Organic food "has no health benefits"

By Sarah Best.

Or so the UK government would have you believe. Variations of this headline are all over the media at the moment (just type it into Google if you don't believe me).

Why? Because the UK Food Standards Agency commissioned a study into the topic, this is apparently the finding, and they want to help Joe Public make "informed choices". 

Specifically, Gill Fine, the FSA's director of consumer choice, commented that the study showed, "there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and there is not evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."

That last bit, especially, is quite a claim to make. So what is the FSA basing this on?

You may be surprised to know that the study in question looked at just one aspect of the organic versus non debate: nutrient levels. It apparently found little difference in nutritonal content between the two classes of food. That's the party line, anyway. Read the appendix and you learn that, in fact, some nutrients were found at substantially higher levels in organic foods.

But let's leave aside the "higher nutrient levels" argument because, frankly, it is irrelevant. And that's because it is arguably the least important reason for choosing organic. Most people who buy organic would keep on doing so even if a study convincingly proved that it contains no more nutrients than non-organic, because they are making this choice for much bigger reasons.

Most people who buy organic do so because they prefer not to be a guinea pig for manmade chemicals which have not been in the food supply long enough for us to know how they affect us - let alone how they affect us when we consume a cocktail of them every time we eat. Many also choose organic because it is the choice that results in the least planetary pollution (though that is admittedly a side issue when the debate is about the health benefits of organic).

Those who say it is a waste of money to spend more on organic food as there's "no proof" it is better for us have simply been brainwashed. To look at it that way is to have the whole thing back to front.

The question is not, "Where is the proof that organic food is better for us?" It is, "Where is the proof that food that has been sprayed with huge amounts of manmade chemicals and otherwise tampered with is not worse for us?"

Let's see that scientific proof.

But this latest study, like so many before it, didn't even consider the issue of chemical contamination.

The truth is we have no idea what nasties we are consuming when we consume conventionally produced food, nor how those substances are silently affecting us. There is talk of "safe levels" of pesticides and herbicides but in reality there is no proof that these substances can be consumed in any quantity without having negative effects on our health. And, besides, certain chemicals have been detected in common foods at levels above those officially allowed. Not to mention the fact that chemicals not even permitted by UK law have been detected on non-organic foods on sale in the UK. 

So I don't know about you, but I find it astounding that the "Is organic food really better for you?" debate is apparently still running.

The way this issue is often presented, you'd be forgiven for thinking organic food was invented by some marketing guru in Notting Hill some time in early 90s, and that only the gullible buy it and eat it. But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is conventionally produced food that is the new invention.

Before it became "normal" to eat food that was tampered with in multiple novel ways, all of them designed to increase profits for the food companies, organic food was simply called "food".

Comments

[Elena]

Such studies make me SICK! It's all the same in Europe and in the US--brainwashing masses for the sake of $$ and eventually population reduction (yes, I am becoming more and more convinced that it is not a conspiracy theory).

Do they tell you WHO funded the study? Do they have any connection to companies such as Monsanto that stand to profit from such brainwashing?

For those who are not fully aware yet, there is also such a thing as Codex that is supposed to go in force by the end of this year in countries that are a part of the WTO. Check out this article (not mine) to shed some light on the topic and find out WHY our governments are interested in poisoning us: http://www.naturalnews.com/026731_CODEX_food_health.html/

Good ORGANIC eatings to ALL!

[Jenna]

The MAIN reason I have and always will buy organic is the chemical issue.

[organicfood]

Organic food has its undoubtable benefit: health, because there are no synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals or biotechnology involved.

[Angie B]

Did anyone catch the coverage of the drop of sales of organic foods on the TV programme 'Countryfile' last night? I found myself shouting at the television in despair! When will the masses be educated about what they are NOT getting with organic food - ie, pesicides, chemicals and weakened foods that in the long term are going to cause a much bigger monetary loss in terms of damage to both our own health and that of our ecosystem. At least the woman interviewed seemed to be converted and the efforts going into advertising organic food are heartening...

[Nick]

Organic foods are indeed healthy because they do not contain harmful artificial chemicals.