...the Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by government to
safeguard our welfare, which refuses to endorse the claims made for
organic food. Only in January the agency declared that "on the basis of
currentevidence ... organic food is not significantly different in
terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".

It
is claimed that organic food is more natural and that its reliance on
natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of
synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about
natural chemicals like ricin or aflatoxin or botulinum toxin, or
especially dangerous about synthetic chemicals like the s...

read more»

...the Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by government to
safeguard our welfare, which refuses to endorse the claims made for
organic food. Only in January the agency declared that "on the basis of
currentevidence ... organic food is not significantly different in
terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".

It
is claimed that organic food is more natural and that its reliance on
natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of
synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about
natural chemicals like ricin or aflatoxin or botulinum toxin, or
especially dangerous about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides,
isoniazid that cures TB, or the painkiller paracetamol.

We are
told we should eat organic food because pesticide residues harm us. As
the FSA has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and
the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer
probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a year; food poisoning
for between 50 and 300. There are no known deaths from pesticide
residues (or GM foods). A cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens
equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in
the diet. If people are worried about the effect of pesticides in
farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote
pesticide-resistant GM crops, which reduce their use

Dick Taverne

Right off the bat, I see problems with this study. One is that it takes time, often a few years, for soil to be rebuilt after use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is stopped.

Another is that the way they set it up doesn't match anything any organic farmer I've met or read would do. The three setups were 1) low input of nutrients from manure and no pesticides; 2) low input of nutrients from manure and maximum allowed use of pesticides; and 3) maximum chemical usage allowed.

That's just not the way you do it. Look at John Jeavons' work. Look at Joel Salatin. Look at any of the people who understand soil and how to build it.

This is one study, clearly done by people who don't understan...

Right off the bat, I see problems with this study. One is that it takes time, often a few years, for soil to be rebuilt after use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is stopped.

Another is that the way they set it up doesn't match anything any organic farmer I've met or read would do. The three setups were 1) low input of nutrients from manure and no pesticides; 2) low input of nutrients from manure and maximum allowed use of pesticides; and 3) maximum chemical usage allowed.

That's just not the way you do it. Look at John Jeavons' work. Look at Joel Salatin. Look at any of the people who understand soil and how to build it.

This is one study, clearly done by people who don't understand that "organic" means a lot more than just "don't use chemicals".

People looking at data from the past 60 years (and longer) have shown that the nutrient levels in conventionally-grown produce have dropped significantly. And a database of all the studies published since 1980, screened to exclude the ones that were not rigorous enough, shows that on average, conventionally grown fruits and vegetables have 30 percent fewer antioxidants than their organically grown counterparts. Clipped here; original here.