Organic food scepticism

[Domitianus]

After extensive media coverage last week of new research challenging the supposed benefits of 'organic' food, I wonder will we still see the massive queues this morning outside William Rose?

[reetpetite]

Yes because the quality and taste of their produce is so good regardless of its nutritional value.

[Domitianus]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I have seen a number of properly blinded taste tests between 'organic' and non-organic foods that have shown those who claimed this remarkable power of discernment not to be anywhere near as discerning as they thought. Same with bottled water blind tasting. I have read studies that showed the tasters voted the nicest tasting water to be the plain old tap water they were offered that was a tiny fraction of the price of the branded bottled alternatives.

[monyvibescu]

I don't think much of the meat sold at William Rose is marketed as organic anyway, is it? The reason they get queues is because of the high quality of the produce, not because of the supposed health benefits of organic farming.

[reetpetite]

True but peoples taste buds are different and as it was William Rose you specifically refered to I gave my opinion as to my experience of shopping there .I have bought the same organic meat in other shops eg Sainsburys which have been completely tasteless,yet at WR I have never been dissapointed and this new research will not make any difference to what I buy.

[Domitianus]

What is your definition of "quality" if it doesn't include things like nutritional value?

[reetpetite]

monyvibescu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think much of the meat sold at William

> Rose is marketed as organic anyway, is it? The

> reason they get queues is because of the high

> quality of the produce, not because of the

> supposed health benefits of organic farming.

I agree and also buy non organic as you say it is the quality that matters.

[KalamityKel]

Nutritional value V taste... hmmm what have you started Dom?

[expat]

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, admitted that he was disappointed by the conclusions but said that he was confident that consumers would make their own minds up.

?The FSA has always sated there was no scientific evidence to show organic food was better for health than conventional food. But it has not stopped the growth of the market. Some 8 per cent of shoppers are regular users of organic food and they do so for a variety of reasons. As far as FSA advice is concerned people tend to use their own common sense.?

He was adamant that five-year research work funded by the European Commission and due to be published next year would show that organic food was beneficial to health.

He also challenged the conclusion by the researchers that the nutritional differences found in organic and conventional foods were not important.

?Consumers will decide for themselves,? he said.

[Domitianus]

expat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil

> Association, admitted that he was disappointed by

> the conclusions but said that he was confident

> that consumers would make their own minds up.

>

> ?The FSA has always sated there was no scientific

> evidence to show organic food was better for

> health than conventional food. But it has not

> stopped the growth of the market. Some 8 per cent

> of shoppers are regular users of organic food and

> they do so for a variety of reasons. As far as FSA

> advice is concerned people tend to use their own

> common sense.?

>

> He was adamant that five-year research work funded

> by the European Commission and due to be published

> next year would show that organic food was

> beneficial to health.

>

> He also challenged the conclusion by the

> researchers that the nutritional differences found

> in organic and conventional foods were not

> important.

>

> ?Consumers will decide for themselves,? he said.

Policy Director of the Soil Association? Vested interest perhaps? My personal view is that "common sense" is not common at all - is in fact as rare as hen's teeth. My opinion of the Soil Association went into terminal decline when I saw its President Jonathan Dimbleby attempt to justify the fact that the SA actually has a list of chemicals that it approves of being used whilst still being happy to approve the produce grown as a result of such chemical use. In an instant the clear blue water between organic, SA approved produce and the evils of chemical-riven, non-organic farming evaporated and the vista became that of a scientific debate as to which chemicals are safe and which potentially harmful. Such a debate can be readily had within mainstream scientific discussion - indeed it is the very place for such a debate, not the fringes occupied by special interest groups with dubious boundaries.

[bea1]

I have been eating organic food for near on 40 years now. I used to cycle to farms outside London as a teenager as not much was available in the shops. Eating organic is a personal choice - you do your research and you make a decision . Anyone who eats it because it is fashionable is always going to be fickle on this subject,and the press are forever trying to divide people in this country with issues such as this. I am not fanatical about organic food but do have a major concern over large food producers who have profits rather than our health as their main concern. For me it has always been about the chemicals - not so much about taste or nutritional value and I fail to understand why this is always the issue when this research is conducted. Its not rocket science to understand you will be healthier WITHOUT the chemicals. If the producer is good then it will always be fresh and THAT is the key to taste and nutritional value. Organic food brought in from overseas will never pass the taste and nutrition tests. There are also many non organic producers who produce very good quality food. I buy my food from producers I trust , sometimes it does cost a bit more but that is my decision and no amount of research will change my mind on this.

[????]

er, William Rose sells loads of non-organic....

[Ladymuck]

My sentiments EXACTLY bea1

[Domitianus]

bea1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have been eating organic food for near on 40

> years now. I used to cycle to farms outside London

> as a teenager as not much was available in the

> shops. Eating organic is a personal choice - you

> do your research and you make a decision . Anyone

> who eats it because it is fashionable is always

> going to be fickle on this subject,and the press

> are forever trying to divide people in this

> country with issues such as this. I am not

> fanatical about organic food but do have a major

> concern over large food producers who have profits

> rather than our health as their main concern. For

> me it has always been about the chemicals - not so

> much about taste or nutritional value and I fail

> to understand why this is always the issue when

> this research is conducted. Its not rocket science

> to understand you will be healthier WITHOUT the

> chemicals. If the producer is good then it will

> always be fresh and THAT is the key to taste and

> nutritional value. Organic food brought in from

> overseas will never pass the taste and nutrition

> tests. There are also many non organic producers

> who produce very good quality food. I buy my food

> from producers I trust , sometimes it does cost a

> bit more but that is my decision and no amount of

> research will change my mind on this.

The statement "no amount of research will change my mind on this" comes across as "I don't care what the facts are, I have my dogma."

The point I was making about the SA's position is that the chemical or no chemical distinction that the SA approved or organic label once appeared to convey is no longer valid. The 'chemical are bad for you' refrain has always been BS in my opinion. EVERYTHING has chemicals in it! It is impossible for something to even EXIST without it containing chemicals. Even pure water is H2O - in other words it is a combination of chemicals! The bandying about of the claim "but that's got chemicals in it" is simply a sign of wooly thinking and a lack of understanding of the facts. If you can show me something that does not contain chemicals I will eat my hat! The s**t that even the most organic small-holder shovels on his/her allotment contains chemicals!

The question that the issue really seems to redound to is whether the "chemicals" in question are harmful or not, NOT whether organic/non-organic foods actually CONTAIN chemicals - clearly they ALL do!!! There are those who take a default, dogmatic position that anything that is produced in a laboratory or through intensive farming is intrinsically unhealthy but that anything that occurs in nature (as if human-directed activities are separate from nature, as if we in all our activities are not PART of nature!) is intrinsically healthy. Such a position is untenable. Foxglove, arsenic etc are naturally occurring products - they are infinitely more unhealthy than any laboratory produced fertiliser. What about the many highly poisonous mushrooms that populate our countryside? They are naturally occurring yet highly damaging to human health. It has been pointed out on another thread on this forum that some Ayurvedic remedies (traditional, natural, organic, steeped in lore etc) actually contain dangerous levels of toxic metals, so the fact that something is associated with traditional practice does not mean it is necessarily healthy.

So when you state that "Its not rocket science to understand you will be healthier WITHOUT the chemicals" the logical question has to be WHICH CHEMICALS??? The ones that actually CONSTITUTE the food itself? The chemicals contained in the good ol' horse manure that has been used to grow your organic food? The nasty, evil ones that intensive farmers use? The list of ones that would be decried as being the vomit of Satan himself if they were promoted by intensive farmers or (worse still!) global companies like Monsanto but which are suddenly deemed as being 'acceptable' if they are on the Soil Association of 'nice' chemicals?

The only way to make such determinations about the safety of chemicals is to firstly accept that EVERY SINGLE THING we put in our mouths, breathe in, rub on our skins etc etc is made up of and contains chemicals WITHOUT EXCEPTION! Secondly, we must recognise that our bodies do not distinguish between chemicals that occur in the final form they are ingested through natural growth in the wild, and those that are produced through laboratory processes or so-called 'artificial' means. Our bodies are solely interested in the effects that the ingested substances have upon our systems, NOT their provenance.

Having recognised those two points we can stop lumping ALL 'chemicals' together as being universally 'bad' and study each individual chemical whether 'naturally occurring' or 'artificially added' to see whether it harms, heals or is neutral in its effects (having regard of course for the effects of individual chemicals in combination). The best process for doing this is through appropriate, impartial scientific research.

Such research is only going to be worthwhile, however, if we are prepared to be guided by its discoveries rather than declaring that no matter how compelling the research may be we have already made up our minds and won't be influenced by it!

[woofmarkthedog]

Are the chemicals free?

I like free!

Is roadkill organic?

Is a Hammond organ organic?

You can spell "Gocrain" if you mess about with the letters in organic & "crignoa" but if you say are those sausages "Gocrain " or "Crignoa" in William Rose they look at you as if your'e a bit weird....

Never know though I mean "Cillit Bang caught on so there is hope!

W**F

[LegalEagle-ish]

The cocktails of artificial chemicals that we ingest and absorb through our food, furniture, cleaning products, petrol, paints, plastics etc have not been tested by anyone to see their cumulative effect on our systems. As far as I am concerned, I try to avoid as many artificial chemicals as possible because I do not believe that their safety has been proven and think many of the new and increased frequency of disease, especially in the western industrialised countries may be linked to the increase in artificial chemical pollution.

The survival of humans for thousands of years in an environment free of artificial chemicals has however proved that this was an environment we survived pretty well in.

[bea1]

The statement "no amount of research will change my mind on this" comes across as "I don't care what the facts are, I have my dogma."]

I really object to your patronising and aggressive manner . How dare you interpret my words according to your narrow minded attitude. The last time I checked we lived in a democracy and we are all entitled to live our lives as we see fit. To suggest that I do not realize that everything contains chemicals only illustrates your superior attitude. I have done plenty of research on this subject unlike you who seem to be getting your information from the Daily Mail. I do my best and try to avoid as much ingestion of chemicals as possible - and yes- I do know the bad ones thank you very much.

[woofmarkthedog]

In an Alan Carr accent ?

[Starmix]

Hmmm. Let's throw a different spin on this, shall we?

Pesticides were developed due to the high amount of waste that farmers found themselves with, it makes perfect common sense to spray your field if you're going to see +40% boost to the turnover of your crop. Organic meat on the other hand is a real issue for the proprietor, as it increases the time between birth > slaughter.

For the purpose of this short article, let's look at chickens.

Now, from watching Teevee we all know that indoor chicken are bad, and Jamie Oliver doesn't approve, however did you take the time to research the pros to this type of breeding? The speed at which these birds grow are intense, which provides fantastic protection against epidemics, the chicken would be culled way before the infection had chance to spread, mutate, or indeed gain hold of the host. The antibiotics that are fed to the bird in it's food serve to eradicate such issues as salmonella and tapeworm, which are the key problems when rearing this animal. Besides, the chicken is indoors, so it's highly unlikely they would contract illness anyway, but nevertheless the safeguard is active.

Organic on the other hand? It's spending all it's time digging around outside, and it's taking far longer for the bird to get to it's slaughter weight, without any antibiotics or inoculations. During this time, the bird has more than enough time to get infected with parasites, and guess what? There's nothing you can do about it.

So in conclusion, if you're eating meat, buy free range. At least you have the knowledge that your chicken had a few handy chemicals added to it to protect you, while it was frolicking outside. Veg? Eat regular sprayed veg and help your farmers keep in business.

[Huguenot]

To be fair bea1, I can see how anyone could interpret "no amount of research will change my mind on this" as "la la la I'm not listening".

If you didn't want to come across in this way, you'd need to look at your own prose.

Domitianus makes some good points: your body doesn't distinguish between 'natural' or 'unnatural' chemicals.

But LE's point is also valid: we've got 4m years of evolution that means our body has already tried and tested the various organically occurring compounds in the concentration that they appear naturally.

Recent food science developments are making assumptions based on only 10 or so years of lab work.

But overriding that is the fact that as a consequence of food science our lifespan is now the longest it's ever been, and the planet supports a number of people that it could never do with medieval farming practices.