Organic Food Is More Nutritious Say EU Researchers
Featured ArticleMain Category: Nutrition / Diet
Also Included In: Water - Air Quality / Agriculture; Bird Flu / Avian Flu
Article Date: 29 Oct 2007 - 0:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions
| Patient / Public: |  |
4.33 (86 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: |  |
3.81 (27 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 8 posts |
Early results of a 12 million pound, 4-year EU study on the benefits of organic food suggest that some of them, such as fruit, vegetables and milk, are more nutritious than non-organically produced food and may contain higher concentrations of cancer fighting and heart beneficial antioxidants.
The results were released to the press but there is no mention of a of a journal publication as yet. The research team said its findings will be published in full within the next 12 months.
The findings were announced by Professor Carlo Leifert of the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture based at Newcastle University, UK, who with his team are working on the EU funded project called the Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) project, the biggest ever to research the pros and cons of organic farming and food.
Prof Leifert told the press that the research results suggested that eating organic food was equivalent to eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables a day.
The early results of the study show that organic fruit and vegetables have up to 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organically grown produce. Even greater contrasts were found for milk, with organic milk containing up to 60 per cent more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids, said Leifert.
The Newcastle University researchers raise cattle and grow fruit and vegetables on 725 acres of organic and non-organic farms situated next to each other at the university's agriculture centre in Stocksfield, Northumberland. Similar set ups exist at other research centres across Europe.
Leifert's findings contradict advice by the UK government's Food Standards Agency which states that organic produce is no healthier than non-organically produced food.
QualityLowInputFood (QLIF) is a European Union (EU) sponsored project that aims to "improve quality, ensure safety and reduce cost along the organic and 'low input' food supply chains through research, dissemination and training activities".
According to information on its website, QLIF focuses on "increasing value to both consumers and producers using a fork to farm approach".
The project was set up in March 2004 and has a grant of 18 million Euros (12.6 million pounds, or 25.8 million dollars) from the EU.
The QLIF research programme involves 31 research centres, companies and universities in Europe and beyond.
Leifert said he and his team now want to explore the underlying mechanisms by which organic as opposed to non-organic farming methods lead to such higher concentrations of healthy nutritients.
A spokeswoman for the Soil Association told the press that they were pleased with the results and this could be the start of a significant change in what consumers buy.
Click here for QualityLowInputFood (QLIF) website.
Written by: Catharine Paddock
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
8 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (8)
Organic Food Is More Nutritious Say EU Researchers
posted by Petrus cum Barba on 29 Oct 2007 at 8:23 amThe sad thing is, now that the EU has confirmed this fact no one will believe it!
Absence Of Evidence Of Consistent Differences Between Organic Food And Traditionally Produced Food
posted by Victor M. Shorrocks M.A. D.Phil. M.I.Biol. on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:53 pmThere have been many attempts over the years for advocates of organic food to highlight particular studies that show organic food to be more nutritious in one way or another but the overall picture is one of no consistent differences. In very many studies organic food has been found to be inferior. I would refer readers to the review in 1997 by Woese et al. in J.Sci.Fod Agric. 74, 281-293 in which the results of more than 150 separate studies, comparing organic food with traditionally produced food, were assessed.
I would also like to recall the experiment started by Lady Eve Balfour (the Haughley Experiment) in 1947 which was designed to prove that organic farming was better for crop and animal health and productivity and by implication for humans; this experiment lasted 22 years before being stopped by the Soil Association. Although it may be argued that it was not stopped because it was not providing any evidence of the superiority of organic farming it is unlikely that it would have been terminated if there had been any indications of benefits of organic farming; in fact it was acknowledged that soil fertility was falling on the organic areas.
Balfour had been absolutely convinced that organic farming was the way to improve the health of the nation - the subtitle of her 1943 book "The Living Soil" was "evidence of the importance to human health of soil vitality, with special reference to post war planning".
After the experiment had been stopped in 1969 Balfour published, in 1975, her second book entitled "The Living Soil and the Haughley Experiment" without any subtitle. In this book Balfour repeated much of the background to her beliefs about the merits and importance of organic farming that was in her 1943 book and at the same time gave an honest assessment of the results which did not show the benefits she expected and hoped for.
It is curious, if not misleading, that in 2006 the Soil Association republished the 1943 book "The Living Soil" and NOT the 1975 edition which contained much of the same material AND the results.
In 1965 a member of the Soil Association was honest enough to write to me to say .. “we know what we think should be, or we should like to be the truth about the questions being asked there (i.e at Haughley) but we do try to accept the answers and go on probing, whether we like them or not”. This was before the experiment was stopped when the Soil Association realised that the results that they were getting did not fit in with their preconceived ideas.
One question can also be asked about soil fertility on organic farms in the UK. Is it possible that organic farmers are benefitting from the build up of soil fertility by many years application of fertilisers, particularly with respect to phosphorus? They may be in for a rude shock one day as happened at Haughley.
Are You Serious Victor? in times of droughts, organic farms are shown to produce up to 20-40% more than conventional produce
posted by Drew Bennett on 11 Mar 2010 at 6:35 amMr. Victor I find it very sad that you are a doctor and you are denying the health benefits of organically grown food. First I would like to tell you that you are basing your opinion on soil fertility on an experiment that began over 60 years ago. They is CURRENT data that contradicts your beliefs about soil fertility. In fact in times of droughts, organic farms are shown to produce up to 20-40% more than conventional produce according to Global Oneness.
Second it is very well known and proven that are convential produce there are amounts of pesticide residue that can be dangerous to human. I will note that they have been tested on adult humans and have been found "safe" Yet these tests are not taking into account long term effects are even the effects on children or fetuses.
Please rethink your views on organic farming.
That is correct drew
posted by mathew on 6 Oct 2010 at 1:17 pmThere is a lot of sources for organic food. even if there is a drought in a certain place. Other organic food producing country is also capable of supplying such needs.
21st Century Nutritional Experiment (AKA the Consumer)
posted by Jonas on 14 Feb 2011 at 2:11 pmA friend who studies phytochemistry (the biochemical compounds that naturally develop in plants) explains to me that plants grown in 'artificial' conditions can switch off their natural defenses.
Using pesticide and herbicide sprays can therefore result in a plant with altered plant chemistry. The plant may be less beneficial to eat than an equivalent 'organic' plant that is actively fending for itself just as plants have done for the millions of years they have been our food. By defending itself the plant creates more healthy biochemical compounds that we as plant eaters actually benefit from.
Intensive farming is still very new so until we can 'prove' its long-term safety, why don't you try lots of organic foods and decide - by using your own instinctive intelligence - if it's better food or not?
Hope this helps a little.
Common Sense
posted by Fooch on 3 Aug 2011 at 11:21 pmThere comes a time to just exercise common sense. Pesticides kill organisms responsible for the uptake of nutrients to the plant. You can't spray a chemical on a plant and soil and expect to have a higher nutrient content. You are failing to realize that there are amoral scientists and others who run studies. I really don't care what they say, common sense is the higher of degrees in today's society. You make it seem as though if some expert with a degree tells me it's safe to cross the road in traffic, it must be. Sorry chap, that's just not going to fly.
be green
posted by Colin P. Kelley on 23 Nov 2011 at 4:53 pmSo you never answered a very important question; If I am willing to pay more for the benefits of organic products does it taste better? The bottom line is you can pitch the; it is better for you all day long, but if it doesn't taste better for the cost it will only be a a short lived fad. I also worry about an ever growing population that demands faster growth with longer shelf life. Until organic grown foods can overcome both the extra cost will not pay the benefit.
Soil Science
posted by Daniel Rold on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:42 pmWhy don't you just do some research into soil science? It becomes obvious that you, nor any of your pals have improved upon nature to this point.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
