Organic food ishealthy.... right? That depends on which reports you read. The world ofresearch can be divided into two camps on this topic. On the one hand there arethe proponents of organics, on the other the conventional companies. Both sidesthrow mud, present studies that support their view and accusations are thrownback and forth. We placed two studies next to each other, with sufficientindication that the results are coloured.
Less crop protection substances in urine?
Last year a videowent viral in which the results of a study by Coop Sweden and the SwedishEnvironment Research Institute, were published. A Swedish family that didn’tconsume organic products switched to an organic diet. The researchers thencompared the urine from before and after their switch to organic food for thepresence of a number of crop protection substances. The results were clear.After the family switched to organic food the amount of crop protectionsubstances in the urine reduced dramatically.
The results weresummarised in a video by the supermarket Coop, which invests in organicproducts. Over 5.5 million people have seen the results of this study and thesupermarket chain saw the turnover of organic products increase by 20 per centlast year. But a year later there has been more and more criticism of the study.According to reports, the researchers have been summoned to court, as they knowwhere the problem is, according to the Swedish Crop Protection Association. Thebranch organisation for the Swedish crop protection sector has submitted sevenpoints of objection and there seem to be some problems with the research.
Some of theobjections were removed in the original report. The researchers also knew that asample of one family isn’t enough to draw a scientific conclusion. The researchersdidn’t present the study as scientific. Despite this there are also well-foundedobjections. There were no tests done for organic crop protection substances or the diseases they are used for. It is assumed that the researchers found moreresidue of organic crop protection substances in the urine when the familyswitched to organic products.
Another objection:the graphs that are pictured give too dramatic an image. The amounts found werearound 5 nano grams per millimetre. According to the objectors the dose foundis well within acceptable margins. According to the guidelines you can ingest acertain amount of a substance every day without it having direct consequences.The doses found in the urine of the Swedish family were well within thatmargin. Besides this, no information is given on the relationship between cropprotection agents and health. Finally, according to the branch union, therelationship between organic food and health isn’t supported or proven enough. Good enough reasons to question this study.
Did organics grow with fear campaign?
Another example of research was the report that was published in April 2014. A groupof scientists concluded that the American organic sector, which has grownexponentially over a quarter of a century, can partially thank the way it wasadvertised for this. According to the report the organic sector uses fear as amarketing strategy. Organic companies unjustly use the image of healthy foodand food safety to push the sales.
“This study ofexisting literature shows widespread collaboration within the organic sector toreduce the competing conventional foods and methods of agriculture. Their activities have further contributed to a false and misleading perception among consumerson health and food safety, which influences purchasing behaviour,” concludedthe study. “Misleading advertising” lead to hundreds of billions more inturnover, according to the researchers.
A glance at asimilar study by Academic Research, the magazine that published the findings, indicates that faults can be found with this study too. Although at first thereare fewer criticisms in regards to the way the research was conducted or theconclusions drawn, the report is nonetheless controversial. Academic Research,the report’s publisher, and a number of researchers involved are said to havebeen given funds through Monsanto. This was reported by various media, based onemail traffic between scientists, the magazine and Monsanto. For Monsanto anystudy which is negative about the organic sector is good news. This also goesfor the organic sector compared to Monsanto. This finding has the disadvantageof a conflict of interest. Enough to make you have second thoughts.
FARMER CONSCIOUS
The tensionsbetween conventional and organic are also running high in the Netherlands. Theorganic sector has the wind in its sails. The government is stimulating thesector. On June 2 the Secretary of State, Van Dam, announced an extra supportmeasure for agricultural companies that want to switch. Conventional farmersset up their campaign later that month: (Boer Bewust) Farmer Conscious.Conventional farmers were asked to place the signs at their business. The goalis to show conventional agriculture in a more positive light.
Member of thesecond chamber for the VVD, Helma Lodders, revealed the first sign at a farm inFlevoland. She supports the conventional sector in its battle. “The leftistparties in the second chamber think they can feed the world with organicagriculture, like in the ‘old days’,” the member of chamber said on BHZNet.“They forget that the world population is growing and to feed all these peoplethe food supply has to be doubled at the very minimum. That is impossible inthat way.” Lodders’ claim that organic can’t feed the population of the world,is also up for debate. It just depends which study you read.