More like this
The great organic con trick
Organic produce is better for you? Robert Johnston explodes five myths about its benefits
Interest groups claim that organic food is healthier and better for the environment, but many of such claims are myths.
• Myth No. 1: Organic food is healthier.
Actually, scientific studies show more health risks from organic food than conventional food. This month in California, for instance, Salmonella was found in organic fertilisers which could contaminate fruit and vegetables.
In 2003, Dutch scientists established that organic chickens and conventional birds had the same rate of infection with Salmonella even though many organic farmers vaccinate their chickens against the bug. In 2006, other Dutch scientists found that as many as three-quarters of organic chickens were infected with parasites.
Organic manure can also carry the dangerous bacteria Campylobacter which causes stomach infections, vomiting and diarrhoea. The Danish National Veterinary Laboratory found Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only 36.7 per cent of conventional chicken flocks.
Organic and free-range poultry are more likely to be exposed to bird-flu, so the government now allows organic chickens to be kept indoors.
• Myth No. 2: Organic farming is good for the environment.
In Britain, the yield of wheat from organic farms is only half that from conventional farms. If all our food was organic, we would have to grub up hedgerows and cut down forests just to produce enough food. We would use twice the water, do at least twice the ploughing and use twice the amount of petrol and diesel.
Two organically raised cows burp the same amount of methane as three conventionally fed cows and methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Most modern pesticides are biodegradable, but 'natural' pesticides, like copper, stay in the soil forever.
• Myth No. 3: Organic farmers don't use pesticides.
The Canadian Food Safety Agency found pesticide residues in as many organic baby foods as conventional baby food and the highest pesticide level was in an organic food.
Organic farmers spray crops with 'natural' pesticides such as the noxious microbe BT which kills bees, ladybirds and butterflies as well as pests by releasing the same toxin made by genetically modified plants. If inhaled, it can cause bronchitis and worsen asthma.
Organic farmers treat fungus with copper solutions which also poisons earthworms and friendly bacteria. They also use Derris which can cause Parkinson's disease; pyrethroids, which cause tumours in mice; and potassium permanganate which kills fish.
• Myth No 4: Organic food does not contain additives.
At least three dozen 'E' numbers are allowed as additives, preservatives, flavourings, binders, anti-caking agents, antioxidants and processing agents in 'organic' food.
For cleaning and disinfection, organic farmers use the same substances as conventional farmers, including formaldehyde, caustic soda, nitric and phosphoric acid, quicklime, alcohol and other highly toxic chemicals that can contaminate food.
Organically reared animals can have up to a quarter of their daily food from non-organic sources and all organic food can contain five per cent of conventional ingredients.
• Myth No. 5: The demand for organic food is at an all-time high.
Even with the support of TV chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Wittingstall, only two per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic. At the end of the Second World War all our food was organic so, in fact, demand has actually gone down by 98 per cent over the last 60 years.
Despite the vocal campaigns by celebrity chefs, only about one per cent of the chickens sold in Britain are organic. Nor does buying organic food support British farmers since 70 per cent of it is imported.
Organic food is a fashion and lifestyle choice. It is probably no worse for you or the environment than conventional foods, but organic proponents should get their facts straight and stop using dubious claims about 'natural' meaning 'better' and stick to the facts. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
It's laughable that the anti-organic protagonists have to resort to making unkind, personal comments about some people who endorse organic food. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy organic. If you don't mind paying peanuts for contaminated food, who are we to stop you? However, some of us prefer our food the way nature intended. I grow as much of my own as I can, thus not paying for it at all. Foodstuffs I can't grow myself I buy, and yes, I buy organic locally produced food. My choice. You, Hugh Williams and MortgageMan, can buy whatever you like. Just refrain from forcing your views on others. Bon apetite!
Let the battle commence! Or should I say continue? I have been hearing the same pro/con arguments about "organic' farming since the 1970's. I prefer "organic" produce regardless (so far) of the cost, claims of lesser taste (not noticed by me). I prefer to eat food not previously doused in pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc of any kind but esp not the organo-phosphate, thank-you. look them up for yourselves. Good eating!
With all due respect Ms Eaton, organic agriculture has been around since the birth of farming and chemical agro-industry for just a few decades, where's the evidence that it's better? It is not the job of the organic industry to prove anything, quite the reverse. Just because yields are higher is the 'never mind the quality, feel the width' argument. If you understood how the ecosystem works, you might be less careless of the harm constant spraying with herbicides, insecticides and nitrates does to biodiversity. Ever heard of poisonous algae from fertilizer run off polluting rivers and seas? Heard about pesticide residues in mother's milk in developed countries? Ever heard of build ups of poisons over time?
With all due respect Mr Simmons, the proponents of organic agriculture are the one's claiming health and environmental benefits. So the burden of proof lies with THAT industry. You say its better. Fine, now prove it. The vast majority of the evidence indicates that organic agriculture yields less and while it might produce a greater quantity of some nutrients, this industry has NEVER shown these increases to be beneficial physiologically. What people like "jmax" don't seem to understand is that while lowering exposure to OP herbicides might be a good thing, there has not been any proof of harm from the trace amounts of exposure. Simply put, the dose makes the poison.
Great stuff! Anything Jamie Oliver likes can't be good. Organic is just another way for the poor to subsidise the rich - every media "celebrity" owns an organic hobby farm as part of their tax avoidance portfolio.
Congratulations on exposing the nonsense of "organic" farming - it's just as much a eco-con as "biofuels." Mr Spankey Monkey should read more than the abstract of studies: the pro-organic study he cites from Science 2002 was done by... that's right: the Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland! Hardly an impartial source. And the full text confirms what Robert Johnson says in his article - half the farm productivity, crops infected with pests, and the "positive" effects of organic farming are the result of fiddling data from 20 years ago. The current data shows the conventional land and organic land are much the same in terms of biodiversity, fertility and so on. Perhaps Mr jmax could point us to the "major study" about dietary exposure to organophosphates.
A major study recently showed organic diets significantly lower children's dietary exposure to organophosphorus pesticides.
In the last couple of years I've seen blind-taste tests of organic vs. conventional food on/in: Radio 4's 'You & Yours', 'The Daily Politics' (Andrew Neil), 'Watchdog', 'Which Magazine', the 'Food Programme', 'Richard & Judy', 'Jamie's School Dinners', 'Woman's Hour' -- and God knows how many others. In EVERY SINGLE ONE, the organic foods came off worst!
Maybe Robert Johnson could provide the references for his article so we can judge for ourselves the quality of his work?
Actually Hugh, there is evidence to support organic farming. Just do a quick search on Google Scholar and you'll find it. For instance, here is an abstract from Science 31 May 2002:
'Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming'
"Here we report results from a 21-year study of agronomic and ecological performance of biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional farming systems in Central Europe. We found crop yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%. Enhanced soil fertility and higher biodiversity found in organic plots may render these systems less dependent on external inputs."
And if you have a problem with limited resources being used, particularly water, then a simple solution would be the reduction in beef production. I'll let you hunt for the figures yourself, but meat production uses massively more resources than plant food. And before you slate me as a hippy veggie, I'm neither.
Can anyone supply a major study that supports claims made by organic farmers? No is the answer. If organic proponents make claims about health benefits, low pesticide use, eco-benefits etc then they must provide the evidence. The fact that studies have been done overseas (and raise doubts) gives an indication why the organic brigade have not repeated the studies here.
But, if the privileged few who believe in organic food want to pay extra for shrivelled veg and emaciated chicken, let them. Delia is right, Professor Regan on Horizon is right - organic is a food fad like "macrobiotic" or the Beverly Hills Diet.
In a world of limited resources - particularly water - the rest of us should not have to subsidise the resource extravagance of dilettantes like Prince Charles, Goldsmiths (various), Melchett, Dimbleby, Monbiot, Boycott, Oliver, Fearly-Wittless etc.
Well now we have a collection of myths from Robert Johnston which we are expected to swallow without any evidence.
Johnston has assembled a small collection of 'factoids' to support his prejudice against organic food, ranging as far and wide as Canada and the US to find anything he can use. If he had stuck to just the UK now and managed to find substantial current reasons, it might have made more sense, but that wouldn't have suited his argument, so he had to cast his net wide; and what a paltry catch he got.
I mean, 'this month in California, for instance, Salmonella was found in organic fertilisers which could contaminate fruit and vegetables'. could? So no actual contamination, just something found from, presumably, a routine inspection. He then quotes from a Dutch study in 2003, [so nothing current available] and then we come to the downright ludicrous: 'If all our food was organic, we would have to grub up hedgerows and cut down forests just to produce enough food'. Perhaps Robert doesn'tknow that 90 per cent of 'our hedgerows' have already been grubbed up, and we have precious few forests left either.
Try harder next time Robert. Or better still, try some organic food without prejudice, you might find it actually does taste better.