I recently read a report by Hannah Wooderson claiming the Food Standards Agency commissioned a review by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on differences between organic and conventionally produced food. The report says:
‘Organic Food does not provide any significant nutritional or health benefits.’
It’s appalling to me that such things are stated and spread in our modern world—and then believed. We know way too much now to make this statement. To do so is to ignore a lot of information that has been available to us for some time. But this article is typical of how ‘bad information’ is spread. And in this particular case—how ‘destructive information’ is spread.
In the article there was a paragraph with a simple description of organic. “Organic farming, which focuses on protecting wildlife and the environment, means no artificial chemical fertilizers are used, pesticide use is restricted and animals are expected to be free range.” The article goes on to say eating organic has become increasingly popular in recent years, but “the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition appears to cast doubt on the potential benefits to people’s health from the method.”
In the beginning of the article three rather large names of institutions are thrown out creating the illusion of credibility—and it works to a certain degree. Then people’s names and quotes are given adding to the apparent credibility. But as you read on you notice this is thrown together with little snippets which don’t seem to work well together. A couple examples; “Without large-scale, longitudinal research, it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this.” To me, this is senseless—because without sufficient research and evidence, it is ‘impossible’ to come to ‘clear’ conclusions . . . period!
Another one is “Researchers looked for differences in content of nutrients and other substances in 3,558 comparisons but did not examine levels of contaminants such as pesticides.” From this it is clear they focused on something I haven’t looked for in organic food–nutrient comparison, and missed the most significant characteristic of organic in this study–chemicals. Finally “Our review indicated that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally-produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” The flaw in this article is organic isn’t about nutritional difference—it’s about getting natural, uncontaminated, unadulterated food.
What is puzzling to me is that in cultures where a significant portion of the suffering and death relates to how we eat, that anyone would make negative comments about organics. Why would anyone care if a small percentage of society pays more and eats organic? “Organic sales account for over 4 percent of total U.S. food sales, according to recent industry statistics.” ~https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx
This begs the question, ‘why would anyone want to do research on whether organic is better or not?’ I know these researchers didn’t pay for this out of their own pocket, so whose interest would be served by paying for this kind of research and then spreading this propaganda?
At lot of information was avoided in this article. And important points missed. To begin with ‘organic’ isn’t about nutritional content—it’s about the ‘process’ by which the food comes to our plates. Although, like they said in the article, there are some positive differences. If you research ‘organic’ you will find it’s about avoiding pesticides, it’s about avoiding GMO’s and sewer sludge (euphemistically called biosolids). It’s about not wanting our food radiated. Buying organic is about wanting good food without chemicals. And this is not for appearances; it’s about staying or getting healthy; avoiding doctors and hospitals. There is also a concern for the environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, and being considerate of the animals that live on this planet with us. And finally, when a person buys organic it may be because they care about what kind of planet we are leaving for posterity.
When you read about sewer-sludge fertilizer you find that even those in favor of it know you can only put so much on the ground because it pollutes. There have been reports for decades now on the down side of using chemicals on our food. It’s bad enough these days that it even gets on TV news occasionally—which has to be pretty bad! It’s no secret that chemicals have ruined towns, ecosystems, and reproductive capacity. They tell us we are carrying 250 chemicals in our fat cells which don’t belong there. And recently we have learned that it is especially concentrated at the top of the food chain even as far north as one can travel. And I assure you there is a whole lot they don’t know and a lot they are not telling us about the detrimental effects of the conventionals way of producing food!
Are there significant health benefits for those buying organic food? Without relying on big names and quotes to try to give credibility to my view, I will suggest common sense and intelligence. I contend that if you don’t want your food grown in a field of sewer-sludge and you don’t want it bombarded with high intensity energy particles and you would like to avoid eating most of the popular chemicals on, it or in it, because you think these may be harmful to you and your family, you should consider ‘organic.’ If this isn’t enough to convince you and you want to know more—look up reports on the effects to humans, plants and animals of breathing, drinking and eating chemicals. Then read up on sewer-sludge and the problems it’s causing. Then look for the ‘true’ reasons for GMO’s. They tell you it is to make food for the whole world, but we are already throwing food away in ridiculous amounts. It’s about ‘power’; about gaining control of our food supply and it’s about lots of money for those who are in the position to benefit.
If you want more information—check history. See if there is any evidence that industry and government have at times been ignorant, deceptive, self-serving or just down-right liars. If you check it out you have a chance of forming a ‘clear conclusion.’ You sure don’t want to try to form any conclusions with articles like this one.