No Evidence To Support 'Organic Is Best'
Main Category: Nutrition / DietArticle Date: 08 Aug 2008 - 1:00 PDT
'No Evidence To Support 'Organic Is Best''
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
2.91 (11 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
1.67 (3 votes) |
| Article opinions: | 3 posts |
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.'
This research was supported by the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS), Denmark.
SOCIETY OF CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
14/15 Belgrave Square
Londo
SW1X 8PS
http://www.soci.org
Visit our nutrition / diet section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
23 May. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/117628.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/117628.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
Visitor Opinions (latest shown first)
A Study Of Chemicals By The Chemical Industry?
posted by Eileen on 15 Aug 2008 at 2:11 pmOf course the study would find no difference, they're being paid to find no difference.
Lol, Irene you may have a point about Miracle making people get bigger!
And shame on Vital Juice Daily for sending out a link to this pathetic "study".
Of Course A Chemical Publication Would Say Chemicals Are Ok...
posted by Irene on 13 Aug 2008 at 6:18 pmWhat else would be expected from the Society of Chemical Industry's (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food - a report that chemicals are bad? How likely is that? They talk at length about chemical analysis, but say nothing about the interaction of super-growth chemicals and pesticides effects on bodies over the long term. Let's see...lots of Miracle-Gro-like additives, and maybe that's the reason people are getting bigger and bigger. Also, what were the cows providing the manure being fed...was the manure on the organic food from organic cows? When too many questions are left about the study, I find such studies questionable.
Organic Farmer
posted by wt carpenter on 10 Aug 2008 at 6:40 amIn the states studies have found major improvement in EFA (essential Fatty Acids in organic dairy. The taste of organic food is noticeably better .
Add Your Opinion On This Article
'No Evidence To Support 'Organic Is Best''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.








