Kitchen Garden Forum

Interesting, but perhaps not surprising research report

'Organic has no health benefits'

I think I'll carry on growing organically at home and we will certainly stick to buying organic leeks and carrots (for what they don't contain).

Rob Thomas in [i]Lifestyle after Cancer[i] says that there may be some benefit from eating organically-grown food. He has had the benefit of most of the background information which these researchers used. Also, as Peter Melchett observed, the research made conclusions about the amount of nutritional benefit in organic or non-organic produce but not about the contaminants from artificial fertilisers.

I personally still worry about the leeching of fertilisers into the water-supply and the impoverishment of the soil through overuse. This overuse is supported by artificial fertilisers, but in turn leads to the need for more of those to maintain yields.

I'm not a fanatical propagandist, but I'll continue to grow as organically as I can and to buy organic produce.

I noticed that the Dr whatever he was called who had taken part in the research made rather vague statements that organic produce wasn't significantly healthier or significantly something else. That means it actually did come out as better than non organic. I wonder if the research was sponsored by the chemical companies?

Anyway, Lord Melchett summed up lots of other benefits of organic produce including looking after the environment, avoiding pesticides and meat containing antibiotics.

There are lots of other findings from other research showing that organically grown fruit and veg has a higher proportion of dry matter, ie less water, and so weight for weight organic has more flavour and more vitamins etc.

I suppose like everything else you can find "evidence" which supports your own point of view.

I know that I decided not to use pesticides on anything I was going to eat or feed to my family when I had my babies nearly forty years ago, long before all the organic and green brigade became fashionable. It just seems common sense, and don't we all grow our own food because it is fresher, more tender and tastes better than anything we can buy in the shop?

PLUMPUDDING wrote:Lord Melchett summed up lots of other benefits of organic produce including looking after the environment, avoiding pesticides and meat containing antibiotics.

I believe he was very fond of an occasional organic turnip.

There is nothing wrong with growing food using organic principles, I have done so since the early 70s.

There are also many sound arguments to support organic growing. The problem arose in my view when past governments started legislating that you could only describe something as organic if you were a paid up contributor to a wholly undemocratic licensing body, the SA headed by Lord Melchett being the most influenial.

The problem was componded by totally incorrect statements being past off as facts by the organic brigade that were designed and allowed to mislead people into the benefits of higher priced organic approved produce.

Lord Melshit has been a vocal source of unsubstantiated claims to promote his SA at the cost of truth and scientific evidence.

At last some of his claims are being brought under scrutiny and are causing his clan to back peddle against the rising scientific evidence that is at last spreading clear light on the dark and murky organic mantra.

I am not against anyone trying to grow food organically but I do oppose many of the claims made by the likes of Lord Melshit.

All the best

Barney

I agree Barney. What annoys me is when people ask, do you use chemicals? Yes, I think - Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Carbon, Oxygen, Iron, Magnesium, etc., etc. Everything is made of chemicals!

The point about residues is a valid one though not one that influences me when I have to buy veg. With green veg like Broccoli it is appearance as that is a good indication of freshness.

For those interested here is the Soil Association press release in reply to the FSA report. It will be interesting to see whether it gets the same interest in the media as the FSA report.

I thought it was just me who always thought of Blackadder when Melchett was mentioned.

The statement on organic v non organic was mentioned on the One Show last night and their statement was that their are all sorts of reasons for people buying or growing organically and the fact that the food was more nutritious wasn't often one of them. Mainly the concerns are additives and the affect on the environment etc.

We are not fully organic but try to avoid chemical preparations where possible. I do however have friends who can't eat anything made from non-organic flour due to a reaction to the stuff that non-organic flour is treated with.

just to be pedantic, nobody can actually claim "Organic has no health benefits" ..more correct headlines would be "we are not clever enough to find any health benefits" or "our research wasnt good enough to find etc".. you can never prove a negative result unless the test proceedure can reliably produce positive results ,...just as an experienced electrician tests a live circuit to confirm his meter is working before switching it off and retesting it to prove its safe to work on.

Cider Boys wrote:There is nothing wrong with growing food using organic principles, I have done so since the early 70s.

There are also many sound arguments to support organic growing. The problem arose in my view when past governments started legislating that you could only describe something as organic if you were a paid up contributor to a wholly undemocratic licensing body, the SA headed by Lord Melchett being the most influenial.

The problem was componded by totally incorrect statements being past off as facts by the organic brigade that were designed and allowed to mislead people into the benefits of higher priced organic approved produce.

Lord Melshit has been a vocal source of unsubstantiated claims to promote his SA at the cost of truth and scientific evidence.

At last some of his claims are being brought under scrutiny and are causing his clan to back peddle against the rising scientific evidence that is at last spreading clear light on the dark and murky organic mantra.

I am not against anyone trying to grow food organically but I do oppose many of the claims made by the likes of Lord Melshit.

All the best

Barney

Barney

The name's Melchett



What offensive name should we call you to rubbish your views

Hello Greenman

You ask, "What offensive name should WE call you to rubbish your views"?

When you say WE I presume you mean Sir Peter Mellshit and your goodself?

Kind regards

Barney

A pertinent column of comment in the Telegraph today. I am inclined to agree that the FSA has some hidden agenda - I'd love to know what it is.


What's with the Food Standards Agency and organic food? It just can't leave it alone. Not, of course, in the sense of wanting to wolf it down, but in trying to persuade the us not to do so.

The agency says it stands for "safer food". But while it has a mixed record on additives that cause hyperactivity, toxic dyes, illegal GM foods, or pesticides, it has, from the start, campaigned against organic food, which no one claims to be dangerous. Indeed, in 2005, its performance review showed that this – and its vigorous support of GM foods – had undermined confidence in its impartiality, and led to calls for it to "revisit both areas". Well, I suppose it has revisited organic food – though not as the review intended. It spun its new report as showing that it had no health benefits over conventional produce. But the report only looked at the weakest part of the case for organics, that they have better nutritional content. Then, though it merely reviewed other studies, it excluded the most comprehensive one, which showed that organic produce has significant nutritional advantages in fighting cancer. Above all, the FSA ignored pesticides, the main health issue. But then, it has always been gung-ho about chemicals: it recommended scrapping the long-standing official advice – designed to protect small children – that fruit and vegetables should be peeled before being eaten to cut down pesticide consumption.

It reminds me of a minister who used to complain that there was a "myth" that pesticides were "toxic". What, I asked him, would be the use of one that wasn't? Answer came there none.

...and another Telgraph article I've just come across

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink ... ganic.html

I am quite sure both the FSA and the SA have agendas that they support with propaganda.

It is simply a matter of personal taste (sic), if I'm offered an apple that has been sprayed 15 times with chemicals or a scabby, ripe and mis-shapen one, I know which I prefer.

Barney

Cider Boys wrote:It is simply a matter of personal taste (sic), if I'm offered an apple that has been sprayed 15 times with chemicals or a scabby, ripe and mis-shapen one, I know which I prefer.

Barney

So do I. But, then, the choice is usually between a perfect apple that has been sprayed and a perfect apple that hasn't been sprayed.