Benefits of Organic Production

Judgement Day

bladespin wrote: »

Prefer 'proper coffee' myself, old style perculator was much loved at home.

TBH it's been proven that organic products are no better for us than the mass produced stuff so I wouldn't hold that as a good reason to buy or not.

Can you back up this statement with a source?

Cunsiderthis

Judgement Day wrote: »

Can you back up this statement with a source?

Funnily enough, I have a friend who never eats organic food is he can help it. He has a Phd in micro biology and he contends that there are more pathogens in organic food than in conventionally produced food and, consequently, they are worse for us as humans because we end up ingesting more pathogens from organically grown produce.

He contends this because conventionally produced food is treated with compounds to kill the pathogens (which are harmful to humans) and organic food is not. He has also seem organically grown mushrooms where there are pathognes which are carcinogenic ( ie can cause cancer), which have never been detected in conventionally grown mushrooms.

While some will reel in shock and horror at the thought of compounds used to kill pathogens, he also points out that , since these compounds have been in general use in europe and the USA, life expectancy has increased dramatically.

Of course, if you label something "Organic" then the assumption is that it must be better for us, and those sort of assumptions simply can't be made.

Judgement Day

Well thanks for that Cunsiderthis but I will continue to labour on in the belief that if something is labelled 'organic' it probably is better for me until it is proved otherwise. You may be happy to consume products laced with artificial fertiliser/pesticides/preservatives/flavour enhancers etc.etc that will prolong your life. Personally I have no desire to spend the last years of my pro-longed life in some nursing home due to the affects of Alzheimers disease or some other byproduct of our industrialised food production system. Don't ask me for sources - just my belief and there's no changing this old fool.

Cunsiderthis

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well thanks for that Cunsiderthis but I will continue to labour on in the belief that if something is labelled 'organic' it probably is better for me until it is proved otherwise. You may be happy to consume products laced with artificial fertiliser/pesticides/preservatives/flavour enhancers etc.etc that will prolong your life. Personally I have no desire to spend the last years of my pro-longed life in some nursing home due to the affects of Alzheimers disease or some other byproduct of our industrialised food production system. Don't ask me for sources - just my belief and there's no changing this old fool.

I'm sure lots of people will follow your lead too. After all,if it says "organic" it must be better, right?

Incidentally, I didn't mention anything about flavour enhancers or "lacing" foods with pesticides. In my own house we have no salt, never eat take always, and cook almost everything from scratch, as we are mroe conscious than most of the food industry. We woudl never even buy orange squash or any product with aspartmene or saccarine or any artificial sweetners or preservatives. I was referring to fresh fruit and vegetables in my previous post.

Judgement Day

robtri wrote: »

i do find it funny that people are happy to transport this stuff thousand and thousands of miles.... not worry about the enviromantal damage caused,
and then wonder which packaging is slightly more damaging to the enviroment....

is it just me or do this seem fundamentally wrong???

You do have a good point but I think that you will find that most people who buy organic products try to opt for the locally grown organic product eg. organic broccolli grown in Ireland rather than organic broccolli grown in Italy but in the case of tea and coffee this is not practical.

Judgement Day

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I think thats part of the question the OP is asking. The transport weight of the coffee has now been reduced significantly as well as the volume by a smaller amount I reckon. So now more can be transported in the same space and weigh less which reduces transport emmisions

Incidentally I avoid organic products if I can help it. Taste worse or the same, cost more, use much more land space to produce the same volume so costlier to the environment.

Come on Cookie Monster, despite your name I'm sure that your taste buds are not that bad? It may have escaped your attention but we have plenty of land doing nothing in Ireland so don't worry about organic production taking up more space. Try Dunnes Stores organic chicken breasts (from Ahearnes' of Midleton) as an example of the difference between organic and non organic products. If you can't tell the difference get down to your GP fast....:D:D:D

Macha

Posts on merits of organic production moved to a new thread

robtri

Judgement Day wrote: »

You do have a good point but I think that you will find that most people who buy organic products try to opt for the locally grown organic product eg. organic broccolli grown in Ireland rather than organic broccolli grown in Italy but in the case of tea and coffee this is not practical.

not getting at organic food in particular, just general food....
we seem to get hung up on the waste we can see.. but are forgetting about the waste we don't see....

Cookie_Monster

Judgement Day wrote: »

Come on Cookie Monster, despite your name I'm sure that your taste buds are not that bad? It may have escaped your attention but we have plenty of land doing nothing in Ireland so don't worry about organic production taking up more space. Try Dunnes Stores organic chicken breasts (from Ahearnes' of Midleton) as an example of the difference between organic and non organic products. If you can't tell the difference get down to your GP fast....:D:D:D

I'm not hugely bothered by taste tbh. It it tastes ok then I'm happy.

Cunsiderthis

Judgement Day wrote: »

Come on Cookie Monster, despite your name I'm sure that your taste buds are not that bad? It may have escaped your attention but we have plenty of land doing nothing in Ireland so don't worry about organic production taking up more space. Try Dunnes Stores organic chicken breasts (from Ahearnes' of Midleton) as an example of the difference between organic and non organic products. If you can't tell the difference get down to your GP fast....:D:D:D

As far as I can see, Organic is merely another name for "more expensive".

Take chicken production, for example. "Organic" refers to the food the chicken is fed and an intention to not use medicines routinely. It doesn't mean that the chickens don't live in disgusting conditions, or have appalling lives and appalling deaths.

just because something claims to be "organic" doesn't mean its good.

Judgement Day

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As far as I can see, Organic is merely another name for "more expensive".

Take chicken production, for example. "Organic" refers to the food the chicken is fed and an intention to not use medicines routinely. It doesn't mean that the chickens don't live in disgusting conditions, or have appalling lives and appalling deaths.

just because something claims to be "organic" doesn't mean its good.

A valid point - organic chicken does not equal free range - but that is just one organic item. Vegetables are an entirely different matter and to generalise by saying 'organic is merely another name for more expensive' shows a very low level of understanding of the concept.

Cunsiderthis

Judgement Day wrote: »

A valid point - organic chicken does not equal free range - but that is just one organic item. Vegetables are an entirely different matter and to generalise by saying 'organic is merely another name for more expensive' shows a very low level of understanding of the concept.

Well, I've never seen "organic" anything that is less expensive than conventionally produced, and I hope you don't mind me saying that to be accused of a "very low level of understanding of the concept" comes over as a little patronising.

I have done extensive taste tests on organic vegetables vs conventionally produced vegetables, and it's not possible to make any claims for them regarding flavour. their appearance and size is generally less attractive and smaller/less developed than conventinoally produced too, and they are, on average , 30% more expensive.

As to claims of increased nutritional value in organic vegetables, or claims that "organic" food is "better", the largest ever meta analaysis of over 5000 studies carried out for the FSA in the UK concluded that " Organic food is no more healthy or nutritious than other food" and that "The work clearly showed organically and conventionally-produced foods to be comparable in their nutritional intake, including in vitamin C, calcium, iron and fatty acids"

While there is a a belief, especially amongst the middel class, that organically produced foodstuffs are healthier and have a superior nutrient profile, there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I have done extensive taste tests on organic vegetables vs conventionally produced vegetables, and it's not possible to make any claims for them regarding flavour. their appearance and size is generally less attractive and smaller/less developed than conventionally produced too, and they are, on average , 30% more expensive.

Less attractive? I find non-organic vegetables to be standardised, uniform and boring. The first time I showed my mother the organic parsnips from the veg box, she laughed and said she hadn't seen parsnips like them since her days growing up on the farm.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As to claims of increased nutritional value in organic vegetables, or claims that "organic" food is "better", the largest ever meta analaysis of over 5000 studies carried out for the FSA in the UK concluded that " Organic food is no more healthy or nutritious than other food" and that "The work clearly showed organically and conventionally-produced foods to be comparable in their nutritional intake, including in vitamin C, calcium, iron and fatty acids"

While I would acknowledge that environmental reasons are the main driver for my purchasing of organic veg, I would say that the FSA has quite a number of flaws that seemed to escape the attention of the mainstream media. For example, it rejected 50% of the studies that it came across. It also ignored the long-term impacts of pesticides and insecticides on human health.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Less attractive? I find non-organic vegetables to be standardised, uniform and boring. The first time I showed my mother the organic parsnips from the veg box, she laughed and said she hadn't seen parsnips like them since her days growing up on the farm.


While I would acknowledge that environmental reasons are the main driver for my purchasing of organic veg, I would say that the FSA has quite a number of flaws that seemed to escape the attention of the mainstream media. For example, it rejected 50% of the studies that it came across. It also ignored the long-term impacts of pesticides and insecticides on human health.

My understanding was that it rejected almost 90% of the 5000 studies as they didn't fulfil the criteria? The FSA, in any case, didn't do the work itself but got a third party to do it. Are you suggesting that, as a lot of studies were rejected for not fulfilling the criteria, that this automatically nullifies the meta analysis?

We all have our individual likes and dislikes, and if you like the size and shape of organic aprsnips, then go for it and buy them! But don;t delude yourself they are any better for you, or worse, than conventional parsnips!

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Are you suggesting that, as a lot of studies were rejected, that this automatically nullifies the meta analysis?

Well..yes! Sampling is a core part of any research project and biased or incorrect sampling would definitely invalidate any subsequent findings.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

But don;t delude yourself they are any better for you, or worse, than conventional parsnips!

We haven't exactly established that I am deluding myself, have we?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Well..yes! Sampling is a core part of any research project and biased or incorrect sampling would definitely invalidate any subsequent findings.

This wasn't a research project, but a meta analysis of 5000 other studies and research projects. Just because we might not like the conclusions doesn't mean its not valid or is in some way compromised.

As a matter of interest, do you know of any other reputable body who has looked at these 5000 studies and what were their conclusions?

Or do you know any body who has done similar work ( as opposed to individual studies) and what their results were?

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

This wasn't a research project, but a meta analysis of 5000 other studies and research projects. Just because we might not like the conclusions doesn't mean its not valid or is in some way compromised.

That is entirely incorrect. The centrality of sampling and its impacts on the results applies to primary and secondary research sources. If you restrict your population in a biased manner, your results will also be biased. This is a basic tenet of any research.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do you know of any other reputable body who has looked at these 5000 studies and what were their conclusions?

Or do you know any body who has done similar work ( as opposed to individual studies) and what their results were?

Why are you asking these questions, because you only think that a faulty meta-analysis of 5000 studies can hold the truth about the health benefits of organic production?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

That is entirely incorrect. The centrality of sampling and its impacts on the results applies to primary and secondary research sources. If you restrict your population in a biased manner, your results will also be biased. This is a basic tenet of any research.


Why are you asking these questions, because you only think that a faulty meta-analysis of 5000 studies can hold the truth about the health benefits of organic production?

lol - I assume that's a "no" then!

The truth? Ah, now there's a big topic.

There are many truths, and for you the truth seems to be that you want to believe that organic in better for you, and more nutritious for you, than conventionally produced food. And that's fine.

For me, the truth seems to be less clear. And there appears to be no evidence to support that organic food is more nutritious or better for us, other than anecdote. ( My own anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that there is no difference in flavour, and that, generally, how vegetables are cooked is more important than how they are grown, in flavour terms).

Judgement Day

Cunsiderthis I'm glad you noticed my patronising swipe - it was made in response to your generalisation of organic food = another name for more expensive.

As regards taste that is obviously a personal matter and maybe your taste buds are in the same state as poor old Cookie Monsters'? Organically produced vegetables are better in many ways - apart from any health benefits - lack of pesticides/artificial fertiliser (saving in pollution involved in their manufacture and transportation), less chance of polluting ground water etc.etc....Have you tried growing your own vegetables? Going the organic route is harder but the results can be very worthwhile and far from being smaller I find the reverse. I am not interested in reading pages of studies when common sense would dictate that food produced without being dosed with artificial chemicals and pesticides is likely to be less harmful for the planet, the producer and the consumer.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

lol - I assume that's a "no" then!

To be honest, I don't know. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there. I have already pointed out one major problem with the FSA study. Another one concerns how the study specified "better for you". The study makes two main mistakes:
- it does not compare all organic foods with all conventional foods
- it does not compare all nutrients

Another issue is that it ignored all research that wasn't in English - practical maybe but there's an instant irregular sampling method.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

There are many truths, and for you the truth seems to be that you want to believe that organic in better for you, and more nutritious for you, than conventionally produced food. And that's fine.

This is a very childish line of argument. I can equally are that you seem determined to ignore the obvious flaws in the research because you want to believe that organic is no better for you than conventional food. See? It's just pointless.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

For me, the truth seems to be less clear. And there appears to be no evidence to support that organic food is more nutritious or better for us, other than anecdote.

Come now. A simple google would lead you to some studies that show significant difference in the nutritional profile.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

To be honest, I don't know. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there. I have already pointed out one major problem with the FSA study. Another one concerns how the study specified "better for you". The study makes two main mistakes:
- it does not compare all organic foods with all conventional foods
- it does not compare all nutrients

Another issue is that it ignored all research that wasn't in English - practical maybe but there's an instant irregular sampling method.

So because no one has scoured the earth to find "all" organic foods and compare them with their conventional equivalent, any results gleaned from compareing a limited number of organic foods to their conventional counterparts, is invalid?

In any case, the FSA were not doing any tests on foods, they were doing a meta analysis of the results of many others who had undertaken the testing.

To be fair, I am not aware of any studies which show that organic foodstuffs have higher amounts of nutrients, or amino acids, or differ in any significant way to other foodstuffs.

From what you say, neither are you. And even if one study does show something, the FSA has looked at 5000 studies which might seem to disagree.

The only way they seem to differ is that they are more expensive to produce and, generally, they are not as well developed when compared to their conventionally produced counterparts.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for choice and if someone chooses to buy organic produce then I support their right to do so.

It's when someone makes claims that organic is in some way "better" or more nutritious that I ask questions, and as we can see here there seem to be no answers!

Organic foods are rather like homoeopathic medicines; they have supporters who swear all sorts of claims for them, but are unable to produce any proof when asked.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

So because no one has scoured the earth to find "all" organic foods and compare them with their conventional equivalent, any results gleaned from compareing a limited number of organic foods to their conventional counterparts, is invalid?

Hah, no - I was just making the theoretical argument

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In any case, the FSA were not doing any tests on foods, they were doing a meta analysis of the results of many others who had undertaken the testing.

Yes, Cunsiderthis, I am aware of that. The point I was making, somewhat facetiously admittedly, was that not all organic food stuffs had been compared.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

From what you say, neither are you. And even if one study does show something, the FSA has looked at 5000 studies which might seem to disagree.

I thought I had shown a significant number of errors with the FSA study yet you continue to take it at face value.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Organic foods are rather like homoeopathic medicines; they have supporters who swear all sorts of claims for them, but are unable to produce any proof when asked.

Oh but that is not true at all! A five-year study called the Quality Low Input Food study (QLIF) found that organic food is better for you.

Having said all that, I don't think the nutritional difference is that big and I don't consider it the main reason why I, or anyone should buy organic food. Issues such as declining bee populations, due to the widespread use of insecticides, are much more significant - and worrying.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Having said all that, I don't think the nutritional difference is that big and I don't consider it the main reason why I, or anyone should buy organic food. Issues such as declining bee populations, due to the widespread use of insecticides, are much more significant - and worrying.

It is interesting to learn why people buy organic, although most of them are unable to articulate why. it can't be that the flavour is better (I defy anyone to tell the difference when I cook both organic and conventional and have often done so and no one can differentiate with any degree of accuracy), and certainly no one buys them for their "extra" nutritional content because there really isn't any.

I'm off to the shops now to buy some vege for supper, and will compare organic and conventional in superquinn and will report back on price and appearance.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It is interesting to learn why people buy organic, although most of them are unable to articulate why. it can't be that the flavour is better (I defy anyone to tell the difference when I cook both organic and conventional and have often done so and no one can differentiate with any degree of accuracy), and certainly no one buys them for their "extra" nutritional content because there really isn't any.

I did research on the motivations for buying organic food and believe me - better nutrition is up there. Whatever about the debate on nutrition, organic is definitely better for the environment - although I would always choose local over organic. Luckily, buying a seasonal veg box delivered to my door, where most of the contents are farmed in Wicklow, means I don't have to either. It's also convenient, makes me cook and eat things I would probably never find or pick up in a restaurant, support local agriculture and business, cuts out the supermarket and teaches me about what is in season. And it isn't overly expensive. One of the best purchasing decisions I ever made - a no brainer.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'm off to the shops now to buy some vege for supper, and will compare organic and conventional in superquinn and will report back on price and appearance.

How about you report back on how they compare on the environmental front?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

I did research on the motivations for buying organic food and believe me - better nutrition is up there.

Did you ask the guys who bought organice due to its better nutrition what evidence they had that the organic produce they buy is better nutritionally for them? Or was this just something they wanted to believe without any real evidence?

taconnol wrote: »

Whatever about the debate on nutrition, organic is definitely better for the environment - although I would always choose local over organic. Luckily, buying a seasonal veg box delivered to my door, where most of the contents are farmed in Wicklow, means I don't have to either. It's also convenient, makes me cook and eat things I would probably never find or pick up in a restaurant, support local agriculture and business, cuts out the supermarket and teaches me about what is in season. And it isn't overly expensive. One of the best purchasing decisions I ever made - a no brainer.



How about you report back on how they compare on the environmental front?

Whatever about the claims that it's "better" for the environment, I personally don't have much concerns for the environment either way. I hope you don't take it personally when I point out that issues like "organic food" and "homoeopathy" are more usually the preserve of a small coterie of the middle classes. And there is nothing wrong with tha except when claims are made which are unsupported by evidence.

I think vegetable boxes are a wonderful idea and support them. I also think seasonal vegetables are the thing, and find it hilarious that we currently have, for example, strawberries in our supermarkets. But neither of these things suggest that organic vegetables are any "better" or "worse" for us than non organic.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Did you ask the guys who bought organice due to its better nutrition what evidence they had that the organic produce they buy is better nutritionally for them? Or was this just something they wanted to believe without any real evidence?

No, it wasn't part of my research project.

Cunsiderthis, you're great for just throwing in statements as if you've somehow managed to prove them. You haven't proven at all that organic is not nutritionally better for you.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Whatever about the claims that it's "better" for the environment, I personally don't have much concerns for the environment either way. I hope you don't take it personally when I point out that issues like "organic food" and "homoeopathy" are more usually the preserve of a small coterie of the middle classes. And there is nothing wrong with tha except when claims are made which are unsupported by evidence.

I won't take offence at all but I do find it odd that you would question the environmental benefits of organic production. And putting it in the same category as homoeopathy betrays a real lack of understanding of organic production. I suggest you read up on it.

Telgere

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As far as I can see, Organic is merely another name for "more expensive".

Take chicken production, for example. "Organic" refers to the food the chicken is fed and an intention to not use medicines routinely. It doesn't mean that the chickens don't live in disgusting conditions, or have appalling lives and appalling deaths.

just because something claims to be "organic" doesn't mean its good.

Think you will find organic chicken has a completly different set of standards compared to "Free Range" and "Farm Fresh/Battery Fed.

"While free-range producers are inspected to ensure they have adequate conditions to facilitate a free range enterprise, organic poultry farmers are mandatorily inspected at least once annually and quite a few will receive other unannounced spot-check inspections. Organic inspections audit the entire production system from feed to animal welfare "

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

No, it wasn't part of my research project.

Cunsiderthis, you're great for just throwing in statements as if you've somehow managed to prove them. You haven't proven at all that organic is not nutritionally better for you.


.

I produced the largest meta analysis every carried out on organic foods which concluded that there are no nurtitional benefits.

In any case, neither of us is able to "prove" anything, its a matter of judgment based on the available evidence, and a matter for each of us to make up our own minds.

taconnol wrote: »

I won't take offence at all but I do find it odd that you would question the environmental benefits of organic production. And putting it in the same category as homoeopathy betrays a real lack of understanding of organic production. I suggest you read up on it.

I would find it much odder if no one questioned the benefits claimed for organic production or, indeed, for anything. I think it's healthy to question.

If I had compared homoeopathy to organic food, then you'd be correct, but what I said was somewhat different to that. I observed that the people who liked one often were the same people who liked the other.

My position is that organic food is wonderful stuff, but no better than conventionally produced food. Your position seems to be that it seems to be in some way "better" than conventional food.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I produced the largest meta analysis every carried out on organic foods which concluded that there are no nurtitional benefits.

And I have pointed out serious flaws in the research that you continue to wilfully ignore.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In any case, neither of us is able to "prove" anything, its a matter of judgment based on the available evidence, and a matter for each of us to make up our own minds.

And I have produced a far more credible piece of research, that doesn't have the methodological problems of the FSA study, that you continue to wilfully ignore!

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

If I had compared homoeopathy to organic food, then you'd be correct, but what I said was somewhat different to that. I observed that the people who liked one often were the same people who liked the other.

And in doing so, you effectively put the two in the same category. Homeopathy is rightfully scorned because its claims are not held up under scientific scrutiny: the same cannot be said for organic food.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

My position is that organic food is wonderful stuff, but no better than conventionally produced food. Your position seems to be that it seems to be in some way "better" than conventional food.

Yes, substantial research demonstrates that organic food is nutritionally better than conventional, as already discussed. But, as I already said, I don't consider this to be a deciding factor in buying organic food (ie it isn't about to cure cancer) for myself.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

And I have pointed out serious flaws in the research that you continue to wilfully ignore.


And I have produced a far more credible piece of research, that doesn't have the methodological problems of the FSA study, that you continue to wilfully ignore!


And in doing so, you effectively put the two in the same category. Homeopathy is rightfully scorned because its claims are not held up under scientific scrutiny: the same cannot be said for organic food.


Yes, substantial research demonstrates that organic food is nutritionally better than conventional, as already discussed. But, as I already said, I don't consider this to be a deciding factor in buying organic food (ie it isn't about to cure cancer) for myself.

It seems we are not going to agree so lets agree to disagree, as this seems to be getting heated.

I fully understand your position and respect it, I just happen to disagree with it which is, I assume, your position regarding me too.

Judgement Day

Cunsiderthis - from your post #25 ...'I personally don't have much concerns for the environment either way.' Is this as regards organic food production or the environment in general? If the latter why are you bothering to post in the Green Issues forum?

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It seems we are not going to agree so lets agree to disagree, as this seems to be getting heated.

I fully understand your position and respect it, I just happen to disagree with it which is, I assume, your position regarding me too.

We can agree to disagree, of course, but selective recognition of studies is not a recommended way to approach an issue.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

I would say that the FSA has quite a number of flaws that seemed to escape the attention of the mainstream media. For example, it rejected 50% of the studies that it came across.

Do you have a link to any article about this? A meta-analysis is designed to give more weight to more credible studies. I know nothing about this analysis, but is it possible they omitted studies that they considered not up to scrutiny?

EDIT: Just had a look at the actual paper.

Design: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and
CAB Abstracts for a period of 50 y from 1 January 1958 to 29
February 2008, contacted subject experts, and hand-searched bibliographies.
We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts
in the analysis if they reported nutrient content
comparisons between organic and conventional foodstuffs. Two reviewers
extracted study characteristics, quality, and data. The analyses
were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients.

METHODS
The quality and heterogeneity of the available data meant that
we could not undertake a formal meta-analysis of the reported
numerical results. We adhered, as much as possible, to the
guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews of observational
studies.

I've attached the actual paper. Looks kosher to me.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

Do you have a link to any article about this? A meta-analysis is designed to give more weight to more credible studies. I know nothing about this analysis, but is it possible they omitted studies that they considered not up to scientific scrutiny?

I'll try to find the source again.

The FSA incorporated studies going back 50 years. The science of nutrition is constantly evolving and the question has to be asked - why would they include studies going back 50 years? Our understanding has improved vastly since then.

They also chose to ignore a number of very high-quality relevant studies that came out near to its cut-off date for inclusion, including the EU one I referenced earlier.

But in fairness to the researchers, they did include this caveat at the end of their study - and one that was wholly ignored by those reporting on the study:

‘t should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies… Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

But in fairness to the researchers, they did include this caveat at the end of their study

So basically, they did the best they could with the data that was available. The burden of proof of the claim of higher nutritional value still lies with the claimants.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

So basically, they did the best they could with the data that was available. The burden of proof of the claim of higher nutritional value still lies with the claimants.

That statement in relation to the parameters of their research. I would also have questions over how they define "better" in the study. In other words, they do not address the issue of pesticides and insecticides.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

That statement in relation to the parameters of their research. I would also have questions over how they define "better" in the study. In other words, they do not address the issue of pesticides and insecticides.

The outcome was restricted to the
nutrient and nutritionally relevant content of foodstuffs. We did
not address differences in contaminant contents or the possible environmental
consequences of organic and conventional agricultural practices
because this was beyond the scope of our review.

So the study only focused on nutrition. It never intended to look at anything else.

Here is the definition of "better", ie selection criteria:

Selection criteria and data extraction
Studies with an English abstract published in peer-reviewed
journals in any language were included if they reported a direct
comparison of the composition of nutrients or nutritionally relevant
substances in foodstuffs from organic (reported by authors
as organic, ecologic, and bioorganic) and conventional (reported
by authors as conventional and intensive) farming systems.
Studies reporting comparisons of organic with either integrated
(n = 10) or biodynamic (n = 1) farming practices were excluded,
because these farming practices are specifically not conventional.
Studies were also excluded if they were primarily concerned
with the impact of different fertilizer regimens (n = 6) or
nonnutrient (eg cadmium, lead, and mercury) contaminant
content (n = 37) or were authentication studies describing
techniques to identify the agricultural production method of the
foodstuffs (n = 11). Gray literature (conference abstracts and
unpublished studies) was not included.
All searching and data extraction were conducted by 2 research
assistants (SKD and AH), and any disagreement resolved
in discussion with the project lead (ADD). Data were
extracted into separate databases for studies reporting on crops
and livestock products. Data from foreign language articles
were extracted by native speakers using a standardized template
in discussion with the review team. Data extraction was performed
in duplicate for the first 10 included articles, and
inconsistencies were noted and corrected. For the remaining
articles, one reviewer entered the data and the other checked all
entries; any differences were discussed and a consensus was
reached.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

So the study only focused on nutrition. It never intended to look at anything else.

Indeed. That's exactly my point - the pesticides question was not looked at.

eightyfish wrote: »

Here is the definition of "better", ie selection criteria:

Yes, I have read that. Thanks for posting it.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

Indeed. That's exactly my point - the pesticides question was not looked at.

But that point isn't valid, I think. It was a study of nutrition, you can't criticise it for not looking at other things that aren't nutrition. Sure, these things should also be considered by consumers, but you can't criticise a study for not looking at data that was outside its remit. If you start doing that, no study of any size will ever be satisfactory.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

But that point isn't valid, I think. It was a study of nutrition, you can't criticise it for not looking at other things that aren't nutrition. Sure, these things should also be considered by consumers, but you can't criticise a study for not looking at data that was outside its remit. If you start doing that, no study of any size will ever be satisfactory.

I definitely see what you're saying and if the FSA had stuck with drawing conclusions on the nutritional benefits, I would have at least given them credit for that! But this is the first sentence of their press release on the report:

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.

They go on to say:

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.

Now, how can you claim that when you haven't even looked at the pesticide question?

Again, in fairness to them, they aren't to be blamed for the media spin on the research - the media are pros at removing all nuance from a story.

eightyfish

Okay - so your problem is with the FSA's summary of the study rather than the study itself. That makes more sense.

Incidentally, if the word "health" was replaced with "nutritional", would that be more appropriate?

As for the pesticides question - I'd like to see a meta-analysis on this. My instincts would tell me that pesticides are not that harmful to health, mainly because millions of people have been eating them for many years - but it'd be nice to know more.

Cunsiderthis

eightyfish wrote: »

Okay - so your problem is with the FSA's summary of the study rather than the study itself. That makes more sense.

Incidentally, if the word "health" was replaced with "nutritional", would that be more appropriate?

As for the pesticides question - I'd like to see a meta-analysis on this. My instincts would tell me that pesticides are not that harmful to health, mainly because millions of people have been eating them for many years - but it'd be nice to know more.

ALmost all foods we eat are tested (or supposed to be) for pesticide residues, although the most powerful argument of all is that we have been eating foods grown with pesticides for decades now and it happens to coincide with the healthiest populations the western world has ever seen and living longer than than ever before.

It appears that those who promote organic foods often claim nutritional benefits on their behalf, when the evidence seems to suggest that there are little nutritional benefits attributed to organic foodstuffs over their conventionally produced cousins.

I agree that I'd love to see a meta analysis of studies carried out examining pesticide residues or the effects of pesticides.

It must be remembered that pesticides were developed to kill pathogens in foodstuffs (which are harmful to human beings), and have a very successful record in helping giving us cheap and safe food.

Judgement Day

Cunsiderthis - what on earth do you mean by this statement - 'It must be remembered that pesticides were developed to kill pathogens in foodstuffs (which are harmful to human beings), and have a very successful record in helping giving us cheap and safe food. '

Pathogens in food???? I thought pesticides were developed to kill pests - bugs, beetles, worms etc that damage crops. Preservatives may be in food to reduce the activity of pathogens but pesticides! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

Cheap and safe food sound a bit like 'electricity to cheap to meter' the statement made when Calder Hall was commissioned.

I note that you haven't replied to my earlier point - if you're not concerned about the environment why post in this forum?

Cunsiderthis

Judgement Day wrote: »

I thought pesticides were developed to kill pests - bugs, beetles, worms etc that damage crops.

Yes, they were also designed to kill pests too.

I didn't answer your earlier post as it seem pointless to answer it. I'm here because I am here.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

Okay - so your problem is with the FSA's summary of the study rather than the study itself. That makes more sense.

Well..mmm..we're getting into detail now My problem is with the conclusions of the study, as I put in bold above. These conclusions are to be found within the conclusions of the study itself. And, of course, the conclusions are one of the most important parts of any study.

eightyfish wrote: »

Incidentally, if the word "health" was replaced with "nutritional", would that be more appropriate?

Sure, it would be better. I have other issues like them like leaving out a few studies like the EU ones but I'm sure they have genuine reasons for doing so - I think some just missed the deadline.

eightyfish wrote: »

As for the pesticides question - I'd like to see a meta-analysis on this. My instincts would tell me that pesticides are not that harmful to health, mainly because millions of people have been eating them for many years - but it'd be nice to know more.

Actually, pesticides have only been around for about 50 years. I'd also be interested in any long-term analyses of this topic. You would be surprised about these chemicals for a few reasons:
1) something as small as leaving washing up suds on plates has been proven to negatively impact on the fertility of humans
2) a woman in the UK recently won a court case over the negative health impacts of spraying of pesticides in her (rural) area.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

Well..mmm..we're getting into detail now My problem is with the conclusions of the study, as I put in bold above. These conclusions are to be found within the conclusions of the study itself. And, of course, the conclusions are one of the most important parts of any study.

Actually what the study says is :

It is unlikely that consumption of these nutrients at the concentrations
reported in organic foods in this study provide any health
benefit.

Which is not really the same thing. The quotes you highlighted are not in the study. I attached it a few posts ago.

taconnol wrote: »

You would be surprised about these chemicals for a few reasons:
1) something as small as leaving washing up suds on plates has been proven to negatively impact on the fertility of humans
2) a woman in the UK recently won a court case over the negative health impacts of spraying of pesticides in her (rural) area.

I would be surprised about that. Can you provide a link to some information on point 1?

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

Actually what the study says is :


Which is not really the same thing. The quotes you highlighted are not in the study. I attached it a few posts ago.

You linked to a journal article on the study, not the study itself. I read the study back when I had access to the online academic journals and I am pretty sure it made comments, similar to what I linked to. I'll admit it was a while ago, when it first came out.

So, in your opinion, is the fault with the FSA for adding to conclusions that may not have been present in the study?

eightyfish wrote: »

I would be surprised about that. Can you provide a link to some information on point 1?

Many common brand detergents contain hormone-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates and phosphates. A friend of mine did her PhD on this topic in Denmark a few years ago. Erm..not sure if I can find her study! She said they're no problem if you wash the suds off - the problem is when the suds are not washed off regularly and children eating from the plates end up ingesting not insignificant amounts over a period of time.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

You linked to a journal article on the study, not the study itself.

The paper I attached is the study, commissioned by the FSA and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. See the FSA site. If I am incorrect on this please provide a link to the other study you read, or at least a reference I can look up.

So, in your opinion, is the fault with the FSA for adding to conclusions that may not have been present in the study?

In terms of your criticism, yes.

Many common brand detergents contain hormone-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates and phosphates. A friend of mine did her PhD on this topic in Denmark a few years ago. Erm..not sure if I can find her study! She said they're no problem if you wash the suds off - the problem is when the suds are not washed off regularly and children eating from the plates end up ingesting not insignificant amounts over a period of time.

Again, please provide links to support what you say. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

The paper I attached is the study, commissioned by the FSA and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. See the FSA site. If I am incorrect on this please provide a link to the other study you read, or at least a reference I can look up.

As I said, it's an academic journal article of the study. There's no way the study itself would be only 6 pages long. I don't have access to the same databases so I can't provide a link.

eightyfish wrote: »

Again, please provide links to support what you say. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It would be nice if you reserved judgement until you saw the evidence. It will take me a while to find my friend's research as I'm not sure where it was published.

eightyfish

taconnol wrote: »

As I said, it's an academic journal article of the study. There's no way the study itself would be only 6 pages long.

The FSA site says : "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."

This is the only publication that the FSA refer to.

Until you can provide some more information, I don't believe there was another version of the study published. Academic papers are the way studies like this are published.

Macha

eightyfish wrote: »

Until you can provide some more information, I don't believe there was another version of the study published. Academic papers are the way studies like this are published.

This is getting ridiculous. First you claim your document is the study, even though anyone with a basic background in research would know straight away that it couldn't be. And now you're claiming that the actual body of work, that is the actual study doesn't exist? Any reputable researcher, either an individual or an organisation, cannot simply publish an article without backing it up with data sets, methodology etc.

As I have already said, I don't have access to the same databases but I will see if it is available elsewhere, perhaps on the FSA website.