The UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) has released a report that - when taken at face value - suggests that organic food is of no real benefit to us, and the media are spreading this nonsense, relaying the message exactly how the FSA would wish them to. They are telling us that although there are small nutritional benefits from organic foods, there are not significant nutritional benefits that would impact our health. At a time when the recession is beginning to hit hard and people cannot afford to pay a little more for organic produce, and when frankly people are less interested in how 'organic' their food is, the FSA have been very timely in trying to finally get the public's interest away from organic food. This report tells us that it's just not even worth thinking about anymore, but what it fails to include is the problems which are associated with certain non-organic genetically modified crops, and even more glaringly, the poisonous pesticides which are associated with some mass produced non-organic crops.

THE REPORT

The report is split into two parts, links for both of which are below. It is based on analysis which the FSA commissioned the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to carry out. According to the FSA, "this systematic review of the available published literature was designed to seek to determine the size and relevance to health of any differences in content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products". They basically commissioned the university to look over all of the studies of organic produce in the past 50 years and came up with this lengthy and un-interesting charade. Not many people will dissect it, and there will be no dialogue in the mainstream media about it, just vague references to it like, 'sure we now know that there are no real nutritional benefits to organic stuff'. Get used to it, it's coming.

THE SOIL ASSOCIATION HITS BACK

But according to The Soil Association - who promote organic farming, food security, better school food, whilst opposing genetic modification (GM), antibiotics and pesticides - one thing which this report fails to consider is the pesticide issue. These are the chemicals which are killing us and contaminating our future generation's health and environment. They also note a lack of research in this report, and I believe that if they are going to do such a "systematic review", presumably it would be more beneficial to do systematical testing on today's organic produce? Soil has changed, the environment has changed, and the tests would be worth much more if you done side-by-side testing on both organic and conventional mass produced produce. It is so incomplete on so many levels that this report should most certainly be filed in the 'bad science' drawer, but the media don't see it that way.

THE MEDIA PORTRAYAL OF THE REPORT

The media are doing their job. Passing about this report as a low key thing, but highlighting the fact that it tells us that there are no major health benefits to eating organic, although at the same time slipping in a sentence that tells the other side of the story. But when you write a couple of paragraphs before about it not being of benefit, that message slips by almost un-noticed. Check these articles on the BBC,Reuters, and The Times (subscription only) to see what I mean. For example the last sentence in that Times article is "The health claims made for organic food are not just unfounded, they can actually damage good nutrition". WHAT? Although some news sources are questioning it somewhat properly, including The Guardian, The Independent and The Wall Street Journal (subscription only), many are not and we should ask why. Why aren't they rubbishing this report and drawing reference to what it does not contain, as opposed to what it does contain? We really should understand that the organic question is about a lot of things, and not just about vitamins and nutrients.

A SLICE OF THE REPORT

Here's what the report concludes about crops (meats and dairy products were done separately). "In analysis ... 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)". It seems they are not very different to each other, according to this 'analysis'.

WHAT IS ORGANIC?

According to The Soil Association, in organic farming...
1- Artificial chemical fertilisers are prohibited – instead organic farmers develop a healthy, fertile soil by growing and rotating a mixture of crops using clover to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere.
2- Pesticides are severely restricted – instead organic farmer develop nutrient-rich soil to grow strong healthy crops and encourage wildlife to help control pests and diseases.
3- Animal cruelty is prohibited and a truly free-range life for farm animals is guaranteed.
4- The routine use of drugs, antibiotics and wormers is disallowed - instead the farmer will use preventative methods, like moving animals to fresh pasture and keeping smaller herd sizes.
5- The production and use of GM in animal feed is banned.

GET REAL

So you see, even when getting away from the terrible science behind this 'report', organic farming is much more than just nutrients. It is about keeping our world free from being contaminated with harmful man-made chemicals whilst respecting everything else that lives on this planet at the same time. I don't understand why the entire mainstream media don't spend some time on this subject. Every one of them are digesting the same toxins as the rest of us. It is their world too. They should take note that this subject needs much more research, and that the original reports - which the FSA based their report on - were very small in scope compared to the studies on conventional non-organic food nowadays. To begin with, the FSA had very little data to work with, a bad start to an important project, and a clear sign of the general lack of interest in organic produce, by the relevant authorities, over the past entire 50 years.

RELATED LINKS

www.food.gov.uk
The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA)

www.soilassociation.org
The UK Soil Association

www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
FSA REPORT> First review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices

www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
FSA REPORT> Second review: Organic health effects review