For those of you living on the far side of the moon, the title of this post refers to recent coverage in the media of a report, published by the UK Food Standards agency (FSA), comparing non-organic and organic food and is taken from the BBC’s coverage (http://tinyurl.com/ldgzwh).
The FSA report focuses on trying to determine whether organic food provides better nutrition than non-organic and, almost incidentally, whether there may be health benefits. It concludes that both types are nutritionally similar and that there were few health benefits to organic food and yet, it explictly ignores the effects of pesticides and farming methods (the full report is at http://tinyurl.com/nzk7d4).
I am, therefore, somewhat confused by the ”no health benefits” claim which the media are picking up. Over-use of anti-biotics, which is common outside of organic farming, may well be one of the major reasons for the development of resistant bacteria strains. Pesticide residues in meat and vegetables continually rear their ugly heads (remember when we were all advised to cut the tops off our carrots?). No health benefits???
I don’t buy organic for the things that are in it and what it does, I buy it for the things that aren’t in it and the things it doesn’t do. Here are some of the the issues which lead to me buying organic food: taste, texture, antibiotics, pesticides, growth hormones/promoters, ethics / animal welfare, environmental impact and biodiversity – the list goes on - but I don’t ever recall thinking it would provide more or better nutrition.
The FSA are saying that this report is a great thing for consumers, who will now be able to make more informed choices… I don’t agree. It seems to me to be so limited in scope that you could argue that it misleads more than it informs.