"It is a popular myth that people who buy organic food only do so because they think it will make them healthier. Recent research in a number of European countries, including the UK, has found that its regular buyers have a much more sophisticated understanding of organic food and farming. On health, people are mainly concerned to avoid eating sprays. Pesticides are designed to kill living plants and animals, so it makes good sense to avoid consuming them. Organic animals can't be treated routinely with antibiotics: concern about resistance to antibiotics is rising and in some EU countries, community acquired MRSA is an increasing problem." Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director commenting on the FSA Organic Review in the Independent, 30 July 2009.
Let’s do a study. I’ll choose what documents are worthy to be included in the study by my criteria. Outcomes that that don’t favour my point of view, I’ll deem insignificant. Other outcomes I’ll decide are irrelevant. I’ll choose the researchers and fund the research with the taxpayers money. Obviously important factors which would more obviously count against me, I’ll just ignore. Pesticides, for instance, are not relevant to human health because I’ve said so. I know the media will print anything I say. Shall we start today? Sky McCain 30 July, 2009
Organic 'has no health benefits'
Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.
[Sky: How can it be independent when it was funded bt the FSA?]
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
[Sky: Guess who decides what is and what is not a health benefit?]
The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".
But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
“ Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review ” Peter Melchett, Soil Association
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.
Sky: [ Alan is a senior lecturer and registered public health nutritionist with a background in biochemistry and biological anthropology. Alan taught previously at University College London and the University of Cambridge, and joined LSHTM in 2001. He has worked extensively in Guyana, Central Asia and Chile and his early research focused on child health. Alan's current research deals mostly with nutrition in older people, and he is conducting a series of trials to determine the effectiveness of nutrition interventions for the maintenance of health and function in later life. http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/people/dangour.alan]
Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.
The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.
Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
[Sky: Each year, around 2.5 million tons (2,500,000 tons = 5 billion pounds) of pesticide are dumped on the planet's crops. [2]
In 2002, an estimated 69,000 children were poisoned by pesticides in the US [3]
The World Health Organization reports 220,000 people die every year worldwide because of pesticide poisoning. Hard to believe, isn't it? [2]
In 2001, the world pesticide market was valued at $32 billion ($32,000,000,000). Big bucks! [1]
Although most pesticides (80%) are used in the rich countries, most of the poisonings are in poor countries. This is because safety standards are poor, there may be no protective clothing or washing facilities, insufficient enforcement, poor labeling of pesticides which are used by farm workers who can't read anyway. Few people know much about pesticide hazards. [2]
Pesticide residues in food are often higher in poor countries. [2]
Farmers who use pesticides have a 'significantly higher rate of cancer incidence' than non-farmers. [2]
In the US, nearly one in ten of about 3 billion kilograms (that's 6,613,800,000 pounds) of toxic chemicals released per year is known to be capable of causing cancer (in other animals as well as people). [2]
http://tiki.oneworld.net/pollution/poisonings.html
1. US EPA Pesticide Market Estimates; 2. Public health risks associated with pesticides and natural toxins in foods, David Pimentel et al., College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; 3. US EPA fact sheet. ]
Memorial 547 Men, Women and Children will Die today from Pesticide Poisoning (Statistically known as "acceptable risks" for pesticide poison registration)
http://www.getipm.com/our-loved-ones/memorium.htm
Bayer Responsible in Pesticide Deaths of 24 Children in Peru
Families Appeal to Secretary General Kofi Annan to Exclude Bayer from the UN Global CompactPesticide Action Network Latin America and Red de Accion en Alternativas al uso de AgroqumicosAugust 30th, 2002
Following a nine-month investigation, a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee has issued its final report on the poisoning deaths by the organophosphate pesticide methyl parathion of 24 children in the remote village of Tauccamarca in October 1999. The Subcommittee concluded that there is significant evidence of administrative and criminal responsibility on the part of Ministry of Agriculture, and of criminal responsibility on the part of the agrochemical company Bayer. Headquartered in Germany, Bayer has been a principle Peruvian importer and distributor of both methyl and ethyl parathion. The report recommends that the government and Bayer indemnify the families of the dead children.
The material above are only the first 3 hits on Google “pesticide deaths” Is there need for more? If so, it is available, volumes of reports. Pesticide poisoning is one of the truly gruesome scandals of our time. ]
Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: "Ensuring 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."
She added that the FSA was neither pro nor anti organic food and recognised there were many reasons why people choose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.
“ Organic food is just another scam to grab more money from us ” Ishkandar, London
Dr Dangour, said: "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."
He added that better quality studies were needed.
[Sky: This didn’t stop you from publishing this one before the Brussels study being carried out by Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University. The details about this were in the Times on 29 July. I believe it is part of the QLIF studies. One reference is here:
http://orgprints.org/10595/01/niggli-leifert-2007-overview.pdf]
In the Times article Leifert said “The FSA did not want to admit that there was anything good
in organic food. The government is worried they will then have to have a policy to make organic food available to evreryone.” I believe that they government is scared shitless that the court cases will bankrupt the country if they admit that pesticides are harmful to our health.]
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
"Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
Sky: [But this is the small print. It is the headlines that catch the public’s eye. They know this and bank on it]
"Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added. Sky: [I wonder why not? Ha ha}
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/8174482.stmPublished: 2009/07/29 13:22:17 GMT© BBC MMIX
______________________________________________________
Systematic reviews of scientific literature evaluating organic food for nutrient content and health effects
Overview
The global demand for organic food is rising. In 2007 the organic food market in the UK was estimated to be worth over £2 billion - an increase of 22% since 2005. The UK organic market is now the third largest in Europe after Germany and Italy. These increased sales are thought to result, at least in part, from increased consumer confidence in the safety of organic foods, and their perceived benefits to human health and the environment.
Several reviews published in the past 10 years have compared nutritional composition of organic and conventionally produced foods, and have reported equivocal results. None of the reviews employed an explicitly systematic methodology. Little research has been conducted on the potential benefits of organic foods for human health, and there is no consistent underlying hypothesis for the mechanisms of action of any putative health benefits.
Given the large and increasing demand for organic foods in the UK and elsewhere, up-to-date objective independent statements on the relative nutritional and health merits of organic vs. conventionally produced foods are needed for both public policy and consumer advice.
This project will produce two separate systematic reviews of published scientific literature. The first review will compare the composition (nutrients and other nutritionally-relevant substances) of organically and conventionally produced foods. The second review will evaluate the putative health effects of organic food.
Protocols
To access the systematic review protocol on the composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foods, please press here.
To access the systematic review protocol on the putative health effects of organic food, please press here. Please note this is an updated protocol (updated 21st October 2008).
Project timeline
Start date: 15th September 2008End date: 19th December 2008
LSHTM Project Staff
Dr. Alan Dangour (PI) Dr. Liz Allen Ms Andrea AikenheadMs Arabella HayterDr. Karen LockProfessor Ricardo Uauy
Expert Independent Review Panel
Dr. Julie Lovegrove (University of Reading)Professor Martin Wiseman (World Cancer Research Fund)
Feedback
We would be happy to receive your comments on the review protocols. Please email your comments to: organic.reviews@lshtm.ac.uk. We will not be able to reply to your emails, but all comments received will be considered.
Funder
Food Standards Agency
Friday, 31 July 2009
FSA attacks organic again! 31 July
There are at least two major contradictions that reveal the clearly biased attitude of this research as noted below. (1) The researchers admit to finding limited evidence but claim there is NO evidence. (2) They claim that pesticides was not in their remit and that they focused exclusively on nutrition but go on to say that the second half of their study looks for evidence of health benefits of eating organic food. Death or sickness from pesticides is certainly a health consideration.
Organic food report admits to lack of evidence Ecologist 29th July, 2009http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/294394/organic_food_report_admits_to_lack_of_evidence.html
FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic but admits to a lack of research on which to base findingsOrganic food is not healthier or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, according to a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).Looking at 50 years of published studies, researchers said there was not enough evidence to prove any additional health or nutritional benefits to consumers from eating organic.'This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,' said FSA director of consumer choice Gill Fine.'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.'
Sky: No, not at all. You can’t claim that there is not enough evidence to make a decision and in the same breath turn around and make the decision that there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food.
“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.” Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit.
FSA’s Review document“the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'. “
Sky: There is a huge difference between NO evidence and LIMITED evidence. This statement clearly reveals the bias of the reports.
“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.”
Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health
Sky: They should get their stories straight before publishing. Dr. Langour from the research unit claims “NO” evidence, the FSA claims “little or no.”
The LSHTM researchers conclude, quite rightly:”‘It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies… Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.’Unfortunately, somewhere between the academic’s pen and the enthusiastic keyboard of the FSA press office, this important, guarded and measured conclusion got lost.Instead, we are likely to see the headline ‘Organic No Better For You’ plastered across the world’s newsstands tomorrow, when in fact this study says no such thing.What those newsstands should read is: ‘Buck Your Ideas Up, Food Scientists – There’s Work To Be Done…’” Ecologist Editor’s
Bloghttp://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.html
Lack of researchResearchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'.They found more studies on nutritional content but said, 'examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.
'The Soil Association, the leading voice of the organic sector in the UK, said the FSA failed to include the results from a major EU-funded study which found higher levels of 'nutritionally desirable compounds' in organic crops.They also criticised the FSA for ignoring the issue of pesticide residues and their possible long-term effect on human health.An FSA spokeswoman said the study was done in response to consumer confusion over the possible nutritional benefits of eating organic and that pesticide contamination was not in the review's remit.Sky: The quote below comes from the FSA’s Review document and utterly contradicts the statement above.
Avoidance of pesticides is definitely a health benefit.“This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.”Useful links
FSA Organic Review http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organicSee alsoEditor's blog: FSA organic study: read it closely
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.htmlOrganic review publishedWednesday 29 July 2009
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic
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: ‘Ensuring 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.’The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s 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.This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, 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.’Related linksFirst review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 1MB)Organic food More information about organic foodSecond review: Organic health effects review Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 333KB)
Organic food report admits to lack of evidence Ecologist 29th July, 2009http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/294394/organic_food_report_admits_to_lack_of_evidence.html
FSA review dismisses health benefits of eating organic but admits to a lack of research on which to base findingsOrganic food is not healthier or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, according to a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).Looking at 50 years of published studies, researchers said there was not enough evidence to prove any additional health or nutritional benefits to consumers from eating organic.'This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,' said FSA director of consumer choice Gill Fine.'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.'
Sky: No, not at all. You can’t claim that there is not enough evidence to make a decision and in the same breath turn around and make the decision that there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food.
“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.” Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit.
FSA’s Review document“the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'. “
Sky: There is a huge difference between NO evidence and LIMITED evidence. This statement clearly reveals the bias of the reports.
“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.”
Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health
Sky: They should get their stories straight before publishing. Dr. Langour from the research unit claims “NO” evidence, the FSA claims “little or no.”
The LSHTM researchers conclude, quite rightly:”‘It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies… Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.’Unfortunately, somewhere between the academic’s pen and the enthusiastic keyboard of the FSA press office, this important, guarded and measured conclusion got lost.Instead, we are likely to see the headline ‘Organic No Better For You’ plastered across the world’s newsstands tomorrow, when in fact this study says no such thing.What those newsstands should read is: ‘Buck Your Ideas Up, Food Scientists – There’s Work To Be Done…’” Ecologist Editor’s
Bloghttp://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.html
Lack of researchResearchers could only identify 11 studies relating to the health content of organic food and admitted the current evidence base was, 'extremely limited both in terms of the number of studies and the quality of studies found'.They found more studies on nutritional content but said, 'examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.
'The Soil Association, the leading voice of the organic sector in the UK, said the FSA failed to include the results from a major EU-funded study which found higher levels of 'nutritionally desirable compounds' in organic crops.They also criticised the FSA for ignoring the issue of pesticide residues and their possible long-term effect on human health.An FSA spokeswoman said the study was done in response to consumer confusion over the possible nutritional benefits of eating organic and that pesticide contamination was not in the review's remit.Sky: The quote below comes from the FSA’s Review document and utterly contradicts the statement above.
Avoidance of pesticides is definitely a health benefit.“This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.”Useful links
FSA Organic Review http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organicSee alsoEditor's blog: FSA organic study: read it closely
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/bloggers/the_editors_blog/294396/fsa_organics_study_read_it_closely.htmlOrganic review publishedWednesday 29 July 2009
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic
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: ‘Ensuring 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.’The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s 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.This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, 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.’Related linksFirst review: Organic nutrient content review and appendices Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 1MB)Organic food More information about organic foodSecond review: Organic health effects review Read the report by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit(pdf 333KB)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)