New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food

Rucking_Fetard · 12-07-2014 10:41pm #1

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food

In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops.

Analysing 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops, the team found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 1-2 extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops. Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones.

Newcastle University’s Professor Carlo Leifert, who led the study, says: “This study demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals.

“This constitutes an important addition to the information currently available to consumers which until now has been confusing and in many cases is conflicting.”

The findings contradict those of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned study which found there were no substantial differences or significant nutritional benefits from organic food.

The FSA commissioned study based its conclusions on only 46 publications covering crops, meat and dairy, while Newcastle led meta-analysis is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications on composition difference between organic and conventional crops now available.

“The main difference between the two studies is time,” explains Professor Leifert, who is Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University.

“Research in this area has been slow to take off the ground and we have far more data available to us now than five years ago”.
Dr Gavin Stewart, a Lecturer in Evidence Synthesis and the meta-analysis expert in the Newcastle team, added: "The much larger evidence base available in this synthesis allowed us to use more appropriate statistical methods to draw more definitive conclusions regarding the differences between organic and conventional crops"

Professor Leifert added: “The organic vs non-organic debate has rumbled on for decades now but the evidence from this study is overwhelming – that organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.

“But this study should just be a starting point. We have shown without doubt there are composition differences between organic and conventional crops, now there is an urgent need to carry out well-controlled human dietary intervention and cohort studies specifically designed to identify and quantify the health impacts of switching to organic food.”

Bout time.

sok2005 · 17-07-2014 9:30am

Thanks for this. Had an discussion with a buddy about how I buy organic whenever possible, they scoffed and sent me a link to an article on the Daily Mail disputing the validation of buying organic produce, this made me laugh, when the Daily Mail is your comeback you know you've lost the argument!

djpbarry · 21-07-2014 1:25pm

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Bout time.

Care to elaborate?

The_Captain · 28-07-2014 2:46pm

Confirmation bias: ignore the hundreds of articles refuting your opinion, focus on the one that supports it

micraX · 28-07-2014 2:50pm

The world won't and can't be fed organicly. Only possible way is if genetically modifying food is researched and funded in a big way, but that's not going to happen either.

Grudaire · 30-07-2014 7:58pm

micraX wrote: »

The world won't and can't be fed organicly. Only possible way is if genetically modifying food is researched and funded in a big way, but that's not going to happen either.

While I agree that 100% organically produced food is unlikely to be able to meet food demands (without other negative consequences at least), I don't see how the 'only' solution is genetically modified food?

Reducing wastage, encouraging the consumpsion of less resource intense food would make vast improvements to feeding the world.

GM isn't suddenly going to mean that starvation will disappear, rather it'll mean another corporation in the food distribution pyramid wanting a cut of the profits.

Rucking_Fetard · 30-07-2014 10:04pm

Grudaire wrote: »

While I agree that 100% organically produced food is unlikely to be able to meet food demands (without other negative consequences at least), I don't see how the 'only' solution is genetically modified food?

Reducing wastage, encouraging the consumpsion of less resource intense food would make vast improvements to feeding the world.

GM isn't suddenly going to mean that starvation will disappear, rather it'll mean another corporation in the food distribution pyramid wanting a cut of the profits.

Here's GM without the GM

New biotech wheat gives fungi the finger without adding new genes

Instead of adding Genes to try and build a resistance, these guys took away the Gene that caused this Crop to react (and die) from exposure to the Fungus Powdery Mildew.

Like if a Human gets HepB, it's not the HepB that does the harm, it's the Bodys reaction to it.

These guys took away the plants ability to react.

Groundbreaking not just for plants but Med research aswell I'd imagine.

Rucking_Fetard · 30-07-2014 10:06pm

The_Captain wrote: »

Confirmation bias: ignore the hundreds of articles refuting your opinion, focus on the one that supports it

Yea, now if only this was a singular study instead of an analysis of hundreds then your post wouldn't look so......:rolleyes:

micraX · 31-07-2014 8:21am

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Here's GM without the GM

New biotech wheat gives fungi the finger without adding new genes

Instead of adding Genes to try and build a resistance, these guys took away the Gene that caused this Crop to react (and die) from exposure to the Fungus Powdery Mildew.

Like if a Human gets HepB, it's not the HepB that does the harm, it's the Bodys reaction to it.

These guys took away the plants ability to react.

Groundbreaking not just for plants but Med research aswell I'd imagine.

They do that with vegetables called hybred.

sok2005 · 31-07-2014 9:17am

micraX wrote: »

They do that with vegetables called hybred.

Hybrid vegetables are veg that are cross bred so that the final plant has the best qualities of both parent plants and so on.
That's different to taking the gene from a plant to cause it to not react to specific diseases.

micraX · 31-07-2014 10:39am

sok2005 wrote: »

Hybrid vegetables are veg that are cross bred so that the final plant has the best qualities of both parent plants and so on.
That's different to taking the gene from a plant to cause it to not react to specific diseases.

So your talking about modifying a plant? Genetically modify so to speak?

sok2005 · 31-07-2014 10:44am

micraX wrote: »

So your talking about modifying a plant? Genetically modify so to speak?

That's the whole point, it's a new take on GM. I get the feeling you tried to set up a Gotcha moment here but it failed miserably.

Rucking_Fetard · 31-07-2014 11:08am

micraX wrote: »

They do that with vegetables called hybred.

Hybrid, thought yours was gonna be some corporate brand but nope, a search has no result.

And as above you're wrong anyway...and you thanked Captains post above and he's wrong.

And we're just making a mess of Hybrids anyway.

The United States Department of Agriculture exerts far more effort developing disease-resistant fruits and vegetables than creating new varieties to enhance the disease resistance of consumers. In fact, I’ve interviewed U.S.D.A. plant breeders who have spent a decade or more developing a new variety of pear or carrot without once measuring its nutritional content.

djpbarry · 31-07-2014 11:56am

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Instead of adding Genes to try and build a resistance, these guys took away the Gene that caused this Crop to react (and die) from exposure to the Fungus Powdery Mildew.

This kind of thing is generally where GM is heading. Contrary to popular belief, the most promising GM technologies involve manipulating a genome without introducing “foreign” DNA.

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Yea, now if only this was a singular study instead of an analysis of hundreds then your post wouldn't look so......:rolleyes:

It doesn’t change the fact that it is still just a single study and to be honest, it doesn’t really say anything significant.

micraX · 31-07-2014 12:58pm

sok2005 wrote: »

That's the whole point, it's a new take on GM. I get the feeling you tried to set up a Gotcha moment here but it failed miserably.

That's what GM is. And no I did not

micraX · 31-07-2014 1:03pm

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Hybrid, thought yours was gonna be some corporate brand but nope, a search has no result.

And as above you're wrong anyway...and you thanked Captains post above and he's wrong.

And we're just making a mess of Hybrids anyway.

Well the hybrid leeks scallions and pumpkins we currently are growing are miles ahead oh conventional verities. They breed the best with the best. So no I'm mot wrong.

sok2005 · 31-07-2014 1:18pm

micraX wrote: »

That's what GM is. And no I did not

Yes the genes are being changed. I never argued with that point. I'm just stating there are different methods for genetically modifying a plant.

The_Captain · 01-08-2014 1:40pm

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Yea, now if only this was a singular study instead of an analysis of hundreds then your post wouldn't look so......:rolleyes:

It is a single study. It's a lit review of 343 papers.

They didn't even do their own physical analysis. They've basically taken other peoples work and interpreted the results differently.

Even the idea of 343 studies being in any way significant is a joke. If you look at the actual paper, you'll see that of the original 17541 studies they found, they decided to exclude 17198 of them for not being suitable.
70% of the studies included took place in Europe, the authors of the studies all used different methods and had vastly different set ups which doesn't lend itself well to creating correlation between findings.
Their pesticide findings are based off the results of 10 papers.

In the results section of their study, they admit themselves that the overall reliability of the finidngs is low to moderate.

Tbh, the only part that particularly stands out for me is their finding of a correlation between the use of nitrogenous fertilisers and cadmium uptake in crops.

But yeah, clearly I know nothing compared to a guy who links to opinion pieces in the New York Times and cites them as fact :rolleyes:

robp · 02-08-2014 10:01am

micraX wrote: »

The world won't and can't be fed organicly. Only possible way is if genetically modifying food is researched and funded in a big way, but that's not going to happen either.

If this is true it is only true due to global demand for certain foods which are unnecessary from a dietary perspective. Organic farming is not a static technology. Over the decades possible yields are up. There is huge room for increasing yields in areas where food security is an issue.

micraX · 03-08-2014 7:48pm

robp wrote: »

If this is true it is only true due to global demand for certain foods which are unnecessary from a dietary perspective. Organic farming is not a static technology. Over the decades possible yields are up. There is huge room for increasing yields in areas where food security is an issue.

Whats wrong with conventional farming and using land to its full potential? Like with ipm other methods are used other than pesticide application and the use of dung and slurry is up in conventional farming. Irish produce purchased in tge shops today have the least chemical traces on than ever.

djpbarry · 04-08-2014 11:01am

micraX wrote: »

Whats wrong with conventional farming and using land to its full potential?

Define "conventional farming".

micraX · 04-08-2014 11:41am

djpbarry wrote: »

Define "conventional farming".

Using artificial fertilizers and pesticides when necessary.

djpbarry · 04-08-2014 11:49am

micraX wrote: »

Using artificial fertilizers and pesticides when necessary.

Would it not make sense to exploit GM to reduce the need for such inputs?

micraX · 04-08-2014 3:05pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Would it not make sense to exploit GM to reduce the need for such inputs?

Read my first comment on this trend.

djpbarry · 04-08-2014 4:20pm

micraX wrote: »

Read my first comment on this trend.

Sorry, I obviously misinterpreted your post.

micraX · 04-08-2014 4:41pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry, I obviously misinterpreted your post.

Im all for gm, as pesticides cost a fortune.

Birdnuts · 04-08-2014 4:52pm

micraX wrote: »

Im all for gm, as pesticides cost a fortune.

Has GM significantly reduced pesticide use in countries like the US and Argentina which are now wall to wall GM?? The reason I ask is cos there was a piece on Al Jaazera recently profiling an area of Soya production on the pampas where locals complained of ongoing heavy aerial application of pesticides causing ongoing health problems, loss of honey,fishery industries etc.

Red Nissan · 04-08-2014 5:02pm

The area where the studies was done from is very important, organically grown or not. For instance a crop grown organically in Connemara will be significantly better than the same crop grown in, say, Chernobyl.

Also a significant factor in the study does not state the age of the produce tested, typically organic food is not stored whereas Aldi, TESCO, Dunnes etc non organic samples may have been irradiated to prolong life and these then break down significantly faster and will rot in a day out of their usability date.

Most gardeners who have ever grown a few veg will testify to the fantastic flavour of produce from the ground to the table and the taste can be a total surprise to anyone who has never eaten recently plucked fruit and veg.

robp · 05-08-2014 3:33pm

micraX wrote: »

Whats wrong with conventional farming and using land to its full potential? Like with ipm other methods are used other than pesticide application and the use of dung and slurry is up in conventional farming. Irish produce purchased in tge shops today have the least chemical traces on than ever.

That is a completely separate issue. I am making the point you can have quite decent production with organic. The case for conventional is really based on commercial interests (which does not make it inherently bad by the way) rather then fulfilling humanity's nutritional needs. Farming is a business and farmers are entitled to seek maximise profit but there can be a subtle emotional manipulation by the conventional side in the organic vs conventional debate.

New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food

Comments