Organic or Non Organic?

[Moos]

annaj Wrote:

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

> My personal opinion is that the organic food

> industry should focus on the very valid

> environmental, ethical and taste benefits rather

> than make unproven health claims and argue with

> scientific research

...and better treatment of animals than standard farming also, which is the reason I prefer to buy organic meat and eggs.

[woofmarkthedog]

Chemicals on?

Chemicals off?

I know what I prefer......

W**F

[Floating Onion]

*sigh*

At no point did I question the validity or findings of the review. What I did question was the BBC's presentation of it & how they extended it to cover health benefits in general, not just nutrition.

[annaj]

I know you didn't FO, but Asset did, or at least implied that by saying that it was just a review, and it was her I was mostly replying to.

I agree about the BBC cover, but a lot of BBC science coverage is very poor and full of illogical extrapolations of good evidence. That's a thread in itself - maybe the Drawing room is the place for a bad science thread.

[Floating Onion]

Sorry, not clear who was talking to who!

[annaj]

Oh and Moos, agreed. Better treatment of animals and people is what I had in mind when I said ethical.

[Huguenot]

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you FO :)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Ethical considerations aside, Bristol University did a 'Pepsi Challenge' on organic/battery farmed chickens and the latter won on taste grounds.

[DaveR]

To answer the question originally posed (and judging by the posts so far, to put myself in a minority of one), "non-organic". Buying food badged "organic" has never been necessary in order to get ethical, healthy or tasty food, and the reactions to this apparently sensible and rigorous study only serve to reinforce my view that this is a topic where genuine debate is difficult, because opinions are so entrenched regardless of the evidence.

The post from KatotheCat could have been a parody (maybe it was)

"Like, no-one ever said it was better, but you know it probably is....chemicals, you know, they'll kill you in the end...anyway, who are these so-called scientists, probably pawns of the 'big food' lobby...it doesn't change anything...

(Puts hands over ears and says "Lalalalalalal")"

[Muley]

Thanks Annaj for putting the SR in context and highlighting the distinction between the specific aim of the review and the overall tone of the BBC report. That said, in fairness the report did state the review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices. It also quoted the Soil Associations view that there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health- surely something urgently required?

[DaveR]

"It also quoted the Soil Associations view that there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health- surely something urgently required?"

I think the key word there is "sufficient". A quick google search will tell you that the regulatory framework surrounding pesticide use is pretty substantial; for example the European Food Safety Authority spend a lot of time (and a lot of our money) specifically researching pesticide and other food safety issues. Here in the UK there is the catchily named Committee on Toxicity.

If I were a cynic I might suggest the Soil Association think there is insufficent research supporting their view as to the long-term effects of pesticides. It is worth bearing in mind that the Soil Association is a lobby group, not a disinterested party in this debate.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'd be interested in reading that if you can link to it - I find it VERY hard to believe that the watery meat found on the latter would win anything

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Sean, I saw the test on a TV programme (Countryside, I think). Alas, the only web-based report I can find is from the Daily Mail (gasp!)

organic v battery

[annaj]

Sean, I think this, published in British Poultry Science, is the abstract for the orginal study referred to in the Daily Mail article. Without reading the full text it's impossible to say how good a study is, and the authors admit that it's a trend rather than a definitive finding, but it does seem that on taste what they call "standard" chickens rated highest organic chickens lowest and maize-fed and free-range in the middle.

I think DaveR made a good point in saying that food doesn't have to be organic to be ethical and we shouldn't assume that anything labelled organic is necessary ethical.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

It seems Strathclyde University also came to the same conclusion a year or two earlier. Slightly more upmarket report from The Times:

Times Article on chickens

[louisiana]

annaj Wrote:

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

> Sean, I think this, published in British Poultry

> Science, is the abstract for the orginal study

> referred to in the Daily Mail article. Without

> reading the full text it's impossible to say how

> good a study is, and the authors admit that it's a

> trend rather than a definitive finding, but it

> does seem that on taste what they call "standard"

> chickens rated highest organic chickens lowest and

> maize-fed and free-range in the middle.

>

I wonder whether the subjects were the same people who in their millions buy damp cardboard (Chorleywood process) instead of bread every week ;-).

> I think DaveR made a good point in saying that

> food doesn't have to be organic to be ethical and

> we shouldn't assume that anything labelled organic

> is necessary ethical.

Quite. Fois gras is probably organic...

[DaveR]

"Fois gras is probably organic..."

....and heavenly

[brum]

Annaj - spoken like a true scientist. Journalists look for headlines, scientists the truth.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> As a heterodyne empiricist...

Heterodox, surely?

[Huguenot]

I was trying to get across an idea of mixed inputs - the organic issue is about more than health benefits. We need to recognise all issues.

It probably didn't work - but I was just having a bit of fun.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I would have thought that the nutritional value would depend more on how long the item had been hanging around in warehouses and on shelves rather than whether it was organic or not. I get organic when i can so i don't have to ingest the chemicals in non-organic food. I also try to keep the levels of artificial chemicals to a minimum in my house and wear a mask when cycling. The human body was not designed to survive surrounded by the cocktail of chemicals we have all around us, and for me, organic food is just one more way of reducing my exposure to some of them.

I try to grow some of my own food now to overcome the loss of nutrients in shop bought food. Tastes flipping lovely when it's fresh from the garden AND organic!

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I was trying to get across an idea of mixed inputs ...

> It probably didn't work - but I was just having a bit of fun.

It?s an interesting concept, though.

OB: For my own consumption, I?ve never bought anything labelled organic in supermarkets. Rightly or wrongly, I've always felt that it was a scheme designed to boost their profit margins.

[matthew123]

Since the year dot mankind has evolved to where it is today by eating, drinking organic produce. Many chemicals added to the food chain are meant to kill 'bugs' but long term what else do they damage... It seems to me that the best policy is to try and limit the amount of unknown/synthetic ingrediants in your diet.

[HAL9000]

It's not possible to feed the world's billions without intensive mechanised farming.

Ironically, while fertilisers and pesticides feed the majority it is only the richest and poorest who enjoy the privilege of eating organic produce.

[KatoTheCat]

some people can simply not understand the difference.

food sprayed with POISONS, and chemicals, or food without?

come on! this stuffs feeding you and your family!

if the prices weren't different...

non-organic food even sell?