{"id":6641,"date":"2016-03-01T15:33:38","date_gmt":"2016-03-01T15:33:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.highspeedtraining.co.uk\/hub\/?p=6641"},"modified":"2022-06-14T16:21:06","modified_gmt":"2022-06-14T15:21:06","slug":"organic-food-better-safer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.highspeedtraining.co.uk\/hub\/organic-food-better-safer\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysing Organic: Is it Safer?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Finding a definitive answer to that question is a land mine of conflicting information, inconclusive studies and strong biases. The internet is full of information on organic farming and it\u2019s not all gold. As the organic debate plods on, what can we establish?<\/p>\n

The answer, sadly, is not a great deal.<\/p>\n

If organic\u2019s getting you flummoxed, the only sure thing is that it depends entirely on your ethical values and not so much on nutritional or health benefits.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Currently, choosing to eat organic is an act of faith; most studies have not provided sufficient evidence either way. But, if you are serious about ethics, and I\u2019m assuming that\u2019s why you\u2019re here reading this, then there are some huge, ethical issues surrounding the organic debate.<\/p>\n

\n

Is Organic Safer?<\/h2>\n

In short; no one can say for sure.<\/p>\n

In 2012, a team at\u00a0Stanford University<\/a> conducted an analysis of 237 research papers on organic food, its benefits, and its safety. This report emphasised the bad science in many of these studies. Which means that conclusions just can\u2019t be drawn because the scientific research isn’t\u00a0rigorous.<\/p>\n

So, to date, no studies have shown a substantial health benefit to choosing organic over conventionally farmed food. In other words, organic food is not going to turn you into a superhero (and regretfully, no food can do that, yet – but more on that later).<\/p>\n

In the future, as the organic market rises in popularity (as it’s set to do), it will become possible to conduct thorough research. This will make it easier to draw out hard facts and popularise these findings which will help the public make informed choices.<\/p>\n

\"free_range_pigs_grazing\"<\/p>\n

With the shortcomings noted, some studies did have good news for lovers of organic. The Stanford report indicated that some studies found a significantly higher level of omega-3 present in organic milk. And higher levels of phosphorus are present in a range of organic food. Although, unfortunately for organic, this isn\u2019t a bonus as the vast majority of people don\u2019t have a phosphorus deficiency.<\/p>\n

Regarding safety, it’s true that organic farming does reduce the levels of pesticides present in produce by roughly 30%<\/a>. But, pesticide residue is often present anyway because of soil contamination from conventional farming fields nearby.<\/p>\n

But again, the effect of pesticides on human health is another under-researched area. While pesticide use has been linked to cancers, scientists and food safety agencies assert that the pesticides present in all food, regardless of farming methods, are well beneath the limit for healthy consumption.<\/p>\n

\n

So, Is Organic Worth the Price Tag?<\/h2>\n

So, if scientific studies, at the present moment, indicate that there are no substantial health benefits, why should we buy organic?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

What\u2019s its value, and why should we pay more? Well, that all depends on your value system.<\/p>\n

\n

Is Organic Better for the Environment?<\/h3>\n

The answer to this question is more nuanced than a yes or a no.<\/p>\n

Understanding how organic farming impacts the environment requires a global perspective. Currently, the agricultural sector uses 40% of the earth\u2019s land<\/a>, and while organic farming is great on a local level, we have to consider the fact that the world we live in is global, not local.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If organic farming were to expand in such a way as to take over conventional farming methods, it would have to increase the amount of land used to feed the global population.<\/p>\n

So this is a kind of bigger picture ethics, because yes, on a local level organic farming methods are better for the environment and better for animals.<\/p>\n

Organic increases biodiversity<\/a> (a term that refers to the range of animals, plants and other organisms that exist in an area) and it is better for soil and for waterways. However, it is not sustainable, nor scalable farming method.<\/p>\n

\"organic_market\"<\/p>\n

\n

Organic Cannot Feed the World’s Poorest.<\/h3>\n

Agriculture poses one of the biggest threats to the environment<\/strong> today.<\/strong> Therefore, organic farming as we know it now on a large scale would mean vast amounts of deforestation, which is catastrophic for the global ecosystem.<\/p>\n

This is why scientists are looking towards genetic engineering to secure a healthier, more environmentally friendly future.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot of negative press about GMO\u2019s (genetically modified organisms) and perhaps quite rightly. The debate is political, though, not practical, and the dispute orientates around the control of money, knowledge and ethics.<\/p>\n

To understand the complexity of these issues, you need to dive into the concerns raised by research into organic.<\/p>\n

The same researchers from York and Leeds, who found that organic farms improved local levels of biodiversity didn\u2019t leave the study there. They raised the issue that organic farming cannot produce enough food in comparison with conventional, intensive farming methods \u2013 which might seem like a derailing of the discussion. However, this is something a lot of academics raise in their research on organic.<\/p>\n

They bring it up because the big question that faces scientists today is how to produce enough food for the planet without harming the environment. For many, organic methods can\u2019t produce enough food to make it ethical because it cannot provide for the world\u2019s poorest.<\/p>\n

\"organic_farming\"<\/p>\n

\n

GM Crops May Actually Be the Future.<\/h3>\n

Most scientists agree that GM foods are the future of our planet \u2013 and coupled with organic practices, I think they\u2019re right.<\/p>\n

But, because this is the future, big businesses are desperate to get on board, to patent things, and to secure their fortune for the future. The issue with this is that these companies are concerned about making a profit, not about feeding the world. The problems that this creates are phenomenal; in their fight for fortune, they are preventing access to crucial knowledge.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For example, Monsanto<\/a> is a large Fortune 500 company that champions sustainable (GM) agricultural practices.<\/p>\n

However, the darker side of Monsanto is that it restricts the freedom of knowledge.<\/strong> Monsanto prevents researchers from publishing evidence that it deems\u00a0unflattering<\/a>. What\u2019s more, Monsanto, Pioneer, and Syngenta, three big agritech companies, forbid scientists<\/a> to publish any research on whether GM crops have adverse side effects.<\/p>\n

This is horrific news for the public. We deserve the freedom to know about our planet and our health \u2013 after all, this is our future.<\/p>\n

Companies like Monsanto cannot be allowed to restrict knowledge in the interests of their own profit if public health and the environment are to be protected.<\/p>\n

However, it is not all doom and gloom.<\/p>\n

\"vegetables_organic\"<\/p>\n

\n

If Organic Embraced GM Methods, It Could Be Better For Everyone.<\/h3>\n

If organic methods could rival the yield of conventional farming (without having to increase land use), it would prevent the pollution of waterways and soil.<\/p>\n

Scientists are already making incredible headway with GM produce. By harnessing the principals of organic farming, they are creating produce that is better for the planet, better for us, and better for animals.<\/p>\n

For example, scientists are:<\/p>\n