FSA findings on nutritional benefits of organic foods

bleg

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.

Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ‘Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.

'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.’

The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.

The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.

This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. 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.’

Interesting stuff. I remember reading a study about this a few years ago as well. I always certainly thought that organic meat definitely tasted better. Could this be a placebo taste effect? (for want of a better phrase)

tallaght01

I guess I've never thought of organic foods as being "nutritionally superior". But I do really only eat organic free range chicken and eggs. I try and eat organic fruit when I can. But it's not easy to get where I live.

I just don't like the idea of the pesticides etc that we eat on a lot of our food nowadays. It's also bloody expensive. As a single bloke with no real commitments, it' fine for me. But it's gonna be very costly to feed a family with organic food.

I HATE caged eggs and chickens, as they're kept in really horrible conditions in many cases. I know that' not strictly speaking an "organic" issue.

What was their methodology like, though? Did they only look at nutritional content? or did they look at actual health benefits? How long did they look at subjects for? And how many were there?

Granty2007

my 2cents worth on this report.....

Since the report commissioned by the FSA in England was recently release, our store has been inundated with what can only be described as ‘organic bashing’, as people struggle to understand what has been said in the media of late.

The report stated “there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuff”. The following is our reply to an utterly misleading and infuriating report.

Firstly, the report by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information are not new findings. It was simply a review of old research documents dating from 1958-2008. Out of this they examined 55 documents and came to the conclusion that past findings (that can be 50 years old) showed that nutrition levels were the same in food that is produced organically and non-organically.

The key word here that is causing the issue is “nutrition” levels, that is, the amount of nutrients the plants hold to support life. The report has been misconstrued so that people are saying organic food is just has healthy as conventional food. This report is deeply flawed, as it fails take into account the levels of pesticides, hormones, fertilisers, antibiotics etc, that are contained within your food. This is where the real question of “health” differences comes in.

The report does acknowledge higher levels of some beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic food (which seems to have been omitted from general publication). Recording 53.2% more beta–carotene (which is believed to help prevent cancer and heart disease), as well as 38% more flavonoids, 12.7% more proteins and 11.3% more Zinc.

The report also excludes recent EU research by Carlo Leifert Professor (University of Newcastle) whom presented his conclusive findings at last year’s National Organic Conference that organic milk contained 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids then normal milk.

The report omits that nutrients deplete over time from time of harvest. So, surly carrots from Wicklow delivered the next morning to a local shop, are nutritionally higher then carrots flown in from Israel.

These omissions are strange on what seems to be a bias attack on a growing food revolution. It harps back to the days of sponsored reports from tobacco and alcohol industries insisting their products were harmless, if not even healthy for you. The giant supermarkets simply don’t what to stock organic food, why? As it is highly perishable, therefore leading to lack of profits. Remember a red pepper dowsed in preservatives will last a week, alas, a simple organic one only three days. It’s about profit, not health.

So what is the health benefit of organic if we have conflicting reports on “nutrient levels”? Well eighty years ago the entire globe ate organically and our societies have been doing so for tens of thousands of years. Food has changed more in the past 20 years than ever before, food has become a chemical cocktail with the end goal, not being health or nutrition, but profit. This change in one generation is historically unprecedented – and dizzying!

Parking the nutrition benefits of our vegetables, let’s take a moment to look at other organic food versus non-organic food. Our daily bread. We have been making it for all recorded history, yet we have changed its very essence in the past 20 years. Here are the ingredients of organic bread as listed on the package “unbleached wheat flour, water, yeast, sea salt”. Here are the ingredients of one of our nation’s best selling daily breads “Wheat flour, Water, Yeast, Salt, Vegetable Fat, Soya Flour, Preservative Calcium Propionate, Emulsifiers, Mono & Di- Acetyltartaric Esters of Mono- & Di- Glycerides of Fatty Acids, sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Dextrose, Flour Treatment Agent Ascorbic Acid.” Whoever thinks the later produces a healthier return for their body needs their head examined.

We need to look at the bigger picture of food, organics is not just about fruit and vegetables, it is about what we are mass consuming. We are the first generation to be obese and malnourished at the same time. We have become disconnected from food. Ask yourself have you ever met the farmer that grows your food? When you cook for yourself at home, you seldom find yourself stretching for the e-numbers, nitrates and trans-fats. Organic food is about returning to healthy basics.

Strict organic guidelines prevent the use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers. Instead pests and diseases are controlled using wildlife and, typically, clover is grown to boast nitrogen in the soil in place of fertilisers.

Genetically modified organisms or crops are not allowed under organic standards. About 99% of non-organic farm animals are now fed GM soya. Common sense says that organic is safe food.

We do not fully understand the effect herbicides and pesticides are having on our health. Only 20 years ago we were told by the experts that all fats where bad so a western society swapped butter for margarine and this new man made substance called trans-fat was introduced. A few years later we discover trans-fat is possible one of the worst manmade food additives and the world reverts back to butter. Experts can be wrong.

These chemicals do not undergo full human trials and they have metabolites that are more dangerous than the licensed chemical. All we do is test them on animals and dilute the dosage below the “safe” toxic levels. What about synergistic and long term effects? What about the constituents these chemicals break down to in e.g. hydrolysis/photolysis? Simply put, many of these chemicals are definite carcinogens, neurotoxins, etc. That should be a good enough reason for Organic to be healthier. Organic produce is not covered in a cocktail of poisonous chemicals. The average conventionally grown apple has 20-30 artificial poisons on its skin, even after rinsing.

Organics has very strict controls over antibiotics use in animals. The problem with conventional food is we now feed our animals on grain (which is sprayed with pesticides (poisons) and chemically enhanced soil), no longer on grass. Consequently our animals get sick so we pump them with antibiotics. Is it any wonder that mad cow disease, avian flu and more recently swine flu are becoming everyday occurrences? This is a time bomb waiting for the next generation.

Organic farming has strict controls over environmental issues. In non-organic farming Global subsidised crops of soya and wheat are converting diverse local farms into global industrial fields void of once natural wildlife.

The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers with subsidies in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worst food (highly processed), intensively farmed monocultures of a few cereals mostly fed to animals and huge over production that has lead to plunging world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging world often creating slave like conditions and leading to a third of the world’s population now living in slums having been driven off the land by industrialisation and cheap imports.

Organic farming creates less pollution from sprays and produces less of the global warming gas carbon dioxide. Also organic farming support local food, which eliminates air miles.

The issue of expense has been brought up again and again in organic food. Claims of 60% more expensive are utterly inaccurate. If you single out fruit and vegetables, there are now marginal differences, in fact our store can be cheaper than non-organic versions of the same food.

If your family is spending €30 a week on fruit and vegetables, and there is a 10% difference in organic food. That €3 is a wise investment, one less pint in the local at the weekend. Organic food prices are dropping, the more we buy the cheaper it becomes. We eliminate transportation cost by buying direct from farmers and we cut out the middle men. At the moment only 1% of Irish farms are organic, can you imagine how cheap it would be if 50% of farms where organic?

We have lost the true value of food. In the 1950s, a chicken was a luxury to be enjoyed by most families only on special occasions. Now it’s expected to be cheap and available as a daily or weekly part of our diet, but at what cost to our health and the animals welfare?

Finally there is the issue of taste. Organic food tastes the way nature intended. Our generation has become accustomed to e-number enhanced food. People are unaware that the majority of your strawberries and tomatoes in fact are grown in nitrogen bags and drip fed a cocktail of chemicals, as the chemists grow your food, not the farmer. Organic food is grown in soil (imagine that), see for yourself taste the difference or at least as your grandparents what real food tasted like.

This is the start of the food revolution, try as they may, to quell it with diversionary and arbitrary reports such as this, but they will not defect the movement. The war on diabetes, obesity and malnutrition in children has begun and we will not go down without a fight!

djpbarry

Granty2007 wrote: »

The report also excludes recent EU research by Carlo Leifert Professor (University of Newcastle) whom presented his conclusive findings at last year’s National Organic Conference that organic milk contained 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids then normal milk.

That’s not true – the paper you are referring to demonstrated the following:

During the outdoor grazing period, on average, milk from the low-input systems had lower saturated FAs, but higher mono- and polyunsaturated FA concentrations compared with milk from the high-input system. Milk from both the low-input organic and non-organic systems had significantly higher concentrations of nutritionally desirable FAs and antioxidants – conjugated linoleic (60% and 99%, respectively) and α-linolenic (39% and 31%, respectively) acids, α-tocopherol (33% and 50%, respectively) and carotenoids (33% and 80%, respectively) – compared with milk from the high-input system. Milk composition differed significantly between the two low-input systems during the second half of the grazing period only; with milk from non-organic cows being higher in antioxidants, and conjugated linoleic acid, and that from organic cows in α-linolenic acid. In contrast, few significant differences in composition were detected between high-input and low-input organic systems when cows were housed.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118720817/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

If anything, the paper concludes that milk produced in low-input, non-organic systems is superior to that produced in low-input organic systems.

Granty2007 wrote: »

Here are the ingredients of organic bread as listed on the package “unbleached wheat flour, water, yeast, sea salt”. Here are the ingredients of one of our nation’s best selling daily breads “Wheat flour, Water, Yeast, Salt, Vegetable Fat, Soya Flour, Preservative Calcium Propionate, Emulsifiers, Mono & Di- Acetyltartaric Esters of Mono- & Di- Glycerides of Fatty Acids, sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Dextrose, Flour Treatment Agent Ascorbic Acid.” Whoever thinks the later produces a healthier return for their body needs their head examined.

Can you demonstrate that the organic bread is nutritionally superior to the non-organic? Can you demonstrate that consumption of the non-organic bread has implications for the health of the nation?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Genetically modified organisms or crops are not allowed under organic standards. About 99% of non-organic farm animals are now fed GM soya. Common sense says that organic is safe food.

Can you demonstrate that GM soya is not safe?

Granty2007 wrote: »

We do not fully understand the effect herbicides and pesticides are having on our health.

We don’t fully understand anything. But again, can you demonstrate that herbicides and pesticides that are used in modern farming are having adverse effects on our health?

Granty2007 wrote: »

These chemicals do not undergo full human trials and they have metabolites that are more dangerous than the licensed chemical.

How does a chemical produce a metabolite?

Granty2007 wrote: »

The average conventionally grown apple has 20-30 artificial poisons on its skin, even after rinsing.

Do you have a source for that claim? Are the doses of these substances that are present on the “average conventionally grown apple” sufficiently high to pose a health risk?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Organics has very strict controls over antibiotics use in animals.
…
Is it any wonder that mad cow disease, avian flu and more recently swine flu are becoming everyday occurrences?

You’ve established a link between the use of antibiotics and the emergence of new strains of influenza? Interesting.

Granty2007 wrote: »

At the moment only 1% of Irish farms are organic, can you imagine how cheap it would be if 50% of farms where organic?

No, I can’t actually. Perhaps you could do the maths?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Organic food is grown in soil…

No non-organic foods are grown in soil?

Granty2007

"

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s not true – the paper you are referring to demonstrated the following:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118720817/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

If anything, the paper concludes that milk produced in low-input, non-organic systems is superior to that produced in low-input organic systems."

No...You are misunderstanding his findings, I am comparing convention milk production versus organic production. Conventional milk production accounts for the vast majority of milk produced.

I was present when the Professor presented his results, I draw your attention to page 3 of his presentation, page five showing conventional v fresh folage diet and page 16 - which CLEARLY shows in organic versus conventional there are better omega 3 levels and lower omega 6 levels (a unsaturated fats less desirable). THis showed that conventional farming 95% of milk v organic farming does have better benefits....

Please review his full work and his findings http://www.bordbia.ie/eventsnews/ConferencePresentations/nofc2008SpeakerPresentations/CARLO%20LEIFERT%20-%20Is%20organic%20milk%20the%20cream%20of%20the%20crop.pdf

Granty2007

"

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that the organic bread is nutritionally superior to the non-organic? Can you demonstrate that consumption of the non-organic bread has implications for the health of the nation?"

I point was here to show that people dont know what is in their food. These unnessary ingredients can have potential health risks, you can consult medical journals for each one...they are listed all over the internet

there is a wealth of information on the toxic effect of some of these on http://www.panna.org/ My article was not intended to be a medical journal, I am not a doctor never claimed to be....I am highlight ingedients and this i am sure you will agree is shocking to people whom believe they are eating natural bread.

Granty2007

" Can you demonstrate that GM soya is not safe?"

Ok come on.....you expect me in a view point of organic food, showing that organics does not use GM to determine if GM is safe...... there are thousands of articles on this....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-new-study-shows-unborn-babies-could-be-harmed-522109.html


For a lot more information on this see:
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/

Granty2007

[But again, can you demonstrate that herbicides and pesticides that are used in modern farming are having adverse effects on our health?


Yes: you can check out proven toxic effects here

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

Granty2007

Do you have a source for that claim? Are the doses of these substances that are present on the “average conventionally grown apple” sufficiently high to pose a health risk?

Apples

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/food.jsp?food=AP

Granty2007

"No non-organic foods are grown in soil?"

Re-read what I said - i was refering to strawberries and tomatoes - and yes no non-organic foods are grown in soil which has not been treated with nitrates, chemicals etc....

Really am sick of people fighting the organic movement...anyone want to ask tesco what they are putting in their highly processed food...

A little movie that shows organic message in a fun way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWqq0Zga2AE

djpbarry

Granty2007 wrote: »

No...You are misunderstanding his findings...

No, I’m not. I’m quite capable of reading, thank you.

Granty2007 wrote: »

I am comparing convention milk production versus organic production. Conventional milk production accounts for the vast majority of milk produced.

Ok, but if we compare low-input organic production to low-input non-organic, as Prof. Leifert has done, non-organic apparently comes out on top in the nutritional stakes. Does that not suggest that organic is not necessarily better?

Granty2007 wrote: »

I was present when the Professor presented his results...

And presumably those results have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Granty2007 wrote: »

I point was here to show that people dont know what is in their food.

Don’t they? Are ingredients not listed on the packaging of products?

Granty2007 wrote: »

These unnessary ingredients can have potential health risks...

What health risks? And if these ingredients are unnecessary, then why are they not omitted? Surely that would save the producer expenses?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Ok come on.....you expect me in a view point of organic food, showing that organics does not use GM to determine if GM is safe...... there are thousands of articles on this....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-new-study-shows-unborn-babies-could-be-harmed-522109.html

Do I really need to draw your attention to the word “could” in the title?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Yes: you can check out proven toxic effects here

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/

Seems to be very little information on doses (if any) – strange that. I guess that would dumb down the scaremongering somewhat.

Granty2007 wrote: »

Apples

http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/food.jsp?food=AP

Doses?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Really am sick of people fighting the organic movement...

And I’m sick of people claiming organic food is healthier than conventionally-produced food, when there is no scientific evidence to support their position.

Granty2007

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m not. I’m quite capable of reading, thank you.
Ok, but if we compare low-input organic production to low-input non-organic, as Prof. Leifert has done, non-organic apparently comes out on top in the nutritional stakes. Does that not suggest that organic is not necessarily better?
And presumably those results have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Don’t they? Are ingredients not listed on the packaging of products?
What health risks? And if these ingredients are unnecessary, then why are they not omitted? Surely that would save the producer expenses?
Do I really need to draw your attention to the word “could” in the title?
Seems to be very little information on doses (if any) – strange that. I guess that would dumb down the scaremongering somewhat.
Doses?
And I’m sick of people claiming organic food is healthier than conventionally-produced food, when there is no scientific evidence to support their position.

"No, I’m not. I’m quite capable of reading, thank you."

So, you agree that “conventional “v “organic” contains more essential fatty acids. Your argument seems to be on the fact that a few (less then 5%) non-organic farms with low input systems (non- mass production) whom are fed nearly 100% of their diet on fresh forage (page 7 of his publication v 37% of conventional fresh forage) are producing more valuable food...well then I agree with you. Now let’s look at mass produced food V organic...what results does his work show?

Conventional farming - Page 8 – 600% More antibiotics, 20 % less protein, 25% Bad omega 6, 25% less Fat soluble Antioxidants. I am quoting research not ranting.

"And presumably those results have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal?"

Now I show evidence and you want peer-review? I am presenting a point of view..

"Don’t they? Are ingredients not listed on the packaging of products?"

Do me a favour ask 10 people you stop in the street tomorrow what is the maximum amount of Ingredients in bread - i guarantee none will say 12+

"What health risks? And if these ingredients are unnecessary, then why are they not omitted? Surely that would save the producer expenses?"

I am sorry but that statement borders naivety.... they are added to make...1) bread last longer = more profit, 2.) bread taste more sweeter = more profit (we are hard wired to like sugar and fat as they where once rare). 3) Cheaper to produce (organic food takes on average 4 times more human labour). - more profit.


By the way .. I respect and admire your debate, It just seem that we will remain at polar ends of the industrialised food discussion, but I do enjoy your opinion.

Dr Galen

intersting how this debate is stacking up.

Personally, I hate to see crap food on shelves in the multiple supermarkets across the country. Stuff that has been has had growth forced, and then shipped half way across the world. I took this one step further and started to grow a lot of my own veg. The taste difference is amazing, so even if not superior in nutritional value, for quality of produce, my own organic (ish ) crops are streets ahead.

As for the organic Vs conventional debate, and which is better for you. Well, without the benefit of reading scores of peer reviewed papers, I can't see how something that has been grown in a natural fashion, without the "benefits" of pesicides, artificial fertilisers etc isn't going to be better for you in the long run.

Thats not to say all organic is good. I'm sure there is an element of scaremongering and bigging up the benefits within the industry. Many of the big multiples and food companies have gotten in on the organic act too. I'd say Granty2007 you might be inclined to agree on that?

I must sit down and read that report properly. I skimmed over it, and tbh didn't take it all in, but as I say, what i do know is that naturally grown produce does taste better.

I think the most important issue is usually over looked in some of these debates.
The fact that organic food growing produces less food for a much higher cost.

Even if organic food is healthier (and I don't think it is) the fact remains that organic crops yield up to 50% less produce than a normal crop of the same size.

Norman Borlaug has estimated that if the entire farming industry moved to organic methods we would only be able to feed 4 billion people out of 7 billion.


As for pesticides, fun fact: organic farmers actually have to use more due to the fact they have to use less efficient organic-compliant pesticides.
Usually these pesticides are less safe than modern ones used in normal farming.

Remember we were growing organic food in the middle ages and they were subject to all manner of diseases and pest, yielded less and were of poorer quality.

Dr Galen

King Mob wrote: »

I think the most important issue is usually over looked in some of these debates.
The fact that organic food growing produces less food for a much higher cost

.

can't disagree with you there, but the proviso that I'd add in there is that is using current organic and small scale farming techniques. it is very possible to upscale, and continue on the organic pathway, and provide plenty of food.

The issue of cost must come into it though, you've got to ask though, is cheaper necessarily better?

Norman Borlaug has estimated that if the entire farming industry moved to organic methods we would only be able to feed 4 billion people out of 7 billion.

While Mr Borlaug (i'm no expert on him btw) has undoubtly helped to feed a lot of people over the years, who may otherwise have gone hungry, I don't think he can be held up as a shining beacon for the intensive agriculture sector.

As for the point your making, well I'd direct you back to the point I make above

As for pesticides, fun fact: organic farmers actually have to use more due to the fact they have to use less efficient organic-compliant pesticides.

any data on this?

Usually these pesticides are less safe than modern ones used in normal farming.

I'd be interested to know where you got this from?

Remember we were growing organic food in the middle ages and they were subject to all manner of diseases and pest, yielded less and were of poorer quality.

we also knew a lot less about ecology and some of the chemistry involved in plant growth. Things have moved on a bit from the Middle Ages in fairness.
I do take your point though, and I think the key is going to have to be a bit of balance. There's probably room for both the conventional and organic farming methods out there

Mystik Monkey

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

.
can't disagree with you there, but the proviso that I'd add in there is that is using current organic and small scale farming techniques. it is very possible to upscale, and continue on the organic pathway, and provide plenty of food.

Well yea. But you have to get alot more agricultural land.
This would invariably lead to clearing forests and damaging other eco-systems.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

The issue of cost must come into it though, you've got to ask though, is cheaper necessarily better?

Well not really for people in a first world country like us.
However it's not just costlier for the consumer but for the farmer as well.
Remember they are producing a crop that yields less for the same amount of land and have a higher chance of failure.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

While Mr Borlaug (i'm no expert on him btw) has undoubtly helped to feed a lot of people over the years, who may otherwise have gone hungry, I don't think he can be held up as a shining beacon for the intensive agriculture sector.

Not using him as backup for the claim (mostly) just letting you know where I heard it.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

As for the point your making, well I'd direct you back to the point I make above

Also see above.
This would only really be a problem in underdeveloped countries.
But it would be a lot harder to expand farmland due to less infrastructure and finance and to top that high number of these countries that have protected ecosystems.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

any data on this?

I'd be interested to know where you got this from?

I get this form what I know of organic farming practices. (So I could be wrong.)
Basically all farmers need to use pesticides at some level otherwise they'd loses their crop.
Organic farmers have to use organic pesticides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Weed_control

There's a reason that conventional farmer use non-organic pesticides, they're more efficient.
To get the same protection it follows that organic farmers would have to use more of a less efficient pesticide.

Some natural pesticides aren't as safe as non organic:
http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

we also knew a lot less about ecology and some of the chemistry involved in plant growth. Things have moved on a bit from the Middle Ages in fairness.
I do take your point though, and I think the key is going to have to be a bit of balance. There's probably room for both the conventional and organic farming methods out there

That's true, organic farming today is alot more efficient and safer than in the middle ages.
I was making the point that buzz words like "organic" and "natural" aren't always a good thing.
Take arsenic and scorpions for example.

djpbarry

Granty2007 wrote: »

So, you agree that “conventional “v “organic” contains more essential fatty acids.

“Low-input” v “High-Input” would be a more accurate comparison, the point being that ‘organic’ is not the holy grail of food production that many claim it to be.

Granty2007 wrote: »

Now I show evidence and you want peer-review? I am presenting a point of view..

No you’re not, you’re dismissing the report (based on a peer-reviewed publication) presented in the OP, apparently because the findings contained therein have implications for your business. Being unable to back up your points with other peer-reviewed papers leaves your argument looking pretty flimsy.

Granty2007 wrote: »

Do me a favour ask 10 people you stop in the street tomorrow what is the maximum amount of Ingredients in bread - i guarantee none will say 12+

You’re probably right, but then, it’s unlikely that many will understand the question.

Granty2007 wrote: »

I am sorry but that statement borders naivety.... they are added to make...1) bread last longer = more profit, 2.) bread taste more sweeter = more profit (we are hard wired to like sugar and fat as they where once rare). 3) Cheaper to produce (organic food takes on average 4 times more human labour). - more profit.

So the additives are necessary to increase profit? But you said they were unnecessary?

Granty2007 wrote: »

Is it Tesco, M&S, or Aldi you work for?

Always a sure sign of a weak argument – I think I’ll bow out of the discussion at this point.

Granty2007

djpbarry wrote: »

“Low-input” v “High-Input” would be a more accurate comparison, the point being that ‘organic’ is not the holy grail of food production that many claim it to be.
No you’re not, you’re dismissing the report (based on a peer-reviewed publication) presented in the OP, apparently because the findings contained therein have implications for your business. Being unable to back up your points with other peer-reviewed papers leaves your argument looking pretty flimsy.
You’re probably right, but then, it’s unlikely that many will understand the question.
So the additives are necessary to increase profit? But you said they were unnecessary?
Always a sure sign of a weak argument – I think I’ll bow out of the discussion at this point.

I am surprised you actually feel that overall my argument is weak , and am equally surprised, that you have chosen to bow out of a discussion that you initially challenged me on. I am happy to continue supplying evidence to counteract your general commercial held view on food.

Your reply continued to ask questions, yet your closure refused to except anything more than your own fixed opinion. I posted my reply to the original post to give my view on what i believe in.

I respect what you have to say, and I am always open to what every any other persons view is...so in response to what you felt is your last response . ....”I bow “...into this discussion, at this point..and welcome any criticism.

tallaght01

granty....that jibe about the other poster working for one of the supermarket's is not on in here. It's against the rules and makes your arguments look flimsy. I stopped reading what you had to say after it, because it shows a weak stance.

Also, please don't advertise on here. And newspaper articles are not scientific evidence.

Granty2007

That was not meant to be an attack on the average workers of these stores nor was it meant to be derogatory, if it caused office, I apologies. This was clearly not my intent as I work in a supermarket... it was reference to my original point :

"It harps back to the days of sponsored reports from tobacco and alcohol industries insisting their products were harmless, if not even healthy for you. The giant supermarkets simply don’t what to stock organic food, why? As it is highly perishable, therefore leading to lack of profits. Remember a red pepper dowsed in preservatives will last a week, alas, a simple organic one only three days. It’s about profit, not health.”

That these sores seem to have a massive PR machine out there working against fresh food

Granty2007

Granty2007 wrote: »

That was not meant to be an attack on the average workers of these stores nor was it meant to be derogatory, if it caused office, I apologies. This was clearly not my intent as I work in a supermarket... it was reference to my original point :

"It harps back to the days of sponsored reports from tobacco and alcohol industries insisting their products were harmless, if not even healthy for you. The giant supermarkets simply don’t what to stock organic food, why? As it is highly perishable, therefore leading to lack of profits. Remember a red pepper dowsed in preservatives will last a week, alas, a simple organic one only three days. It’s about profit, not health.”

That these sores seem to have a massive PR machine out there working against fresh food

But most chain supermarkets do stock organic food.
Why wouldn't they?
They stock plenty of other perishable food. Bread only lasts four days. Milk is only on the shelf for a day or two.
They have no problem with selling organic food cause they can charge more for it.