Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Uproar over study on organic food

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Uproar over study on organic food
  • Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:38:40 -0600





Uproar over study on organic food
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009599887_organicstudy05m.html
ugust 5, 2009


Health-food advocates are up in arms after a new comprehensive British study
concluded that organic food isn't more nutritious than conventionally grown
food. Many say it's not so much about what's in the food; it's about what
isn't.


For years, healthful-food advocates have said organic food is more nutritious
than conventionally grown.

But that claim — trumpeted on the Web sites of organizations ranging from the
national Organic Trade Association to the Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets —
is being challenged by a comprehensive new study released last week.

Now the healthful-eating crowd is up in arms. Not only did researchers reach
the wrong conclusion, advocates say, they didn't even ask the right
questions. Such as: Why, exactly, do people buy organic?

Many advocates say it's not so much about what's in the food; it's about what
isn't.

"There's a larger reason to buy organic food, and nutrition is just one piece
of it," said Laura Niemi of Seattle Tilth Association.

The study, conducted by British researchers and published in the
peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, examined all the
relevant research between 1958 and 2008, eliminating studies the authors
deemed not scientifically sound. It has been billed as the most comprehensive
review of the nutrition question to date.

Researchers concluded "there is no evidence of a difference" between organic
and conventionally grown produce in 20 of 23 nutrient categories, including
vitamin C, calcium and potassium. The researchers had similar results when
comparing meats. Any nutritional differences they did find were not
significant, the researchers said.

"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 lead researcher said in a news release. The
study was undertaken "because there is currently no independent authoritative
statement" on the nutrition question, the researchers said.

The study was conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, the country's national school of public health. It was funded by
the Food Standards Agency, an independently operating government department
"set up to protect the public's health and consumer interests."

Media reports on the study have appeared on CNN and in newspapers stretching
from Chicago to Australia. Meanwhile, the blogosphere is buzzing with
criticism. Some worry that publicity about the results could affect consumer
buying habits.

The main problem with the study, critics say, is that nutrition is only a
small part of organic's appeal. The researchers did not examine, for example,
what effect chemical fertilizers and pesticides — used in growing
conventional crops — have on consumers. Nor did they look at the
environmental effects of each growing method.

"Nutritional quality is one of many potential variables related to the
advantages of organic food," Margaret Wittenberg, global vice president of
quality standards for Whole Foods Market, said in a statement. "But for us,
there are already plenty of well-documented reasons to choose organic."

Advocates pointed to a study completed last year by The Organic Center that
reached a different conclusion. Like the British study, these researchers
examined the results of previous studies but went back only to the 1980s and
used different methodology. For example, they focused exclusively on "matched
pairs" of organic and conventional foods — that is, "crops grown on nearby
farms, on the same type of soil, with the same irrigation systems and harvest
timing."

The conclusion? "Yes, organic plant-based foods are, on average, more
nutritious."

The Organic Center's mission is "conversion of agriculture to organic
methods, improved health for the earth and its inhabitants, and greater
awareness of and demand for organic products."

Pointing to the conclusions of the The Organic Center's report, Diana Crane,
of PCC Natural Markets, said the British report was "not balanced."

"I don't see it as a matter of taking sides," Crane added. "I see it as being
informed, knowing what's reputable, and in some cases what just makes common
sense. ... Organic has intuitively to be better for you."

While criticism of the British results abound, some have chosen to look at
the bright side.

Debra Boutin, chair of Bastyr University's Department of Nutrition and
Exercise Science, said that while the results may have been overblown in
media reports, she's not about to dispute the conclusions.

Her priority is to get people to eat their fruits and vegetables, whether
they're well-to-do fine-diners or struggling shoppers. If they can get as
many nutrients from conventionally grown as they can from organic, she said,
"that's a good thing. They're equally good for us."

Maureen O'Hagan: 206-464-2562 or mohagan@seattletimes.com
Information

Read more about the British researchers' study:
www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

The Organic Center's study: www.organic-center.org






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page