Reader views (40)

 Add your view

In 1987, the year after a radioactive cloud, emitted from Chernobyl in Russia, passed over Scotland I remember being told confidentially that the radiation recorded from Scottish food was "10 to 12 times worse" than was admitted to the public - and immediately stopped buying British food, bought all food from abroad, fruit as well, regardless of cost, mangoes, Chinese pears, Sharons, etc. Luckily I've always been well enough off to do that, and the point is that I did exactly what the government was worried the public would do, govt. feared the truth doing economic damage.
Also there was a day Terry Wogan, on Radio 2, bloatedly described British food as best, in response to which a chemical engineer went out, bought supermarket food to perform tests on it, and announced ZERO vitamins in supermarket produce. How did these Which? guys miss that one?
I am very suspicious of what's going on with this Which? evaluation, my memory cells instantly invalidate its findings, whatever is threatening capitalist profits this government will attempt to achieve, by hook or by crook.
I also don't like this tap-water-is-better stuff, ask any science student in any university on this planet the answer to that and watch his reaction.
I've also once made an effort to put this data onto the Evening Standard comments column, and it simply didn't appear. That thing about radioactive contamination of (at least) Scottish produce was definitely seen as divulging a sensitive state secret.

- David Moncoeur, Edinburgh, Scotland

You talk about passing on genes? The only genes that are passed on are those found in the gametes (sex cells). Therefore, those genetic diseases must be inherited and will NOT occur from the eating of these "chemicals" that you seem to despise so much. Check your facts next time

- Response To The First Comment, Who Cares

The real issue with organic versus non-organic is the CHEMICALS. Of course the food is nutritionally essentially the same ---- a cucumber is a cucumber is a cucumber.

It’s what’s missing from organic food that counts ---- THE CHEMICALS. And if you think that you’ll be just as healthy when you eat all those chemicals in the food, you should probably die before you reproduce so you don’t pass on your stupid genes.

And that’s the truth today.

Best wishes to all the people who understand what I’m saying. The rest of you can get off my planet.

- M. Ross, Chicago, USA

this is bunk

- Elaine Nethercote, Walpole MA USA

Just becuase its grown organicly why should it be any different then regularly grown food i mean the nutirional content is no different so those who eat organicly will have the same health as the avrage john or jane doe

- Flu-Bird, Etna,CA USA

I think that the chemical companies are one of the biggest hazard producers on the face of the earth.During the late fifties and eairly sixties the farmers in this area started using herbicides and pesticides on their fields.Prior to that time the wildlife was so abundant that you didn't need to venture very far from your home to get your limit of rabbits and quail.Today you can walk over the very same ground for days without seeing a rabbit or quail.Since these huge corporations have been altering the plant genes to sell more of their products the food value of the plant has decreased.I might not be the sharpest pencil in the box but I do know that if it will kill a weed enough of that product will also impare you.

- Jim Black, Farmington, Illinois USA

I really feel sad for all the people saying organic is a fraud. This is better for several reason if not for health : state of the planet, animal welfare are only two examples.
As far as health is concerned, I just don't understand how you don't see that eating food that does not contain pesticides (or at least by far less pesticides, some trace sometimes due to contamination of field treated) etc is much better for health.
Well, as far as I'm concerned and as far as my husband and children are concerned, I will continue to buy organic food, but also organic cotton etc as soon as I can.

- Sandra, London, UK

Here is a clear example of how this push to destroy Organic foods are at the request of Big Business.
Introducing US Bill for MONSANTO HR2749. US citizens take note.

This "release" of studies are the start of the public "softening" process before draconian bills like this one. These processes are happening all accross the World under the WTO (the ones who bought you mass starvation accross Africa) and all CODEX initiators.
HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?]

HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX. WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides

HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area

HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food

HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals

- Robbo, Ak, NZ

For us it's not about the nutritional content... it's about NOT USING PESTICIDES!

- Jillian, London, UK

I cant afford this organic food its too expensive and too bad for the organic food wackos but organic foods are no different then regular foods

- Spurwing Plover, Etna,CA USA

I do not generally purchase organic products, but I don't think that I've ever thought or have been lead to believe that, nutritionally speaking, organic is better for you. It's the process in which it's grown that is of interest. Pesticides in your body are not a beneficial additive to fruits and vegetables, and I think that is the main reason folks go for organic foods, not the perceived nutritional differences. This study was a waste of tax money.

- E Squared, Knoxville TN

My sentiments exactly, David!! I am not coming down on either side of the issue concerning organic food but how many times have I heard myself say these same words by David, Bradford: "Sadly, simply tasting good doesn't indicate nutrient levels. If it did, I'd eat nothing but ice cream." So I'm not the only one who loves ice cream!! Now would someone please convince me it's a health food!

- E Miller, Bella Vista, USA

Having learnt the true nature of the Emporers clothes, the Luddites who believe(d) in 'organic' food are now reduced to averring they really only ate it to save the planet.... 0.000000001 hectares of it anyway - at a cost of an extra 20 quid a week!

- Grahame, Bristol, UK

Of course, coming from the FSA, this report is rubbish. The Authority that allows carcinogenic chemicals to be consumed by consumers shows NOTHING about safety.
This study is no different from other countries, and the timing simulates what’s happening worldwide. CODEX is looming and even in countries like the US, bills have been successfully introduced to wipe out Organic farming altogether, in favour of massive Agribusiness monopolies. It has even been found to be circulated in the US that Organic Growers must be watched because the may deemed to be terrorists under Homeland Security Definitions.
Why should it differ in UK?
There are numerous studies already completed that show organic foods higher in nutrients, vitamins and minerals, and even taste. Something that greatly lacks in any fruit that is sold at Food town etc. Tasteless, brick hard fruit is a solid waste of money, and I would think if this was the condition, grown to just look good with manipulation and chemicals, what good are they actually for our bodies; we do eat them for the nutrients right.
Ask anyone in the Organic Soil Organisation, they PROVE time and time again, organically raised soil are higher in nutrients than commercial farmed soils. It just depends who’s promoting what. FSA, in the past have shown who they represent, and as with their past, they do not represent the safety of the consumer, just the protection of big business monopolies and profits.

- Robbo, ak

Organic food is a inefficent use of space, as fertalizers increase the amount of food that can be grown on any given acre, and I don't eat wormy, insect bitten produce, however, when I'm doing my weekly shopping I tend to pick the produce that looks the healthiest, as long as I can afford it (I cook for a living). Most of the time that is conventional yet local produce.

- Jon, Burlington US

Neil, London: "Don't be ridiculous" is hardly a convincing argument for your case. Although perhaps you could start a religion to venerate organic food, that way you wouldn't need any convincing arguments.

David, Bradford: Sadly, simply tasting good doesn't indicate nutrient levels. If it did, I'd eat nothing but ice cream.

John, Attleboro, MA: So anyone who says anything even remotely negative about organic foods must be under the thumb of some megacorp? This isn't a one-sided study, it is just that you're missing the point of the study.

First, no, pesticides do not affect nutritional content. Bad for your liver, perhaps, but this is why you wash your veggies. Besides, that isn't what the study was about.

As for chemicals inhibiting vitamin absorption -- I've never read such a thing, and I doubt that it has been shown conclusively. But once again, wash your veggies properly. You might also note that organic vegetables are more likely to cause e.coli infections, in case that concerns you.

They state specifically that they are not recommending avoiding organic food. This study was not intended as a comprehensive review on whether to buy organic food, and they admit that there are environmental reasons to buy organic.

This is a single study about a single dimension of organic food. Calling it useless because it didn't address issues that it was never meant to address displays ignorance of the process of scientific study.

- Jason, San Diego, USA

I agree with comments from Richard Stevens and others. Nutritional content is one thing. But pesticide residues can build up in cells. This is called bioaccumulation. The risk posed by pesticide residues on a single bag of non-organic strawberries may not be much in itself. But what about eating non-organic strawberries over a lifetime? I don't know if pesticide residues on fruits and veggies pose a significant risk. But farmers exposed to pesticides do seem to be at risk.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scoring=r&q=pesticide+exposure+and+cancer&as_ylo=2009&btnG=Search

Not to mention the environmental hazards of pesticides.

- David, Tampa, FL

You guys talking about "poisons" from pesticides DO realize that plants produce natural pesticides, right?
And that organic produce IS produced using certain types of pesticides (some of which are more harmful to the environment than the "unnatural" ones?).

There's also the fact that when you eat a piece of produce, the sheer quantity of natural pesticide present in the plant vs. the quantity of residual pesticide present on the piece of food is huge--a ratio of almost 100,000:1.

Read your literature before making snap decisions, please.

- Sach, Washington, DC

The biggest fiction is that Organic Food does not use Chemicals or Pesticides, that is patently false. They use different chemicals and pesticides that are less effective but are supposed to be safer. Safer for who? Maybe safer for the farmer, the check has still not been cashed on that one. The food from the supposed "Factory Farms" actually is tested more because the corperation that owns these farms do not like being sued.

- Richb313, Thibodaux USA

Organic Farming is and the food it prouces can't be measured in just equal nutrion, what does that even mean the quality of organic over frankenstien food should be conciderd first. No one knows anything at all about the effects of genetic enginering and what eating this might do to ones health. What guidelins where used in this Government study. I have never seen anything done right by government so I would conclude from past experience that this information should be disregarded as more lies brouhgt to you by Monsanto , Cargil and ADM shorter life through chemistry chemical food. Meat raised on grass is just better more flavor less fat more texture and has richer enzymes and protiens due to the diet of grass and the amount of effort the animal would exert to get this grass in the case of beef and pork and insect and seed and green plant consumpion by poultry. Compost rich soil verses chemical spray that kill insect birds mice frogs snakes ground dwelling nematodes and worms and bacteria that break down natural soil amendments in useable food for plants. With out Chemicaly extracted nitrogen from natural gas to herbicides from petro chemicals all these fake nutirient take their toll and have been proven to cause cancer and kill just about anything that comes in contact with it. It is also responsible for causing autizm in children exspecialy in areas where these chemical have enterd the drinking water and entire aquifers are poisened like in central Wisconsin.

- Kenneth Wulf, 53925

Best thing is to get the big picture here. This is really serious. Saying that organic food is the same as petrochemical food compounds is one of the first steps we have before us. Next will be the introduction of laws that will ban organic food from production, making it nearly impossible to have access to food free of poison. Since organic food is produced by small groups of people in small bits of land that are scattered all around the place, they will simply say that since organic food cannot possibly be tested satisfactorily due its nature, it should be banned because it is unsafe to consumers.
Don’t forget they use phoney science to convince the masses, who have been purposely numbed down not to bother with such things. A hundred year of crap data does not make a truth, just covers up in plain sight a blatant lie.
Just exactly the opposite of what the mob is supposed to think, who will come to think that eating something that grows naturally is unsafe to eat!!!!
What to do now, that is the question we all are waiting for, but remember, in the mean time, we are going to be extra-poisoned from 31-12-2009. Google Codex alimentarius, when I heard about this, I thought it wasn't real, but I can see now it may make some sense after all.
Good luck to us all

- Milo, London

Pesticides DO break down and, if applied properly, will have broken down to undetectable levels by the time the food hits the market. Bad mouth pesticides all you wish; if there were a world-wide ban on chemical pesticides and fertilizers then half the planet (including people in your own country) would be starving within a year. Most people would not be able to afford food and the edxisting supplies would drop greatly due to insect and parasite attack.
I used to be a "bugman" and at the time we used Diazinon, a very useful pesticide that was allowed to be used on food crops. Use of it had to cease 14 days before the crops were to be harvested in order to give the chemical time to break down.
Mickinlondon is an excellent of a fearmonger as DDT has not been used for decades BUT it was the main chemical that destroyed the scourge of malaria in First World Nations. It could be stoppinbg malaria in Third World Nations if fear and misinformation had not caused it to be removed from the market. Recent evidence has shown Rachel Carlson to be no more than a fear monger and a sensationalist.
If it were not for rodenticides and pesticides your living conditions would resemble the 17th Century, with fleas and lice prevalent, bubonic plague still a threat and wormy fruit commonplace.

- Lee451, Fredericksburg, Virginia, CSA

I don't think people understand the point of the study. One study can't possibly gather enough money and manpower to study every single side of something. They chose to study nutritional effects, not environmental or which tastes better. All this does (like most studies) is answer one of many questions that people may have had.

- Aaron, UK

Where is the study? Does anyone have a link to it?

- Vito, Hollywood, Fl

The one thing that always puzzled me was that when organic food started to become popular it was said that it would not be possible to supply everyone as it would not be possible to cultivate that quantity of food, I do not trust the powers to be so have never bought organic food, what makes it all the more farce-able is that I have never seen a sign saying " sorry sold out of organic food", just another way of making people pay more.

- Royston Amphlett, Bournemouth

Less pesticide soil runoff entering the water. Good enough reason for me, nutrition aside.

Plus, organic produce is only more expensive if you buy it from fancy markets. Get it from the farmer!

- Jonathan, NYC, USA

Are you kidding me? So, the chemicals, pesticides, and growth hormones that are in NON-organic foods have no effect on you nutritionally one way or the other eh? What about the studies that prove the effects of these man-made chemicals on your body regress the body's ability to absorb these essential vitamins and nutrients? Talk about a one-sided study; let's face it, this government agency receives millions of dollars in support from manufacturers who have no viable reason continuing to produce products in a non-organic way.

- John, Attleboro, MA

Perhaps not, but the more important point is that there is much less pesticides used!

- Guye, London UK

Actually Organic is NOT better for the enviroment, the reason being is that in order to keep the store shelves stocked properly they need to grow more of the produce than normal because not as much of it survives to being harvested, thus alot more land is ended up being used to produce the same amount of food. and because of the need for more land most farmers will drain vital marshes and swamps that have yet to recieve a protected status and in countries like Brzil te deforestation rate has increased all so farmers have more land for organic produce

- Henry Valdez, Rockingham, NC, USA

Of course they're going to be equal "...in relation to nutrient content.”

To compare nutritional content seems like a natural starting point, but it is a null point. Nutritional content is not worth comparing. It's the use or non-use of poisons that's the point. That's where the health benefit come in.

Neither are lacking nutrients, but conventional veggies get 'bonus ingredients'. This study was well intended but looking in the wrong direction. Thanks for the article.

- Nugget, usa

The reason folks buy organic is not because they believe that it has more nutritional value but because it does not contain chemicals or pesticides found in foods manufactured from large organizations.

To me, the same nutrient benefit encompassed without the poisions flowing throughout my body proves that organic food does provide a benefit.

- Lisa, St. Louis, MO

Joe Public ripped-off again to the tune of GBP2,000,000,000.00 for weird food which only a muppet would subscribe to.

WAKE UP PEEPS IN THE UK.

- Reuben Camara, Republic of Morecambe, UK

Well I like my food without additives of any kind; let the experts eat the chemical foods, I am sure they much prefer DDT, to Tomato Ketchup.

- Mickinlondon, london.

The FSA, as usual, gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Its not about nutrition - its about avoiding the chemicals that come with intensive agriculture, plus the poor flavour of food from the chemical approach.

Everybody knows you get better flavour from slowly reared pigs and chickens, from apples grown with less fertiliser and chemicals, from bread without additives and preservatives. This knowledge appears to have passed the FSA by, which is why the FSA appears as a 1970s style apologist for the food industry.

- Richard Stevens, London

Don't be ridiculous, of course it's healthier.

- Neil, London, London UK

Just take the taste test and you decide.

- David Bahar, Bradford

Its true. In the end it all boils down to chemicals. As long as no remnants of pesticides ad herbicides remain on or in the food. Now, that is debatable.

- Dhan Raj, Basildon

50 years of evidence, 12 months of study, and still miss the point. Well done. Slap yourselves on the back for a job well done.

- Escobar A-Lop-Lop, Mad as hell and not taking it anymore...

There is another important reason to eat organic produce, especially if you are on a weekly box scheme: supporting small and medium British farmers and keeping people on the land. It's not just about 'nutrition', it's a holistic attitude to food and the environment.

- Sallyr, London, UK

I don't think this is a "blow" for organic food--that's much like saying the fact that labradors aren't much cop for guarding the house is an argument against guide dogs for the blind.

I buy organic stuff where on a like-for-like basis it makes sense re overall environmental impact--nothing to do with nutritional content. There are 2 factors that have the biggest impact on how nutritious your fruit&veg is. Firstly, whether you eat enough of it in the 1st place--many people don't--& better for your £1 spending to be eating 500g of non-organic than 200g of organic. Secondly, how long it's spent between picking and eating (assuming not frozen)--stuff that's been hanging around for ages will have little Vit C. Sadly, the worst offenders in terms of wizened bendy produce are often organic and to be found in 'health food' shops.

- Liz, London, UK

Add your comment