PDA

View Full Version : Is Organic Best? New research



lizzyrose
08-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Here's a new study that questions the benefits of organics over conventionally grown fruits and veggies...


New research in SCI's Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture says there is no evidence to support the view that organically grown crops contain more major and trace elements

New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry's (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals

Many people pay more than a third more for organic food in the belief that it has more nutritional content than food grown with pesticides and chemicals.

But the research by Dr Susanne Bügel and colleagues from the Department of Human Nutrition, University of Copenhagen, shows there is no clear evidence to back this up.

In the first study ever to look at retention of minerals and trace elements, animals were fed a diet consisting of crops grown using three different cultivation methods in two seasons.

The study looked at the following crops – carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes – staple ingredients that can be found in most families' shopping list.

The first cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on soil which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no pesticides except for one organically approved product on kale only.

The second method involved applying a low input of nutrients using animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed by regulation.

Finally, the third method comprised a combination of a high input of nutrients through mineral fertilisers and pesticides as legally allowed.

The crops were grown on the same or similar soil on adjacent fields at the same time and so experienced the same weather conditions. All were harvested and treated at the same time. In the case of the organically grown vegetables, all were grown on established organic soil.

After harvest, results showed that there were no differences in the levels of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown using the three different methods.

Produce from the organically and conventionally grown crops were then fed to animals over a two year period and intake and excretion of various minerals and trace elements were measured. Once again, the results showed there was no difference in retention of the elements regardless of how the crops were grown.

Dr Bügel says: 'No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.'

Dr Alan Baylis, honorary secretary of SCI's Bioresources Group, adds: 'Modern crop protection chemicals to control weeds, pests and diseases are extensively tested and stringently regulated, and once in the soil, mineral nutrients from natural or artificial fertilisers are chemically identical. Organic crops are often lower yielding and eating them is a lifestyle choice for those who can afford it.'

Raene
08-07-2008, 11:52 AM
Don't believe it for a second, nor would I ever pay farmers to do what they're doing...put poisons into the only planet we can live on. They're killing our earth with poisons...sometimes studies like this are paid for by none other than the enemies.

juliebove
08-07-2008, 11:57 AM
That's a flawed theory I (and probably most others) don't buy organic because I think it contains more nutrients. I buy it because it contains less crap like pesticides.

pinkkpanthur
08-07-2008, 12:00 PM
I don't support the use of pesticides, and I would rather purchase from the local farmers market, but it is nice to know that if I don't have money to buy organic, I'm not going to doom myself to malnourishment and premature death :)

lizzyrose
08-07-2008, 12:05 PM
Just to clear the air... (and save my own face) I'm not supporting or denying... I just thought I'd put it out there as many of you may be interested in reports from the scientific community. This is actually a well-respected peer-reviewed journal and, even more surprisingly, the study was funded by the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS), Denmark.

Personally, I agree with Pinkkpanthur... I try to buy organic for 2 reasons, 1. the pesticides, 2. the nutrients. While I'm still not excited about the concept of eating pesticides and will continue to try to buy organic where I can afford it, it's good to know I may not be missing out on the nutrients I thought I was.

Zella Juice
08-07-2008, 12:24 PM
I wonder who paid them to do the study? All the conventional farmers are prolly trying to get together and bring down organics because they are getting very popular. Pay someone to do a "study" and people will believe it.

I know everyone on here will not believe this.

lizzyrose
08-07-2008, 12:30 PM
It's actually a "pro-organic" group that's part of the Danish Government.

"The aim of DARCOF is to coordinate research in organic food and farming, in order to achieve the optimum benefit from the allocated resources. DARCOF highlights the potentials, challenges and problems faced in organic farming through the promotion of high quality research of international standard."

Ginger
08-07-2008, 01:04 PM
It said that quote:

cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on soil which had a low input of nutrients
A plant will only contain as many nutrients as are avalible in the soil. The thing with organic is that usually they need to use healthier soil so that the plants resist bugs and disease because they are not trying to keep the convential weaklings alive with the use of chemical pesticides and such. This study was done using the exact same soil and the only difference was that one was sprayed. So of course there is no nutritional difference showing! I do wonder how long term affects of this study would play out considering it robs your body of extra nutrients to nutralise the toxic chemicals.. so I believe that in the end the animals fed the exact same crop but with chemicals would end up more deficient in the long term.