Can’t help but be disgusted when scientific studies, without value, are published with misleading headlines. This BBC article is a classic example. The article reports its findings, all the while addressing a poor question. The resulting effect is to sway people into believing they have observed a legitimate finding.
the question is not whether organically farmed crops have the same nutrients as non organically farmed crops. Of course a string bean is a string bean.
When comparing organic versus conventional farming, the question is whether the “extra” elements found in conventionally farmed crops, (which are not in organically farmed crops) have any nutritional value. Hint–they have no nutritional value.
The typical process in countries with advanced food delivery systems is to prove an “extra ingredient” does not harm people, and then it can be included. The extra stuff can have benefits to food processing, shelf life, or taste, but there is no requirements for improvement in human life.
Because the extra stuff is all designed to make greater profits for someone: a) farmer – lower cost while increasing yield; b) manufacturer – processing, or taste; and c) distributor – shelf life; or to provide convenience to consumers, the standard has been if not poison with immediate consequences, then included it. However, many people request, and I believe should have, the right and choice to reject those profits and conveniences. The entire fight behind the standard of inclusion, is not health, but costs. Most food processing is commodity based, and once an “extra ingredient” has been declared safe, the argument goes, ” then there is no reason to segregate.” In essence, the profit seekers, argue that a string bean, without the extra stuff, is the same string bean as with the extra stuff, thus there is no reason to segregate.
And in the end, a threshold of non-poison, becomes no segregation, and removal of consumer choice. Why is this important, you might ask? Well, for the profit seeking entity, it reduces the marketing costs tremendously, which by definition means increases profits tremendously.
That’s why this line of arguing is so dangerous. It’s designed to take away the segregation of food crops, and ultimately the choice of the consumer. One less obstacle to profits. Don’t belive the hype. Consumer choice should be preserved. In this case it means keep organically grown crops separte, from conventionally grown crops, then consumers can choose what they want.
Less efficient–the naive answer is yes because it assumes that people only need one choice–maybe but the benefit to society is that people choices and beliefs are maintained as an integral part of the marketplace. And that seems a worthwhile goal.