Climate deal 'unlikely' this year
By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
The UK government says it is highly unlikely that a new legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year - and a full treaty may be a year away.Two years ago, the world's governments vowed to finalise a new treaty at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8345501.stm
The delegates appear to be disputing over money and who should pay. Interesting.
The have-nots who wish to exploit natural resources left over from colonialism want the rich countries to pay them for not following their example.
There is a precedent in the US and UK , for example, of paying people with resources not to use them. This is in the form of farm subsidies and payment to leave land fallow.
Rome is burning while they fiddle.
Of course there will be wining and dining regardless whether anything is decided. And, we can be sure, regardless of the hot air, the media will report significant success.
By the way, does anyone know what a "politically binding" agreement is?
Sounds like a really rare bird to me.
I would have thought 2 years was enough to knock out an agreement if the actors were really serious, of course.
This reminds me of a saying: Oh God, please grant me celibacy, but not yet.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Population increase triggers many ills
UK population 'to rise to 71.6m'
"The population of the UK is expected to increase from 61m to 71.6m by 2033, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Just over two-thirds of the increase is expected to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.
The population of pensionable age is expected to rise by 32% over the next 25 years.
If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century."
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
21 October, 2009
The extremes of global warming social problems have only just begun to emerge. Yet, already, as you can see above, population shifts threaten our countryside and rural way of life. I am especially concerned because this is only the beginning. There are several factors that coalesce to make for frightening consequences. One, already DEFRA spokespersons are talking about feeding the world. Just recently I read that already we need almost double the food to feed the world. Two, as hundreds of thousands need a new homeland when their living spaces flood, they will naturally put pressure on us to absorb them. This puts tremendous pressure not only on our available housing space but on our social services. Three, economic growth and CO2 emission reduction are at cross purposes. The prevailing corporate philosophy of unending growth or die is cancer incarnate. Four, the rainforest destruction continues unabated. So what do we need to do?
One, encourage fewer births and allocate funding to assist poorer countries to eliminate the need for several children to take care of their parents; or whatever is driving the need for several children. Two, break up corporate and private practices of depriving indigenous people of the land to feed themselves. This includes a halt to the shipment of luxury, out of season food, to the West. Three, break the power of corporate political domination. Endless growth assumptions are absurd and come from the fact that corporations have the legal standing of a person but no heart or conscience. Sustainability must be substituted for the endless growth objective. Four, stop rainforest cutting everywhere and compensate those who lose financially whilst implementing a timed shift in job availability and business objectives. Make the rainforest too valuable to cut.
All four of these problem and action items can be achieved through the efforts of people around the globe acting locally to wean themselves from the corporate world trade agreements and encouraging and supporting local growth.
Now is the time to start and the Transition Town movement has the structure and is gaining the experience to lead the way.
"The population of the UK is expected to increase from 61m to 71.6m by 2033, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Just over two-thirds of the increase is expected to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.
The population of pensionable age is expected to rise by 32% over the next 25 years.
If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century."
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
21 October, 2009
The extremes of global warming social problems have only just begun to emerge. Yet, already, as you can see above, population shifts threaten our countryside and rural way of life. I am especially concerned because this is only the beginning. There are several factors that coalesce to make for frightening consequences. One, already DEFRA spokespersons are talking about feeding the world. Just recently I read that already we need almost double the food to feed the world. Two, as hundreds of thousands need a new homeland when their living spaces flood, they will naturally put pressure on us to absorb them. This puts tremendous pressure not only on our available housing space but on our social services. Three, economic growth and CO2 emission reduction are at cross purposes. The prevailing corporate philosophy of unending growth or die is cancer incarnate. Four, the rainforest destruction continues unabated. So what do we need to do?
One, encourage fewer births and allocate funding to assist poorer countries to eliminate the need for several children to take care of their parents; or whatever is driving the need for several children. Two, break up corporate and private practices of depriving indigenous people of the land to feed themselves. This includes a halt to the shipment of luxury, out of season food, to the West. Three, break the power of corporate political domination. Endless growth assumptions are absurd and come from the fact that corporations have the legal standing of a person but no heart or conscience. Sustainability must be substituted for the endless growth objective. Four, stop rainforest cutting everywhere and compensate those who lose financially whilst implementing a timed shift in job availability and business objectives. Make the rainforest too valuable to cut.
All four of these problem and action items can be achieved through the efforts of people around the globe acting locally to wean themselves from the corporate world trade agreements and encouraging and supporting local growth.
Now is the time to start and the Transition Town movement has the structure and is gaining the experience to lead the way.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool
Climate Change Solution
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--that specifically includes 21st Century regenerative agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. Read it and see the future of farming that can change the world.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
Introduction
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions.
Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial® (FST) is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems in the U.S. and one of the oldest trials in the world. It has documented the benefits of an integrated systems approach to farming using regenerative organic practices. These include cover crops, composting and crop rotation to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by pulling it from the air and storing it in the soil as carbon. Results from these practices—corroborated at other research centers that include University of California at Davis, University of Illinois, Iowa State University and USDA Beltsville, Maryland, research facility—reiterate the vast, untapped potential of organic agricultural practices to solve global warming.
Agricultural carbon sequestration has the potential to substantially mitigate global warming impacts. When using biologically based regenerative practices, this dramatic benefit can be accomplished with no decrease in yields or farmer profits. Even though climate and soil type affect sequestration capacities, these multiple research efforts verify that practical organic agriculture, if practiced on the planet’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 percent of current CO2 emissions.
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--that specifically includes 21st Century regenerative agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. Read it and see the future of farming that can change the world.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
Introduction
Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming. Nearly 30 years of Rodale Institute soil carbon data show conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship--specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices--can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions.
Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial® (FST) is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems in the U.S. and one of the oldest trials in the world. It has documented the benefits of an integrated systems approach to farming using regenerative organic practices. These include cover crops, composting and crop rotation to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by pulling it from the air and storing it in the soil as carbon. Results from these practices—corroborated at other research centers that include University of California at Davis, University of Illinois, Iowa State University and USDA Beltsville, Maryland, research facility—reiterate the vast, untapped potential of organic agricultural practices to solve global warming.
Agricultural carbon sequestration has the potential to substantially mitigate global warming impacts. When using biologically based regenerative practices, this dramatic benefit can be accomplished with no decrease in yields or farmer profits. Even though climate and soil type affect sequestration capacities, these multiple research efforts verify that practical organic agriculture, if practiced on the planet’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 percent of current CO2 emissions.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
350 - What is going on here?
“On October 24th, people from 181 countries came together for the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history. At over 5200 events around the world, people gathered for strong action and bold leadership on the climate crisis” Bill McKibbon
In Hartland, Devon we held hands at an event we named Hands Across Hartland. I will upload a couple of photos unless they are too large in which case I'll get them reduced in size and upload them soon.
350 has focused on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It appears that the 2007 IPPC findings were far too conservative. Prominent scientists are now proposing that we must not maintain CO2 above 350 ppm. Unfortunately for Gaia we are already at 387 and climbing at 2ppm/year.
By looking at several ice core samples, taken from both the artic and antartic, showing us temperature and CO2 content over the last 450k years, we can see that CO2 has never been so high. These samples allow us to look at the present and 4 previous interglacial warming periods. CO2 has never been higher than 300ppm and peaked at around 280 for 3 out of the 5 periods.
So it safe to say that we have never been here before and can only look at predictive models.
Another look at the ice core samples shows the almost 100% correlation between CO2 and temperature. Which drives the other is controversial. Maybe something else drives both. The prevalent view is the greenhouse theory that we must all be aware of. This means that CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gasses such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbon are driving up the temperature. Human driven carbon emissions are obviously significant. Those who hold out for a temperature driven alternative point out that as the ocean temperature increases vast amounts of CO2 are released. A little thought reveals that we would then have a very dangerous positive feedback mechanism wherein the greenhouse effect would continue to warm the oceans which then cause more CO2 which increases the greenhouse effect. Now, the question is: What will limit or stop this positive feedback?
In the past million years or so, vast amounts of trees performed that service by sequestering carbon, releasing water vapor and stimulating cloud cover which increased the deflection of the sun’s rays (albedo) effectively taking the place of the miles and miles of ice which had melted. With that negative feedback firmly in place and the orbital forcing factors favouring cooling, the downward cycle of Gaia’s temperature was assured.
Unfortunately, this natural development has been destroyed by humans. Millions of trees over thousands of years have been chopped as if they were useless to anything but to serve the greed of homo sapiens.
Delicate balance
Perhaps too late we have come to understand that the behavior patterns of Gaia, a living being are not as precise as the mathematical formulas and models we have built up to predict a machine’s behavior. All three of the Milankovitch cycles that affect climate, The eccentricity of our orbit around the sun, the amount of the Earth’s tilt, and the combination of the Earth’s wobble as it spins and where the wobble places the poles during Summer and winter, are imprecise and erratic. The cycles vary in intensity and in length. It is their interaction that alters the delicate balance of positive and negative forcings that drive the reversal of the warming and cooling of the planet. There is a warming combination which has occurred about every 100k to 112k years that appears to trigger a rise of temperature from an approximately 100K years of heavy glaciation to an approximately 12K years of warming. The primary amplification factor in these cycles of warming and cooling has been the Earth’s orbit. A more elliptical orbit amplifies the positive and negative feedback forces of the other two cycles. Unfortunately for us, at present our orbit is about as much circular as it has ever been and is moving toward a more circular state. As the orbit becomes more circular, the more difficult it is for the, in our case cooling, or negative feedback factors to force us into a cooling cycle.
So What?
Since we are part of nature, then isn’t what we do natural too? Yes, I’ll go there. However, we are the first beings spawned by Gaia that have a share in Gaia’s survival structures and cycles. We are the first Earth beings that have so far figured out how to survive as we eat out our environment. As our mentors have pointed out, we are now, and not by our conscious choice, co-creators with Gaia of our environment. Unfortunately, we are not ready and have not the wisdom to assume such power.
Our establishment scientists and religious leaders are still unable to grasp the significance and import of the fact that we are an outgrowth of a living, loving being. A being with the intelligence and ability to self-regulate. We assume that our lovely planet is dumb and what we see and measure is some chance combination of factors that we can grind up into our mechanistic paradigm. How about asking – why do we now have a ratio of over 80% cooling and only a little over 20% warming over an expanse of 120k years? Millions of years ago there was a lot more carbon and the oceans were far more expansive then now. Could it be that this oscillation of cooling periods with shorter warming periods is necessary to self regulate us toward maintaining a livable environment? We must remember that Gaia acts in, to us, long term increments.
We know that the sun’s output of heat and energy is expanding. All stars that we have studied have a life cycle of expanding energy until the become red giants then and spurt out planetary material. This knowledge led James Lovelock, as I have read, to question why the Earth was not hotter. What resulted was the Gaia Hypothesis and now Gaia theory.
The challenge of homo sapiens
In the past millenniums, creatures, warm and cold blooded beings, plant and mineral beings exercised their innate drive to expand their activity and awareness. It is only now that homo sapiens has pushed the envelope to an extent that we must now use the combination of our thinking function and our deep intuitive knowing to make wise decisions. With power comes responsibility. We have the science, we have the spirituality, we have the wisdom and we have the level of consciousness to not only survive, but share in the increasing health of Gaia.
Yes, there are detractors, there are greedy people and corporations without soul, but they cannot prevail over the loving grace of Gaia. It is the science of complexity and autopoisis that we find our latest understanding of the effect of the love streaming out from Gaia. As we become ever more conscious our descriptors will evolve and our feeling of connectedness will deepen. The power of Gaia’s love as it is expressed in our species is beautiful beyond imagination. Be that which you want to see.
In Hartland, Devon we held hands at an event we named Hands Across Hartland. I will upload a couple of photos unless they are too large in which case I'll get them reduced in size and upload them soon.
350 has focused on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It appears that the 2007 IPPC findings were far too conservative. Prominent scientists are now proposing that we must not maintain CO2 above 350 ppm. Unfortunately for Gaia we are already at 387 and climbing at 2ppm/year.
By looking at several ice core samples, taken from both the artic and antartic, showing us temperature and CO2 content over the last 450k years, we can see that CO2 has never been so high. These samples allow us to look at the present and 4 previous interglacial warming periods. CO2 has never been higher than 300ppm and peaked at around 280 for 3 out of the 5 periods.
So it safe to say that we have never been here before and can only look at predictive models.
Another look at the ice core samples shows the almost 100% correlation between CO2 and temperature. Which drives the other is controversial. Maybe something else drives both. The prevalent view is the greenhouse theory that we must all be aware of. This means that CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gasses such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbon are driving up the temperature. Human driven carbon emissions are obviously significant. Those who hold out for a temperature driven alternative point out that as the ocean temperature increases vast amounts of CO2 are released. A little thought reveals that we would then have a very dangerous positive feedback mechanism wherein the greenhouse effect would continue to warm the oceans which then cause more CO2 which increases the greenhouse effect. Now, the question is: What will limit or stop this positive feedback?
In the past million years or so, vast amounts of trees performed that service by sequestering carbon, releasing water vapor and stimulating cloud cover which increased the deflection of the sun’s rays (albedo) effectively taking the place of the miles and miles of ice which had melted. With that negative feedback firmly in place and the orbital forcing factors favouring cooling, the downward cycle of Gaia’s temperature was assured.
Unfortunately, this natural development has been destroyed by humans. Millions of trees over thousands of years have been chopped as if they were useless to anything but to serve the greed of homo sapiens.
Delicate balance
Perhaps too late we have come to understand that the behavior patterns of Gaia, a living being are not as precise as the mathematical formulas and models we have built up to predict a machine’s behavior. All three of the Milankovitch cycles that affect climate, The eccentricity of our orbit around the sun, the amount of the Earth’s tilt, and the combination of the Earth’s wobble as it spins and where the wobble places the poles during Summer and winter, are imprecise and erratic. The cycles vary in intensity and in length. It is their interaction that alters the delicate balance of positive and negative forcings that drive the reversal of the warming and cooling of the planet. There is a warming combination which has occurred about every 100k to 112k years that appears to trigger a rise of temperature from an approximately 100K years of heavy glaciation to an approximately 12K years of warming. The primary amplification factor in these cycles of warming and cooling has been the Earth’s orbit. A more elliptical orbit amplifies the positive and negative feedback forces of the other two cycles. Unfortunately for us, at present our orbit is about as much circular as it has ever been and is moving toward a more circular state. As the orbit becomes more circular, the more difficult it is for the, in our case cooling, or negative feedback factors to force us into a cooling cycle.
So What?
Since we are part of nature, then isn’t what we do natural too? Yes, I’ll go there. However, we are the first beings spawned by Gaia that have a share in Gaia’s survival structures and cycles. We are the first Earth beings that have so far figured out how to survive as we eat out our environment. As our mentors have pointed out, we are now, and not by our conscious choice, co-creators with Gaia of our environment. Unfortunately, we are not ready and have not the wisdom to assume such power.
Our establishment scientists and religious leaders are still unable to grasp the significance and import of the fact that we are an outgrowth of a living, loving being. A being with the intelligence and ability to self-regulate. We assume that our lovely planet is dumb and what we see and measure is some chance combination of factors that we can grind up into our mechanistic paradigm. How about asking – why do we now have a ratio of over 80% cooling and only a little over 20% warming over an expanse of 120k years? Millions of years ago there was a lot more carbon and the oceans were far more expansive then now. Could it be that this oscillation of cooling periods with shorter warming periods is necessary to self regulate us toward maintaining a livable environment? We must remember that Gaia acts in, to us, long term increments.
We know that the sun’s output of heat and energy is expanding. All stars that we have studied have a life cycle of expanding energy until the become red giants then and spurt out planetary material. This knowledge led James Lovelock, as I have read, to question why the Earth was not hotter. What resulted was the Gaia Hypothesis and now Gaia theory.
The challenge of homo sapiens
In the past millenniums, creatures, warm and cold blooded beings, plant and mineral beings exercised their innate drive to expand their activity and awareness. It is only now that homo sapiens has pushed the envelope to an extent that we must now use the combination of our thinking function and our deep intuitive knowing to make wise decisions. With power comes responsibility. We have the science, we have the spirituality, we have the wisdom and we have the level of consciousness to not only survive, but share in the increasing health of Gaia.
Yes, there are detractors, there are greedy people and corporations without soul, but they cannot prevail over the loving grace of Gaia. It is the science of complexity and autopoisis that we find our latest understanding of the effect of the love streaming out from Gaia. As we become ever more conscious our descriptors will evolve and our feeling of connectedness will deepen. The power of Gaia’s love as it is expressed in our species is beautiful beyond imagination. Be that which you want to see.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Copenhagen will fail
Copenhagen will fail - it's official. At least that is what United Nations climate change chief Yvo de Boer told the Financial Times on Tuesday.Mr de Boer told the newspaper that the Copenhagen climate change conference will not produce a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto treaty.http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/10/climate_conference_se...
Are we really surprised? In the Us the Conservative right is dead against any measure that will tax energy use or alter the inalienable right of every American citizen to have as much as they can possibly afford, even if they have to borrow against the future.
I have just returned from a visit with relatives in the US. There is no indication whatsoever that people there are buying small cars or doing anything really to scale down. Even the recent and still evident ecomomic downturn does not seem to have affected people's priorities. It seems to me to be the essence of materialism has totally been absorbed. Take whatever you can afford by saving, borrowing, or stealing as what possessions you have is the overall measure of your success in life.Taxing the poor to finance the offset of energy reduction is not the answer.There are really two major priorities in my not so humble opinion.
(1) Immediately limit population. Rescind by law that assumed human right to have as many children as you choose regardless of who is paying for them or what problems population explosion is causing. ALL of the climate change and global warming problemsin the near term are caused by over population and it is this population influenced by the overwhelming pull of materialiasm that not only impedes but seems to abort every action to exhort people to cut back. Just put yourself in the mindset of a transnational Director.Growth is the first commandment. It is either grow or die (be bought out!) If population is decreased where will the growth come from? It took me a long time to realise this. Of course population control cannot surfacer as a reasonable and possible item of discussion. The transnationals, who operate as legal entities with citizen rights but no consciousness will not and cannot agree to a serious economic decline - a serious downsizing on a scale that will have a chance in limiting the CO2 to 350 parts per million.
(2) Immediately stop cutting trees. Make trees objects of veneration and protect them for the CO2 absorption that they so freely provide for us. Immediately provide builders with alternative building materials. Costly, yes of course. But with planning and research, alternatives can be put in place such that the cost will decrease in the future.If we don't do these two things, then the cost will dramatically increase in the future.
So, let is look out for the results of Copenhagen on or near after 7 December. If they cannot come to an agreement that sets a pace of downsizing then we, the smallholder are truly on out own. Then we must look at the resources of our communities and take action to take care of ourselves. It can be done. There are lots of things we can do for ourselves. Transition Towns have a good start. We can learn from them and move forward. Let us see what happens or doesn't happen at Copenhagen.What do you think?
Are we really surprised? In the Us the Conservative right is dead against any measure that will tax energy use or alter the inalienable right of every American citizen to have as much as they can possibly afford, even if they have to borrow against the future.
I have just returned from a visit with relatives in the US. There is no indication whatsoever that people there are buying small cars or doing anything really to scale down. Even the recent and still evident ecomomic downturn does not seem to have affected people's priorities. It seems to me to be the essence of materialism has totally been absorbed. Take whatever you can afford by saving, borrowing, or stealing as what possessions you have is the overall measure of your success in life.Taxing the poor to finance the offset of energy reduction is not the answer.There are really two major priorities in my not so humble opinion.
(1) Immediately limit population. Rescind by law that assumed human right to have as many children as you choose regardless of who is paying for them or what problems population explosion is causing. ALL of the climate change and global warming problemsin the near term are caused by over population and it is this population influenced by the overwhelming pull of materialiasm that not only impedes but seems to abort every action to exhort people to cut back. Just put yourself in the mindset of a transnational Director.Growth is the first commandment. It is either grow or die (be bought out!) If population is decreased where will the growth come from? It took me a long time to realise this. Of course population control cannot surfacer as a reasonable and possible item of discussion. The transnationals, who operate as legal entities with citizen rights but no consciousness will not and cannot agree to a serious economic decline - a serious downsizing on a scale that will have a chance in limiting the CO2 to 350 parts per million.
(2) Immediately stop cutting trees. Make trees objects of veneration and protect them for the CO2 absorption that they so freely provide for us. Immediately provide builders with alternative building materials. Costly, yes of course. But with planning and research, alternatives can be put in place such that the cost will decrease in the future.If we don't do these two things, then the cost will dramatically increase in the future.
So, let is look out for the results of Copenhagen on or near after 7 December. If they cannot come to an agreement that sets a pace of downsizing then we, the smallholder are truly on out own. Then we must look at the resources of our communities and take action to take care of ourselves. It can be done. There are lots of things we can do for ourselves. Transition Towns have a good start. We can learn from them and move forward. Let us see what happens or doesn't happen at Copenhagen.What do you think?
Friday, 31 July 2009
FSA attacks organic 30 July
"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
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
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)