| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Organic food is no healthier, study finds |
| 2009-07-29 |
| Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday. Note: Need graphic for crying disillusioned hippie. 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. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #9 Yes well, good responsible farmers planning well are still too rare. People wanting to avoid chemicals doesn't bother me as much as this idea that 'all-natural' so it's perfectly healthy. Arsenic is all natural and will kill you quite dead. Support of local farmers is also good, as having food grown nearby helps ensure survivability in the event of something drastic. I'm not a greenie, but I AM a classical conservationist. Natural resources should be used smartly and efficiently, to produce the best that it can. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2009-07-29 19:56 |
| #8 I've gone organic in my old age, at least for veggies and meat. The less chemical crud in the food, the better. I switched to grass fed meat when I heard that a pound of ground beef from conventional processing plants may contain bits of up to 1,000 animals. I'd like to know where my cow has been. Local tomatoes taste better than the styrofoam stuff shipped from California in the supermarket. And the quarter steer I bought contained round steaks weighing four pounds, with virtually no fat. Environmental trade offs: the local organic farm uses drip irrigation, not sprinklers, and takes other measures to use water wisely; my food hasn't traveled 5000 miles to get to me (Chilean asparagus in October is just WRONG); fewer chemicals in food means fewer chemicals going into the sewer system. Lots of variables this article doesn't mention. |
| Posted by: mom 2009-07-29 18:58 |
| #7 As far as I'm concerned, the only inorganic food is salt. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2009-07-29 18:51 |
| #6 The information has been around for a while, this report says it was a review of 162 studies. I'm not as concerned over meat and dairy, but organic crops use ALOT of water and fresh water is something the geologic community is getting concerned about. Virtually every aquifer in the US is being drained faster than recharge, which means that at some point, our supplies of fresh water are going to be reduced. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2009-07-29 17:15 |
| #5 No one ever claimed that organic food had a greater nutritional content. That's always been a bit of a red herring. This is the first time I've seen "no... health benefits over ordinary food" stated explicitly. |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2009-07-29 16:44 |
| #4 I do buy some organic products (dairy and meat), not because of what's in them, but because of what's not in them (hormones, antibiotics, etc.) That, to me, is the important difference, and one that I am willing to pay for. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-07-29 15:08 |
| #3 "Organic" = "Expensive". As does "green". |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-07-29 14:24 |
| #2 A lot of people eat organic food for the same reason they drive a Prius--it may or may not "save" the earth, but at least they feel better about themselves. |
| Posted by: Mike 2009-07-29 14:17 |
| #1 Growing food "organically" is also more hostile to the environment. Since you don't use pesticides and good fertilizer, you increase the amount to be planted to get the same yield, which in turn requires more water and depletes more soil, 'natural' fertilizer carries increased risk of diseases and is less effective. Basically, you waste more water, more land, and end up with the same food yet higher risk of infecting the public with diseases. What's not to like? |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2009-07-29 13:48 |