Bad Bad Science
August 2, 2009 8:32 AM Subscribe
The British Food Standards Agency (comparable to US FDA) has issued two articles which conclude, based on reviews of existing evidence, that “there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food”. British newspapers are reporting this as "organic food has no benefits". And in the US, the same.
Bad Science columnist and MeFi favorite Ben Goldacre rips the British organic food lobby’s lame response to the reports.
Problems with the organic food industry and questions about the benefits of organic food (to eaters, to agricultural workers, to the planet) aside (previously, Pollan), do these studies clarify anything?
The first report concludes that the nutrients found in organic and conventional foods are essentially the same. But are people eating organic because of what’s in the food or what isn’t? Because they think there is more iron in their organic spinach or less carcinogenic pesticide?
The Soil Association lobby’s response to the report emphasizes health benefits related to absence of pesticides, which Goldacre calls “gamesmanship” (because it relies on faith that there are benefits that cannot be measured). But, as the FSA report states, “This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.” So it is literally true, contrary to Goldacre, that any health benefits related to pesticides “cannot be measured by the evidence that has been identified and summarised in the FSA paper.”
The second report, on health benefits, is based on 11 measly studies. All were very short term, small sample studies. No proper epidemiological study in the bunch. No meta-analysis because the studies were too dissimilar to each other. The reports yielded null results, but are they meaningful, reliable, or interpretable?
Problems with the organic food industry and questions about the benefits of organic food (to eaters, to agricultural workers, to the planet) aside (previously, Pollan), do these studies clarify anything?
The first report concludes that the nutrients found in organic and conventional foods are essentially the same. But are people eating organic because of what’s in the food or what isn’t? Because they think there is more iron in their organic spinach or less carcinogenic pesticide?
The Soil Association lobby’s response to the report emphasizes health benefits related to absence of pesticides, which Goldacre calls “gamesmanship” (because it relies on faith that there are benefits that cannot be measured). But, as the FSA report states, “This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.” So it is literally true, contrary to Goldacre, that any health benefits related to pesticides “cannot be measured by the evidence that has been identified and summarised in the FSA paper.”
The second report, on health benefits, is based on 11 measly studies. All were very short term, small sample studies. No proper epidemiological study in the bunch. No meta-analysis because the studies were too dissimilar to each other. The reports yielded null results, but are they meaningful, reliable, or interpretable?
This post was deleted for the following reason: Looks like the main content links on this are almost all different-url links to a post from two days ago, unfortunately, so maybe take the new stuff there as comments? -- cortex
I could care less if my food was grown with pesticides or not. I just want things to be ripe. It's absurd that here in San Francisco, 50 miles from the best farmland in America, I still can't buy a decent head of lettuce, or a tomato, or a peach. The $1.29/pound Mexican peaches from the Mission grocerias near me are way better than the $3.50/pound local organic farmer's market peaches.
posted by Nelson at 8:43 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by Nelson at 8:43 AM on August 2, 2009
Nelson, man, you should see the produce in non-Californian supermarkets. You think you've got problems...
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:48 AM on August 2, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:48 AM on August 2, 2009
Whoa, weird. Did a mod just delete comments about the formatting of this post while still keeping the post live? How is this not a double? Sincerely,
Confused in Pennsylvania.
posted by billysumday at 8:54 AM on August 2, 2009
Confused in Pennsylvania.
posted by billysumday at 8:54 AM on August 2, 2009
« Older Kocham Reksio! | Jack Interviews January Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by billysumday at 8:39 AM on August 2, 2009