Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

In the News

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Dropping (Fatty) Acid

Organic food healthier than non-organic, research finds

Posted at 5:16 PM on 29 Oct 2007

Who woulda thunk: Organic food is healthier than pesticide-ridden food, according to preliminary results of a four-year study funded by the European Union. Researchers found that organic nosh contained more antioxidants (yum!) and less fatty acids (ew!) than non-organic. Organic milk was found to have up to 80 percent more antioxidants than conventional cow juice, as well as higher amounts of vitamin E. Organic wheat, tomatoes, cabbage, onions, and lettuce had up to 40 percent more antioxidants than their conventional counterparts, and potatoes, kiwi fruit, and carrots were found to have higher levels of vitamin C. The research has yet to be peer-reviewed, but the study is ongoing, and final results are expected to be published over the next year. Advocates hope the research will sway Britain's Food Standards Agency to change its current advisory that "the balance of current scientific evidence does not support" that organic food is more nutritious than conventional.

sources:  BBC News, The Independent, Daily Mail
see also, in Grist:  Organic farming creates more jobs, U.K. study finds
see also, in Grist:  A special series on food and farming

< Previous | Next >


Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

Fatty acids... ew?

Wondering why so negative on fatty acids? These are the things - like the omega 3s in flax, etc. - that lots of us are deficient in. Why the "ew"???
-Stephanie

I think I will be cautious ...

in applying this info to my own choices. Too often the findings of the weak science behind such articles is washed away with another study reaching a conclusion that there is no meaningful nutritional difference between 'organic' and conventional produce.

I admit I don't know, so I will be skeptical of both viewpoints in the short run.

**the key issue: "The research has yet to be peer-reviewed."

tom

organic foods

I agree with Stephanie. We should be encouraging the consumption of essential fatty acids like omega-3s. All fats should not be put under the umbrella of being bad for your health. Also, vit.E is a fat soluble vitamin, which means one's body cannot absorb without the presence of fat. I'll have to look into the study further, because I can't imagine how not using pesticides/herbides would decrease the amount of fat in a plant or animal.

fatty acids...and fat in general

Okay, the euw on fatty acids?  Why?  You've heard of EFA's, presumably?  (BTW, fish liver is a better source than flax, and more bioavailable)

The science on fats - which has been around for a long, long time - is finally coming to light.  Saturated fat, for instance, has never been proven as a cause of heart disease, or any disease for that matter.  The whole fat=bad (or in this case, fat=euw) has been 100% bad science and media-influenced.

 Anyone know that lard, good old fashioned (and pastured and non-hydrogenated please) pig fat, is about 60% unsaturated and is a fantastic source of vitamin D?  Even the fat in beef, that much maligned of foods, is half unsaturated, most of which is the same fat found in olive oil.  

Also, the level of nutrients in a food has little to do with how much actually gets absorbed.  The nutrients in wheat, for example, aren't going to get too far in most people's bodies because of the accompanying phytates, the irritation factor of gluten/gliadin (over 30% of us have a reaction to it), etc.  And of course without fat, you're not absorbing many of the nutrients from your veggies.

And as far as studies go - well, look at that recent cancer one.  Showed absolutely nothing significant, yet it's trumpeted all over the place as definitive that certain foods cause cancer.  Until I read the study myself, I take all of them with a grain of celtic sea salt :)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks