Once again: No nutritional difference between organic and regular food
Organic food is not safer than conventional food. Organic food is not more sustainable than regular food. Organic food is not more nutritious than other food.
Organic is more expensive than other food, and verification of organic production practices is specious at best.
(2).jpg)
Russ Parsons of the Los Angeles Times figured this out a few weeks ago and wrote a column that began,
"I don't believe in organics."
This morning he revisited the topic, noted that organics is an article of faith for a lot of people, highlighted some hate mail, and most surprising, revealed that mail supporting Parsons’ column was overwhelmingly positive by a ratio of 5 or 6 to 1.
This afternoon, the U.K. Food Standards Authority released results of a review it commissioned which found,
no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food.
The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs.
Gill Fine, FSA Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health, said,
“Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat. This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”
The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.
A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said:
“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”
The Times’ Parsons got it right in his original column when he said,
farming is a complicated enterprise and there is a huge gray area between certified organic and the stereotypical heavy-duty use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
Furthermore, a lot of the best farming practices of the original organic philosophy -- composting, fallowing, crop rotation, the use of nonchemical techniques for controlling most pests -- have been adopted by many nonorganic growers, even though they still reserve the right to use chemicals when they think it's best.
The complete U.K. report is available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
Can food safety culture be taught? UK Food Standards Agency responds to E. coli O157 report
Two days ago, the parents of 5-year-old E. coli victim Mason Jones called the Welsh government response to an inquiry into the 2005 outbreak, “a bit disappointing.”
.jpg)
Today, the U.K. Food Standards Agency published its own response and, it’s a bit disappointing.
After a cursory reading, the FSA folks seem to acknowledge some of the major points raised by Prof. Pennington, but in the end promised more of the same (but gosh-darnnit, a bit tougher on enforcement).
Here are a few highlights:
This understanding of ‘food safety issues’ culture and ‘what works’ are core to the Food Hygiene Delivery Programme. This will be a particular challenge as local authorities’ regulatory services are facing declining resources, and increasing demands for their services. We must push more effectively in all appropriate national forums for food safety to be given more prominence by local political bodies and their officials. Our own project-based approach to delivering responses to this Inquiry, coupled with the restructuring of the Agency’s Food Safety Group, is designed to concentrate on a coordinated set of actions to achieve the desired outcomes in a holistic rather than piecemeal way.
Culture and holistic are nice words but the FSA says:
In May 2009 the FSA announced a new training course on social marketing and behavioural change for food enforcement officers. It aims to develop skills to acquire an insight into the behaviours of food business operators and consumers in order to successfully disseminate food safety messages.
What does disseminate mean in this context? What if the messages suck? How will this be evaluated. Is there any evidence that social marketing is effective in creating food safety behavior change? Those issues get to the essence of food safety culture, yet are glossed over with a training session – more of the same.
Note to the mother country: Food safety is not simple
And the Brits seem to have this obsession with how food safety is simple. There is an outbreak of Salmonella Agona in the UK and Ireland that has sickened about 80 people of all ages, but predominantly young adults.
In the FSA release, the government agency says, “the source of the outbreak is not yet known” and that “when the Agency has further information or useful advice for consumers in relation to this outbreak it will publish it immediately.”
Fair enough. But FSA then feels it necessary, in some weird paternalistic way, to tell Brits that,
“In the meantime, there are simple measures you can take to reduce the risk of food poisoning … Always follow the manufacturers cooking instructions for food intended to be eaten hot and make sure it is piping hot throughout.”
What if the instructions suck, like with pot pies?
“When eating out, always make sure the hot food you have ordered is served piping hot throughout – don’t be afraid to ask for it to be re-heated."
If food safety is so simple, why are there all these sick people and no identified source? Piping hot is too subjective. And since when does anyone have to ask a Brit to be more assertive? Go to a football match.
Seriously, for the millions of dollars spent on risk communication and food safety, this is the best FSA can do?
