Organic Food is no healthier, study finds...

[brd]

Nicked from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/hl_nm/us_food_organic

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.


I beg to differ. What I wonder is if they tested the "conventionally" processed food for contaminents that are detrimental. For example, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. I also laugh at the word "study" which is akin to having a butthole and an opinion. Anyway, what does the UK contingent have to say about this and this agency. Is this agency akin to the US FDA?

[dropshot001]

i actually am glad that this study came out. i am from the us so my feelings on this may be different than yours simply because of point of view issues. as far as things such as vegetables and fruits, there isn't that much of a difference in terms of the amount of pesticides and other things that are on the food when you eat it. many of the pesticides will disappate during transit or will be washed off with a simple rinse.

i personally feel that it is a good thing that there is at least some media saying that organic is no better for you than conventional food since the hype around organic seems quite unjustified and ridiculous. so many people who eat organic say it tastes better and is better for you, but my view on this is that if you paid 5 dollars a pound for apples that are organic you would think that they tasted better than the non organic 1.99 a pound apples simply because you paid more so after all, they should taste better or else you wasted your money.

[DCHMUSCLE88]

not surprised at all...

[The Ultimate Warrior]

its all money....In the 50s it was "Drink 4 glasses a day of moo-cow fuck milk to get big and strong." In the 80s/90s it was "Dont eat red meat or eggs and be sure to drink at least EIGHT glasses a day of our freshly bottled spring water to hydrate!" All bullshit...Now organic...no fuckin difference. If you want a real difference the only thing worth the money is free range beef and seed fed, non-hormonal chickens.

[Tatyana]

That is a mis-interpretation of the original research.

The orginal research stated that the nutrition values of organic and non-organic food is the same.

They also stated they didn't look at pesticide residues.


Typical media mis-interpretation. Always go to the original source if possible if you want to get the full story.



http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/aug/letter
Agency emphasises validity of organic review

Friday 7 August 2009
http://www.food.gov.uk/images/stdfeature/timsmithf.jpg Tim Smith, the Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency, has written an open letter to interested parties about the independent organic review. The letter emphasises the validity of the independent study published last week that shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food.

Copy of text from the FSA Chief Executive's letter

The Food Standards Agency would like to set the record straight, following publication of the study last week that compared the nutrient content of organic food with conventionally produced food. This review was commissioned by us to ensure that our position on organic food is up to date and reflects the weight and balance of current scientific evidence. This research had also been called for by the organic sector to review emerging research in this area.

Pesticides were specifically excluded from the scope of this work. This is because our position on the safety of pesticides is already clear: pesticides are rigorously assessed and their residues are closely monitored. Because of this the use of pesticides in either organic or conventional food production does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and helps to ensure a plentiful supply of food all year round.

This independent study was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and is the most scientifically rigorous and independent review of research ever carried out in this area. It looked at 50 years worth of research using standard techniques employed in systematic scientific literature reviews. All peer-reviewed data published within a time period set out before the review began were included.
The report was extensively peer reviewed before publication by leading scientists in this field and, furthermore, was published by a leading nutrition journal. The Agency has complete confidence in the validity of the work carried out by the LSHTM. It is an absolute principle that all our published advice is derived in this transparent way.

Irresponsible interpretation of the review by some has resulted in misleading claims being made concerning higher levels of some nutrients found in organic food.
The review reports the results for all 162 relevant papers. The conclusions of the report were based on the results found in the 55 satisfactory studies that met predefined criteria. It focused on nutrients where statistically significant differences were seen.

Arbitrary quotes or selective use of the data from the other papers which were of less robust scientific quality should be treated with caution.

The important message from this report is not that people should avoid organic food but that they should eat a healthy balanced diet and, in terms of nutrition, it doesn’t matter if this is made up of organic or conventionally produced food.
Tim J Smith
Chief Executive, Food Standards Agency
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic
Organic review published

Wednesday 29 July 2009
http://www.food.gov.uk/images/stdfeature/organicfood.jpg An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.

Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ‘Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.

'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.’

The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.

The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.
This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.

A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.


Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. 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.’

Related links

First review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf) Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit
http://www.food.gov.uk/navimages/file_icons/pdf.gif (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf) (pdf 1MB)


Organic food (http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/farmingfood/organicfood/) More information about organic food


Second review: Organic health effects review (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf) Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit
http://www.food.gov.uk/navimages/file_icons/pdf.gif (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf) (pdf 333KB)

[Tatyana]

Nicked from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/hl_nm/us_food_organic

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.


I beg to differ. What I wonder is if they tested the "conventionally" processed food for contaminents that are detrimental. For example, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. I also laugh at the word "study" which is akin to having a butthole and an opinion. Anyway, what does the UK contingent have to say about this and this agency. Is this agency akin to the US FDA?

You can read the full papers on the links I provided below.

Yahoo is not a legitimate source of news, especially scientific news.

I have read the original research paper on various topics quite a few times, then the slightly easier version in something like Scientific American or New Scientist, and then I see the moronic, dumbed down version in popular media which often bears no resemblence to the original paper and is often slanted to promote a political or economic agenda.

Media literacy and scientific literacy are seemingly lost in modern society.

[towtheline]

I agree with you. Amazing how the original study becomes condensed into a small paragraph for Yahoo!. What a joke, and yhet people find yahoo as credible.

[Frosty]

Be careful with conclusions here. There is FAR more into overall quality and nutritional content than if it's "organic" or not. For example if you get "organic" spinach that's shipped across the country, local fresh spinach is going to be more nutritious when you eat it because time is the enemy of many nutrients in dark leafy greens.

There's also certain crops that are highly sprayed like apples where there is more benefit to organic, but then there are crops that don't get as much spraying of pesticides so going organic isn't as beneficial.

There's more as well, but it's not as simple as "organic" or "conventional."

[Zetawill]

Say I'm a farmer:

I want to get in on all the money that is going towards organic so next year I'm dedicating no pesticides on any of my plants. I'm still planting in the same ground I did last year.

True my plants will have the same nutrition because they were birthed from the same ground. The benefit of organic is your not getting the cancer inducing pesticides.

I got to be on TV in our area for this piece of shit AP story. The reporter was completely dumb founded that the whole idea of organic farming is not necessarily for more nutrition, but for less junk being on the product. I tried to go into how a plant that has to fend for itself has more meridian energies, but I started loosing them there, so backed off the hippie talk!

[Frosty]

Organic has a lot of issues. You trade off pesticide use for far more waste and that's not good for the environment because it has to be shipped and far more of the crop is thrown out after being shipped.

[freak]

this is highly entertaining:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWxl05cCA88&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWxl05cCA88&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[dropshot001]

Say I'm a farmer:

I want to get in on all the money that is going towards organic so next year I'm dedicating no pesticides on any of my plants. I'm still planting in the same ground I did last year.

True my plants will have the same nutrition because they were birthed from the same ground. The benefit of organic is your not getting the cancer inducing pesticides.

I got to be on TV in our area for this piece of shit AP story. The reporter was completely dumb founded that the whole idea of organic farming is not necessarily for more nutrition, but for less junk being on the product. I tried to go into how a plant that has to fend for itself has more meridian energies, but I started loosing them there, so backed off the hippie talk!

but isn't your point negated somewhat by the fact that on certain foods, certain pesticides will evaporate/come off while in transit or with a simple rinse under water before eating it? granted, some people may not want to have to wash their food, but in general, most pesticides will come off mostly, if not completely. in addition, i don't know how old many of you are, but you have been eating pesticide grown food for the past however long you have been alive, do you really feel as though eating organic starting now will make a huge difference seeing as you have ingested these pesticides into your body for the past X number of years? i know that there is never a bad time to start trying to be healthier, but i feel as though something in our body must be working to eliminate these pesticides if they are as harmful as people say they are or else we would all be dead, dying, or having cancer and other harmful diseases, especially those of us who are in the older generations when the regulation of pesticides and other chemicals was not as rigorous.

[FoodFreak]

Organic has a lot of issues. You trade off pesticide use for far more waste and that's not good for the environment because it has to be shipped and far more of the crop is thrown out after being shipped.

I am going to have to agree with frosty here.....

another issue- organic meats.

IMO, its not so much the "organic-ness" of the meat that matters- its what the damn animal eats! you are what you eat right? almost any mass produced animal product is fed corn- most of these animals never would have had access to corn! (they even started feeding corn to farmed fish...WTF) This causes a whole host of problems- mainly the essential fatty acid deposits in the meat. When chickens, turkeys, cattle etc were eating grass (what they are F*ing supposed to eat)- theres no problem, the meat maintains a relatively healthy ratio of omega fatty acids. Feed them corn an BOOM- diabetes, cancer, HBP, aging issues, obesity, the list goes on... why? because most peopel FAIL to compensate for their drastically increased omega-6 intake by consuming supplemental Omega-3's (thus maintaining a healthy ratio).... cutting out processed is a giant start.. as far as meats, if buying grass fed meat is cost-prohibitive (which it is for most) just make sure to supplement with enough O-3's from fish, fish oil (EPA + DHA) AND flax (ALA) to maintain healthy ratios.

^^this issue is SO commonly overlooked its not even funny