Organic Complications
Published August 03, 2009 @ 12:03PM PT
So, there was a very narrowly focused literature review put out by Britain's pro-GMO Food Standards Agency that was widely reported to claim that there weren't any health benefits from organic food.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the FSA's theory of pesticide is "don't worry, be happy", as Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph notes, and indeed the report completely ignores the potential health benefits of lower pesticide exposure. As Lean says in closing;
... It reminds me of a minister who used to complain that there was a "myth" that pesticides were "toxic". What, I asked him, would be the use of one that wasn't? Answer came there none.
Worse, the review seems to have excluded studies indicating a greater nutrient density in organic foods. Other nutrient differences reported are probably a result of the fact that conventional agriculture destroys and degrades soil, in a number of ways, and food managed solely for high yields in dying soil doesn't appear to be as good for you as food grown in healthier soil.
Has it, however, been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are nutritional differences between conventional and organic foods over and above the products of our chemical warfare industry? Some evidence suggests that's the case, but as many have pointed out, the body of research to date is minimal. So if the claim that organics are more nutritious (as opposed to less contaminated) needs more support, the claim that they aren't is on even thinner ice.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
More GE Crops, More Pesticides
-
In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2
-
Same Old Pesticide Game With Glyphosate, Roundup
Comments (1)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Natasha is an amateur eater with severe snarkolepsy and a c. 2002 blogging habit. She had a fabulous time studying ecological agriculture and policy at The Evergreen State College, and even did her homework while writing at various times for pacificviews.org, boomantribune.com, and mydd.com.
Featured Sustainable Food Actions
-
-
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
3043 People
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
The articles that were disregarded were because of poor quality methodology. Those with good methods, statistics etc were included. The end result was no difference nutritionally between organic food and conventionally grown food.
As for the sidestep to pesticides, lets talk about that for a bit.
When a plant is attacked by a pest (insect, worm, virus, bacteria) it can produce a very wide variety of toxic compounds to ward off the attacker. Science has only looked a few dozen of the "natural pesticides" and they found about half are carcinogens. So my question is if it is the philosophy of organic to not use synthetic pesticides but only naturally derived ones, what is to stop the food from becoming more toxic from the thousands of different toxic compounds made naturally in response to pest attacks?
Posted by Robert Wager on 08/04/2009 @ 09:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.