The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination.
Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of non-organic anti-microbial agents as well, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.
In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. Some conventional farms use no pesticides. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever. To really know what you're in for, it's best if you know your source, and a great way to do that is to buy locally.
Talk to the person behind the crop stand, and actually ask them what their methods are if you want to be sure of what you're eating. Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones - and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.
Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between and These contained a total of comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C,?
There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity - none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us though, to be fair, barely.
Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, puts it even more strongly. Strong organic proponents also argue that organic food tastes better. But when researchers had people put their mouths to the test, they found that people couldn't tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests 14 , So, in short, organics are not better for us and we can't tell the difference between them and non-organic foods.
There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn't one of them. As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three.
People seem to believe they're doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they're not - at least the issue is not that cut and dry. Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging.
But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together.
Take, for example, organic farming's adamant stance against genetically modified organisms GMOs. GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use - which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do.
As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants.
Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered.
The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical. Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis Bt toxin a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades.
It's one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant's genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways.
Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. Applying it so close to harvest makes it more likely that glyphosate will end up in our food. There are also many non-organic farmers who are working hard to reduce their pesticide use across the UK, including arable farmer Peter Lundgren in Lincolnshire who is also a campaigner for an environmentally sustainable and financially viable future for UK farming.
Under IPM, non-chemical alternatives to pest control should be prioritised, and pesticides used as a last resort — and only when pests reach critical levels. PAN recommends consumers follow its handy list to choose foods with fewer pesticides.
Avoiding items more likely to have residues and choosing them as organic is a good way to reduce exposure. Nick buys his food locally and organically if possible. Organic produce almost never has pesticide residues present. Nick refers to the latest round of testing in by PRiF. Switching to organic ends the use of most pesticides, which only has a positive impact on the environment and biodiversity.
Next time you pop to the shop to pick up some groceries, why not try organic. Forgot Your Password? Enter your email address and we'll send you a link you can use to pick a new password. Email Reset Password. Login Get an account. Share this article. In order to make this quality content a reality and to give your the best experience on our website Comments, Votes, Newsletter, Content upon your own interest and geographic position… we use technologies that can sometimes need cookies.
Cookie Settings I'm happy. Manage consent. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.
We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". Apart from the reduced number and amount of pesticides applied to organic produce, the major difference is that unlike non-organic agriculture there is no routine application of pesticides. There is also no prophylactic use of pesticides as is the case with pesticide treated seeds.
PAN UK is the first to admit that there are many non-organic farmers that are doing great things for the environment and trying to increase biodiversity, soil health and water quality in and around the land that they farm.
But on the whole, it appears that organic agriculture is indeed of greater benefit to the environment and biodiversity than non-organic. One particular benefit is that organic farms have a greater diversity of weeds and other plants which provide habitat and food for birds, bees and other farmland species. Due to a lack of reliable studies on this subject it is currently impossible to prove that there are intrinsic health benefits from following an organic diet.
However, there is one area where organic outperforms non-organic and that is in regard to pesticide residues present in the food we consume.
Many of these contain the residues of more than one pesticide so in effect they offer a cocktail of residues with each bite. On the other hand there is almost never a detectable pesticide residue present on organic produce.
0コメント