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.aspxHis 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
