Too bad that there is not full disclosure of what organization(s) sponsored this research. Given the outcry when an organic garden was established on the White House grounds, it makes the cynic in me wonder.

The health benefits are to the soil and the environment!

Yesterday working in 104 degree heat, listening to some folks debate the heat wave. This report is similar to this type of argument that global warming is not caused by our actions. There are going to be increasing reports about the lack of benefit of organic produce and the "need" for agri-business methods of monoculture and chemical intervention. The increasing cancer rates and endocrine disorders, and mental health symptoms tell a different story. It is all about money and "we the people" are expendable.

coffeehaus wrote:

Too bad that there is not full disclosure of what organization(s) sponsored this research.

It was commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency, "an independent Government department set up by an Act of Parliament in 2000 to protect the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food."

"An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.

Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said: ÂEnsuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.

'The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.Â

The study, which took the form of a Âsystematic review of literatureÂ, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTMÂs team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.

The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science."

More here: Food Standards Agency

Undisputable proof that the earth is flat.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Earth is Flat

It is research like this that gives science a bad name. They could find no evidence that pesticide residuals on conventional produce have any adverse health effects. Did they do any original research? Did they look at research done with animals?

sunnybunny beat me to it - the Earth is flat.

And the Earth was made by God 5000 years ago.

Let's move on, there's nothing to see here.

Could someone post studies showing that organically-grown foods have additional health benefits?

This is simply a rehash of a lot of other misrepresentations already published and contains no new research. Periodically those with vested interests in maintinaing the "conventional" crop raising methods, ie. companies the produce the fertilizers and pesticides that method uses, need to try hard to convince the world they are right so these types of articles come out.
Keep in mind that the USDA has done research on the food we eat and has found that for some reason conventionally grown foods are lower in essential nutrients today that they were 50 years ago.

Anyone watch the recent Penn and Teller 'BullSh!t' show? It was about organic food.

Hahaha... what a hoot! (in more ways than one)

Interesting tidbits from the show: 20% of our organic food comes from China. :0

2 to 3 billion people would die of starvation if the world switched to strictly organic.

Organic farmers use organic pesticides that are actually not as safe as modern synthetic pesticides.

If you want to see the whole episode, Google "Penn and Teller organic food" and you will find sites where you can download it from for free.

I love contrarians

The whole purpose of organic foods is not for vitamins and such (though that is one bonus benefit in CERTAIN situations). It is mostly for sustainability and zero impact on the environment.

But of course, the real thing becomes a commodity and a marketing tool, and now people can't tell the difference and will throw the baby out with the bath water simply because of politics. And as we all know, politicians do not equal honesty.

Now if "organic" food was shipped all the way from China as opposed to from your local small farm, that would defeat the purpose of the organic movement would it?

I know it's asking alot, but don't automatically make a grimace at foods with the organic label simply because a midget and a guy with a pony tail told you so. You can, I don't know, look at the BIG PICTURE and make your own choices.

There are other reasons for buying food labeled "organic." A month or two ago, we were buying fresh strawberries from California, and both my wife and I noticed that they just didn't taste right. Then I came across a news item on the internet, regarding certain strawberry growers who were adding artificial sweetener to the irrigation water. We discussed this, and immediately switched to organic label strawberries, also from California. The fruit began to taste like real strawberry again. In this situation, the organic label made a difference.

I understand that the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is trying to be impartial and maybe didn't receive funding for this report. But what about the all the studies that they relied upon? Most of these studies, in my guess, were funded by organizations who had a vested interest in the outcome.

gjcore wrote:
I understand that the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is trying to be impartial and maybe didn't receive funding for this report. But what about the all the studies that they relied upon? Most of these studies, in my guess, were funded by organizations who had a vested interest in the outcome.

Now THAT is a good point! They only looked at 55 of 162 studies. Why didn't they look at all of them? Is it because some were biased? Which way were they biased? How did you and some of the others here automatically conclude they ignored pro-organic studies and based their conclusions only on studies "funded by organizations who had a vested interest in the outcome"? No criteria was mentioned for which studies they looked at.

Was it just because they were a government entity and not an enviro based group of your liking? Did I dismiss the Huffington Post article in the other thread outright just because that rag is funded by NWO bazillionaire George Soros and not a entity I approve of? How is that different? Hmmmm?????

I'd like to see the complete report not just the handful of paragraphs that have appeared in the major media. Not sure if I could read it all but what's been stated recently is certainly incomplete. Does anyone have a link to the complete report?

The whole purpose of organic foods is not for vitamins and such (though that is one bonus benefit in CERTAIN situations). It is mostly for sustainability and zero impact on the environment.

That was one of the arguments made in the P&T show. It was said that using manure for fertilizer has a huge environmental impact because farm animals like cows produce a lot of methane gas which is worse than carbon dioxide for climate change. I suppose one could counter that the cows will exist regardless of farming practices so may as well use it.

The part of the show I found most telling was the taste tests where people got it wrong 70% of the time which produce was organic and which conventional. It kind of speaks to the claims I see often from those who swear organic tastes better. If one thinks it will taste better and wants it to taste better, it probably will ;)

Ha, I like the one where they cut a banana in half and told folks which one was organic and which was non-organic. I believe 80% chose the "organic" one. Perfect example of people believing what they want to believe.

medcave

All things being equal, of course there's no difference in the taste or nutrition of organically grown foods compared to non-organically grown foods. Those characteristics are determined by plant-genetics, not how they're grown if grown well.

While it's another discussion, I do have some trepidations about GM crops and meats. Absolutely inadequate testing has been done by agribusiness on the health factors of these kinds of crops.

All the home-gardeners I know of grow as organically as possible to protect the environment and to strengthen their soil nutrition, not claiming there's a difference in taste or nutrition if their gardens are grown either way.

Without research or proofs, the ("I believe! I believe!") gullibility of some organic nuts is no different from those who believe in brain-dead fundamentalist religions. There will apparently always be those who don't need proof about anything and climb on whatever bandwagon strikes their fancy, in effect degrading the original principles that are valid on their own. It's a real turn-off for many of us who want to be as responsible as possible about our lives and the earth. We've lived long enough to know that just because some group or another makes claims, those claims aren't valid without proof and research. It's a lot like gossip.

What isn't being said is that some are understandably resentful that food labeled organic will usually sell for a higher price than food grown conventionally. If two bunches of bananas look the same, taste the same, and have the same nutritional value, how can it be fair that one bunch sells for half again as much as the cheaper bunch? Some farmers want the freedom to use any chemical or method they please, hide the pertinent information from the consumer, and market the product based on advertising. We are supposed to be good consumers, and good consumers do not concern themselves with issues like animal overcrowding, toxic pesticide residuals, and adverse effect on wildlife, due to certain farming practices.

Here's an interesting discussion of how the study was flawed.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/31-10

There have been numerous studies done by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the USDA researchers that have shown that they nutrient value of foods grown "conventionally" is lower than foods tested in the 1950's but that food grown organically has nutrient levels as high as those. Because this research does not fit the concept of some people it is dismissed outright.
Anyone that comes to an organic gardening/farming forum and dismisses this concept as voodoo is not an organic gardener/farmer but is most likely an apologist for the companies the produce the "conventional" gardening "stuff" that is responsible for the poisoning of our planet.

"Anyone that comes to an..."

You paint with too broad a brush.

Lloyd

kimmsr wrote
Because this research (FDA, USDA) does not fit the concept of some people it is dismissed outright.

Yep, I already said the same thing about those that dismissed the original article outright. Do you know for a fact they didn't include the US studies in their research? Who's to say they were even presented to the UK researchers for consideration?

Anyone that comes to an organic gardening/farming forum and dismisses this concept as voodoo is not an organic gardener/farmer but is most likely an apologist for the companies the produce the "conventional" gardening "stuff" that is responsible for the poisoning of our planet.

Wow, you got all that from my only comment on the article: "It's all food"?

Your use of the envirospeak buzz words "apologist for the companies (snip) responsible for the poisoning of our planet", are duly noted. You're going to have to keep looking for someone else to hang that title on though as it does not apply to me.

Please, enough of the opinions, would someone care to post a link to at least one refereed journal article addressing the title the OP assigned to this? In addition, feel free to dig real deep to discover who financed the study so we can all comment on those money sources also. In lieu of my request, well, carry on with the pontification.

Wouldn't break my heart to find one way was better than another, As Joe Friday on Dragnet used to say, "just the facts maam", please. It is a great topic, time to get to work and do it justice.

The media [who are financed heavily by drugs and less healthy things] like to pip-squeak from time to time about how certain vitamins and nutrients "failed" to be health giving. What they do not know and do not know that they do not know it is indicting.

For example they are so unlearned in this age of knowledge that they wouldn't know or question the use of synthetic [dlalpha] vitamin E in a research test of vitamin E. Real vitamin E is composed of 8 parts which work in a synergy with other nutrients. This example of vitamin E is just one example of how it goes out there in lala land.

These "reporters" need to check the funding sources on food reporting or even climate change. No, I don't trust our government when it comes to money.

Though I choose to keep my garden organic.

They say organic does not have anymore nutrition then in-organic, in fact its provine. However, The problem is pestesides, for the most part organic crops are so strong there is not need for pesticides. I cant say anymore, if a farmer that uses in-organic fertilizer, with good practice, they will not harm the environment or the consumer.

After a look at the experimental design and results, I'm quite skeptical.
============
DESIGN:

We systematically searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and Embase between 1 January 1958 and 15 September 2008 (and updated until 10 March 2010); contacted subject experts; and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts if they reported a comparison of health outcomes that resulted from consumption of or exposure to organic compared with conventionally produced foodstuffs.

RESULTS:

From a total of 98,727 articles, we identified 12 relevant studies. A variety of different study designs were used; there were 8 reports (67%) of human studies, including 6 clinical trials, 1 cohort study, and 1 cross-sectional study, and 4 reports (33%) of studies in animals or human cell lines or serum. The results of the largest study suggested an association of reported consumption of strictly organic dairy products with a reduced risk of eczema in infants, but the majority of the remaining studies showed no evidence of differences in nutrition-related health outcomes that result from exposure to organic or conventionally produced foodstuffs. Given the paucity of available data, the heterogeneity of study designs used, exposures tested, and health outcomes investigated, no quantitative meta-analysis was justified.
CONCLUSION:

From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.

Here is a link that might be useful: full report

Organic does indeed have health benefits--to the farmer and his/her family!

"(C)ompared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate."

....

"For example, a study from the AHS reported in 2009 that people who use the weed killer imazethapyr have increased risks of bladder cancer and colon cancer. Imazethapyr is in a class of chemicals known as aromatic amines. It was first used in the United States in 1989, and, since then, has been one of the most commonly used herbicides for killing weeds in soybean, dry bean, alfalfa, and other crop fields.

Studies in mice and rats led the EPA to classify imazethapyr as unlikely to be a human carcinogen. But, in the AHS, people with the highest cumulative lifetime exposure had more than twice the risk (137 percent increase in risk) of developing bladder cancer compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical. Similarly, the risk of colon cancer (mostly tumors in the proximal colon, where food enters during digestion) was nearly twice as high as normal (78 percent increased risk) among farmers who had the highest level of exposure compared with those who had no exposure to the chemical."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/ahs

And that was just from one hap-hazard search. Here's another one:

"A new study joins a growing body of evidence showing just how profound of an effect pesticide use can have on human health. Researchers Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith from the University of Windsor found that women with a history of farming had a greater risk of developing breast cancer. The scientists began the research project with the intent of finding groups with heightened cancer risks because of their jobs, figuring the most common group would be male industrial workers. "To our surprise, the biggest group we had were women with breast cancer who had a history of farming," Brophy told a reporter at QMI Agency."

http://news.change.org/stories/study-shows-link-between-farming-and-breast-cancer

Full disclosure, my father was a conventional farmer who died of colon cancer. His oncologist was convinced that the cancers she was seeing in farmers were pesticide-associated. 30 years later the evidence is accumulating.

Save a farmer. Buy organic!

Catherine

How about the Canadian study that was published since this fight got started. GM foods are sending BT toxin up the food chain.

Ignoring dangers like that and focusing totally on money is going to catch up with everybody someday.

Dicot: thanks for the link to the actual paper from which one can form one's own informed opinions without going through the filter of media and other's opinions on a topic and/or paper before actually seeing it.

I.E. catherine_nm posted this link: http://news.change.org/stories/study-shows-link-between-farming-and-breast-cancer

If you follow it, it goes to another link and then another, all the while stating the same things as though they were facts. I'm thinking the research hasn't been published and properly scrutinized from within the appropriate scientific community yet, that's o.k. in and of itself but you can't hang your hat too securely on non-peer reviewed research.

Thanks for the effort Catherine, I realize finding actual research papers isn't easy as they are often published places where you have to be pay to have access to them and are copyrighted. Literature citations would be helpful, however.

hoosierbanana: what study?

I don't mean to be a snot folks but, what is the purpose of making a statement here like, "what about the study that showed that eating GM foods will take 8.3 years off a human adult's life"? Let us know where to find it, please, it sounds interesting. I assume you must have already found the one you referred to somewhere hoosierbanana.

It will be interesting to see in the distant future if the use of substances like pyrethrins and other "organics" end up causing public health problems in significant numbers. No doubt there are people using them with no regard to their possible health threats and will have done so for many years ahead. As with any potentially harmful substance, protect yourself at all times and treat it with respect. At least product labeling has caught up where we can be informed as to how to use products and at least with the commercial stuff, what to do to fully protect ourselves from exposure. the consumer labels are pretty weak in this respect.

In the early 70s I had the opportunity to go poking around in my grandfather's gardening chemical arsenal and found a small box of lead arsenate, I didn't know what it was at the time but read the entire label anyway, there wasn't much more than what a "caution" label would say now. Wish I could remember what else was in that arsenal. I have no doubt that Pops wasn't in a big hurry to die via poisoning and had no idea that stuff was very hazar,dous to his health.

Pop grew up the son of orchardists was born in the first decade of the 1900s and died of colon cancer at about 60. Nobody will ever know ir it was his environment or genetics that did him in but I'm certain the lead arsenate didn't help him any.

I still have a bag of lead arsenate that I found in similar circumstances in the utility room of a house my parents bought. It's safely stored but I am not quite sure how to get rid of it safely and cheaply. I hear about the too-rare "turn it in" days for hazardous waste too late.

I have read in a ca. 1940 gardening book about how to get rid of earthworms in your yard using mercuric chliride ("corrosive sublimate," then apparently available as pills or capsules in every drugstore). The mere idea of getting rid of earthworms is now bizarre and use of mercury outright alarming.

In this link is some interesting reading. If you look at some of the older books on gardening and fruit growing, you will be amazed at the use of lead arsenate, paris green and some others.

Here is a link that might be useful: Cornell Library

Yeah, usually scientific studies are published and subject to copyright law, so getting a look at them can be tough sometimes. I found lots of info on Catherine's researchers, easy. A news article is fine for an informal forum, if you are a scholar then you should know how to do some digging.

BT Toxins in people:
"Till now, scientists and multinational corporations promoting GM crops have maintained that Bt toxin poses no danger to human health as the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of this toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, have detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women.

They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The study covered 30 pregnant women and 39 women who had come for tubectomy at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) in Quebec.

None of them had worked or lived with a spouse working in contact with pesticides.

They were all consuming typical Canadian diet that included GM foods such as soybeans, corn and potatoes. Blood samples were taken before delivery for pregnant women and at tubal ligation for non-pregnant women. Umbilical cord blood sampling was done after birth.

Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93 per cent and 80 per cent of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69 per cent of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women. Earlier studies had found trace amounts of the Cry1Ab toxin in gastrointestinal contents of livestock fed on GM corn. This gave rise to fears that the toxins may not be effectively eliminated in humans and there may be a high risk of exposure through consumption of contaminated meat.

"Generated data will help regulatory agencies responsible for the protection of human health to make better decisions", noted researchers Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html

The purveyors of Geneticall Engineered foods have convinced the regulators, and supposed guardians, of our food safety that these GE foods are substantially equivelent to foods that have been hybridized. As a consequence no studies were ever done to determine if these GE foods are safe for human consumption. Today they point out that people have been eating them for many years with not known harm.
Some few studies have been done elsewhere in the world that seem to contradict that, but that Europeans have the choice of purchasing GE foods because they are required to be well labeled seems to say we here in the USA are simply being blind.

I don't know whether the point has already been made, but organic vegetables have two or three times as much secondary metabolites as conventional. "Secondary" here means secondary to primary plant production of carbohydrates, protein, and lipids. They are the myriad of complex substances that protect plants from predators, keep them healthy, heal wounds, and attract polinators and seed distributors. I believe there are over 20,000 of them, because species differ. Now the punch line is that those metabolites are also beneficial to the health of animals -- humans included -- not surprising since we evolved eating a wide variety of plants. So, if the organic advantage in mineral content doesn't impress you, the much greater advantage in secondary metabolites should. Regards, Peter.

I have so many different points to say on this subject being not ture. Lets start off with I don't even know why the BBC/UK is trying to sell this bill of goods to the world. When my great friend informed me, when he visited the US last year that he could not believe the amount of conventionally grown crops in the US grocery stores. According to Geoff who lives in London maybe if even 10 percent of the produce in the grocery stores in the UK are organic. So I guess they are safe.
1. Last year the old man across the street from me sent over some yellow squash. He is a full on conventional gardener. Even though my yellow sqush still had a day or so to go we picked one and did a taste test. Hands down the organic sqush was better in ever way. It was not my head telling me anything. In a banana it would be hard to tell a difference, but in most other fruits and veggies it would not be hard to tell the difference. Funny they picked the banana. Like with strawberries, when not grow organically you get a bad bitter taste.
2. I think this is the biggest point I have to make. That study must have been done with ripe produce. Well in the organic standard you have to pick your produce at the peek of ripeness, conventional farming you can pick when ever you want to and we all know that the farmers pick most produce crops before ripness occurs. If they can pick it they do. I live in SC and you better believe those tomatoes are picked green.
3. Well you had better hope that the conventional produce has nutrition to fight off all of the cancer you will get from it as stated above. Let me tell you a little something I found out this past fall. I have a RKN problem and so does most everyone in my area. Well come to find out from a land scape worker in my town a lot of the farmers pay them to come in on the down low with cash payment and spray the farms with a grade 3 lawn and ornamental spray to kill the RKN. From what I have been told that is toxic and illegal to be sprayed on soil of crops grown for human consumption

Lander, hwat is "RKN" and what are"grade 3" sprays, never heard of either before.

I am curious, how does a plant differentiate organic vs that coming from synthetic N, P, K and the micros. in the soil, these are 3 major building blocks for things like metabolites? I suppose it stands to reason that if there is a physical and/or chemical difference then plants might respond differently to their uptake and metabolism. I have never seen any documentation proving there is a different reponse in any plants based on the, "fertilizer" source the elements are taken up from.

Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature.
"Relevant scientific evidence, however, is scarce, while anecdotal reports abound."

Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control

Organic farming is best - official

Organic farms win at potato pest control

Feeding trials in organic food quality and health research.

Nutrients in Organic Farming � Are there advantages from the exclusive use of organic manures and untreated minerals?
"Nutrient inputs are lower on organic farms, although in Europe there is a tendency on organic farms for increased application of purchased, approved, nutrient sources other than fodder. However, these inputs simply allow organic farms to gain nutrients that originated from conventional farms."

Organic Foods Can Be Loaded With Arsenic : Discovery News

I could go on all day about how plant cells are way different then animal cells. However, if I were to only take a synthetic multi-vittamin once a day and that is it. That is like growing your plants 100% synthetic.

THE BEE POPULATION IS DIEING OFF, IT WAS NOT ORGANIC FARMING THAT DID IT!!

ORGANIC IS HEALTHIER JUST LIKE IN-ORGANIC HAS YEILDS THAT ARE JAW DROPPING.

Yea that is just what I want everyone to think organic is not as healthy. So in-organic is just as healthy and yields more, ummmm that does not sound scientificly correct.

THERE IS A REASON PRODUCE LOST 50% OF NUTRITION LEVEL BUT GAINED 50% IN YIELD....SOUND KIND OF FAMILURE TO WHAT I SAID ABOVE? ^

*scientifically

;)

Albert135, if you read the article with a bit of objectivity you will see that it is media hype headline warping. What contains arsenic is rice, organic and not. The article doesn't make clear, unless one reads carefully, that brown rice syrup is commonly used in many products, and has been found in SOME organic ones. This was clearly written with a particular sensationalist agenda.

Here is a link that might be useful: Brown rice syrup

Bi11me: imagine that, sensationalist "reporting" and media hype, makes me want to scream all too often and to what end? Oh, making a buck, what a shame.

I have to say I have quite a bit of Miracle Gro water soluble plant food on my shelf. I use it with care. Just like if we use organics without care it can be harmful.

Often problems with some foods labeled as "organic" are found. That does not, however, mean all foods labeled "organic" will have problems. There are people that have no business selling what they sell as organic that do so anyway, just as there are people that sell you other things that are not what they are supposed to be.

There are also some people that make claims about "organic" foods they should not be making, which does nothing to convince many of us long time organic gardeners/farmers that what we are doing is wrong and should be changed. Foods grown without being heavily dosed with strong pesticides are better for you unless they have disease pathogens on them.
There appears to be enough concern about the Genetically Engineered food that Europe limits where it can be grown and requires foods that are to be labeled, something we, in the USA, are denied.

The labeling issue may soon be changing.One of the advantages of the new agreement between USA and EU on marketing of organic foods will lead to a need to label as GMO free, which is a step in the right direction, and I suspect a kind of "back-door" approach on the part of the administration to get it done without overtly confronting those forces who are opposed to labeling - you know who we're talking about.

you know who we're talking about.

Lord Voldemort?