It is alarming to read the extent to which Australian journalists have bitten of, swallowed and regurgitated recent findings from the UK Food Standards Agency that report organic food ‘no better for you’ (see Courier Mail, 31/7/2009 p. 20).
In some respects it is not surprising the UK Food Standards Agency have reached this conclusion: they are hardly an advocate for sustainable agriculture; and their analysis is incomplete, excluding as it does the largest comparative study of organic and conventional foods, funded by the European Union. The results of this EU funded research over a 4 year period (that is notably absent from the UK FSA study) reported that organic food had significantly higher nutrient levels, including 20 – 40 % higher levels of anti-oxidants, higher levels of Vitamin C, higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as substantially higher levels of compounds that boost health and combat disease. The conclusiveness of these results led research coordinator Carlo Leifert to state that the health benefits are so striking that moving to organic food was the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day!
While the UK Food Standards Agency – and supported by a flurry of journalists – have made some negative statements regarding the nutrient content of organic food, we are sadly often left hungry when it comes to coverage of the broader environmental and health benefits associated with organic food and agriculture. Organic farming systems are environmentally beneficial in a number of ways, for example by increasing biodiversity, avoiding the use of harmful agricultural chemicals, re-building soil health as well as carbon sequestration. Organic farming also provides a range of social benefits, including for farmers in the developing world, where organics provides new marketing options and financial security. By focusing on a narrow debate around the nutritional content of organic food, we miss consideration of these broader issues. It is this broad range of social and environmental issues – not simply nutrient content – that shapes Australian’s decisions about what they eat. It would be useful if public debates were expanded to reflect on these.
Dr Kristen Lyons
Senior Lecturer, School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences
Griffith University
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It makes sense that organics have a higher nutrient content due to the effects that ammonium based fertilisers have on soils.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian UK published this the week after the 'Organics No Better for you' came out in the UK.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/food-standards-agency-organic
Personally, I would like to object to the news paper article as what I believed.
ReplyDeleteOrganically foods is produced by using natural fertilizer and without using agri-chemicals.
Recently, some people may responce to foods produced by using agri-chemicals because of their allegy. Therefore, the organically foods should be better, even the nutrition content is very similar between them.