Little Health Benefits from Organic Foods?

Here we go again.

A recent study by Stanford University says that they have studied over 400 previous studies and have concluded that there are little health benefits from organic foods. “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the neutron of organic and non-organic foods, published in Sept 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

For more information on this study, you can google the title of this article and lots of info will pop up for you to follow.

The basics of the study are that concerning the mineral content of the food and nothing else, that there is no difference in their content. They looked at 237  studies. These included 17 studies of clinical trials of populations and what they ate whether confidential or organic and they also looked at 223 studies that compared the nutrient levels or bacterial, fungal or pesticide levels of the various foods the population was eating. There were no long-term studies of either the health outcomes or any studies that actually grew organically and conventional for any period.

The result was that they found no evidence of either method being any different in nutritional values.

One thing that is interesting is that Crystal Smith-Spangler (one of the study authors) says “What I learned is that there’s a lot of variation between farming practices. It appears there are a lot of different factors that are important in predicting nutritional quality and harms.”

Ok

Let me explain what I understand to be the main problem with this and many surveys that have been done before.

First off, whenever you do a study that uses other studies data, one had better be 100% positive that the data is correct. If not, all data from that point on will be wrong. Here is a perfect example.

This study took other studies and reached the same conclusion as the previous studies. They all had the same information and therefore reached the same conclusions. They all based their report on the initial studies, especially the initial studies that either did actual testing of the food. Some went out and bought the products from organic stores and conventional stores and compared those, and others decided to grow for themselves. Those that grew the foods themselves went out and bought seeds and separated them into three plots-one organic-one conventional- and one control. They planted in each plot and grew them as best they could under each different “system.” The organic group got only organic fertilizers and organic pest/disease control. The conventional group just got chemical fertilizers, and chemical pest and disease control and the control group only got water. No one here were farmers, let only an organic farmer.

Of course, the control group not only did poorly but caused problems for the other two groups.

They grew carrots in all three plots (or radishes). They tested each group for their nutritional levels and guess what. They found no difference between the conventional and organic groups!

Another study decided that it would try organic seeds vs. conventional seeds and test that. So they planted organic seeds of carrots in one plot and conventional carrot seeds in the other plot. Then they taste each and found no difference in nutritional levels!

The main problem here was the assumption that you just put seeds into the soil and start from there. Wrong! Good organic farmers understand the soil and work with that first. So the organic plot should have waited one year while the soil was amended with rock dust, compost, and mulch. The compost must be alive  by the way. So using the “dead” compost bought in stores won’t work. These studies actually require someone that knows what they are doing!

So other studies (like the Stanford one) would also take the results of that study and reach the same conclusion that there was no difference in nutritional values and that there was no health threat from the “safe” chemicals.

This recent study suggests that regarding pollution that organic farmers pollute just as much as conventional farmers because of all that manure organic farmers have which is wasting the environment. They do not mention that organic farmers make compost out of it!

Here is what I think is wrong here.

First off I believe that this is a concentrated effort by the big Arg folks to confuse the public into believing that conventionally grown is not only safe to eat, but also as nutritional and necessary to feed the earth’s ever-growing population.

Over the many years I have been in business, almost every year some study would come out that says it’s ok and why pay more for organic?

By the way, this last survey does not include a single survey done by such folks as Rodale and many others which have very different findings.

First off, we all know what chemicals do to life and the environment. The organic methods are much more environment and life-friendly. So I am not going to mention the obvious.

The issue here is several.

First off, if you really want to prove that organically is more nutritional or less nutritional, then conventional one should actually do the work of growing both methods. However, one should hire a real organic farmer as well as a  real conventional farmer. Tell them that the study will take ten years and everything will have to be recorded and tested. Why ten years? Because a good organic farmer will be sustainable in their methods of growing. They will understand what soil depletion is. They will work on making the soil healthy. Their farm will get better and better over the years. Their produce will get better and better over the years. They will be able to produce more and more over the years. A conventional farmer won’t be able to keep up with the organic farmer especially if you add it up over the ten year period.

You will be able to test the product, and you will find that not only will the organic method keep producing food that will be significantly higher in minerals, etc. but the soil will be producing more and more and be healthier and healthier.

The two systems should be compared at the end of the ten years.

By the way, they should not be anywhere near each other.

Now that is a survey I would like to see.
Of course they never mention Brix!

Call me open my Saturday radio show mention Surfside News and we can talk!

Any questions?

andy Lopez

Invisible Gardener

andylopez@invisiblegardener.com