Topic: FSA find no nutritional benefit from organic produce

[amphibian]

....

I know perfectly well that the FSA found no differences in the micronutrients, but the EU commissioned peer reviewed study did, and so have others. I see no reason to give this FSA study any more weight that the EU study.

There may be peer reviewed studies published within the EU Conference Papers, but that doesn't make the whole collection peer reviewed!

I'll let one of my favourite journalists speak for me as to why the FSA study is due more weight than the EU conference papers ....  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/01/bad-science-organic-food

Of course the Soil Association was going to defend its position; why, because they knew that what I have heard from the hoi poloi would be taken from the FSA's release, just as indeed did the agrochemical food industry—"Organic food isn't better for you."

Sure that wasn't the question being asked, the FSA chose just to focus on nutrition they chose not to look at the bigger picture of health in general, direct or indirect. The FSA are not interested in a discussion about pesticides because they have already 'established' that pesticides pose no 'unacceptable' risk to human health, though what the definition of acceptable risk to human health is remains unclear. No doubt they use the same kind of concern that other government agencies use when licensing pesticides like Aminopyralid, or when drugs like Seroxat are licensed for use in children without rigorous, honest or independent studies.

Why does Goldacre feel the need to repeatedly mention the value of the organic food movement, which compared to the Agrochemical food industry is peanuts?

Goldacre is a thorough man, but I feel he spends far too much effort debunking fringe entities instead of focussing on the bigger bad science inherent in so much. I work in a biomedical laboratory, and I promise you bad science is abundant at a base level in the basic systems produced and supplied by the biomedical/pharma multinationals. These incidences of bad science are there for everyone within the biomedical industry to see and yet clinical decisions are made on the basis of them, everyone ignores them, from manufacturer to accreditation authorities, why? I don't know, but I suspect the multi-trillion nature of the business has something to do with it. So why does Goldacre spend so much time debunking the fringe harms of bad science, sure he talks about conventional medicine from time to time, or about the bad science of antidepressants and the scurrilous techniques employed by drug studies, but these are the big bad threats to society, not Gillian McKieth, who a threat in herself is small fry in comparison.

[Robert_Brenchley]

the food miles thing is wrong, mostly. Apparently in terms of carbon footprint or however you measure these things, British lamb uses 4 times as much energy to produce as lamb imported from New Zealand. The same principle applies for greenhouse crops produced here as opposed to imported from somewhere hot and sunny.

Not 'wrong', merely not the whole picture. If we can't produce meat here without using huge numbers of food miles, maybe we need to look again at how we produce it. As for growing greenhouse crops here, it's an essay in how to use vast quantities of energy. We need to get used to the idea of seasonal produce again.

[Unwashed]

The Soil Association do claim that organic produce contains higher amounts of beneficial minerals, essential amino acids, vitamins, vitamin C and minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants and Omega 3.

That doesn't appear to be true.

[Melbourne12]

....

I know perfectly well that the FSA found no differences in the micronutrients, but the EU commissioned peer reviewed study did, and so have others. I see no reason to give this FSA study any more weight that the EU study.

There may be peer reviewed studies published within the EU Conference Papers, but that doesn't make the whole collection peer reviewed!

I'll let one of my favourite journalists speak for me as to why the FSA study is due more weight than the EU conference papers ....  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/01/bad-science-organic-food

Of course the Soil Association was going to defend its position; why, because they knew that what I have heard from the hoi poloi would be taken from the FSA's release, just as indeed did the agrochemical food industry—"Organic food isn't better for you."[/quote}

That's a bit uncalled for!  OK, it's only the interwebs, so I'm not really much offended, but even we hoi polloi can understand the FSA's clear message.

Sure that wasn't the question being asked, the FSA chose just to focus on nutrition they chose not to look at the bigger picture of health in general, direct or indirect. The FSA are not interested in a discussion about pesticides because they have already 'established' that pesticides pose no 'unacceptable' risk to human health, though what the definition of acceptable risk to human health is remains unclear. No doubt they use the same kind of concern that other government agencies use when licensing pesticides like Aminopyralid, or when drugs like Seroxat are licensed for use in children without rigorous, honest or independent studies.

This isn't true, is it?  The FSA have a large toxicology programme, much bigger than this one off nutrient study.  Indeed it was quoted earlier in this thread.  So they appear to be extremely interested in pesticides and the threat to human health.

Why does Goldacre feel the need to repeatedly mention the value of the organic food movement, which compared to the Agrochemical food industry is peanuts?

Goldacre is a thorough man, but I feel he spends far too much effort debunking fringe entities instead of focussing on the bigger bad science inherent in so much. I work in a biomedical laboratory, and I promise you bad science is abundant at a base level in the basic systems produced and supplied by the biomedical/pharma multinationals. These incidences of bad science are there for everyone within the biomedical industry to see and yet clinical decisions are made on the basis of them, everyone ignores them, from manufacturer to accreditation authorities, why? I don't know, but I suspect the multi-trillion nature of the business has something to do with it. So why does Goldacre spend so much time debunking the fringe harms of bad science, sure he talks about conventional medicine from time to time, or about the bad science of antidepressants and the scurrilous techniques employed by drug studies, but these are the big bad threats to society, not Gillian McKieth, who a threat in herself is small fry in comparison.

Y'know, it would be fascinating to hear exactly what bad science you're talking about.  No need for names or products.  Do you mean poor experimental; design?  Biased samples?  Ignoring inconvenient measurements?

On the other hand, if what you're talking about is poor regulatory requirements, then that's hardly bad science.  If you're talking about abuse of process by corporations or politicians or civil servants, then that may be very wrong, but it's not bad science.

What would be even more helpful would be if you could give a link to this EU study that you set so much store by.  All I can find is this http://www.tubitak-food2009.org/ which appears to be a jolly organised by the Soil Association with EU money.  Some fascinating stuff there on Turkish honey (well, fascinating to us beekeepers), but I'm sure that's not what you're referring to.  And then even the hoi polloi can have a crack at understanding the issues from both sides.

[amphibian]

The Soil Association do claim that organic produce contains higher amounts of beneficial minerals, essential amino acids, vitamins, vitamin C and minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants and Omega 3.

That doesn't appear to be true.

Perhaps. For me it needs further research.

[OllieC]

I can't believe that people on here are discussing this Red Herring - We are all gardeners, and we all do it in the most sustainable way we can. However we choose to do it, it is better than the supermarket alternative... Personally, after eating a plateful of what I grow I feel pretty good!! (and I couldn't care less about what one official body or another says...)

[amphibian]

That's a bit uncalled for!  OK, it's only the interwebs, so I'm not really much offended, but even we hoi polloi can understand the FSA's clear message.

I'm not referring to you as the hoi poloi, I'm more talking about my supermarket loving work colleagues, you know people that aren't actually that interested in food production, have little to no environmental concerns but read snippits of news papers and take from them what they want and nothing else.

This isn't true, is it?  The FSA have a large toxicology programme, much bigger than this one off nutrient study.  Indeed it was quoted earlier in this thread.  So they appear to be extremely interested in pesticides and the threat to human health.

Well. they FSA said this:-

"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."

I question what they deem an acceptable risk and I question the outcome of indirect risk to human health from pesticides, such as through their production and their affects on the environment. Many, many mistakes have and will be made in pesticide safety.

Y'know, it would be fascinating to hear exactly what bad science you're talking about.  No need for names or products.  Do you mean poor experimental; design?  Biased samples?  Ignoring inconvenient measurements?

On the other hand, if what you're talking about is poor regulatory requirements, then that's hardly bad science.  If you're talking about abuse of process by corporations or politicians or civil servants, then that may be very wrong, but it's not bad science.

Okay, I'll explain, as best as I can., but I won't name any party.

It is regarding the processing of serum/plasma assays using spectrophotometry and immunoassay methods. When a sample is haemolysed, icteric or lipaemic the degree of each needs to measured. Certain assays need to be repeated with a new sample if the indices exceed certain levels, what is reportable and at what level varies from analyte to analyte. Once a result is reported doctors make clinical decisions based on the results. Now assays are all rigorously calibrated, quality controlled and quality assured. QC's are, in the intrest of best practice, obtained from a party other than the manufacturer of the analyser, and QA samples are supplied by the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service. So all is looking good.

However, the process by which haemolysis is established is nether subject to QC, calibration or QA. The result of this is that if I were to measure haemolysis on two separate analyzers I would get different results. Based on one machine's result I might insist on a new sample on another's the analyte would be reported. What if the haemolysis has been measured inaccurately by one machine, and we report an inaccurate result for the requested analyte as a verified result? You can do all the QC and QA in the world, but if one of the processes by which the requested analyte is verified is not itself subject to QC and QA, then the whole process is flawed. This happens every day, do the CPA know about it? I don't know, but if they don't I question their ability to issue accreditation. Do the manufacturers know about it? Certainly. Do the Biomedical Scientists who verify these results, know about it? Yes. Do the doctors who make clinical decisions based on flawed methodology know about it? I don't think they do, they barely understand haemolysis as it is.

Now this is just part of the picture, because I have no idea how accurate this already flawed method is, when we are dealing with a sample that has a mix of any of Haemolysis, Icterus and Lipaemia.

What would be even more helpful would be if you could give a link to this EU study that you set so much store by.  All I can find is this http://www.tubitak-food2009.org/ which appears to be a jolly organised by the Soil Association with EU money.  Some fascinating stuff there on Turkish honey (well, fascinating to us beekeepers), but I'm sure that's not what you're referring to.  And then even the hoi polloi can have a crack at understanding the issues from both sides.

This website here has a breakdown of the European funded research, and it tells you in each document which journal some of the studies were published in.

Personally I feel this FSA review, which is what it is rather than new research, has the potential to be manipulated too easily. I would far rather see them invest the wallah in actually conducting some far reaching research, covering all aspects of nutrition, and not just basic maintenance nutrition, phytochemical content, heavy metal content, direct and indirect health implications...

By the way I also feel that peer review is not the be all and end all of scientific rigour. Many, many peer review failures have occurred and will occur. Peer review does not always detect deliberate scientific fraud, and can only assume all the data has been provided. Some branches of science have all but abandoned peer review and even some scientific journals have been critical of the process.

[amphibian]

I can't believe that people on here are discussing this Red Herring - We are all gardeners, and we all do it in the most sustainable way we can. However we choose to do it, it is better than the supermarket alternative... Personally, after eating a plateful of what I grow I feel pretty good!! (and I couldn't care less about what one official body or another says...)

It's bigger than us though. This is a question about how the world produces its food, not just us allotmenteers.

[OllieC]

I can't believe that people on here are discussing this Red Herring - We are all gardeners, and we all do it in the most sustainable way we can. However we choose to do it, it is better than the supermarket alternative... Personally, after eating a plateful of what I grow I feel pretty good!! (and I couldn't care less about what one official body or another says...)

It's bigger than us though. This is a question about how the world produces its food, not just us allotmenteers.

Nope, this is a gardening forum & this is in the "Basics" section. There are better places to have a private argument about how the world grows it's food...

[Melbourne12]

I can't believe that people on here are discussing this Red Herring - We are all gardeners, and we all do it in the most sustainable way we can. However we choose to do it, it is better than the supermarket alternative... Personally, after eating a plateful of what I grow I feel pretty good!! (and I couldn't care less about what one official body or another says...)

It's bigger than us though. This is a question about how the world produces its food, not just us allotmenteers.

Nope, this is a gardening forum & this is in the "Basics" section. There are better places to have a private argument about how the world grows it's food...

I was rather enjoying the debate, "private spat" as you originally put it.

Still, mustn't be tedious, eh?  Probably rather reached the end of its natura; life, anyway.

[amphibian]

Nope, this is a gardening forum & this is in the "Basics" section. There are better places to have a private argument about how the world grows it's food...

I would agree that this threaad is almost certainly in the wrong section. However, things develop their own pace and sometimes no longer suit the area they once started in, this is not a 'private argument' it is a debate on an open forum. Anyone can join in, the thread was started about a controversial subject and was bound to stir debate, many members have posted in here, exactly what is your issue?

If you see this as 'private' do you also take issue with FAO threads, or any thread where only two people choose to post?

Sub discussions happen in threads all the time, from mention of childhood TV programmes appearing half way through a thread about parsnips to a discussion about 'the youth of today' arising in a thread about container gardening. Discussions about the behaviour of the police... etc.

If this place is all about 'gardening' why the shed? This is a community, and a discussion about the politics and science of food has a lot more to do with gardening than an awful lot we talk about here. But I have no issues with whatever people want to talk about.

You also didn't like it when a discussion about blight got scientific. We all take different things from gardening, for some it is growing seeds in the dirt for others it branches out into breeding, genetics, ecology, biology, politics... each to their own.

[OllieC]

Oh, I'm grumpy in the morning, just ignore me... sorry.

digressing even further... I don't remember not liking the science in a blight discussion?! You sure it was me?  :P

[electric landlady]

I can't believe that people on here are discussing this Red Herring - We are all gardeners, and we all do it in the most sustainable way we can. However we choose to do it, it is better than the supermarket alternative... Personally, after eating a plateful of what I grow I feel pretty good!! (and I couldn't care less about what one official body or another says...)

Hear hear!

Not disrupting the environment with chemicals is a good thing I'd say, but commercially produced unseasonal carbon-intensive food-miletastic veg, whether organic or not, is a totally different thing from our lovingly nurtured locally grown seasonal allotment veg, whether organic or not. I prefer my home grown veg because:

1. I enjoy growing it, picking it and eating it
2. I know what chemicals have or haven't been used
3. It has zero food miles and is always seasonal
4. it is as fresh as fresh can be (and hence tastes far better)

and by far the most important of those for me is the first one.

PS I'm enjoying the discussion; straight away I wondered what people here would think about the FSA report when i heard about it on the news cos I may not always agree with all of you but you are an interesting and intelligent bunch!