The royal prerogative
Good old Prince Cholls – he plans to question publicly the Food Standards Agency’s conclusion that expensive organic food is no better for you than produce from intensive farms. His dedication to keeping his subjects entertained is impressive. (His care for their health not so much. And as for his critical thinking skills…)
“This study hasn’t changed His Royal Highness’s views one bit,” one of the Prince’s friends tells me. “Charles thinks it’s ludicrous to suggest that vegetables treated with chemicals or meat raised with antibiotics can be as good for you as proper food.”
And he comes to this conclusion via…well they don’t say.
Lord Melchett, who is the policy director of the Soil Association and a close ally of the Prince, tells me: “He believes in organic food.”
Ah. Well if it’s a matter of belief then there’s no more to be said.
Wasn’t Lord Melchett the character played by Stephen Fry in the Blackadder series?
The two Lord Melchetts share more than a name – they are also both comical figures who like to brown-nose royals.
Aye! Black Adder licks up to Queen Bess alright and in the process escapes a few times losing his precious head.
Servant Baldrick’s notorious catchphrase;
“I have a cunning plan’ which was anything but cunning!
On this one, and as a practicing biologist, I have to side with Prince Charles, much as it pains me to do so. This is a very different question from “synthetic” vitamins that are chemically identical to “natural” ones.
Accummulation of antibiotics in meat, eggs and and milk causes an increase to antibiotic-resistance bacteria, which is a severe and growing medical problem. Accumulation of chemicals in vegetables and animals leads to mutations or outright poisoning. If they didn’t, there would be no problem with mercury in fish, or with DTT in wild bird eggs.
So toss bathwater, keep baby.
If I understand the issue correctly, Athena, the research indicated there was difference in nutritional content between organic and conventional foods. I don’t believe it attempted to answer any questions about an overall health benefit, weighing the pros and cons of fertilizers, chemicals, etc. That’s a very different proposition from the simplistic headlines proclaiming “Organic foods not better for you.”
Sorry I’m too lazy/tired to look up the article I think I read:) At any rate,
Charles’ reaction is clearly an emotional one, and doesn’t come from an objective evaluation of the facts. He says it explicitly – he just asserts that he disagrees. Based on nothing. That’s not a respectable stance, it’s embarrassing.
Josh, I think the issue is too complex to determine in black and white. The Mandrake article is just a snarky soundbite. It states that the FSA considers organic food “no better” than intensive-farm produced food without defining “better”. Charles makes a valid point about chemicals and antibiotics, whether you like his choice of words or not.
It’s true that conventional food is cheaper and fast food is “cheapest” — but only on the face of it, which doesn’t factor in the enormous increase in heart disease, hypertension and diabetes that it causes.
Sorry, Athena, but I have to call “red herring.” I broadly agree with you about the problems of industrial agriculture, but you’re off base here.
Heart disease, hypertension & diabetes have everything to do with diet, but nothing discernible to do with whether the food in that diet is grown organically or not: If you eat salty, fatty, starchy, overly-sweetened foods – in short, a bad diet – there is no evidence whatsoever that it would matter one tiny bit if that diet were organic. If you eat lots of bacon, it won’t matter that it comes from organically raised pigs. If you eat fried chicken three nights a week, it won’t matter if it’s organic free range chicken, battered with organic flour and eggs, and fried up in organic canola oil. Organic, all-natural potato chips (or crisps, for UK readers) are still fatty, carbohydrate-rich, and salty – and every bit as unhealthy no matter how many times words like “organic” and “all-natural” are printed on the bag.
Of course, those chips without the “all-natural, organic” label are a lot cheaper. And, generally speaking, mass-produced fast food and pre-packaged food is cheaper, which is why the diseases named above are more prevalent among the poor. That has *something* to do with industrialized agriculture and the cheap ingredients it produces as a matter of economics, but not as a matter of the nutritional value of the ingredients: If all the corn syrup in all the crappy fast food and packaged food in the world was replaced tomorrow by corn syrup made only from organically grown corn, I’d bet dollars to (sweet, gooey) donuts that not a single case of diabetes would be prevented.
As far as I can tell, the question addressed by this comprehensive research was whether or not there were any nutritional differences and associated health differences could be traced to eating organically grown as opposed to industrially grown food. None were found.
One can legitimately address the study and raise doubts about the methodology or some such, but all I’ve read about so far are utter bullshit criticisms from flacks at the Soil Association and various declarations of outright disbelief of the conclusion by twits like Chuck. Simply dismissing the study out of hand with emotive rhetoric and nay-saying – “But there HAVE to be differences!” – is logically and scientifically unacceptable. If you don’t like a conclusion produced by evidence and arguments, you are obligated to find a flaws in the evidence and arguments, not simply reject the conclusion.
But as I said, I broadly agree on the baby/bathwater distinction. There are huge ecological benefits to organic (or simply less industrialized) agricultural methods, especially when affiliated with the growing local food movement (which is going to be an important part of reducing the industrialized world’s food-related carbon footprint). There are public health benefits to organic farming which have nothing to do with nutrition, such as not using antibiotics in livestock and thereby fostering evolved antibiotic resistance. There are serious public health and socioeconomic problems in which the industrial agriculture/food industry complex noted above plays a major role, and the organic agriculture/local food movement can be an important part of addressing those problems. These are substantial, demonstrable benefits to moving away from industrial agriculture to methods which focus more on organic agriculture and locally-grown food – benefits which can be (and have been) supported by reams of evidence. So when the evidence says that there are no direct nutrition/health benefits to be gained by eating food grown by organic vs. industrial methods, organic advocates undermine their own credibility by denying that conclusion with one blatant appeal to emotion and red herring after another. What they should do instead is simply change the subject to those areas where there is plenty of evidence for real benefits to be gotten by changing our agricultural practices.
And Prince Charles shouldn’t comment on this or any other subject, because he consistently demonstrates the critical thinking skills and respect for scientific evidence of a malformed rutabaga (organic or not).
“which doesn’t factor in the enormous increase in heart disease, hypertension and diabetes that it causes.”
I think the evidence is pretty clear that these things are the results of eating too much processed foods, rather than non-organic foods. Cook it yourself and a conventionally produced tomato is as healthy and nutritious as an organic one. Much cheaper too and will probaly keep better. Might not taste so nice, mind.
Charles is obviously a turkey. Organic?
Aren’t we just talking about a classic example of ‘bait and switch’?
The study looked at nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods and failed to find one. Lord Melchetts’ (fnarrr!) comments seek to taint the study by criticizing it over the question of the health effects of antibiotics and pesticides – something the study was never designed to address.
All of you (G. Felis in particular) illustrated with your answers how complex this issue is. It involves nutrition and health, environmental health and biodiversity, resource sustainability, socioeconomic divisions and that crucial but hard-to-quantify and often-ignored parameter, quality of life. A book that touches on all these issues is Richard Manning’s refreshingly radical Against the Grain, which I recommend highly.
The word “organic” implies (to me, at least) no use of antibiotics, hormones or chemicals – which do affect health though not nutritional value. I agree that advancing a shaky or non-existent claim doesn’t help anyone’s cause, especially if they have many strong, valid ones to bolster their position.
The royal family’s opinions are largely irrelevant and spending any time on what Charles had to say adds only heat, no light, since it’s meta-talk.
Thank you, Greg… though it’s Athena, not Andrea!
There is another issue directly pertinent to this discussion — namely, that of cost.
Mass-produced food is “cheaper” if you don’t count the massive subsidies enforced by giant farma lobbies. In effect, you prepay for the dubious privilege of eating food that creates all kinds of global problems, and the amount is only second to armament appropriations. It’s like the Republicans saying that Obama’s budget is far deeper in the red than Bush’s — ignoring the fact that the major reason for this is that the Bush budget didn’t factor in the Iraq war expenses.
As for studies that appear totally objective on their face, please read the latest about the 18 (!) ostensibly peer-reviewed papers “authored” by respected doctors but in fact secretly commissioned by Wyeth to support their hormone replacement pills.
There’s one other issue that Greg’s transit time post brought to my mind. Not only does it touch on the question of monoculture, but also on nutritional value, which is also the main topic of this thread (I assume it’s not about Charles Mountbatten nyahing).
Besides the degradation of many nutrients during long transits (which also dictate premature harvesting, before various nutrients have a chance to develop in the produce), the change of sugars to starches does something else. The dictum “all calories are equal” is mostly true — but not entirely. The brain can only use glucose, nothing else.
So foods with short transit time, with more sugar and less starch, have more calories in proportion earmarked for the brain. To put it in a soundbite, fresh food is better for both the brain and the waist. Which is another not-so-intangible fact not factored into the FSA study. Pesky thing, biology, with all its crucial details…
I can confirm that the problem is complicated indeed.
There are in fact pro-“industrial”/”chemical” farming arguments, (or if you prefer: anti “organic” farming arguments, overlooked by the commentators.
If my memory servs me, several studies have demonstrated higher content of natural occurring toxins in “organic” produce than corresponding produce from “modern agriculture”.
You’ll find a general overview here:
:http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1567/organic-food-exposed?page=0%2C0
There are several classes of potent natural toxins, some are carcinogens and some are teratogens, produced by molds (Aflatoxin is among the “worst” and best known). Also several types of naturally produced anti-grazing compounds and fungicides are produced (by the plants themselves!)when plants and vegetables are grazed or attacked by fungi.
The relvant point is that IF/WHEN organic production methods leads to higher prevalence of grazing and/or mold attack, the “organic” vegetables or fruit will trigger more production of these harmful compounds.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Sure. On the other side, many toxins are present when the fruit/vegetable is not properly mature (they get inactivated at maturation, because at that point eating of the item will result in its propagation), as well as antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella in chickens and cattle raised in the awful, unhealthy conditions described by Pellan, among others. Not to mention Creuztfeldt-Jakob dementia from cattle fed with animal remains.
Actually, Athena, it’s even more complicated than that: When sugars are converted to starches, at least some energy is required to convert the starches back into sugars the body needs. Thus, such “degraded” food has effectively fewer calories (because the body uses more energy to process the food than it otherwise would), which can be a *good* thing, depending on one’s diet. (Mostly, though, American consumers get too many carbohydrates of all types in their diet – sugars, starches, etc. – and could do with fewer carbs of all types.)
Much of this discussion is leading me to a conclusion I was already leaning towards: “Organic” farming is in many ways a distracting side issue in this area. An entirely different model of agricultural production, *without* harmful pro-industrial-farming government subsidies (and potentially *with* carbon taxes) so that consumer choices are guided by REAL costs, is something that would actually help with many or all of these complex, across-the-board problems related to current systems of food production and distribution. Organically produced vegetables that are individually shrink-wrapped in plastic and shipped across the country – yes, I’ve seen that at my local supermarket! – are not only nutritionally identical to their fellow travelers (pun intended), but they don’t do a damned thing to address any of the other problems caused by the current system. “Organic” has become nothing but another marketing strategy co-opted by corporate interests, whereas the fast-growing local food movement seems to be a step in a potentially meaningful and helpful direction.
(Therefore, the cynic in me whispers, the local food movement will probably be quashed by regulations and policies pushed by agribusiness lobbyists.)
G Felis — I agree completely. “Organic” is a partial misnomer if the rest of its production/distribution is conventional. The local food movement is the truly radical and potentially beneficial alternative, for all the reasons we’ve discussed here (and several we may have forgotten!).
That was an enjoyable and informative exchange. Just wish I had the expertise to add to it. Unfortunately I only have this link, with which no doubt most of you are familiar.
http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/check-me-out-i-bought-some-posh-chocolate-im-political/
Does the “Locally grown” idea need an “in season” qualifier? It seems like I remember an article comparing hot-house tomatoes grown in a London suburb in winter to similar fruits grown somewhere in the Mediterranean and shipped to London as freight. Due to economies of scale the locally grown produce (out of season) had a surprisingly large carbon footprint.
As many have noted, it is an amazingly complex set of interconnected issues. I learn some new tidbit every time it comes up.
Yes, indeed, Grendels Dad. People are now used to having everything all the time, which contributes to homogenizing experience. Seasonal changes in food help in the retention of biological rhythms, which contribute to mood, which affect thought processes… nothing happens isolated, out of context. We did evolve here, after all, and so are part of our planet’s biological and other cycles no matter what we believe or what we achieve (good and evil) with our technology.
My main problem with organic food (and that really applies to Charlie’s Duchy Original range) is one of both price and perception. Basically the whole “movement” did a lot to perpetuate the myth that good, balanced nutrition is a posh, or at least middle class, thing when those who need the most improvement in that area are at the bottom of the revenue scale.
Achieving a healthy, balanced diet, taking regular, moderate exercise. all these things are easy and don’t have to be expensive. They only require education and a collective will.
The organic industry, willing to appear authentic, kept its products muddy and grubby but it was also careful to sell them only to the very cleanest of hands. At best the fad was a smokescreen and at worst it actively caused harm to the cause of better nutrition for all.
Oops!
There are at least two comments thanking me for my (technical rather than philosophical) input, but OB has seen fit to remove ALL my comments ….
Which makes the subsequent intelligent remarks by Athena completely meaningless.
May I suugeest that a gut-reaction to my name on a post is not a good idea, nor either philosopically nor intellectually honest, no matter why (& I have no idea why) OB seems to have taken a personal dislike to me, and never having met me, even though I am (literally)a card-carrying atheist…..
No, Mr. Tingey. OB took a dislike to the fact that you repeatedly and blatantly ignored the posting policy after having it repeated to you many, many times – and consequent to those many and repeated violations, you were asked to stop posting at all because you clearly demonstrated a complete disdain for pretty much the only hard and fast rule for participating in discussions hereabouts. For contrast: In a fit of absolute loathing for a columnist whose identity you can probably guess, I violated the policy (the bit about not calling people liars even when they are demonstrably lying, because that is actionable under the UK’s execrable libel laws and B&W can’t afford legal fees) exactly *ONCE* – and I apologized for it in writing to both OB and Jeremy, and never did it again. You violated that policy dozens and dozens of times and never listened when told repeatedly and firmly to stop, so were eventually banned. So just stop posting already.
I don’t think you’re a bad person; nor, I suspect, does Ophelia: But you have proven yourself to be a jerk who has repeatedly refused to follow the only fucking rule that anyone has ever asked you to follow in this forum. People who don’t follow the rules are often excluded from polite company. Why can’t you live and learn from the experience, instead of insisting that you’re an exception because you’re otherwise a good bloke? Personal exceptionalism/special pleading is not permissible in either logic or ethics, and being an atheist doesn’t get anyone a free pass on those fronts around here.
Good old Chuckie, eh? Possibly the best argument we’ve ever had for secular republicanism.
Tingey – what G said, along with many many other things over the years, which I have explained to you (and which I would explain to you now via email rather than here but you use a shared email and the other party shouts at me if I try to email you). You’re banned; you know this; so no, you may not suggest anything.
It’s not a personal dislike – I don’t know you from Adam. It’s a dislike of your comments. Too much of the Kwok. You had about six years to make them, and that’s enough.
I strongly object to being listed with the Kwok. [edit]
Tingey – I’ve told you – over and over again. I don’t want you to comment here at all. I don’t care whether you object to being listed with Kwok, or you think you have successfully whatever – I just don’t want you to comment here. Period. You had six years. You don’t get to decide. You can of course post comments during my night, and clearly you intend to, because you know I’m unable to ban you. That’s typical of you, and why you are another Kwok.
Now – post-edit – I hope that’s clear. I don’t want you to comment here at all. I have a long long list of reasons, which I don’t want to post here because the whole subject is so fucking boring – but they are cogent. You have the ability to comment when I’m off the computer, which means your comment will sit here for a few hours – but if you do that you’re being extremely rude. But then you’ve been ignoring my requests/demands that you stop commenting for years now, so you are very rude, and that is one of the cogent reasons I don’t want you to comment here. (Others are repetition, aggression, typos, more repetition, tedium, literal-mindedness, egotism, more tedium.)
I hope that is clear.
It seems to me that Charles offers one overlooked gift — he gets people talking about issues. I know he vexes OB and many others and I agree that at least in the land use area he seems to me to be getting close to behavior inappropriate for a royal. But he sure does get people conversing, at least this group.
Wow! What an awesome discussion about food production!
To add to the bit about seasonal foods:
Beef was, before industrial farming, a rarity for almost anyone who didn’t work directly with cattle. Out of season produce was impossible until the 20th century and will always have a huge carbon footprint, the cost of which is not included in the price of the food. Local food is only a solution if people can adjust to eating what can be grown seasonally in their neighborhoods.
This could be a good thing. Different regions would once again develop distinctive cuisine, reversing the homogenizing effect of industrial food production.
Bottom line is, there are no solutions if people aren’t willing to sacrifice apples in june, or eat only about 6 oz of meat a day, or whatever else.