JayB Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 "Organic 'has no health benefits' Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded. There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found. The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice". But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research. Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years. “ Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review ” Peter Melchett, Soil Association Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour. Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron. The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs. Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded. The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices. 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." She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns. “ Organic food is just another scam to grab more money from us ” Ishkandar, London Dr Dangour, said: "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." He added that better quality studies were needed. Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions. "The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. "Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods. "Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review. "Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added." They also neglected to account for the health benefits derived from the psychic rewards that consumers derive from purchasing this sub-set of positional goods. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8174482.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Thanks Jay. My favorite quote: The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Peter Melchett's criticisms are the most important point of the article... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Bring back DDT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Peter Melchett's criticisms are the most important point of the article... Yeah, his quote, "they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods" would appear to undermine the oh-so-important attention-grabbing headers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Peter Melchett's criticisms are the most important point of the article... Yeah, his quote, "they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods" would appear to undermine the oh-so-important attention-grabbing headers. You're missing the point of printing the headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Peter Melchett's criticisms are the most important point of the article... Yeah, his quote, "they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods" would appear to undermine the oh-so-important attention-grabbing headers. You're missing the point of printing the headlines. So trollers and talk-radio hosts will have something to latch on to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosterson Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 The study neglected to mention that the existence of nutritional differences between organically grown and non-organically grown food is irrelevant because Americans don't actually eat the fruits and vegetables being studied. Maybe when they do a study of organic vs. non-organic Big Macs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Peter Melchett's criticisms are the most important point of the article... Yeah, his quote, "they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods" would appear to undermine the oh-so-important attention-grabbing headers. You're missing the point of printing the headlines. So trollers and talk-radio hosts will have something to latch on to? Gawd. You must be a bolter. No. The point is that you can't run an efficient corporate farm without mass produced fertilizers and pesticides. Bolts help too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 "Organic 'has no health benefits' [...] The review did not look at pesticides Although it appears to be coming directly from the orwellian ministry of truth, don't worry folks, the commission only wanted consumers to be better informed ... (they also probably didn't consider antibiotics, growth hormone, etc ..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 The study neglected to mention that the existence of nutritional differences between organically grown and non-organically grown food is irrelevant because Americans don't actually eat the fruits and vegetables being studied. Maybe when they do a study of organic vs. non-organic Big Macs... so true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosterson Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 The point is that you can't run an efficient corporate farm without mass produced fertilizers and pesticides. How on earth did you infer that from a worthless BBC article on nutrition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 The point is that you can't run an efficient corporate farm without mass produced fertilizers and pesticides. How on earth did you infer that from a worthless BBC article on nutrition? Keep reading Prole's posts. There are often comparisons between capitalism, socialism, and communism. The relative short-comings of capitalism are more often the point. In other words, it was an inside joke. Or a trol. But I like his posts. They offer a different perspective that we insulated americans so often lack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosterson Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Keep reading Prole's posts. There are often comparisons between capitalism, socialism, and communism. The relative short-comings of capitalism are more often the point. In other words, it was an inside joke. Or a trol. But I like his posts. They offer a different perspective that we insulated americans so often lack. I read his posts, and I understood what he was referring to. I agree with what he writes most of the time. I just didn't quite follow what you said - how the point of headlines was that corporate farming requires pesticides (non sequitur?), not to mention the fact that "efficiency" was not something mentioned in that BBC article, seeing as the study they're reporting on did not appear to study anything actually relevant to anyone. And seriously, if you're talking about "corporate" farming, you're not really talking about food that people eat - you're talking about grain fed to cows. (I guess the surplus is made into corn syrup, and people do inexplicably seem to eat that... and then they eat the cows...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Thanks Jay. My favorite quote: The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices. Beat me to the punch, and JB got the followup points on hormones and antibiotics. Jayb, sorry dude, but your post and this article really means very little in factual terms. As far as a wide scale study of the things which matter: bet they've been done. Who wants to google it? Milk causes cancer ? link. of course "But she is cautious about the implications of her studies of cancer rates and dairy consumption." _______________________________________________________________ Health risks of Pesticides _________________________________________________________________ The food in the US is very plentiful and generally very healthy. This isn't to say it is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Milk causes cancer ? link. WARNING: Feeding lab rats copious amounts of substance x (fill in anything here) causes cancer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) The Green Revolution (the agribusiness food production model this paid advertisement study attempts to promote) = unprecedented increase in the rate of irreplaceable topsoil loss. Average topsoil loss in agricultural areas now equals that in the alpine regions (and yes, this is a new thing), thanks to the overfarming practices of the Green Revolution. It was a bad idea when it started and it's an even worse one now. The main objective of the organic food movement never was to produce healthier and more nutritious food, although it certainly does that, rather, it was to bring back sustainable, environmentally healthy farming practices as part of an overall movement to stem the tide of arable land destruction wrought by corporate farming. Having said that, anyone who grows their own food veggies can tell you the stark difference in flavor and nutrition between fresh, organically grown stuff and the diaper loads on sale at Safeway. But sustainability is one concept that continues to escape JayB's comprehension. Edited July 31, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Just to spice up yet another boring-as-shit JayB troll, here's a clip from my recent trip to Sequim and back with my friend Dave, who delivers organic produce via engineless sailboat to consumers in Seattle. Dave was below getting some much needed sleep while I shot this video. We were clocking nearly 8 knots with no wind and no motor. The interesting part came a few minutes later: dodging 3 cruise ships with almost no steerage: [video:youtube]JtynwlUPxic Edited July 31, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Shot a few minutes later when the second cruise ship came by. Busy day in Admirably Inlet. In the background: a fast attack sub and shadowing coast guard cutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Your tax dollars at work doing...er...something. Looks cool anyway. 2 days before we were passed (at too far a range for photos) by a Trident flanked by 2 enormous tenders and 2 cutters. Now there's a expensive, cool toy with nothin' much to do... Edited July 31, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Shot just before the video. These boys come in loaded, and leave empty. Hmmmmm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 The study was a comprehensive study of many past studies on significant nutritional difference between organic and non-organically grown food. As a horticulturist I feel pretty comfortable saying a competent farmer should be able to produce crops with exceptional and comparative nutritional content by either means (and that shouldn't be news to anyone). However, nutrional content is the least interesting or important aspect of why one might favor one approach or the other and the study explicitly did not cover health impacts of pesticides, long-term soil trends, local / regional / global environmental costs. All-in-all the statement "organic food is no better [nutritionally]" is irrelevant. The statement that "non-organic, pesticide-laden food grown with unsustainable practicess is worse for us in myriad ways" would be more accurate in summing up what was out-of-scope in this study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Obama Organic Garden A Toxic Waste Dump Recently the National Park Service discovered that the White House lawn, where the garden was planted, contains highly elevated levels of lead -- 93 parts per million. It's enough lead for anyone planning to have children pick vegetables in that garden or eat produce from it to reconsider their plans: lead is highly toxic to children's developing organs and brain functions -- however, it's below the 400 ppm the EPA suggests is a threat to human health. What caused this alarming contamination of the White House lawn? Some news outlets speculated that residue from lead paint might have caused the toxicity. However an article running on Mother Jones online has a more probable explanation. During the 1990s, the Clintons agreed to have the South Lawn of the White House "fertilized" with ComPRO, a commercially available "compost made from a nearby wastewater plant's solid effluent, a.k.a. sewage sludge." So, the White House lawn became a highly visible example of a little-known, widely conducted practice, "land application." This means disposing of sewage sludge by spraying it over public lands, including parks, and also on an untold number of acres of farmland where our food is grown. Sadly, it's completely legal under current, grossly inadequate EPA rules. Apparently, the spreading of sewage sludge at the White House was a public relations ploy by the Environmental Protection Agency and, no doubt, the sludge industry to convince the public that using sludge in gardens and farms is as safe as using normal compost... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Nice troll JayB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponderosa Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Hugh, you prick. Don't talk about a guy's wife like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.