News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Organics industry hits back at dietary findings 

Organics industry hits back at dietary findings

31 Jul, 2009 09:25 AM
AUSTRALIA'S largest organic body - Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) – has rejected claims by Britain’s Food Standard Agency (FSA) that organic produce has no health or nutritional benefit over conventionally produced food, labeling the results incomplete.

Nutritionist spokesperson and researcher for the BFA, Shane Heaton, says despite the review finding that organic produce contains only slightly higher nutrient levels, the wider health and environmental benefits of organic over non-organic production are in no way ‘insignificant’.

“Proof of the nutritional benefits is there, which adds to the raft of other benefits of organic food and farming,” Mr Heaton says. “Fewer pesticides in foods, fewer additives, better taste, animal welfare, no hyperactivity-causing food additives - which the UK FSA finally confirmed in 2007 - and important environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration in organically-managed soils,” he says.

The findings revealed by the FSA support previous research that organic produce is in fact more nutritious, but found no ‘statistically significant differences’ or any ‘additional public health benefits” of organic produce.

“This review is little more than a rehash of the UK Food Standard Agency’s long standing stance,” Mr Heaton says. “All they’ve found is that more substantial research is needed, and we’ve known that for a decade.”

The BFA has referred to preliminary findings from the largest ever study of organic and non-organic production commissioned by the European Union (EU), which found overwhelming evidence that organic produce has significantly higher nutrient levels, results the FSA failed to include in the study.

Evidence from the $27million, four-year EU study found organic fruit and vegetables contained between 20 and 40 percent more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Australia’s biggest killers.

The research also found organic produce contained higher levels of vitamin C, antioxidants, beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc and substantially higher levels of compounds thought to boost health and combat disease.

Carlo Leifert, co-ordinator of the EU-funded project, said the health benefits were so striking that moving to organic food was the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day.

"If you have just 20 per cent more antioxidants in every portion of vegetables, then it's simply a question of maths - eating four portions of organic fruit and vegetables is the equivalent to eating five portions of traditional fruit and vegetables," he said.

Despite the FSA review finding no evidence to support the nutritional superiority of organically produced foods, researchers did acknowledge they could not make any comprehensive conclusions given the limited number of studies currently available for review, and recommended that a wider-scale, longitudinal study was required.

The FSA results also conflict with a 2008 review by the US Organic Centre’s State of Science Review, which found organic plant based foods are indeed better for you, and deliver more essential nutrients per calories consumed.

The Review – New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-based Organic Foods – found certain organic fruits, vegetables and grains contained higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients studied, including significantly higher concentration of health promoting polyphenols and antioxidants, linked to the prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoperosis.

Nutrient levels were studied in 236 matched pairs of foods from organically and conventionally grown crops with similar soils, climate, plant genetics, irrigation systems, nitrogen levels, and harvest practices

Organic plant-based foods were 25pc more nutrient-dense than conventional alternatives in 75pc of matched pair comparisons.

Australian Certified Organic (ACO) standards strictly prohibit the use of growth hormones, antibiotics, harmful additives, and genetically engineered drugs in food production.

BFA general manager Holly Vyner says it is important that consumers know to look for a logo such as the ACO “Bud” logo as guarantee that they are buying truly organic produce.

“There is no guarantee that a product is organic unless it displays an organic certification logo such as the ‘Bud’.

"There is no substitute for certified organic food when it comes to delivering on everything from health benefits including nutritional and antioxidant, and avoiding toxins; free ranging animals and animal welfare, maintaining viability and resilience of our farming sector, protection of our biodiversity, waterways and the environment, and many important aspects of food safety and fair trade standards, and more.”

BFA's statement attaches a 'quick nutrition list' from QualityLowInputFood - EU:

  • Organic milk can have 60 to 80 per cent more nutrients in the summer than conventional milk, and 50 to 60 per cent more in the winter.
  • Organic milk also has higher levels of vitamin E.

  • Organic cheese can have up to twice as many essential nutrients than conventional varieties.
  • Organic tomatoes, wheat, potatoes, cabbage, onions and wheat have 20 to 40 per cent more antioxidants than conventional fruit and vegetables.
Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Good-O.
Posted by meagain, 31/07/2009 12:33:53 PM
There is a lot of money invested in the organic food industry hence it is to be expected that it would come out fighting when a reputable independent body (FSA- UK) found no nutritional benefits could be shown for organic foods. Readers need to look at the review by that body to see its conclusions in a more balanced way than that given here by the BFA . They should also note that the US Organic Center is an organic industry body and that Carlo Leifert is the Head of the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture in the UK.

The EU funded study referred to was for 5 years, not 4 years as stated by the BFA . It was a good study involving 31 scientific and industry partners with the majority of these, like Carlo Leifert having a genuine interest in organic farming. The study concluded ,and it is there for everyone to see, that “Health claims for organic foods are not yet substantiated”. The BFA rightly indicates that the organics have more anti-oxidants than the conventional. However, in this context it is significant that many studies involving thousands of persons and of long durations have failed to show any health benefits from additional anti-oxidants.

Posted by robert, 1/08/2009 11:56:30 AM
The scientifically literate person with two feet on the ground sees just two types of farming – good and bad. Not all organic farming is good farming and there is certainly plenty of good conventional farming. Adopting the organic farming ideology unfortunately rules out the use of some rational and proven farming practices that are consistent with sustainability.
Posted by robert, 1/08/2009 12:06:10 PM
Monoculture means deprived soils and deprived produce. Organics, permaculture and natural farming is what is best!
Posted by Sam, 2/08/2009 9:05:05 PM
Sam - couldn't agree more: “Monoculture is where the logic of nature collides with the logic of economics: which logic will prevail can never be in doubt.” Michael Pollan, The Botany of Desire.
Posted by John Newton, 3/08/2009 6:48:55 AM
The debate about certified organic and mono-culture fails to look at the centre of gravity in Australia's world class food and fibre industries, which focuses on clean (responsible) and green (sustainable) production. My observation is that most organic fresh produce is poorly handled and has therefore lost most of its improved food value. The cold chains that support high-volume suppliers are light years ahead of the organic handling systems and until they can match them their claims of delivering greater food value are spin. On the fibre front I will never understand why organic wool is better I'd prefer lower micron. Finally, organic grain and beef production meet the demands of a market niche, but will not supply the needs of our global markets. I like the clean green option more than the organic one at the moment.
Posted by agribizman, 3/08/2009 9:56:20 AM
Neither "conventional" nor "organic" farming is the answer. A treated pine fence post is organic for instance and what is conventional, N,P,K & Poisons? Organic is almost going down the right track but no set of rules governing farming practices set up by a committee without mother nature being a member is doomed to failure. How about working with nature and chemical free farming, growing crops on soils that suit the particular crop. There are many farmers that work along these lines without being a member of any particular fashion of farming.
Posted by Richard Woolley, 3/08/2009 10:05:25 AM
Sam & John Newton - you should know that monoculture is not practiced in good conventional farming. Don't fall for the fear tactics of the organic industry. Organic food is not better for you than food from good conventional farming and it costs you more. With the veggies just choose the freshest ones.
Posted by humphrey, 3/08/2009 10:20:56 AM
Humphrey - what if those 'freshest' and maybe biggest veges have been pumped up with urea (which loads the food with dangerous and cancer causing nitrates), have been sprayed with insecticides/miticides/fungicides/herbicides (which wreak havoc on our immune/hormonal/digestive systems and liver/kidney overload) - and have low nutrient values that make the vege rot rather than dehydrate (balanced food should never rot). Does this sound appetising to you?? What about, as Richard wisely states, real food that has been grown naturally - allowing all of natures subtle and delicate interrelated processes to occur, so the food doesn't need to be sprayed cause there's just no way the 'pests' (or nature's garbage collectors) can eat it... By using intelligence and working with nature, rather than sheer brute force (as in chemical agriculture), natural systems gain momentum to produce vibrant food that can be high yielding, flavoursome, wholesome... and don't get attacked by anything (except the happy consumer). Simple methods of undersowing cereals with a legume, leaving untouched 'beetle banks' around paddocks, and maximising biological activity overcome monoculture issues. EASY!!
Posted by brett sanders, 3/08/2009 5:04:52 PM
Brett Sanders, the fear campaign of the organic crop industry has certainly been effective on you. You are now unable to acknowledge that organic food may not be any better for you than good conventional. Robert's statement of fact is just irrelevant to you. The statement is “Health claims for organic foods are not yet substantiated” and it was the conclusion drawn from a 5 year study by persons having a genuine interest in organic farming. If you can't acknowledge the existence of this conclusion perhaps further discussion is just time wasting.
Posted by humphrey, 4/08/2009 8:27:31 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
28 July, 2009
29 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the Federal Government got the balance right between water buybacks and investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure in the Murray Darling?

Yes
(3.8%)

No - there should be more investment in infrastructure
(73.8%)

No - there should be more emphasis on water buybacks
(13.7%)

Undecided
(8.7%)

Total Votes: 416
Poll Date: 26 July, 2009

Most popular articles


Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...