Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] It's not just a fad - organic food is better for you, say scientists

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] It's not just a fad - organic food is better for you, say scientists
  • Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:45:28 -0600


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/lifestyle/article2414745.ece
It's not just a fad - organic food is better for you, say scientists
Published: 03 April 2007

New evidence has emerged showing that organic food does contain nutrients
that deliver health benefits, contrary to the view put forward earlier this
year by David Miliband, who said it was only a "lifestyle choice".

Scientists in Britain, France and Poland examined organic carrots, apples,
peaches and potatoes and discovered that they have greater concentrations
of vitamin C and chemicals that protect against heart attacks and cancer
than non-organic produce. The research could challenge official government
guidelines which suggest there is no evidence of organic food being
healthier than conventional produce. That led to the assertion by Mr
Miliband, the Environment Secretary, which he later qualified by saying
that he ate organic food both because of its taste and the environmental
benefits.

The new studies found that organic tomatoes had more vitamin C,
beta-carotene and flavonoids, which are known to help against cancer and
heart disease, though they also had less lycopene, which is thought to help
prevent skin ageing, diabetes and osteoporosis. Organic apple puree was
found to contain more phenols, flavonoids and vitamin C than non-organic
versions.

"This research shows there are benefits," said Dr Kirsten Brandt of
Newcastle University, which led the research. "The reason why it's such a
grey area is because it's extremely difficult to measure the health benefit
in any food, but we can say that if you eat 400g of fruit and vegetables
per day you would get 20 per cent more nutrients in organic food."

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, welcomed the new
research. He said: "There is clear evidence that a range of organic foods
contain more beneficial nutrients and vitamins and less of things known to
have a detrimental health effect."

The study follows US research published last week suggesting organic kiwi
fruit has higher levels of nutrients than conventional crops. The kiwi
fruit was found to have significantly more polyphenols - the healthy
compounds found in red wine and coloured berries. It also had higher levels
of antioxidants and vitamin C, according to a report published in the
magazine Chemistry & Industry.

The French element of the latest study looked at organic peaches and found
they had "a higher polyphenol content at harvest" and concluded that
organic production had "positive effects ... on nutritional quality and
taste". Researchers at Warsaw Agriculture University found similar benefits
in organic tomatoes.

Dr Brandt's work on organic produce included a focus on a natural pesticide
in carrots, falcarinol, which is believed to reduce cancer tumours. This
led her to conclude two years ago that a raw carrot eaten each day might be
better than the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables.

Sales of organic food rose by 30 per cent last year to £1.6bn. But until
now the health benefits of organic food have been the subject of
conjecture. Last September, the Food Standards Agency refused to issue
official guidance highlighting the benefits. It said that while it accepted
higher levels of nutrients might exist they were of less value than
long-chain fatty acids.

The debate intensified last month when a report for the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found "many" organic products had lower
ecological impacts than conventional methods using fertilisers and
pesticides.

But the study said other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken
were significantly less energy efficient and could be more polluting than
intensively farmed equivalents.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page