“The health of man, beast, plant and soil is one indivisible whole”
Founder of the Soil Association, Lady Eve Balfour, The Living Soil, 1943
The findings of the FSA literature review are causing dismay and concern.
Is the organic food industry, which we at VegBox Recipes have long been supporters of, about to be crippled by consumers responding to the reports with their wallets?
Will the study mean, as the FSA seem to hope, that more people will eat their five a day if they no longer feel compelled to eat fruit and veg only if it’s organic, which they feel [accurately or otherwise] is too expensive?
More than anything, I want to know what you folks think.
Before I had over to you, here are a few important quotes from the full FSA executive summary:
"This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs."
"no evidence of a difference in content was detected between organically and conventionally produced crops for the following nutrients and other substances:
vitamin C,
calcium,
phosphorus,
potassium,
total soluble solids,
titratable acidity,
copper,
iron,
nitrates,
manganese,
ash,
specific proteins,
sodium,
plant
non-digestible carbohydrates,
β-carotene and
sulphur. "
"Significant differences in content
between organically and conventionally produced crops were found in some minerals (nitrogen higher in conventional crops; magnesium and zinc higher in organic crops), phytochemicals (phenolic compounds and flavonoids higher in organic crops) and sugars (higher in organic crops). "
"In analysis restricted to satisfactory quality studies, significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found
only in nitrogen content (higher in conventional crops), phosphorus (higher in organic crops) and titratable acidity (higher in organic crops)."
"The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality. It 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."
"There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health."
So that’s what the FSA have to say.
Now here is a direct extract from our own site, VegBox Recipes, written two years ago, listing our opinions at the time on the benefits of eating organic:
1. It’s healthy
On average, organic food contains higher levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants.
This now seems to be untrue.
2. No nasty additives
Amongst the additives banned by the Soil Association are hydrogenated fat, aspartame (artificial sweetener) and monosodium glutamate.
3. Avoids pesticides
Over 350 chemical pesticides are routinely used in conventional farming and residues are often present in non-organic food.
4. GM-free
Genetically modified (GM) crops and ingredients are not allowed under organic standards.
5. Reliance on drugs removed
Soil Association standards prohibit the routine use of antibiotics.
6. No hidden costs
As taxpayers we pay £120m annually to remove chemicals from our drinking water, mainly pesticides used in intensive farming.
7. High standards
All organic farms and food companies are inspected at least once a year.
8. Care for animals
The benefits of organic farming as practised to Soil Association standards are acknowledged by animal welfare organisations such as Compassion in World Farming, as well as the UK government.
9. Good for wildlife and the environment
The UK government, has confirmed organic farming is better for wildlife (along with major conservation groups like RSPB and WWF), produces less carbon dioxide – the main global warming gas – as well as fewer dangerous wastes generally.
10. Top for taste
Over to you…
Please tell us. If you routinely choose organic food, are you now rethinking that? If not, why not?
If you run a veg box scheme or sell organic food, what are your reactions to the FSA literature review?
If you grow your own food, will you stop?
Categories: food, seasonal eating, vegetables
There may well be no difference in the quantity of nutrients in Organic products. However, that is not a reason to turn away from it in my opinion. The benefits of not having to ingest numerous unwanted added chemicals when I eat organic produce, and knowing that organic farming supports a healthier and less invasive method of food production is of greater importance to me than whether I get an extra ‘mg/ml’ of Vit C etc in my organic apple or not. Ideally it would be best for us all to grow more of our own foodstuff. We all know it tastes better than shop bought produce what ever the reason. Second to that is buying the next best thing, which to me is organic certified food to replace those things that I would like to have grown myself but couldn
The evidence of the FSA seems to be extremely thin. See this good unpicking of the FSA’s case here: http://realfoodlover.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/fsa-wastes-my-money-on-rubbish-organic-research/
Thanks for that, Katie. The issue of the size of the FSA review is a very interesting one. As someone who has conducted meta-analysis in the past, it is important to set high standards for the studies whose findings you will include in the review. But if this leaves a very small sample size, then the question of validity is a big one. Do you think the comments made by the FSA will have an impact on purchasing behaviours around the country?
Well done for acknowledging that reason 1 is untrue – this is in stark contrast to many pro-organics who just find a reason to diss the studies instead. However, I also think reason 9 is worth reconsidering. How is organic good for the environment? We are already cutting down rainforest to make more room to feed all 6 billion of us. How can it be a good idea to promote a production method which is even less efficient and would require even more land to be cleared?
Hi Moderngreenollie. In response to your question “in what ways is organic growing good for the environment?”, these are the answers that I believe apply: 1) Over 20% of the UK
These are fair enough, although I’d say: 1. I hadn’t heard those figures but if they’re true they’re pretty bad. Nonethless in a worldwide context if the way to save that oil and water is to clear rainforest then I suspect it’s probably worth it. 2. I am sure animal life is indeed greater on organic farms. It’s be interesting to know what the figures woudl be if you took into account the land that can be left fallow if you use pesticides etc as well. Suspect that a small non-organic farm plus a load of fallow land woudl have more flora and fauna on it than the equivalent organic farmland. 3. Yes absolutely although not strictly relevant to whether organic is better for the environment though? I guess the overall point I;m making is this: it’s surely a moot point generally – don’t you think the organic movement is a bit overconfident in its claims that it is better for the environment when the opposite is arguable (at the very least)?
I think as long as we all keep arguing the points, Ollie, we’re in good shape. We’re all really on the same “side” in the end … We want the most number of people possible to be fed well and affordably and live on a planet that is able to sustain human life relatively comfortably.
True dat.