A very interesting study by the Food Standards Agency here http://tinyurl.com/kvgoh9
It needs to be stressed that this study doesn't say anything about the claims for better flavour and/or lower pesticide levels made for organic foods. It specifically looks at nutritional content.
I was much taken with the diagram on page 7, which shows just how complex the whole issue is, and with the table on pages 19/20 which shows that of the very few studies that have claimed nutritional superiority, most don't stand up to scrutiny. And the same table shows just how few nutrients are involved in the debate anyway.
All I can say is that the food we grow as organically as we can does taste better.Even our house rabbits won't eat bought veg.
for us, it's the taste and the lack of chemicals :)
personally, I can easily believe there is no nutritional difference. but for me it is the lack of pesticides, low carbon miles, knowing where my food has come from, better flavour from crop varieties selected for flavour and not long shelf life and the exercise
it is also here on the bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8174482.stm
Quote from: manicscousers on July 29, 2009, 18:57:15
for us, it's the taste and the lack of chemicals :)
to true :)
But what about this one? Seems to be saying the opposite,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7067100.stm
It hasn't got any nutritional benefits if it tastes so bad you don't eat it.... :-X
I don't buy organic anything apart from milk... As a method of gardening it is one, rather rigid but pretty ethical way of doing things. As a method of commercial food cultivation it is a marketing tool. It is still open to abuse & can still be done on a huge scale by large producers in an environmentally damaging way.
Quote from: Digeroo on July 29, 2009, 19:22:58
But what about this one? Seems to be saying the opposite,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7067100.stm
Ah yes, that will be the lies, d**n lies and statistics........... ::) ;D
I know that my veg from the lotty does taste better than the supermarket stuff people have told me, although my allotment was sprayed last year with Roundup and some of my veg was sprayed with bug killer this year is it now classed as not organic?, Bloody NOoooooooooooo who cares, ;)
I think that it is the freshness of the produce from your allotment/garden that makes it taste so good not the fact that it is organic or not.
I expect the FSA was testing commercial organic produce against commercial agri-chemical produce, both of which can have untold food miles and delays between picking and appearing on the shop shelf not to mention fridge life when bought.
I do know that my home grown simple foods like salad leaves, fennel, brassicas, sweetcorn, soft fruits and so on have an incredible flavour compared to shop bought stuff. I bet the vitamin content is higher but accept that mineral content depends on the soil or "terroir".
The whole point of growing one's own produce is that it's cheaper and fresher and tastier and you can avoid, if you so wish, all the organo phosphate sprays and other chemical cocktails whose consumption and long term effects over extended periods can only be guessed at. Nutritional values can be as much about what isn't there as what is.
Quote from: Richard Kinson on July 29, 2009, 22:15:09
I think that it is the freshness of the produce from your allotment/garden that makes it taste so good not the fact that it is organic or not.
Agree 100% with that-fresh is best. If its fresh then its also more likely to be in season too.
For me the decision to use organic food is not so much about taste/nutrition as the impact on the environment. At least growing organically tries to lower the negative environmental effects.
I think a lot of organic food is overpriced but also much of the non-organic is underpriced in the sense that the food producers are squeezed by the supermarkets and lots of farm workers are really badly paid and/or work in dangerous conditions (no adequate protection when using pesticides, etc).
I agree with most of what has been said here but would like to add that organics growers also tend to use and produce different varieties of fruit and veg. For example most mass supplied toms are grown for shelf life, consistency, colour etc and not for flavour. It's all about shelf appeal not about the taste.
The food we grow ourselves does taste better because it is fresher, supermarket veg is held in warehouses for days and sprayed with water to keep it appearing fresh.
You only have to look at leeks for evidence of this, see how much they grow in storage.
Organic is just an excuse for the supermarkets to charge extra for the same thing.
It should be cheaper, as no expensive chemicals are used in producing it.
Organic is more expensive to buy because it is grown less intensively and yields per acre are much lower. It also tends to be mor elabour intensive so no savings on mechanisation.
Should be cheaper? What about the huge wastage through not spraying?
Our main Organic buy is Milk, in an effort to keep just a couple of British suppliers in business with a better life for the animals.
Free Range is different - we buy nothing but - or Freedom Food - whatever that achieves.
I believe in feeding the soil and using no persistent chemicals but this `organic` thing sometimes gives me piles.
I live where we have an `organic` pitch on the market.
Is it fresh-no
Is it local?-maybe but I cannot grow in season what I see for sale
Is it expensive-yes very..
But folks pay through the nose to buy it.
As gardeners I feel we can find a middle way between supporting factory farming,buying produce doused in chemicals and yet not being conned by the label `organic`
I suppose what they are actually saying is that a lettuce grown organically and not sprayed has the same nutritional value as a lettuce grown with pesticides etc and the eventual outcome - not including the taste/freshness etc - ie in the body is the same! I suppose that I can see that argument.
But I certainly would not eat the rubbish that they put in those "salad bags" where the contents are washed in water with bleach'ish additions to "de-bug" it!
I ate a couple of tomatoes this morning and - wow - they taste sooooooooo good - you would not get that taste in the supermarket or even in the organic section of the supermarket!!
Old Bird
;D
I seem to remember that about 3 years ago they tested carrots bought in Tescos asda and all the other leading supermarkets. The finds were that they contained around 400 different chemicals in them. My carrots that I`m pulling at the moment contain no chemical other that that which nature has provided. They taste mmmmmm very good unlike supermarket carrots which taste like dehydrated cardboard
Quote from: Obbelix on July 30, 2009, 11:56:39
Organic is more expensive to buy because it is grown less intensively and yields per acre are much lower. It also tends to be more labour intensive so no savings on mechanisation.
six of one, half a dozen of the other. It's all energy in the end whether its fuel in a tank or food for human stomachs.
As most have said it's freshness that makes all the difference to home grown produce followed by unusual non-commercial varieties.
there may not be any nutritional benefits to organic veg but the stuff from my plot travels 500yrs from plot to plate on my push bike, i dont use any chemicals and my manure comes from a stable that feeds organic feed to the horses, there may be none organic chemicals from the horse muck but there is very little i can do about that. i also know my produce tastes much better than supermarket stuff, it may have holes in it and may be a funny shape and it may be small but i know whats gone into it as far as i possibly can unlike stuff from the supermarket.
Quote from: powerspade on July 30, 2009, 15:07:04
I seem to remember that about 3 years ago they tested carrots bought in Tescos asda and all the other leading supermarkets. The finds were that they contained around 400 different chemicals in them. My carrots that I`m pulling at the moment contain no chemical other that that which nature has provided. They taste mmmmmm very good unlike supermarket carrots which taste like dehydrated cardboard
I guess that you're referring to the continuing FSA toxicity monitoring programme, which is quite fascinating (if one likes that sort of thing). http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/reportindexed.pdf
Quote from: FSA Committee on ToxicityThe range of pesticides, which may be used in agriculture and food production, either in this country or abroad, is very wide. About 350 active substances are currently approved for use as agricultural pesticides in the UK and over 800 are approved in one or more European Union (EU) States. If account is taken of old chemicals such as DDT, which are now banned in the EU but may persist in the environment, potentially around 1,000 different chemicals might be looked for.
Of the 350, or 800, or 1,000 only 8 appear in carrots, though.
For anyone really worried, you can find out which supermarket fruit and veggies didn't contain any pesticide residues at all:
- Chinese cabbage
- Cauliflower
- Coconuts
- Olives
- Pineapple
- Sweetcorn
And other food items that were pesticide free included:
- Pasta
- Bacon
- Beef
- Burgers
- Chicken
- Cream
- Ducks
- Pate
- Pies & Pasties
- Pork
- Turkey
- Veal
- Yogurt
- Fish sticks
- Fish (white sea fish)
- Shellfish
- Mayonnaise
- Water (bottled)
- Sausages
Quote from: hippydave on July 30, 2009, 17:46:43
my manure comes from a stable that feeds organic feed to the horses,
I find that very hard to believe. Surely they do not know the origins of every bale of hay they buy in if the run short of their own.
For me, the point of growing organically on a large scale is the positive impact on biodiversity and sustainability.
I dare say companies like Dow and Monsanto have in no way whatsoever tried to influence the FSA, ever.
On the other hand the organic movement is not just about nutritional benefits it is also about the lack of poisonous chemicals, it's about sustainability and about trace elements.
hippdave, I don't fancy your 500 yr food even if you cycle home. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: amphibian on August 01, 2009, 20:41:37
I dare say companies like Dow and Monsanto have in no way whatsoever tried to influence the FSA, ever.
On the other hand the organic movement is not just about nutritional benefits it is also about the lack of poisonous chemicals, it's about sustainability and about trace elements.
And politics of course. You forgot politics. ;D
Anyway, back on topic. What trace elements are those, then?
I can see this has brought a few soap boxes out of the closet.
My view and mine alone is that I grow to enjoy the food and not to get what can only be described as forced produce all year round.
We eat what we produce at a given time that we harvest the stuff in the ground.
If you can eat the stuff like strawberries at Christmas and melons around the same time, then I think this is imported and not fresh.
I eat what is available to me and the family not what can be imported from afar.
In the long run the only chemicals used on my land in FBB (fish, blood and bone), then there is the natures provider in the comfrey juices extracted from the plants grown on my land. Anything else is discarded from my shed as it takes up to much space. Predators are what comes into the garden and feasts on those who want to eat my crops.
I am if you like a person who has taken on board the old style of growing veg, but also using modern methods which do not entail the chemicals.
Companion planting has their benefits too.
If I cant grow it then it doesn't have a place in my plot. If the family have tried this and its not to their liking then also its given a miss.
If we all do what is required of us then we would only do what we are told instead of experimenting with what is available. If we can get something special to try then we will.
Keep the garden for what it is meant to. Growing food for the house.
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 02, 2009, 09:07:30
Quote from: amphibian on August 01, 2009, 20:41:37
I dare say companies like Dow and Monsanto have in no way whatsoever tried to influence the FSA, ever.
On the other hand the organic movement is not just about nutritional benefits it is also about the lack of poisonous chemicals, it's about sustainability and about trace elements.
And politics of course. You forgot politics. ;D
Anyway, back on topic. What trace elements are those, then?
Magnesium and also micro nutrients such as lycopene, carotenes, flavanoids, anthrocyanines, resveratrol, manganese...
I'm sure the EU, rigorous and peer reviewed paper found these to be higher in organic produce.
This latest study was conducted by a very strange choice of establishment.
Quote from: landimad on August 02, 2009, 11:57:22
I can see this has brought a few soap boxes out of the closet.
My view and mine alone is that I grow to enjoy the food and not to get what can only be described as forced produce all year round.
We eat what we produce at a given time that we harvest the stuff in the ground.
If you can eat the stuff like strawberries at Christmas and melons around the same time, then I think this is imported and not fresh.
I eat what is available to me and the family not what can be imported from afar.
In the long run the only chemicals used on my land in FBB (fish, blood and bone), then there is the natures provider in the comfrey juices extracted from the plants grown on my land. Anything else is discarded from my shed as it takes up to much space. Predators are what comes into the garden and feasts on those who want to eat my crops.
I am if you like a person who has taken on board the old style of growing veg, but also using modern methods which do not entail the chemicals.
Companion planting has their benefits too.
If I cant grow it then it doesn't have a place in my plot. If the family have tried this and its not to their liking then also its given a miss.
If we all do what is required of us then we would only do what we are told instead of experimenting with what is available. If we can get something special to try then we will.
Keep the garden for what it is meant to. Growing food for the house.
This is very much the philosphy we are trying to adhere. Grow what we like to eat but experiment with different stuff to see how it goes. It's easy to get bogged down with Organics but we keep chemical use to a minimum. I resorted to spraying, unsuccesfully, against Blackfly on my broad beans and have given the spuds a spray of bordeaux mixture. Other than that a bit of tomato food for toms, chillis, cucumbers, courgettes and pumpkins. The thing is I know what I have put on stuff and how fresh it is, that coupled with growing for taste rather than look makes all the difference. An awful lot of my stuff never sees a chemical.
As for commercial stuff - I think i'd like to see a return to seasonal food - strawberries imported in January are a tasteless parady of a british strawberry picked in June.
I
this study is a confidence trick
it is disingenuous - in my experience - fresh produce, I mean picked today. will always taste better than shop bought -whether it is organic or not.
Organic is a lifestyle choice and if you are wholly organic great!
dax
I tend to agree that the study is disingenuous. It compares organic with conventional and finds no measurable difference, but it compares for nutritional value, and organic has little to say about nutritional value, and in all fairness to Joe Public, that detail gets lost in the headline.
As it happens organic does influence nutritional value a bit because more nutritious varieties can be grown in organic systems, but the meta study corrects for this - as a good scientific study must - because the effect is down to the variety, and not the system.
A confidence trick? You need to ask why the FSA didn't compare for taste, but I don't think that's a legitimate concern of the FSA.
Quote from: amphibian on August 03, 2009, 20:53:21
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 02, 2009, 09:07:30
Quote from: amphibian on August 01, 2009, 20:41:37
I dare say companies like Dow and Monsanto have in no way whatsoever tried to influence the FSA, ever.
On the other hand the organic movement is not just about nutritional benefits it is also about the lack of poisonous chemicals, it's about sustainability and about trace elements.
And politics of course. You forgot politics. ;D
Anyway, back on topic. What trace elements are those, then?
Magnesium and also micro nutrients such as lycopene, carotenes, flavanoids, anthrocyanines, resveratrol, manganese...
.....
You haven't read it, have you? ;D
Magnesium? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Manganese? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Lycopene? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Carotene? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Flavonoids? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Anthocyanin? Included in FSA study under flavonoids, FSA find no difference
Resveratrol? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
I must admit that I'd never heard of resveratrol. When I looked it up, it seemed typical of the sort of wild claims that are made for the benefits of organic produce.
Even if the in vitro experiments on animals transfer to humans, the human ingestion studies suggest that you'd have to ingest about 50g a day to have anti-cancer properties (unless you mix the resveratrol with "chemicals" to inhibit breakdown during digestion, and perish the thought that we'd countenance that!)
So by my calculations, if you stick to red grapes, which have the highest resveratrol content of edible plants, you'd need to eat over 6400kg of grapes a day.
QED as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 05, 2009, 12:59:43
Quote from: amphibian on August 03, 2009, 20:53:21
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 02, 2009, 09:07:30
Quote from: amphibian on August 01, 2009, 20:41:37
I dare say companies like Dow and Monsanto have in no way whatsoever tried to influence the FSA, ever.
On the other hand the organic movement is not just about nutritional benefits it is also about the lack of poisonous chemicals, it's about sustainability and about trace elements.
And politics of course. You forgot politics. ;D
Anyway, back on topic. What trace elements are those, then?
Magnesium and also micro nutrients such as lycopene, carotenes, flavanoids, anthrocyanines, resveratrol, manganese...
.....
You haven't read it, have you? ;D
Magnesium? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Manganese? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Lycopene? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Carotene? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Flavonoids? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
Anthocyanin? Included in FSA study under flavonoids, FSA find no difference
Resveratrol? Included in FSA study, FSA find no difference
I must admit that I'd never heard of resveratrol. When I looked it up, it seemed typical of the sort of wild claims that are made for the benefits of organic produce.
Even if the in vitro experiments on animals transfer to humans, the human ingestion studies suggest that you'd have to ingest about 50g a day to have anti-cancer properties (unless you mix the resveratrol with "chemicals" to inhibit breakdown during digestion, and perish the thought that we'd countenance that!)
So by my calculations, if you stick to red grapes, which have the highest resveratrol content of edible plants, you'd need to eat over 6400kg of grapes a day.
QED as far as I'm concerned.
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.
Quote from: amphibian on August 06, 2009, 18:09:22
....
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
I think the presence or absence of pesticides is relevant, but air miles should also be factored in. Organic food imported from Australia is probably less good for the planet than chemically-nurtured food from down the road. Then there are factors like the amount of oil used in producing an acre of a crop. We need to look at the full picture, not just parts of it.
I noticed this in today's Guardian -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/aug/07/organic-food-standards-agency
Quote from: Robert_Brenchley on August 07, 2009, 19:35:37
I think the presence or absence of pesticides is relevant, but air miles should also be factored in. Organic food imported from Australia is probably less good for the planet than chemically-nurtured food from down the road. Then there are factors like the amount of oil used in producing an acre of a crop. We need to look at the full picture, not just parts of it.
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.
This article provides a lot of food for thought ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5990854/Organic-is-more-than-small-potatoes.html
and cover a lot of my beliefs about organic. Personally I think the varieties of food we all grow and the freshness all contribite to a healthier lifestyle for us and the creatures around us.
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 07, 2009, 06:48:54
Quote from: amphibian on August 06, 2009, 18:09:22
....
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.
Quote from: Rhubarb Thrasher on August 07, 2009, 20:38:04
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.
The Soil Association do claim (http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Whatisorganic/10reasonstochooseorganic/tabid/334/Default.aspx) 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.
Quote from: amphibian on August 08, 2009, 07:54:25
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 07, 2009, 06:48:54
Quote from: amphibian on August 06, 2009, 18:09:22
....
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.
Quote from: amphibian on August 08, 2009, 07:54:25Sure 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.
Quote from: amphibian on August 08, 2009, 07:54:25Why 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.
Quote from: Unwashed on August 08, 2009, 19:45:04
The Soil Association do claim (http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Whatisorganic/10reasonstochooseorganic/tabid/334/Default.aspx) 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.
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...)
Quote from: Melbourne12 on August 08, 2009, 20:14:16That'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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote
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.
QuoteWhat 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 (http://www.qlif.org/) 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.
Quote from: OllieC on August 08, 2009, 21:33:43
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.
Quote from: amphibian on August 08, 2009, 22:34:16
Quote from: OllieC on August 08, 2009, 21:33:43
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...
Quote from: OllieC on August 09, 2009, 07:29:32
Quote from: amphibian on August 08, 2009, 22:34:16
Quote from: OllieC on August 08, 2009, 21:33:43
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.
Quote from: OllieC on August 09, 2009, 07:29:32
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.
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
Quote from: OllieC on August 08, 2009, 21:33:43
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!