Humanure

[Dinner]

Technically, Prions are self replicating proteins so they're not indestructible. They can be denatured the same way any other protein is denatured.

[MikeH]

If they are not, I would expect a noted Journal to reject the article. Any University or even HS journal search engine linked to major e-publishers should have it.

That's ridiculous. Most science doesn't happen in a perfect world where you have idealistic controls.

I am not at University or School. I don't have access. Just copy and paste the relevant bits here? You aren't just posting a graph out of context without knowing exactly what it is telling us right?

And the science is still valid, even if the growing conditions are different. It's not easy to get organic and non-organic certification in a small growing area. They could have performed the experiment by taking different dried fruits off the shelf and it would be valid science. But the results are meaningless unless we know what they did.

Still it would be significant, if that is what they did.

[MikeH]

If anyone is has access to PubMed they can read it for me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12590461

[Ecofarm]

Of course I've read it and of course it is sound science. My response to you was a standard response to people who get all googly on me about actual journal articles. Someday, when you start using peer-reviewed information, you will find that about any journal except Lancet is reliable; this isn't wikipedia. If you insist on arguing against the credibility of an article from the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, based on your own idea that people do science stupidly... go write to the editor.

I could cite 10 more journal articles about the nutritional difference between organic and conventional food (especially animal products), but you would just do the same thing.

For example: there is 70% less bad-cholesterol in organic eggs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course I've read it and of course it is sound science. My response to you was a standard response to people who get all googly on me about actual journal articles.

[MikeH]

Of course I've read it and of course it is sound science.

That's why I want to read the methods!

There is plenty of terrible science published in good journals. And plenty of excellent science where the scientists are very clear about the limitations of their work and experimental protocols in the article.

Very little science is done in ideal conditions, with perfect experimental protocol and nothing that could be improved.

I ask, because a recent systematic literature review by the FSA concluded there was no benefit.

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

Obviously a systematic review trumps a single paper, because it draws everything together.

The study, which took the form of a ‘systematic review of literature’, was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Alan Dangour, reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that related to the nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food. This systematic review is the most comprehensive study in this area that has been carried out to date.

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.

This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food. 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.

Dr Dangour, of the LSHTM’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: ‘A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.’

This review would include your study.

[Ecofarm]

The FSA is not the final authority about what matters to an individual's personal and specific health concerns.

They note that there ARE differences. You said there was "no" difference. You stand corrected.

Anyway, any idiot knows organic eggs have a better nutritional profile.



We also might note:

In an unusual move, the FSA's chief executive Tim Smith has written an open letter defending the study. "The Food Standards Agency would like the set the record straight," he wrote.

In case you missed it, the study was paid for by the FSA but carried out by Dr Alan Dangour and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. His group reviewed 50 years worth of scientific data on the question of whether organic food offers nutritional benefits over conventional food. This amounted to 162 papers but the review's conclusions are based on 55 studies that passed scientific muster. Smith refers to it as "the most scientifically rigorous and independent review of research ever carried out in this area."

So why the fuss? Well, naturally the trade body that represents the organic food industry was not keen on the findings. Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said: "We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. It doesn't say organic food is not healthier, just that, according to the criteria they have adopted, there's no proof that it is.

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."

Presumably because they reckoned they weren't very good science.

One of the main objections raised by fans of organic food was that the review did not consider pesticide residues. In response, Dangour wrote on the FSA's blog, "The nutritional content and chemical residue content of organic foods are separate questions. Both questions are worthy of asking. In our reviews, we asked only about nutritional content."

And in the open letter, Smith writes:

Pesticides were specifically excluded from the scope of this work. This is because our position on the safety of pesticides is already clear: pesticides are rigorously assessed and their residues are closely monitored. Because of this the use of pesticides in either organic or conventional food production does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and helps to ensure a plentiful supply of food all year round.

Now for the really juicy bit though. After defending the study's methodology and the fact that it was peer-reviewed in a respectable scientific journal, Smith goes on to be highly critical of how it was interpreted in some quarters.

Irresponsible interpretation of the review by some has resulted in misleading claims being made concerning higher levels of some nutrients found in organic food. The review reports the results for all 162 relevant papers. The conclusions of the report were based on the results found in the 55 satisfactory studies that met predefined criteria. It focused on nutrients where statistically significant differences were seen. Arbitrary quotes or selective use of the data from the other papers which were of less robust scientific quality should be treated with caution....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/aug/07/organic-food-standards-agency

Where's your methodological vigor now?! You don't use it on your own articles?

[MikeH]

I accept that I said no difference when I should have said no worthwhile difference.

And rejecting bad studies, with good reason, is fine. The FSA wasn't setting out to prove Organic worthless.

Also, why are pesticides in any way relevant? We're talking about nutrients? The FSA comment on why they didn't include them is totally fair.

Anyway, any idiot knows organic eggs have a better nutritional profile.

Great science.

[MikeH]

I still don't understand why you seemed to take me saying that I found the conclusions of the original paper you posted interesting, and would like to read the methodology as a personal attack.

[Ecofarm]

I don't see any personal attacks, except maybe me saying "any idiot knows the nutritional profile of organic eggs is better".

But your study does not "trump" anything.

There are differences. This is a fact. You were wrong.



The FSA study proved one thing:

If we ignore all but 55 of the 168 articles located (aka, cherry pick articles) and ignore pesticides, then we can say we have no significant evidence of organic being healthier.

If one takes that to mean "there is no difference", then one is a ****.


Further, we have the impacts of conventional farming on workers, soil, rivers, lakes, aquifers, biodiversity and a myriad of other concerns. These impacts are clearly evidenced by modern science; thus, even if one dismisses the PERSONAL benefits of organic production as marginal (and this will vary per individual concerns and health), the social and ecologic impacts alone make organic production better.

[MikeH]

Your original post

There are additional phytochemicals and vitamin building-blocks in organic fruit. There is a nutritional difference; however, this might be mostly because conventional fruit has been selected for shelf-resiliance and uniformity - not nutrition and flavor..

Suggests that you are talking about different varieties. Because you talk about "for shelf-resiliance and uniformity - not nutrition and flavor.."

What I should have said (and what I think it was obvious I meant, but there you go) was, "If you are growing the same variety, there's no proven nutritional benefit to going organic. "

[MikeH]

Oh, you edited and called me a ****. Thanks.

You are implying the FSA was cherry picking because they were attempting to prove organic bad. They have no vested interest in doing so, why would they?

[Ecofarm]

I don't care why. They did. They cherry-picked and they ignored pesticides. This is documented fact. You can go figure out why if you want... check where people's relatives work... I don't care. Facts are facts.

Suggests that you are talking about different varieties. Because you talk about "for shelf-resiliance and uniformity - not nutrition and flavor.."

Selection of varieties for shelf-life and uniformity is a larger impact on health qualities than organic vs. conventional production; however, differences resulting from production methods exist.



And if you think that study proves there is no difference, then you are a ****.

[MRT144]

I used to sell organic food. Excellent scam.

You worked at a grocery store.

[MikeH]

BTW the things I linked to you can read the reviews, methodology and why they excluded studies.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf

The exclusions (section 4.4 in the first one, 5.4 in the second) look really reasonable to me!