Organic no more better for you?

[greengas]

Sorry if posted in wrong section but I found this and wondered what other peoples views were?

BBC NEWS | Health | 'Organic has no health benefits'

[NOG]

Nutritional its no better for you....but its not full of chemicals....which is better for you.

[kentvegplot]

Yes, I think the report missed the point. I don't eat (and grow) organic for the nutritional levels, it's because i don't want to ingest the chemicals.....or kill the beneficial insects along with the pests.....

[jacob marley]

i grow organicly because i cannot afford to buy all the sprays and other inorganic stuff .
But having said that i can not tell the difference between inorganic and organic .
The big benefit is the fact that if you grow your own it is fresher when it lands on your plate thats my take on it anyway.
So you pay your money and take your choice....jacob

[smallblueplanet]

All it was was a study of previous reports - a synthesis. But according to the SA they refused to take note of certain studies. Now what does that suggest to you all?

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.

"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods."

[zazen999]

I've not had time to look at the report; but my first question would always be; who paid for it? It is usually slanted to give the person paying for it a better financial advantage.

[beefy]

All it was was a study of previous reports - a synthesis. But according to the SA they refused to take note of certain studies. Now what does that suggest to you all?

And it's not exactly in the SA's intrest to let people beleive that non -organic is as good as organic either .Because if it was then what would be the point of the SA ? And where would their money come from.

This is a bun fight that we have been through before - we all have our views ,some are pro organic ,some are not - pay your money ,take your choice and move along.

[Two_Sheds]

I've not had time to look at the report; but my first question would always be; who paid for it?

that was my first reaction too ... Monsanto perhaps?

[smallblueplanet]

And it's not exactly in the SA's intrest to let people beleive that non -organic is as good as organic either...

Errr thats because its not - I don't need no biased study to tell me pesticides, 'pre-drugged fertilizers' & herbicides are good for my food.

[Capsid]

that was my first reaction too ... Monsanto perhaps?

It was funded by the Food Standards Agency.

[Capsid]

All it was was a study of previous reports - a synthesis. But according to the SA they refused to take note of certain studies. Now what does that suggest to you all?

The analysis rejected studies that were not of sufficient rigour ie those that were not carried out in an impartial manner.

[smallblueplanet]

The analysis rejected studies that were not of sufficient rigour ie those that were not carried out in an impartial manner.

Where does it say that? Who defines whether they were of 'sufficient rigour' - had they already been published in peer-reviewed journals?

[weekendwellies]

I agree with previous posts - I prefer food that hasn't been covered in chemicals, it has nothing to do with flavour. What I don't understand is why it is more expensive to buy organic when it has had less done to it, you would think it would be cheaper. Same with 'no added salt/colourings, etc. Should cost less if it has got less....
I grow organically as I
a) don't want to pay out extra for the crops I get and
b) want to encourage a natural balance on my plot; hopefully the natural predators will eventually do the job for me once I have everything established.

[Capsid]

Where does it say that? Who defines whether they were of 'sufficient rigour' - had they already been published in peer-reviewed journals?

Articles were excluded if they:
- were not peer-reviewed
- did not have an English abstract
- did not address composition of nutrients and other substances
- did not present a direct comparison between organic and conventional productionsystems
- were primarily concerned with impact of different fertiliser regimes
- were primarily concerned with non-nutrient contaminant content (cadmium, lead and mercury)
- were authentication studies describing techniques to identify food production methods.

From the article

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

Have a look at page 14 too for the selection process.

[smallblueplanet]

Articles were excluded if they:
- were not peer-reviewed
- did not have an English abstract
- did not address composition of nutrients and other substances
- did not present a direct comparison between organic and conventional productionsystems
- were primarily concerned with impact of different fertiliser regimes
- were primarily concerned with non-nutrient contaminant content (cadmium, lead and mercury)
- were authentication studies describing techniques to identify food production methods.

So why did they exclude all the rest? How many studies and of what rigour did they look at? Still not impressed by a biased synthesis of other people's work...