More BBC propaganda!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Teki187

Teki187

Teki187

Permabanned
Joined
15 Sep 2006
Posts
4,642
Location
Somewhere in York
Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency who commissioned the report said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".

But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.
Click to expand...
Source

Complete rubbish, why on earth would anyone think spraying there fruit and veg with chemicals is just as beneficial then organic grown produce (or produce grown properly), would you drink a cup of pesticide?

But one thing that makes this article propaganda.....

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.

"Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not 'important', due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
Click to expand...
Contradictions in the article are generally a sign of propaganda.
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with pesticides, the report says that nutritionally there isn't much of a difference between organic and conventionally produced produce.

The report is fairly balanced, it says there needs to be more research on the effect of pesticides on human health which is true and it says that more research is needed which is also true, all the report is saying is that initially they find no real difference between organic and conventional food in raw nutrients.

Personally organic tastes nicer, home grown fruit and veg that is, but I am inclined to believe that nutritionally they are fairly close matched. I think it's a bit odd to start calling the article propaganda, what exactly is it propaganda for?
 
So you can link me to all the studies they rejected? In most likelihood the previous studies were very limited, possibly unofficial. Also they did use some of the studies done, perhaps they had criteria to adhere to, I don't see why you're getting so worked up about this so called propaganda.
It's not as though the study is paving way for a ban on organic food or forcing people to buy conventional produce, the report clearly states their opinion and counters that with an open admission that more research is needed.
 
Teki187 said:
Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis.

Read my bottom/last quote on the OP:

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."
Click to expand...

I heard this on the radio, and think that last quote was from the soil association, so they would say that. I'd suggest it's more irresponsible, rather than propaganda- even if there are no significant nutritional benefits in the studies, it could've been clearer that there are other valid reasons for buying organic foods. Maybe there was, I'm only going by what radio1 reported.

Talking about Radio1 news. Man in sucks. There main 'non news' report yesterday was how teh Met Office 'science geeks' (implied) had 'promised' (actual word used) a hot summer, and then they had loads of soundbites of chavs complaining that they'd bought bbq's!
 
Teki187 said:
Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis.

Read my bottom/last quote on the OP:

"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences."
Click to expand...

Have you considered that possibly most of the existing studies were conducted by groups with a vested interest either way and might not stand up to scientific scrutiny?

As VaderDSL says the report isn't about whether pesticides may be harmful (for what it is worth I generally prefer the fewest number possible to have been used as I tend to think largely organic produce tastes better but that could be psychosomatic) but whether nutritionally organic produce is generally better. They aren't the same thing because whatever residue may be left by pesticides is not a nutrient as such.

uk_unbeliever said:
Talking about Radio1 news. Man in sucks. There main 'non news' report yesterday was how teh Met Office 'science geeks' (implied) had 'promised' (actual word used) a hot summer, and then they had loads of soundbites of chavs complaining that they'd bought bbq's!
Click to expand...

You pays your money you takes your chances - if you're going to buy a barbeque on the offchance that the weather will be sunny at the appropriate point because a longterm forecaster told you so then you're apparantly not au fait with the UKs weather patterns so I've got no sympathy for them.
 
All I can say is if you walk all round my section at work there is only one item that you can smell as you walk past & that's the organic lemons, All the other fruit & veg has to be picked up before you smell it, :confused: What this has to do with anything I don't know. :p
 
To anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than that of a peanut can see that organic food must be better than food that has been sprayed with chemicals! No study is needed, if you believe this twaddle then drink a glass of pesticide and then come back an argue you feel good. :rolleyes:

Yes the BBC are the governments propaganda machine, the FSA (both of them) are a quango funded by the government and they do as they are told (most of the time :p ) This is just a plan old fashioned controversy designed to get the people talking and moaning (it seems to be working) to distract them from other issues of real importance. If they can't bury something in bad news then they create a discussion point for the sheep to bleat about. It happens almost everyday - believe half of what you see, quarter of what you read and absolutely nothing that is shown on telly!
 
Last edited:
AJUK said:
To anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than that of a peanut can see that organic food must be better than food that has been sprayed with chemicals! No study is needed, if you believe this twaddle then drink a glass of pesticide and then come back an argue you feel good. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yes because drinking billions of times the amount of pesticide that is left on washed food is really comparable.

by your logic we should ban paracetamol as if you eat a bucket full you could die.
 
AJUK said:
To anyone with an intellectual capacity greater than that of a peanut can see that organic food must be better than food that has been sprayed with chemicals! No study is needed, if you believe this twaddle then drink a glass of pesticide and then come back an argue you feel good. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Have you read the report? The study doesn't say that there a no benefits to eating organic food. It simply states that there's no nutritional benefit.

Also, I suggest reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. A very good book for explaining why what you've written above is nonsense.
 
Teki187 said:
Source

Complete rubbish, why on earth would anyone think spraying there fruit and veg with chemicals is just as beneficial then organic grown produce (or produce grown properly), would you drink a cup of pesticide?
Click to expand...
Because they actually did research, organised a testing method, ran these tests and made a report based on those tests.

What they did not do was make broad statements and derogatory remarks on an internet form about the matter.

But hey I'm probably just brainwashed or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom