[Exploring Life] The ignorance of scientists and science can at times be so blinding that it leaves us wondering how such an obvious lack of intelligence and common sense gains even a remote sense of credibility — let alone attention. An independent review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency in the UK concludes that there is no nutritional benefit to organic food when compared to non-organic food. In other words, nutritional science is declaring that we may as well eat non-organic food. This study and can only be characterized as immensely ignorant, and is a primary example of how he importance of science can — at times — be degraded through an intentional act of deception and manipulation.
Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
In Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review [1] the authors make the following statement:
Conclusions: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.
These conclusions are said to originate in a fifty-year review of the available materials related to the nutrient content of organic vs. non-organic food. As far as I can tell, the scientists involved conducted no original research and instead relied extensively on paper-based documentation. The study is supported by the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom. [2] Paula Crossfield provides an excellent critique on the specific weaknesses of this study in Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed. [3] I suspect there will be many more articles attacking the validity of this study. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of all is that it was published in the first place.
It is important to understand some of the underlying assumptions here in order to reveal how this kind of scientific deception takes place.
Why This Study is Both Deficient and Ignorant
Nutritionism is an ideology that promotes the belief that nutritional science can identify the essential nutrients in food sources. It is essential to remember that the field of nutritional science is a highly fragmented, isolated, and fragile science that is a very early and emergent stage in terms of its own evolution. In other words, nutritional science knows far less than it cares to admit, yet it is at the heart of an extensive propaganda machine that interconnections science, government, and business. [5] Therefore any conclusion promoted in reports such as the one in question are, by default, incomplete, fragile, suspect and highly prone to error, deception and misdirection.
Nutritional science creates a false sense of evidence to support a conclusion. The evidence in a narrow perception of what is viewed through the lens of a microscope in a vain attempt to reduce a whole entity into discrete parts. These parts are called nutrients. The nutritional scientist will then attempt to identify, classify, and evaluate the relative value of the various nutrients present. Once identified some nutrients are promoted over others, leading to to false assumption that some nutrients have more value over others. The interrelationships and interactions of nutrients in their natural state is largely ignored. In other words, nutritional science knows very little about the natural context of food. Therefore, the conclusion that organic and non-organic foods are equal in nutritional value is fundamentally flawed.
Anthropology, or the study of cultural environments over time, is one of the most important ways of understanding the value of foods and medicinal plants. It is in this domain that we can more effectively learn about how people use food and the effects that use has on their health and well-being. This is an area completely ignored by nutritional science.
The retrieval of scientific articles over the past fifty years in order to create a comparative summary is a process that is fundamentally flawed. Why are we to believe that a study published fifty years ago has validity today? What really is it that is being summarized? Who are the various interest groups that might benefit from one type of conclusion over another? How are the researchers involved in conducting the research being funded and what kind of bias or obligation might be created to produce one kind of conclusion over another?
Organic food is still a bargain, looking at its full value. The cost of non-organic food doesn’t include the loss of topsoil or crop-disaster relief, health concerns, climate change or dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico, says the Institute’s LaSalle. If you factor in all that, conventional chemically grown food is actually much more expensive than organically produced food. [6]
But perhaps the most glaringly obvious aspect of this report is that the presence of chemical toxins such as pesticides and herbicides, the use of genetically-modified organism, and the use of food additives in non-organic food is, by omission, to be neutral to the nutritional value of the food in question. In other words, the lens of nutritional science is so weak and frail that it fails to include the presence of other elements beyond nutrients that are, without any question at all, toxic. The study therefore concludes, by omission, that toxins have no impact on the nutritional value of food.
How is it that the concept of nutrition can be defined in terms that are obviously deficient and moreover dangerous to human health. The word nutrition, in its most basic sense, refers to the whole process of being nourished. Toxins are not nourishment. Is it possible that nutritional scientists have not yet thought about this? Given the conclusions of this study, it seems that at least some of them have not. One possible excuse given may be that the inclusion of toxins falls beyond the scope of the study. If this is true, then the study as precisely zero credibility and offers nothing useful to anyone.
Ignore the FSA, It is still better to buy organic
Revealing the weaknesses and inherently foolish aspects of the study’s conclusions is a simple task. Rose Prince makes the obvious recommendation: Ignore the FSA, It is still better to buy organic. Her article nicely points out the obvious omissions in the study’s conclusions, and she provides an excellent insight worth contemplating (emphasis is my own):
It is a pity that the focus has been on nutrition. All food is nutritious; having no food is what kills. The wider benefits of organic foods are still worth pursuing. It is what food does not contain and the effects that it does not have that really matter. [7]
The average person has no choice but to take personal responsibility for what they eat. The reason for this is that we cannot, as evidenced by this comparative study on organic and non-organic nutritional food value, place our trust in government agencies, nutritional science, or food producers. The information and evidence these agencies provide the public are constantly shifting, often myopic in their scope, biased by the underlying money trail, and sometimes so lacking in basic common sense as to make us wonder why we allow them to exist. [8]
Notes
1. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July 2, 2009 (Accessed July 30 2009).
2. Organic Review Published Food Standards Agency, July 29 2009 (Accessed July 31 2009).
3. Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed, Organic Consumers Association, July 30, 2009 (Accessed July 31, 2009). Crossfield provides a range of specific evidence that exposes the extreme weakness of the study. She also identifies and describes the essential importance of elements completely missing from the study.
4. See Food: Nutritionism, Exploring Life, April 4, 2009. Understanding the fundamental and extensive weaknesses of nutritionism is essential for all consumers.
5. Ignore the FSA, It is still better to buy organic Telegraph, July 30, 2009 (Accessed July 31, 2009).
6. Research makes it clear: Organic food is best for people and the planetOrganic Valley Family of Farms (Accessed July 31, 2009).
7. It is interesting to note the wide range of reader comments on this article ranging from supportive to derogatory. Rose Prince’s conclusion is accurate, clear and precise, as is the evidence she provides to support it.
8. Reaction to Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review:
- Organic Food is all that, and More. Just Eat It, Cornucopia Institute, July 2009 (Accessed July 2009).
- Todays Huge Flap About Organics in Food Politics by Marion Nestle, July 30, 2009 (Accessed July 31 2009).
- A cancerous conspiracy to poison your faith in organic food, Mail Online, July 31 2009 (Accessed July 31 2009).
