The results of a 4 year $23 million EU Newcastle University study has confirmed what was once considered quackery by the nutritional & scientific community and the views of a hippie dope smoking fringe element. Organic foods are up to 300% better than those grown with chemicals.
Amazing the resources we put into research that confirm the bloody obvious. The EU study is one of a growing number of studies around the world that confirms growing organically has significant nutritional superiority and that would naturally have implications on our health.
Think about it for a moment….put chemicals that kill life forms onto plants, that then run off into the soil where billions of creatures live (and who’s job it is to create the vitality of the soil) and wonder ….could this possibly be doing damage? When we crop spray with chemicals like Round up, they form toxic plumes that mist their way through the air and fall down when it rains into areas including those not initially sprayed, into our waterways and environment then wonder why since their increased use, we are not as healthy as we once were. You don’t require a great deal of intellect to suspect this might not be so good for the plants that have literally thousands of compounds that in turn work synergistically to nourish and heal the body. Slight changes in growing plants can create significant differences in plants and our health as we eat them.
The nutritional science bullies have claimed for years, unless you have a significant study or studies to suggest something based on intuition and common sense you are a luddite and quack, in fact they have websites to weed out quackery. One such site with a list of 25 ways to spot a quack says; “They (quacks) Claim That Soil Depletion and the Use of Pesticides and “Chemical” Fertilizers Result in Food That Is Less Safe and Less Nourishing. Foods “certified” as “organic” are not safer or more nutritious than other foods. In fact, except for their high price, they are not significantly different.” WRONG! or so the $23 million dollar 4 year EU Newcastle study and numerous other right up your self righteous alley studies confirm.
“Lack of proof of toxicity is not proof of safety”
Their published list that petulantly denigrates anyone who does not follow their ‘industry influenced and scientific approach’ is full of half truths and incomplete, outdated science that they ridicule the quacks for practicing.
Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said,
“For the past 60 years, the Soil Association has sought on the basis of practical observation, underpinned where available by sound science, to show the benefits of sustainable, organic farming to the health of people and planet. On a far larger-scale, with much greater resources and more precise, modern analytical methods, this EU-funded project builds on what our founder Lady Eve Balfour sought to do on just 200-acres and with a shoe-string budget back in 1939.
The proponents of industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture dismissed her theories and findings then on the basis of the limited scale and location of the experiment. But today’s growing body of evidence backing her instincts and practical observations comes from dozens of independent scientists from around the world – the early results of the work from the QualityLowInputFood project add to that wider body of work.
The Soil Association agrees with Professor Leifert, coordinator of the project ,’There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics.’ . Therefore, we challenge the FSA to now recognise and publicly acknowledge the nutritional benefits of organic food produced through well-managed organic farming systems.”
Organics and it’s even healthier sister Bio-dynamics are now gaining momentum evidenced by their 25 to 30% annual growth rate. At the risk of making broad sweeping statements I would like to clarify that not all organic food is good for you, an organic cake is still a cake and organic chocolate does not make it suitable for breakfast (even if it is disguised as coco pops) tempting as it may be. As multinationals food companies see the growth and the money to be made from organics they will and are jumping on the bandwagon certifying foods that some of the little guys growing with as much or more integrity are struggling to fund doing. The complexities are enormous and require putting things into context of the big picture.
The lesson? Turns out you get what you pay for and at the risk of being called a quack you still need to use common sense balanced with your intuition, instinct and intelligence to make decisions about what you are ingesting.
Hi Sherry, I have booked into the last couple of cooking classes with you at CAE. Both have been cancelled and I’m wondering if you have another venue that I could attend a class of yours? Hopefully you do, as I found the other class I did with you inspirational and life changing!
Ummmm…..exactly what study was that. If you want to sound credible you need to cite your sources. Isn’t that the point of this? You sound a little ‘quacky’ to me.
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Believe it or not I have just discovered your comments on my website admin system today. I have a serious case of technological retardation which I am actively seeking treatment for, please forgive while the rehabilitation process transpires.
I do have an all day workshop at the RACV club in Melbourne on the 16th of November which you can find more information on the home page of the website if you like.
Thanks for the kind comments and I hope to see you there.
Warmth and wellth,
Re-reading the article I can understand your concerns. Sometimes passion can be mistaken for quackery and give the impression of lack of credibility but beneath I guess what I most hope for is that people not be blinded and swayed by each new study but driven by common sense.
The study was done by Newcastle University in the UK led by Professor Carlo Leifert. Here is a link to the BBC’s media release http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7067100.stm and the Guardian’s science section http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/29/organics.sciencenews .
If you put toxic chemicals onto plants and soil that provides the raw materials for the plant which in turn nourishes the body doesn’t it make sense that it may play havoc with the building blocks that determine how nutritious the plant in turn is?
Think of the billions of micro-organisms that exist in a handful of soil, think of the thousands of delicate compounds that make up a plant. When you put chemicals designed to kill insects (and micro-organism that contribute the strength and nutrient profile of the plant) doesn’t it makes sense that this may not only cause potential harm to those who use the chemicals as is evident by the deaths associated with the use of these chemicals but would diminish the quality of the nutrient profile of the plant?
Oh, here I go again!!!
As a former chef, I know that the quality of the ingredients you use in anything, determine the quality of the end product. What I suggest people do is try it for a month, eat real food, eat organic food, better yet grow your own, nothing with chemicals in it. Taste the difference, feel the difference, don’t wait for studies to confirm it.
Don’t listen to anyone, me, your skeptical discursive internal dialogue or the many food companies that plant information in the media to create doubt (think about all the billions of dollars worth of food products that would have less value if organic was proven to be better, think of all the farming practices that would have to change, chemical companies that would loose money if organics were better and consumers demanded it, , which is happening by the way). If you take the chemicals out and listen your body will tell you what is good for it.
Here here Sherry!
Here here Super Jane!!!!!