My organic carrot does not cure cancer!
Food related news this time. A report by the Food Standards Agency indicates that organic produce is no better, nutritionally speaking, than non-organic produce. The report can be viewed on their website.
There has been something of a brou-ha-ha over this report, because various bodies, including the Soil Association, seem to think that the FSA is doing down their business. Now, there is a world of difference between saying that something is "no better for health" and saying that it is "bad". What the FSA is saying, realistically, is that an organic carrot is made up of the same DNA as a non-organic carrot and contains pretty much the same stuff. Which whilst being scientifically fairly accurate, doesn't really deal with what it means to be organic. Organic food is about the process and method of production - it's about more than what level of beta-carotene you've got in your (organic) coleslaw.
To my mind, the report, whilst useful, in that it will stop false "health" claims that are sometimes stamped on organic food, is also a little misleading. It might, for instance, encourage the general populace (not that the general populace actually buys organic food on a regular basis, because it's expensive and covered in dirt) to believe that organic food is a fraud. It's not a fraud, it just isn't a magical health potion. What it means to be organic (more details from the folks at the Soil Association) is about a more holistic approach to food, thinking about how we farm, good husbandry, not pouring vast quantities of chemicals into the soil. None of these things will be revealed in a laboratory test. None of these things have an immediate effect on "health" as a direct result of eating that carrot. But better farming, less chemicals in the soil (and hence in the water and the ecosystem) will have other, wider, benefits.
I'm not totally in favour of organic food: I think it's very pricey, I think that the health claims are unreasonable (so am actually in favour of this survey, if not the way it was presented) and I hate the way that it is presented as the universal panacea for everything from the hole in the ozone layer to making a decent ragu (ah! but only use organic tomatoes or you will kill your friends and family with your lack of dedication and love). I am also extremely doubtful of the merit in treating poorly animals with homeopathy.* But I am in favour of improving the quality of the food we eat, and the organic process goes some way towards that. It's a step-change in how we think about food and our mandate to look after this planet. We're people, we have to eat. Let's try and do it responsibly.
The survey also doesn't take into account my personal reason for buying organic: quality and taste. A properly reared, organic chicken is less stressed, has a better and longer lifespan and thus is plumper, with better muscle growth. So is tastier. Probably if you mashed it up, put it in a test-tube, then a centrifuge, then did an analysis on it you wouldn't find much difference between that and ASDA bargain-bin lumps of pink-meat. I know which one I'd rather eat, though.
* An essentially mind-over-matter placebo treatment is unlikely to work on a chicken which has a brain roughly the size of that of most sports personalities.
There has been something of a brou-ha-ha over this report, because various bodies, including the Soil Association, seem to think that the FSA is doing down their business. Now, there is a world of difference between saying that something is "no better for health" and saying that it is "bad". What the FSA is saying, realistically, is that an organic carrot is made up of the same DNA as a non-organic carrot and contains pretty much the same stuff. Which whilst being scientifically fairly accurate, doesn't really deal with what it means to be organic. Organic food is about the process and method of production - it's about more than what level of beta-carotene you've got in your (organic) coleslaw.
To my mind, the report, whilst useful, in that it will stop false "health" claims that are sometimes stamped on organic food, is also a little misleading. It might, for instance, encourage the general populace (not that the general populace actually buys organic food on a regular basis, because it's expensive and covered in dirt) to believe that organic food is a fraud. It's not a fraud, it just isn't a magical health potion. What it means to be organic (more details from the folks at the Soil Association) is about a more holistic approach to food, thinking about how we farm, good husbandry, not pouring vast quantities of chemicals into the soil. None of these things will be revealed in a laboratory test. None of these things have an immediate effect on "health" as a direct result of eating that carrot. But better farming, less chemicals in the soil (and hence in the water and the ecosystem) will have other, wider, benefits.
I'm not totally in favour of organic food: I think it's very pricey, I think that the health claims are unreasonable (so am actually in favour of this survey, if not the way it was presented) and I hate the way that it is presented as the universal panacea for everything from the hole in the ozone layer to making a decent ragu (ah! but only use organic tomatoes or you will kill your friends and family with your lack of dedication and love). I am also extremely doubtful of the merit in treating poorly animals with homeopathy.* But I am in favour of improving the quality of the food we eat, and the organic process goes some way towards that. It's a step-change in how we think about food and our mandate to look after this planet. We're people, we have to eat. Let's try and do it responsibly.
The survey also doesn't take into account my personal reason for buying organic: quality and taste. A properly reared, organic chicken is less stressed, has a better and longer lifespan and thus is plumper, with better muscle growth. So is tastier. Probably if you mashed it up, put it in a test-tube, then a centrifuge, then did an analysis on it you wouldn't find much difference between that and ASDA bargain-bin lumps of pink-meat. I know which one I'd rather eat, though.
* An essentially mind-over-matter placebo treatment is unlikely to work on a chicken which has a brain roughly the size of that of most sports personalities.