Anyway, surely the nutrient levels are not why people choose buy organic food. Most organic farming bodies encourage sustainable farming techniques, contain less possibly harmful (and extensively understudied) chemical residues and provide a better a deal for small farmers. Regulation and cost of the ‘label’ and ‘branding’ of organic foods may be problematic but even if these foods are only equally as nutritious shouldn’t these other benefits mean they ought to be encouraged anyway?

I think the ACCC has made some recent noises about checking the provenance of free range eggs? Apparently, there are more being sold in supermarkets than we have free range hens to lay them, so someone is not telling the truth. I do hate being lied to about this, because it interferes with my idle fantasies.

As for the study, it was funded by something called the UK Food Standards Council. Perhaps they are less inclined to check the standards of accumulated poisons, as they are not technically considered “food”? That’s a wild guess, not anything insightful. Like you, I cannot fathom why these clever scientists went ahead with such meaningless research.

More seriously, the UK also have a government agency devoted to ensuring the “organic” in organic produce really is as described. Some friends over there told of how they had to let their old conventional farm lie fallow for five years before they were permitted to start farming organically. That permit was only issued after their soils had been exhaustively tested for any yucky residues. They then had to be inspected every quarter to make sure they hadn’t slopped into any short cuts. I felt I could trust the UK’s labelling as a consequence, but do not know how it is done here.

The use of the term organic is mostly a con. How can the consumer possibly be sure of its real provenance? The price differential combined with the gullibility of some of the public mean a huge pressure on some suppliers to fudge it — those little labels cost nothing.

Instead of being so distracted by the organic thing we should be aiming to improve agricultural and animal husbandry in general, with real enforceable laws and labels that mean something.

Cameron, I buy free range eggs because I like to fantasise about happy chickens. When I have watched the free range hen, I see a contented and absorbed bird scratching about in the dirt as per what comes natural to her. A caged bird never seems to have that contented or absorbed attitude.

I think it is like eating food cooked by someone who doesn’t care. I would rather eat food made by someone who was paying attention to what they were doing and taking the time to consider the flavour of the meal they are about to serve. Not, say, idly mixing up a few random ingredients while staring longingly out the window, thinking about something else.

A quote from Asimov’s Foundation to explain my feelings

Hardin remained silent for a short while. Then he said, ‘When did Lameth write his book?’
‘Oh- I should say about eight hundwed yeahs ago. Of cohse, he has based it lahgely on the pwevious wuhk of Gleen.’
‘Then why rely on him? Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?’
Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. ‘Why, whatevah foah, my deah fellow?’
‘To get the information firsthand, of course.’
‘But wheahs the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and jopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah now, I’ve dot the wuhks of the mastahs- the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah- balance of the disagweements- analyze the conflicting statements- decide which is pwobably cowwect- and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method. At least’- patronizingly- ‘as I see it. How insuffewably cwude it would be to go to Ahctuwus, oah to Sol, foah instance, and blundah about, when the old mastahs have covahed the gwound so much moah effectually than we could possibly hope to.’

The sustainability benefits are also difficult to overlook. I’d be interested in research comparing the ecological effects and environmental practices of conventional farming compared to organic.

And yet, having said all that, there are a pretty large number of questionable assertions out there about the safety or health benefits of various types of food. It’s hard to know what comes from truthiness and what comes from actual evidence.

I am also concerned by the seemingly flexible use of ‘nutrient quality’ and ‘nutrient content’, how are those two terms defined and how are they interrelated because they are definately not the same thing?

The final sentence is telling “The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.” - which is precisely why organic accreditation schemes seek to invoke and promote production methods that aren’t wholly related to massive inputs of pesticides, herbicides and other artificial supplements (GM) to various agricultural practices.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1 link to research paper.

Isn’t the key benefit of organic foods that they ‘don’t contain’ nasties, eg pesticides, and antibiotics, rather than that they are more nutritious? I suspect the study’s authors were looking for the wrong benefits.