Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all.

Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all. - Hello Organic food formula friends, this article discuss about Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all., we have been providing a full article about Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all.. Hopefully this article useful for you

Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all.

I waited by the phone, earnestly, expecting a call from RTE, or Today FM or Newstalk, or some media outlet. But none of them rang. Surely they had heard the good news about organics?

When bad news about organics emerges, my phone gets busy. One of the above usually gets on to me, demanding that I've read and critiqued a study just published that day, sometimes even putting me up against the actual author who's main work has been doing this study. For years. But with good news, alas, the silence is positively contemplative.

source: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/images/infographics/organic-farming_en.pdf

So what was this good news on organics that only the likes of the UK’s Guardian would cover? It turns out that organic food does actually score better than conventional food when it comes to nutrition. More precisely, certain beneficial antioxidants (which are not strictly nutrients, but are sought after for their positive effect on health) occur in higher levels in organic plant food: up to 69% higher in fact.

As the authors point out: "Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods" following which they named "phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins" which were between 19 and 69% higher in organic plant foods.

Carlo Leifert led this study - the biggest and most recent meta analysis ever completed – which analysed 343 peer reviewed publications. Along with this positive score, the study also found that toxins such as cadmium and pesticides were found in far lower quantities in organic plant foods.

This study was published in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition. Some months back, many of the same authors also published a study on all available studies on organic milk, and again found a better score for organic. This was published in PloS one, one of the highest ranking public health journals in the world.

Yet the impact of two other metastudies by Dangour (UK 2009) and Smith-Spangler (US 2012) have convinced many that, to use the ubiquitous phrase: ‘there is no evidence to suggest that organic food is more nutritious than conventional’. (Dangour's study was examined in detail here on this blog in 2009)

This new study suggests differently. So how did this happen?

It seems that there are two areas where researchers compare organic and conventional food - plant science (agronomy) and food science (nutrition studies). And like many disciplines, researchers can live in silos.

So while both study the same subject matter, sometimes they exclude, or misunderstand each other’s work. This is obvious both from interactions I’ve had and from the actual data.Academic food nutrition experts I’ve debated with have said that they weren’t aware of metastudies that show organic food to be superior nutritionally. This baffled me until I noticed how these metastudies, such as those carried out by Brandt (et al. 2011) and Hunter (et al. 2011) (summarised here) came from the plant sciences. So while up to date in their field, these and other food experts may not be up to date with the literature from the agricultural end of the spectrum.

Indeed Dangour’s (in)famous UK study, which found no significant difference between organic and conventional food, specifically excluded all field trials, precisely because they were field trials. The logic was that a third party did not certify these trials, so they could not be called “organic”. This is like not trusting Teagasc to do a field trial comparing organic and conventional, because a certification body such as IOFGA or the Organic Trust were not involved. Clearly, this would be a nonsense. Teagasc are a branch of the Department of Agriculture, which is the competent authority on these matters, which opens the Organic Farming Scheme to farmers, which in turns pays organic farmers. Without the Organic Farming Scheme, there would be very few organic farmers. Indeed, if the Department decides that the Organic Farming Scheme won't open in a particular year, no one goes organic that year- its that simple. Yet this methodological sleight of hand by Dangour led to the exclusion of the majority of the papers which were excluded.

What’s emerging from the agronomic end is that there are specific, very logical reasons why organic is scoring better for certain things. Here’s how the arguments go.

With less nitrogen available, the stressed plant on the organic farm has to work harder to survive and thrive: it produces these antioxidants as its own natural pesticide. Also nitrogen driven production regimes produce bigger plants which are “diluted”: so more skin, more seeds, smaller fruits equals a better nutritional score for organic.

Likewise, lower levels of the toxin cadmium comes from lower phosphorus levels allowable in organic farming. Lower pesticide levels should be obvious to all except the most seasoned one eyed anti-organic campaigner. Better Omega 3 to 6 balance in organic milk comes from rules guaranteeing grass percentages in the organic cow’s diet.

Of course more research is needed as the mantra goes. But when its bad news, I’ll expect a call. Until then, I’ll enjoy the contemplative silence.

More: French metastudy finds organic to be more nutritious than conventional

That's our discussion regarding Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all.

that's all organic foot formula Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all., I hope this article was useful for you.

You 're reading an article Of Academic Silos, Plant Stress & Dilution: or, organic is actually more nutritious than conventional after all. and this article permalink is https://organic-food-formula.blogspot.com/2014/08/of-academic-silos-plant-stress-dilution.html I hope this article about was useful for you.