Ecology and green living

Organic ‘has no health benefits’

The BBC article reads: “Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded….”

The BBC is well known for “tweaking” Titles to suggest something completely different than what the article really says, so the informed reader would immediately suspect this to be the case. However, the source article is published on the Food Standard Agency (FSA) web site on July 29, entitled: “Organic Review  Published” is substantially equivalent to the BBC rendering. The FSA is widely unknown in the US, but it is in the UK  what is the FDA in the US, and the FSA is just as cosy with big corporate interests as is the FDA; in fact, Britain is well known as the most progressive purveyor of GM-crops and cover-ups in the EU. Thus the artisan is little surprised that: “The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.”

Fair enough, so what is the “cutting-edge science” according to the FSA? Well, it “reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food.” Notice anything? Did the term “organic” even exist 50 years ago and how was the term defined? According to the  “Food Lover’s Companion”: “In 1990, Congress passed the Federal Organic Foods Production Act, which called for national organic food guidelines including certification of growers and standards for organic food production, monitoring crops for chemical contamination and livestock for living conditions and screening organic imports….Although consumers assume that foods labeled organic are as pure as possible, the truth is that-while many states have their own organic food guidelines-there are no consistent regulations governing the standards of organic food producers…To confuse matters further, the Organic Trade Association states that the following definition of “organic” was passed by the National Organic Standards Board in April, 1995: Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances Biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. “Organic” is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole. Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize Pollution from air, soil and water. Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.

It is more than obvious that it didn’t need the: ‘systematic review of literature’, carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s team of researchers, led by Dr. Alan Dangour”, to produce “this systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.” Yes, the term “Organic” is ambiguous today and didn’t even exist 50 years ago.  Moreover, according to Dr. Bob Marshall, one of the most respected clinical Nutrtionist in the US, one would have to eat 53 Peaches in order to get the same nutritional value of 1 Peach fifty years ago.

Our popular understanding of “organic” is “less pesticides”, so what does “the Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence”.‘have to say about that? “Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.” Oh really, does it need a PhD to come to that assumption? And then, by the way: “The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.” Interesting, wouldn’t we have expected that pesticides would have some significant impact to the outcome of the study? Now, what is the appropriate term for this: deception by omission may be? Isn’t that the idea of “organic”?

Once more, this ridiculous science for hire is blatantly obvious ipso facto, but the mere fact that the regulatory agency is commissioning such a study by reason of “concern for public health” is at least suspecting a hidden agenda. But wait, I predict you’ll see huge media coverage in the US very soon, as “A paper reporting the results of the review of nutritional differences has been peer-reviewed and published today by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To summarize: we must not cave-in to such blatant delusion and stay the course: demand locally grown produce. Go to Farme’s Markets or to the Farmers directly and ask questions. Check out the non-profit Pesticide Action Network web site, where you can click on the name of a produce and learn about all the toxic chemicals that are used and what these substances may cause regarding your Health.

About the Author

Heinz R Gisel is a Personal Nutritional Concepts and Medical Devices Innovator, based in San Diego and Tokyo. He is the Founder of Vitality Concepts Corporation and Vitality Clinics, LLC. He developed a clinical, non-invasive analysis system that can detect disease before any symptoms occur, without radiation. He believes that Nutrients belong into food and beverages and not capsules and pills and he has global patents on such nutritional deficiency analysis and cell-resonant nutrition delivery systems. He the Author of the new bestselling book: “In Foodture We Trust – Nutrition for Body and Soul in Times Of Troubles”, Xulon Press, March 2009; ISBN 978-1607912651. http://www.vitalityconcepts.com/

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 2009 Symposium – Panel 3