Why is there "no evidence" to prove organic food is healthier?

Question

David Miliband, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has claimed there is no conclusive evidence that organic food is better than products grown conventionally.

Liz Lawrence, from the website faceofflowers.com, which specialises in organic produce said: "Organic produce is the only legally guaranteed food that you know what you're getting, you know there's no chemicals in there. "To sell organic produce you have to be registered and you're inspected very thoroughly." Robin Maynard, Campaigns Director for the Soil Association "It has been shown over the years that there is a difference between food produced organically and that produced using industrial methods." Mr Maynard said that research had shown higher levels of Vitamin C in organic produce, and recent research into organic milk had proved it contained higher levels of Omega 3.
Organics also have less nasty addatives.

Perhaps there are more taxes to be collected from non-organics.
Research need funding.

Answer 1

What it would take would be a controlled study.

Problems are:
The US government would not pay for it
The intustrial sphere would not pay for it
100% pure organic foods are almost impossible to find

The only way to do such a study, would br by taking regular surveys of organic foods intake vs general health. (A double-blind study would be quite impractical.)

A study like this would most likely come from Europe, where there are Governments who regularly DO pay for such studies. That has probably somethingthing to do with the fact that those governments pay for most of their citizen's heathcare. So they have a greater interest in keeping people healthy.

Answer 2

There is no solid evidence because most of the studies involving food are done over a longer period of time in order to find long term effects. Short term effects become quite evident from conventional foods because if what you're looking at is the effect of the pesticides used, then all those tests are conducted even before the pesticide is put to use. Also, it takes public influence to get public funding for such research. If not many people care about organic foods than the government agencies are only going to perform the basic tests and research needed to ensure that it is safe for public consumption. Though, on the other hand, if the public has a great interest in the ways organic foods are different then public research and even private research will be conducted to see what, if any, benefits there are to eating organic foods. I believe that bioengineered foods can still be classified as organic if they follow other organic qualifications, but that could be outdated. Personally, I think organic foods are a bunch of bunk as any pesticide that's used on conventional foods is proven safe for human consumption and most of the time doesn't even effect the human species (as they now tend to be very specific on which organisms they'll effect). I think that they find organic foods had higher nutrients because they took a freshly picked organic apple or something and then compared it to a processed apple in applesauce. I can't say for sure cause I ahven't read the studies, but anything that's processed looses nutritional value, organic or not.

Answer 3

There is no evidence because there is no evidence, only sales hype. Snapple found out the hard way that organically grown fruits can be hazardous to health if you don't use the same precautions you must use with chemical pesticides and herbicides.

I grew up scraping carrots and washing vegetables not because of pesticides and herbicides, but because of organic fertilizers (manure from different animals).

Answer 4

There should be more evidence. It is a sad state of affairs that people see organic food as speciality compared to food filled and covered with various chemicals and low in nutrients. It would be good to see more pressure on the companies that freely use harmful chemicals on animals and crops to be more ethical. More funding is needed to research the effects of chemical cocktails from what we buy and what we eat.

Answer 5

Both sides can argue they are best. Just eat what you want. Concerning the vitamin C, once a fruit or vegtable is picked, it starts losing C. Organic foods tent to make it to market sooner so yes, they probably have more C.

Answer 6

Organic food is grown with organic or minimized fertilizers. This means that they are healthier & have more flavour, without toxic chemicals. There is no "proof" because the government is biased. They allow toxic chemicals such as sodium nitrite in foods, they care more about money than your health.

Answer 7

I grow my own veg organically.

It tastes better than supermarket produce and is fresher too.
I know it is not polluted by insecticides, herbicides or artificialy fertiliser.

I thought we all knew that chemical residues were bad for you. I even remember the old Dept of Agriculture warning us all to scrape our carrots for that very reason. Organic ones will not need scraping.

Millibrand is supporting big agribusiness in my opinion. Another case of New Labour in bed with money.

Answer 8

rats who ate gm foods developed smaller livers.Aniamls always choose real foods over gm foods when both are put in front of them.How long have gm foods been around?Not that long.Organic meats and dairy are way bettter for you.

Answer 9

Because there is no evidence. The label "Organic" is yet another licence for unscrupulous people to make more money from ill-informed shoppers. You pay more for it therefore it must be good or is it?

Answer 10

Because it's not. It's all a big con.