be in for a rude shock one day as happened at Haughley.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy reading.
JB.
-
SoilAssociation
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:17 pm
Hello,
Sure some of you have already seen our response to this Which? study, but if not, here it is in full:
"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.
More conclusive research needs to be done comparing organic vs non-organic food in terms of nutrient content but there is a growing body of research that shows organic food can be more nutritious for you and your family. Put simply, organic food contains more of the good stuff we need – like vitamins and minerals – and less of the bad stuff that we don't – like pesticides, additives and drugs.
Generations of gardeners have recognised the importance of using organic techniques for the fruit and vegetables they produce for their families. Most gardeners recognise that heavily marketed and expensive artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides are not beneficial for the planet or their family’s health.
For legions of gardeners, the thought of spraying chemicals over their home grown produce is unthinkable. More and more research is showing the negative impacts of pesticide use. It is irresponsible that Which? have been using pesticides which have been strongly implicated in the rapid decline in the bee population, along with a range of other pesticides including metaldehyde which is fatal to animals and costs water companies millions of pounds every year in clean up costs.
It is good to see that the ‘organic’ vegetables yielded at least the same amount or higher then the non-organic and that the ‘organic’ vegetables were the same, or of higher quality. Gardeners across the country are proving that they are able to grow excellent and tasty produce without using pesticides and artificial fertilisers."
You may also be interested to read this blog from our Deputy Director, Roger Mortlock:
http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorgan ... eport.aspx
His comments on the limitations of the study, as well as the dangers of pesticides may be of particular relevance to this discussion:
“A few problems with the ‘study’. I put the term in inverted commas because this cannot be classed in any way as a scientific study. Which? themselves freely admit that this was a tiny sample and absolute conclusions cannot be drawn from this.
Organic farming requires adherence to strict standards, and therefore can be properly measured, as the hundreds of studies which show the multiple benefits of organic farming in areas such as biodiversity, climate change and nutrition.
Organic gardening has no such standards, therefore we have not idea what Which were actually testing in their ‘study’. Basic school science will tell you that we can’t draw conclusions about an entire system of gardening, in which hundreds of different types of fruit and vegetables of thousands of varieties are being produced - from a few organic grow bags and half an allotment. The only items which were tested for taste were tomatoes. Some professional tasters did test them (we don’t know how many), along with around 100 people at a garden show. The main reason people preferred them were that they were sweeter.
Research has shown that higher levels sweetness can mean that fruit and vegetables can contain fewer beneficial nutrients. Of the three vegetables which were grown by Which?, only two were tested for one nutrient each – vitamin C in potatoes (we don’t know how many), and ten pieces of broccoli were tested for antioxidant levels. We don’t even know how much lower the antioxidant levels were in the organic produce in this tiny sample.
There is a growing body of research that shows organic food can be more nutritious for you and your family. The UK FSA are, in our view, wrong. The French equivalent, which says there are real differences in the nutrition between organic and non organic food are right. The UK FSA, after months of delay, released the data their study was based on and it is now being analysed by other scientists - the strength of science is that data can be looked at by more than one set of scientists, new evidence can be gathered (recently scientists found organic strawberries to have more beneficial nutrients than non-organic), and so conclusions do change.
High levels of readily available nitrogen (when artificial fertiliser is applied to plants, as in the Which study) tend to reduce nutrient density and sometimes make crops more vulnerable to pests. Nutrients in compost, manure, cover crops and other soil amendments tend to be released more slowly in step with crop needs, and often help to boost crop nutrient levels and the efficiency of nutrient uptake by the plants.
The Which study was published on the same day as yet another study into the dangers of pesticides was produced. This time, fungicides affecting male fertility. This highlights how pesticides, which were previously thought to be safe, are causing unforeseen problems, once science catches up. The pesticides which were used by Which have already been proved to cause problems. Around £120million is spent annually on water treatment to remove pesticides from our drinking water. Metaldehyde is sold with a strongly-worded official health warning: “Since this product contains metaldehyde, which can kill if eaten, it must be kept away from children and pets.” Sytematic insecticides have been strongly implicated in the large scale decline in the bee population.”
I hope this helps clarify our position.
Thanks,
Georgia
Sure some of you have already seen our response to this Which? study, but if not, here it is in full:
"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.
More conclusive research needs to be done comparing organic vs non-organic food in terms of nutrient content but there is a growing body of research that shows organic food can be more nutritious for you and your family. Put simply, organic food contains more of the good stuff we need – like vitamins and minerals – and less of the bad stuff that we don't – like pesticides, additives and drugs.
Generations of gardeners have recognised the importance of using organic techniques for the fruit and vegetables they produce for their families. Most gardeners recognise that heavily marketed and expensive artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides are not beneficial for the planet or their family’s health.
For legions of gardeners, the thought of spraying chemicals over their home grown produce is unthinkable. More and more research is showing the negative impacts of pesticide use. It is irresponsible that Which? have been using pesticides which have been strongly implicated in the rapid decline in the bee population, along with a range of other pesticides including metaldehyde which is fatal to animals and costs water companies millions of pounds every year in clean up costs.
It is good to see that the ‘organic’ vegetables yielded at least the same amount or higher then the non-organic and that the ‘organic’ vegetables were the same, or of higher quality. Gardeners across the country are proving that they are able to grow excellent and tasty produce without using pesticides and artificial fertilisers."
You may also be interested to read this blog from our Deputy Director, Roger Mortlock:
http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorgan ... eport.aspx
His comments on the limitations of the study, as well as the dangers of pesticides may be of particular relevance to this discussion:
“A few problems with the ‘study’. I put the term in inverted commas because this cannot be classed in any way as a scientific study. Which? themselves freely admit that this was a tiny sample and absolute conclusions cannot be drawn from this.
Organic farming requires adherence to strict standards, and therefore can be properly measured, as the hundreds of studies which show the multiple benefits of organic farming in areas such as biodiversity, climate change and nutrition.
Organic gardening has no such standards, therefore we have not idea what Which were actually testing in their ‘study’. Basic school science will tell you that we can’t draw conclusions about an entire system of gardening, in which hundreds of different types of fruit and vegetables of thousands of varieties are being produced - from a few organic grow bags and half an allotment. The only items which were tested for taste were tomatoes. Some professional tasters did test them (we don’t know how many), along with around 100 people at a garden show. The main reason people preferred them were that they were sweeter.
Research has shown that higher levels sweetness can mean that fruit and vegetables can contain fewer beneficial nutrients. Of the three vegetables which were grown by Which?, only two were tested for one nutrient each – vitamin C in potatoes (we don’t know how many), and ten pieces of broccoli were tested for antioxidant levels. We don’t even know how much lower the antioxidant levels were in the organic produce in this tiny sample.
There is a growing body of research that shows organic food can be more nutritious for you and your family. The UK FSA are, in our view, wrong. The French equivalent, which says there are real differences in the nutrition between organic and non organic food are right. The UK FSA, after months of delay, released the data their study was based on and it is now being analysed by other scientists - the strength of science is that data can be looked at by more than one set of scientists, new evidence can be gathered (recently scientists found organic strawberries to have more beneficial nutrients than non-organic), and so conclusions do change.
High levels of readily available nitrogen (when artificial fertiliser is applied to plants, as in the Which study) tend to reduce nutrient density and sometimes make crops more vulnerable to pests. Nutrients in compost, manure, cover crops and other soil amendments tend to be released more slowly in step with crop needs, and often help to boost crop nutrient levels and the efficiency of nutrient uptake by the plants.
The Which study was published on the same day as yet another study into the dangers of pesticides was produced. This time, fungicides affecting male fertility. This highlights how pesticides, which were previously thought to be safe, are causing unforeseen problems, once science catches up. The pesticides which were used by Which have already been proved to cause problems. Around £120million is spent annually on water treatment to remove pesticides from our drinking water. Metaldehyde is sold with a strongly-worded official health warning: “Since this product contains metaldehyde, which can kill if eaten, it must be kept away from children and pets.” Sytematic insecticides have been strongly implicated in the large scale decline in the bee population.”
I hope this helps clarify our position.
Thanks,
Georgia
-
Elle's Garden
- KG Regular
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:58 pm
- Location: West Sussex
Thank you for providing the answer from the magazine, I don't subscribe to which so I hadn't seen it.
It seems everyone is in agreement - the 'study' or its 'conclusions' should not have been published as its findings are largely meaningless to a wider audience.
Should this read "are in our view right"?
It seems everyone is in agreement - the 'study' or its 'conclusions' should not have been published as its findings are largely meaningless to a wider audience.
The UK FSA are, in our view, wrong. The French equivalent, which says there are real differences in the nutrition between organic and non organic food are right.
Should this read "are in our view right"?
Kind regards,
Elle
Elle
Hi Elle,
This is true so why is there such a violent reaction from organic faction on something that really has no scientific merit.
I do note that the Soil Association have obviously ignored the letter from Dr Vic Shorrocks but are again only using this forum to bamboozle the members with their theories because much of what they have said simply cannot be substantiated.
We know from Alan's experience that if you ask the Soil Association for and explanation they are not forthcoming. So it is a case of the usual dogma which says we are right in everything we say. Bulls--t!
JB.
It seems everyone is in agreement - the 'study' or its 'conclusions' should not have been published as its findings are largely meaningless to a wider audience.
This is true so why is there such a violent reaction from organic faction on something that really has no scientific merit.
I do note that the Soil Association have obviously ignored the letter from Dr Vic Shorrocks but are again only using this forum to bamboozle the members with their theories because much of what they have said simply cannot be substantiated.
We know from Alan's experience that if you ask the Soil Association for and explanation they are not forthcoming. So it is a case of the usual dogma which says we are right in everything we say. Bulls--t!
JB.
-
Colin Miles
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Llannon, Llanelli
As Johnboy says, they have obviously ignored Dr Sharrocks letters. Also the comment
is, like many of their statements, debatable. The situation, as I understand it, is that the jury is still out on this one. Loss of biodiversity, infection, transport stress (USA), etc., have all been suggested as well. A pity, I found the honesty of Lady Balfour refreshing.
Sytematic insecticides have been strongly implicated in the large scale decline in the bee population.
is, like many of their statements, debatable. The situation, as I understand it, is that the jury is still out on this one. Loss of biodiversity, infection, transport stress (USA), etc., have all been suggested as well. A pity, I found the honesty of Lady Balfour refreshing.
-
John Walker
- KG Regular
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:51 am
- Location: Conwy county, North Wales
- Contact:
@Colin Miles
As far as I can see Johnboy's hectoring and badgering behaviour wasn't directed at the Soil Association. If Shorrocks's now dated findings had rocked the pesticide debate to its foundations, how come no one I've asked has ever heard of him?
As to the discussion about the decline of bees, I agree it's a mixed picture at present, but you might want to look over some of the pesticide-related observations I distilled from the recent BBC 4 programme on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9339
Funnily enough I somehow think neonicotinoid insecticides were just a twinkle in a chemist's eye when Lady Balfour was getting her good vibrations from the soil.
As far as I can see Johnboy's hectoring and badgering behaviour wasn't directed at the Soil Association. If Shorrocks's now dated findings had rocked the pesticide debate to its foundations, how come no one I've asked has ever heard of him?
As to the discussion about the decline of bees, I agree it's a mixed picture at present, but you might want to look over some of the pesticide-related observations I distilled from the recent BBC 4 programme on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9339
Funnily enough I somehow think neonicotinoid insecticides were just a twinkle in a chemist's eye when Lady Balfour was getting her good vibrations from the soil.
Hi Colin,
Lady Eve Balfour was an extremely nice person and as honest as you would expect. She had these theories which really formed the basis of her 1943 first book. In her second book she was honest enough to say that the Haughley experiment had not lived up to her expectations.
This is a nice and honest way to say that they had failed to be proven.
Dr Vic Sharrocks is putting factual cases and is not dealing in theories.
Now if the Soil Association were honest they would have re-issued Lady Eve's second book which explains the failure but instead they dishonestly re-issued the first book and continue to make out that the Haughley Experiment was a great success. This really means that by being dishonest in this way that very ethos of the Modern Soil Association is founded on a succession of untruthful acts.
Their current letter deals in theories quoting them as facts.
It seems that everybody must deal in facts, or they are hounded by the Soil Association, except the Soil Association themselves who seem to think that once they have said something it automatically must be universally accepted as the truth. Again I say Bulls--t!
JB.
Lady Eve Balfour was an extremely nice person and as honest as you would expect. She had these theories which really formed the basis of her 1943 first book. In her second book she was honest enough to say that the Haughley experiment had not lived up to her expectations.
This is a nice and honest way to say that they had failed to be proven.
Dr Vic Sharrocks is putting factual cases and is not dealing in theories.
Now if the Soil Association were honest they would have re-issued Lady Eve's second book which explains the failure but instead they dishonestly re-issued the first book and continue to make out that the Haughley Experiment was a great success. This really means that by being dishonest in this way that very ethos of the Modern Soil Association is founded on a succession of untruthful acts.
Their current letter deals in theories quoting them as facts.
It seems that everybody must deal in facts, or they are hounded by the Soil Association, except the Soil Association themselves who seem to think that once they have said something it automatically must be universally accepted as the truth. Again I say Bulls--t!
JB.
John Walker,
Until you managed to get into the Kitchen Garden Magazine nobody that I know knew anything about you so because Dr Vic Shorrocks is of the generation before you you try to dismiss him as a nobody. Shame on you!
Rather than dismiss him because he has opposing views to you you seek to ridicule him. Shame on you!
If you were to try and understand him, and what he is trying to explain to us all, as a very learned and exceedingly well quaified person in his field you may learn something but that is not what you are about.
You complain about me that there is no debate from me but I rather think that these Shorrock letters would be a wonderful thing to debate but you have decided to ignore them and me. I wonder why!
I suspect that it would take you out of your comfort zone and you might have to use your own words.
JB.
Until you managed to get into the Kitchen Garden Magazine nobody that I know knew anything about you so because Dr Vic Shorrocks is of the generation before you you try to dismiss him as a nobody. Shame on you!
Rather than dismiss him because he has opposing views to you you seek to ridicule him. Shame on you!
If you were to try and understand him, and what he is trying to explain to us all, as a very learned and exceedingly well quaified person in his field you may learn something but that is not what you are about.
You complain about me that there is no debate from me but I rather think that these Shorrock letters would be a wonderful thing to debate but you have decided to ignore them and me. I wonder why!
I suspect that it would take you out of your comfort zone and you might have to use your own words.
JB.