Consumer Investigates Her Food

Is organic food really better?

By Elizabeth Meryment

From: The Sunday Telegraph

May 02, 2010 12:12AM



SO you buy organic over conventional produce? I set out to investigate and uncovered some surprising facts.



A couple of years ago I was making a quiche when a weird thing happened. I was cracking egg after egg into a bowl when I noticed these were not ordinary eggs. I took a second look at the packet and saw that I’d accidentally bought the biodynamic, organic, free-range eggs that cost top dollar at my greengrocer.



The amazing thing was the eggs had such rich, golden yolks that the quiche wasn’t its usual yellow colour but a bright pumpkin-orange. And the finished dish tasted incredible. Even my three-year-old noticed the difference. “Look, Mummy, it’s orange!” she cried when I offered her a slice.I try to buy these organic eggs every time I shop, but the price is usually prohibitive. Yet whenever I’m cooking with eggs I can’t help but wonder about the benefit of organic over non-organic food.



While some in the health industry claim that organic food has properties that give it an almost healing quality, is this actually true? And if so, should we feel guilty whenever we select a conventionally grown apple or carrot over the more expensive organic option?



Speak to advocates of organic farming and they will tell you that yes, their produce is almost always better than that which is produced conventionally – that is, using pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers.



“There are some very good studies that show that on balance organic food has higher levels of nutrition,” says Andre Leu, chair of the Organic Federation of Australia. “The data we have from Australia and around the world tends to be consistent. The number one reason people buy organic is for health reasons and concern about the use of pesticides.



Associate Professor Samir Samman, from the School of Molecular Bioscience at the University of Sydney, says there is little evidence to suggest that organic food is nutritionally better than conventional food, especially in relation to fresh fruit and vegetables.



In a yet-to-be released major study that has been accepted for publication in the international scientific journal Critical Reviews In Food Science And Nutrition, Professor Samman and his team “surveyed the international literature and critically evaluated the results” – and they aren’t heartening for the organics industry.



“Our review showed [that] when all the published articles on this topic are considered, organic food is reported to contain more vitamin C and phosphorous than conventionally produced food,” Professor Samman says. “[But] when the articles are scrutinised for scientific quality, and only the better-quality articles are considered, only phosphorous remained significantly higher in organic food as compared with conventional foods."



"Phosphorous is not in any way a limiting nutrient in the diet. The presence of higher amounts in organic food has probably little significance. We conclude from the analysis that the nutrient composition differs very little between foods that are produced by organic and conventional methods." Read More



Throwing wild accusations around about the food some family farmers and ranchers produce helps no one. For me personally, I never trust anyone whose main marketing plan to sell something is to degrade the competition. I think if you have a good product to sell it’s not necessary. In food production, the choices we can provide to the consumer are almost hard to believe. It’s a fantastic accomplishment that needs to be celebrated. Instead we have some farmers and ranchers who feel the need to destroy the family down the road that uses a different production method. There is no perfect system, all of them have positives and negatives associated with them.

Robert Gates: Borlaug a 'warrior against hunger'

Colleagues and friends of Norman Borlaug remembered the Nobel Peace Prize winner on Tuesday as a humanitarian who "built armies of agricultural workers" to combat famine in the world's developing countries.



By BETSY BLANEY

Associated Press Writer



COLLEGE STATION, Texas —

Colleagues and friends of Norman Borlaug remembered the Nobel Peace Prize winner on Tuesday as a humanitarian who "built armies of agricultural workers" to combat famine in the world's developing countries.



Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was president of Texas A&M University during the scientist's tenure at the school, told about 1,000 who attended the memorial that Borlaug was a teacher, a scientist and a warrior against hunger.



He "inspired thousands to work to feed the world, and inspired millions to believe it's possible. Our most important observance of Norm's passing," Gates said, is to persist in that work and in that belief.



"This was Norm Borlaug the builder who at every opportunity encouraged learning, and built armies of agricultural workers," Gates said.



"He was in favor of anything that would keep hungry people fed," Ed Runge, the retired head of A&M's soil and crop sciences department and a close friend who persuaded Borlaug teach at the school, said before the memorial. "He used science to advance food production." Read More



The statement by Ed Runge really wrapped up what Dr. Borlaug was all about, “He was in favor of anything that kept hungry people fed.” It’s that type of attitude that more people need to have. There are many elitists on our society that don’t have that same mentality though. Michael Pollan and his followers would rather have a system that grows our food more slowly, and less efficiently. That was the type of agriculture that Dr. Borlaug grew up in and spent his life trying to change.