|
|
|
Petrus
-
10/01/2011 9:38:19 a.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
I think these comments proof that you have all missed the boat completely. If we are all in agreement that Organic food tastes similar and has the same nutritional value.
Why would any one bother seeking out organic food?
The one thing all these posts ignore is the quality of the growing of organic food, you all know that organic farms are not allowed to use chemically produced sprays, these sprays are responsible for a ever increasing cancer epidemic. It is this that makes organic food so sought after no other reason.
And yes you may argue that eating chemically sprayed food won't kill you and that it is cheaper and it looks better. If you think like that you should buy these poisonous for yourself but should not expect other people to subscribe to a unhealthy practise. If you buy vegetables and meat products for consumption in a restaurant I believe you have the responsibility to look after your customers interest and should at every opportunity go the organic way and tell your customers what you put in your food.
I hope that has balanced this one sided argument up a little!
Petrus Stet
|
|
|
|
|
Alessandra Zecchini
-
23/12/2010 6:36:04 p.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
Interesting topic.
Personally I believe in organic. I don't stop at the last 'extensive research', there will be more to come, as always. But regardless if it or not better for me, nobody can deny that chemical fertilizers, pesticides, monoculture and intensive animal (and fish) rearing are all damaging the environment. Never mind my own personal 'health' in the face of that!
|
|
|
|
|
Alison
-
13/07/2010 11:39:18 a.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
Organic or not, where we are missing out is the wrong way in which we prepare and consume our food. Where have all the lacto-fermented foods gone, like sauerkraut, the proper preparation of anything that sprouts in soaking as in the soaking method of sour dough bread and the soaking of our porridge grains the night before, then the criminal insult would be the destruction of our cheeses by making them from pasteurised milk, destroying the important enzyme in raw milk and raw milk products that allow for the uptake of vitamins and minerals fro the rest of our diet.
Kay Baxter and Bob Corker's book "A Change of Heart" tells it all.
|
|
|
|
|
sara-c
-
9/09/2009 4:53:26 p.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
it might not be nutritionally better but I think it tastes better and thats one factor important to me. Plus the the whole food process should be considered as important. where it comes from, what it went through and how it got to your plate from its source. Did it ruin a forest, a species, did it take third world low paid labour to get it to you, or is it a product that some one has put a lot of thought into being sustainably produced, sourced. i guess Im saying even if there arent the nutritional benefits there are other benefits that make it worth thinking twice about paying a little extra for .
|
|
|
|
|
Borat
-
25/08/2009 9:28:40 a.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
Peter interesting reading, I think maybe it's one of those debates that will live for long time.
I read "Masterchefs" comments more on the fact that there are certain companies who spin the organic angle on low quality products purely for marketing purposes.
Not that organics are inferior or superior in nutrition/health benefits etc, some organics I have tried have simply let themselveds down whilst others have been amazing.
Good and bad in both categories. But let the debate continue I say and let's learn more!
|
|
|
|
|
PeterNZ
-
24/08/2009 3:57:11 p.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
MasterChef wrote: fFrom what I observe the general public are led to believe organics = healthy sustainable, high quality products and that simply is not the case.
That's an interesting and somewhat provocative comment. I interpret (rightly or wrongly so) your comment as if the consumer is tricked - almost cheated into believing that organic food is healthier. I suggest to leave the decision to the consumer what they want to eat.
Just some things to point out:
The news article says "Organic food is not more nutritious than non-organic food" Even if we try to oversee that this research ignores some of the scientific papers which actually have findings that there are more nutrition in organic food, what about the minerals and trace elements? And more importantly, what about the artificial sprays in non-organic food. The mistake you make like all the others who now say "See I told you so all along" is that the research actually does not say that organic food is not healthier than non-organic food. This is a (mis?)interpretation by the reader. Although it might not be more nutritious, it can still be healthier.
And this brings me to another point. Why? Nobody is actually asking this question. Why did someone start a research program, got some funding I assume, maybe even by the British tax payer only to proof that organic food isn't more nutritious. Why? And why is the media now publishing half of the truth? Do you regard this as a properly conducted research program? I don't! A research program which does want to be clinical and impartial would show the pros and cons. It would say that although there is only little difference in nutritional value (note: this reads different than "It is not more nutritious" doesn't it?) it has more minerals and is less polluted than other food. But a research which has the only objective to prove that something is wrong is not a serious research to me.
Unfortunately the news agency did a great job in creating a product (news item) which they were able to market worldwide. This was in my opinion the only reason for this half truth article which doesn't answer anything but rather says what many people wanted to hear. And I am sure Tesco and Wal Mart will be happy and will buy more advertising time now.
The damage it did to the part of our community who still want to live with the food they chose to buy or grow and eat is sad. And all for what? For making money of course.
Cheers
Peter
| | www.cottagecrafts.co.nz |
|
|
|
|
MasterChef
-
31/07/2009 11:03:10 a.m.
RE:Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
fFrom what I observe the general public are led to believe organics = healthy sustainable, high quality products and that simply is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
tgiles
-
30/07/2009 6:57:14 p.m.
Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
Organic food not nutritionally better than conventionally produced food
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
from http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2009/organicfood.html
Systematic review of literature over 50 years finds no evidence for superior nutritional content of organic produce
There is no evidence that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to conventionally produced foodstuffs, according to a study published today in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (see abstract).
Consumers appear willing to pay higher prices for organic foods based on their perceived health and nutrition benefits, and the global organic food market was estimated in 2007 to be worth £29 billion (£2 billion in the UK alone). Some previous reviews have concluded that organically produced food has a superior nutrient composition to conventional food, but there has to date been no systematic review of the available published literature.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have now completed the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted. The review focussed on nutritional content and did not include a review of the content of contaminants or chemical residues in foods from different agricultural production regimens.
Over 50,000 papers were searched, and a total of 162 relevant articles were identified that were published over a fifty-year period up to 29 February 2008 and compared the nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. To ensure methodological rigour the quality of each article was assessed. To be graded as satisfactory quality, the studies had to provide information on the organic certification scheme from which the foodstuffs were derived, the cultivar of crop or breed of livestock analysed, the nutrient or other nutritionally relevant substance assessed, the laboratory analytical methods used, and the methods used for statistical analysis. 55 of the identified papers were of satisfactory quality, and analysis was conducted comparing the content in organically and conventionally produced foods of the 13 most commonly reported nutrient categories.
The researchers found organically and conventionally produced foods to be comparable in their nutrient content. For 10 out of the 13 nutrient categories analysed, there were no significant differences between production methods in nutrient content. Differences that were detected were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use (nitrogen, phosphorus), and ripeness at harvest (acidity), and it is unlikely that consuming these nutrients at the levels reported in organic foods would provide any health benefit.
Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and one of the report’s authors, comments: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs’
|
|
|