Organic no more better for you?

[Capsid]

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...

Why do you say it's biased? Have you read the article?

There are two reviews, the second one looks at health benefits

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

[Snadger]

Don't really give a monkeys!

Won't change the way I grow veg one iota...................bet the 'artificial' suppliers are clapping there hands though!

[smallblueplanet]

Why do you say it's biased?...

As I said why did they exclude all the other reports?

[SarzWix]

In my opinion, they're all getting it wrong. The appeal of organic to me isn't because I believe the food is nutritionally superior. Most of us on here know that plants don't care whether the nutrients come from a natural or synthetic/manufactured source. What I am more concerned with is the state of the soil, and the effects on the environment of indiscriminate pesticide use.
These reports and the responses to them are always going to be biased in favour of someone - the SA are going to push for 'organic is best' and the governement are more likely to back intensive farming because they think that's the way to feed the world, and they get more money from the big businesses involved in chemical production.

What I'd like to see a comparison study of is the nutritional values in food picked from the plot 10 minutes previously and food that has sat in the supermarket for days...

[burnie]

I know which tastes better and it is definately better to use natural products and not use chemicals in the garden,the wild life show me which they prefer.

[MrsC]

In my opinion, they're all getting it wrong. The appeal of organic to me isn't because I believe the food is nutritionally superior. Most of us on here know that plants don't care whether the nutrients come from a natural or synthetic/manufactured source. What I am more concerned with is the state of the soil, and the effects on the environment of indiscriminate pesticide use.
These reports and the responses to them are always going to be biased in favour of someone - the SA are going to push for 'organic is best' and the governement are more likely to back intensive farming because they think that's the way to feed the world, and they get more money from the big businesses involved in chemical production.

What I'd like to see a comparison study of is the nutritional values in food picked from the plot 10 minutes previously and food that has sat in the supermarket for days...

Sarah

Totally agree with the 'food picked from the plot within 10 minutes' compared to 'being sat at the supermarkets and god knows where for days.'

Can I just check with all the other posts re FSA or SA as quoted. Are we all talking about the Food Standards Agency? Or does SA stand for something else?

[Capsid]

As I said why did they exclude all the other reports?

I quoted the list of exclusion criteria. It seems reasonable to me to exclude papers that were not peer reviewed or didn't address the specific questions about nutritional value.

[Capsid]

Can I just check with all the other posts re FSA or SA as quoted. Are we all talking about the Food Standards Agency? Or does SA stand for something else?

FSA=Food Standards Agency
SA=Soil Association

[BFG]

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.

Organic produces less. Yields have massively increased since the "green (ichemical) revolution".

And organic needs more hands on attention. It's hard to grow and harvest huge monocrop fields without pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers.

And of course, there's the fact that they can get away with it!

[zazen999]

If all veg was organic, would there be a need for a Food Standards Association?

If everyone bought organic veg from farmer's shops or grew their own, would the government [and thus the FSA] lose tax [and thus funding]?

[MrsC]

FSA=Food Standards Agency
SA=Soil Association

Thanks Capsid

[Hazel at the Hill]

If all veg was organic, would there be a need for a Food Standards Association?

I would think so - organic doesn't necessarily = safe.

For instance, you can make some right evil brews organically which might act as 'natural' pesticides, but you wouldn't want them on your veg...

[zazen999]

I would think so - organic doesn't necessarily = safe.

For instance, you can make some right evil brews organically which might act as 'natural' pesticides, but you wouldn't want them on your veg...

I agree, but doesn't having lots of chemicals to regulate keep everyone in nice cosy jobs?

Just a thought....

[maytreefrannie]

I agree with whoever said we don't need a study to tell us that non-chemicalized food is better than that grown with (sometimes large amounts of) chemical fertilizer, pesticides etc.

When I was growing up, the opinion was that all the new fertilizers would mean that the world could be fed - i.e. developing countries. Alas, we've learned that too many fertilizers and pesticides wear out the soil. I'm not against anyone using whatever they think is right for them, but large corporations saturating the fields with these stuffs tend - I guess - to have on eye on the end product rather than consideration for the earth.

Anyway, I guess the next study will be around soon and will give us another result - I reckon we've seen this before, one study follows another, often with conflicting conclusions. Each one is delivered with the certainty of fact, just as the previous one was and the following one will likely be.

[shoreham_steve]

I agree with the earlier posts. They're answering the wrong question.
In terms of nutrition there's no difference.
Big deal - I'll take the ones with no chemicals on then, please.