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

In this particular case it seems to me that the meta-analysis was thorough and sensible. You ask “Might it be that one can prove almost anything, depending on where one sets the criteria by which one will or won’t accept other research as valid?” Of course. And the beauty of the scientific method is that you have strong criteria to design and assess what constitutes a good study and a bad study. In this case their choices look very sensible about what they included and excluded. There are some excellent beginners books on how to read a scientific paper (e.g. this one) that will help you to decide.

I am surprised that the Soil Association got annoyed about this – it should be fairly obvious to them that organic food does not have higher nutrient levels. I have been aware of this for about 10 years and the fact that you were blindly wasting your family’s budget on expensive organic food because you thought it had more nutrients in without ever bothering to check suggests a blind faith in what someone told you and an unwillingness to update your ideas based on new evidence.

I think the Soil Association should have accepted the results of this study and focused on the other benefits of organic agriculture:

• greater biodiversity and wildlife on organic farms (plenty of peer reviewed research on that)
• higher animal welfare on organic farms (some research on this)
• free of syntheitc pesticide and herbicide residues (no evidence that this is healthier but the precautionary principles still attracts consumers on this basis)
• potentially easier transition to fossil fuel free future farming as organics will be building soil fertility and using varieties more suited to low input agriculture.
• no doubt some other benefits that I have forgotten

Good luck with abandoning the faith and developing critical thinking!

PS – Please don’t say ‘chemical free food’ – I think you mean ‘food free from synthetic herbicides and pesticides’.

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10724&p=215451#p215451

Definitely worth a read, dont miss it!

I am very fair-minded, though, and am quite confident that Rob will be able to prove with logic alone that all peer-reviewed studies suggesting that confectionery is anything but good for your health is just a corporate scam.

It appears Mr. Sams may have made a fair amount of money from his confectionery business, which of course means that all his pronouncements must be fair and scientific, and could not possibly be tainted even in the slightest by the kind of corporate vested interests Rob alludes to above.

Astonishingly, Sam’s rant was aimed at complaints about the Goldacre’s expose of the corporate nutritional quack Gillian McKieth.

I had no idea there was such a link between the Soil Association and quack nutritionism- anyone else know anything about this?

All I can say is- Holy Cow!

“As someone who has, like me, chosen organic out of choice where possible since the year dot on the understanding that it was better for us, are you now going to change your position”

Have I? It is true that I have for a long time assumed organic implies greater nutritional benefits; however, maybe this is something that should be questioned in the light of such research. Michael Pollan also questions this in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”; some organic foods may be better, some not. Personally, my main reasons for preferring organic have more to do with avoiding chemical residues (which do not seem to be assessed in the report) and supporting local small producers, than the assumed nutritional benefits; and of course, moving away from fossil dependency in food production. I would say, though, that the “Organic” label has become somewhat corrupted and does not necessarily reflect a more sustainable choice- “Big Organic” may not even be more resilient than “Big Industrial”; more recently I have joined those who rate “small-scale-local” over organic per se; there are a lot of issues here, it is not black and white- the most important thing from a rationalist perspective is to be willing to question these holy cows of environmentalism, and not accept them blindly or religiously. IMO it really does just come down to evidence, and not ideology.

“Will safe pesticide application and the wonders of NPK now feature on the Kinsale course curriculum?”

Not very likely- but I think that again there are much deeper issues that should not be glossed over, unpalatable as they may seem: organics seem unlikely to be able to produce the same amount of food per acre, more sustainable though they may be. What implication for population then if we all go organic?

“Might it be that either;

a. Those of us who promote permaculture, organics, and chemical free food and farming are now just as guilty of ‘quackery’ as all the others you tirade against here at Zone5, given that this impartial and thorough study has proved once and for all that our dietary choices have actually been based on ‘woo woo’ “

It is all a question of evidence Rob. In science, we need to follow the evidence even though it may not agree with our ideology. As I say though, there are other compelling reasons to support organics other than just nutritional content; the problem is the tendency for people to unquestioningly “buy organic” even though some aspects of the organic movement may be ideologically driven; the food may be over-priced in some cases (I’m not making a generalization here); other factors (local) may be more important; organics may be a middle-class lifestyle choice for some; people who fail to question such issues may be more prone to being conned by quack medicine.

“b. Might it be possible that this is actually an example of bad science, which just might have set out to prove a point, been subject to some kind of political interference and the might of the multinational food industry? Clearly it is very useful for some quite unpleasant institutions if we all believe organic farming is a waste of time. Might one argue that to believe that such a study is completely impartial and rigorous is somewhat naive?”

You could argue all of this of course; and maybe you are correct. However, it is never sufficient to just assume a study that challenges your ideology must be wrong- you actually need to provide evidence for this by addressing the specifics of the methodology.

I would never argue that we should unquestioningly accept anything, but that we need to question from an informed point of view.

The difficulty with your objections is that they concern epistimology rather than any specific study; the organic movement is also a large industry with vested interests, just as is the homeopathic industry for example. Your comments are general points about science in general- as such they are not very useful – you challenge the impartiality of a study that has an outcome you dont like, but may assume the impartiality of studies that support your beliefs. we all have a propensity to do this- good science recognizes this and has a methodology designed to limit as far as possible this kind of bias. It is certainly naive to assume that because someone will benefit from the results they must be false. You have to actually provide evidence for this- it could be true, but I dont yet see any evidence of this.

“Reflecting on the report, the Soil Association stated “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. This was because these studies did not meet particular criteria fixed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which carried out the review”. Might it be that one can prove almost anything, depending on where one sets the criteria by which one will or won’t accept other research as valid?”

Again, yes this could be true, but the same argument could be used by either side of the organic debate- you have to actually provide some evidence to support your case. It is of course essential that we have criteria in science and I dont think it is wise to just throw them out unless you can demonstrate that the criteria used are in fact biased or contravene accepted scientific standards. otherwise you are just throwing out one set of standards and replacing them with another which may be equally flawed. What were the standards used? Why do you think they are not good ones?

I am not saying we should unquestioningly accept this study, but neither should we dismiss it- as people in the environmental movement who earn our livings promoting things like organics we clearly have vested interests in a certain outcome!

The power of science lies in its peer-review process which is I believe the closest to a democratic process we have. It is indeed possible to expose corporate interests in science where they exist, and science is the best way to do this. If the science of this study is flawed, let us see where and how specifically if flawed; if it is not, if we cannot demonstrate this, let us swallow hard and accept it.

The kinds of generalized arguments you make are in fact rather dangerous- they dont help people understand science any better and just feed a kind of environmental paranoia. Apply the same reasoning to climate science: climate change deniers use the same kind of arguments. Why should we believe the climate scientists at all if we have a knee-jerk reaction that discounts any study like this as automatically flawed? Believe me, there are many in the environmental and permaculture movements who do not accept climate science becasue of the kind of confusions about scienc ein general that you continue to perpetuate.

Your general stance Rob continues to be essentially anti-science. I urge you to work harder to actually show people how science works

In general though I think the tone of your comments betrays your selective acceptance of science, which seems ideologically driven. “Big Pharma Bad, Alternatives good” and “Industrial Food bad, organics good” are simplistic conclusions and as such inherently unscientific; as Ben Goldacre would say, “I think you’ll find it is a little bit more complicated than that.”

Regards Graham

As someone who has, like me, chosen organic out of choice where possible since the year dot on the understanding that it was better for us, are you now going to change your position, given the no doubt highly rigorous and impartial good science that is undoubtedly behind it? Will safe pesticide application and the wonders of NPK now feature on the Kinsale course curriculum?

Might it be that either;

a. Those of us who promote permaculture, organics, and chemical free food and farming are now just as guilty of ‘quackery’ as all the others you tirade against here at Zone5, given that this impartial and thorough study has proved once and for all that our dietary choices have actually been based on ‘woo woo’ or…

b. Might it be possible that this is actually an example of bad science, which just might have set out to prove a point, been subject to some kind of political interference and the might of the multinational food industry? Clearly it is very useful for some quite unpleasant institutions if we all believe organic farming is a waste of time. Might one argue that to believe that such a study is completely impartial and rigorous is somewhat naive?

Might this report be an example of where we need to take what is presented as ‘good science’ with a rather large pinch of ‘organic’ salt? I would really appreciate hearing your reflections on the report.

Reflecting on the report, the Soil Association stated “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. This was because these studies did not meet particular criteria fixed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which carried out the review”. Might it be that one can prove almost anything, depending on where one sets the criteria by which one will or won’t accept other research as valid?

Anyway, your reflections would be appreciated.

The whole point of scientific method is to uncover the truth, and to find the hypothesis of best fit, according to fact. If we ignore the truth, we’re no better than snake oil sellers.

Ethics and truth must always coincide, especially when it comes to protecting the planet.

Just my (second) 2c.

I agree entirely that a commitment to the scientific method cannot itself just apply to one field, and not another.

The ecology/environmental movement is doing itself tremendous damage by trying to ‘ride two horses’. If anyone seriously thinks homeopathy (beyond the obvious placebo effect of the therapist’s time) is of any actual therapeutic benefit, how can they expect to be taken seriously when demanding that other people change their lives based on evidence-based scientific research pointing out the dangers we now face?

All the best

John Gibbons

Good work on pointing out that homopeathy etc. is nothing more than advanced quackery. It worries me to see how popular this drivel is with the environmental / transition movements. If you check the comments on John’s articles you can see that Patrick Holford, the great ‘nutritionist’ himself, seems to have made a comment ‘refuting’ some points made re: vitamin C. Well worth a read, it would be hilarious if some people did not take him seriosuly. The dialogue at the above link to the transition towns website is also unintentionally hilarious, I particuarly liked the following: “Holistic medicine because of it’s very nature cannot be proven in a system of trails designed by the blinkered scientific community that wants to stamp it out” What a load of old coswallop. Keep up the good work, great to see someone fighting the good fight! Regards, Paddy