Basic value lines slated by Martin Isark in Daily Mail

Lugh_Chronain

Edwardia wrote: »

Taste is subjective though and that's not why I eat organic anyway. I don't believe organic is more nutritious or less fattening. I eat it because of what's NOT in it. No pesticides, no GM, no fungicides, no herbicides, not fed on GM feed and unlabelled.

I too have been reading up on organic food farming and was surprised to find this to be such a controversial subject. I've also been reluctant to discuss this as it also appears a very emotive one.

To be fair though Edwardia, organic farmers do use pesticides.

Organic farmers also source nitrate from manures, gradually broken down by soil organisms. They also use only naturally-occurring products to control pests, such as the elements sulphur and copper; pyrethrins and rotenone (both made by plants); BT spray and Spinosad (both made by bacteria), Spinosad is what is known as a safe, short-acting pesticides. However, these natural pesticides are not harmless. For instance, sulphur irritates the lungs, and rotenone has been linked to Parkinson's disease in rats.

In 2000, injecting rotenone into rats was reported to cause the development of symptoms similar to those of Parkinson's disease. The study does not directly suggest rotenone exposure is responsible for Parkinson's disease in humans, but is consistent with the belief that chronic exposure to environmental toxins increases the likelihood of the disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Parkinson.27s_disease

As I've mentioned, organic farmers also use BT spray (BT is a 'natural' pesticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis). However, organic ideologists condemn genetically modified cotton crops that carry an inbuilt supply of BT which apparently require less spraying. This could mean less of a reliant on pesticide overuse apparently.

I'm not a GM advocate by the way though the non-pesticide usage argument and the so called 'natural' and 'safe' pesticides used in organic farming appear contradictory. That is the argument appears contradictory.

Also, the term 'natural' appears ambiguous.

It also has to be argued if organic farming is sustainable? It has been reported that even if you could use all the organic material you have – the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues – and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than four billion people. The population of the planet after all is six to seven billion. Also, wouldn't forests have to be cleared to provide enough organic manure needed for farming?

Regardless of the popularity it appears organic farming may not be as sustainable as people might think.

Incidentally, I didn't set out to be anti organic when I started reading up on this subject, I was however surprised to read some of the health claims some people were making. This is the reason I started reading up about it as I wanted to see for myself if the health claims were true. However, I'm not convinced by this argument and haven't found any evidence that supports it.

Anyway, and to continue with the quality and taste argument, taste is as you say Edwardia, subjective. However, if Haffiana (post # 16) is right in that some value ranges may be made with a run of rejects of one product and so on then surely it has to be argued that there appears to be inconsistencies. Surely if products are inconsistent then isn't it right to call them inferior? You could argue the old cliche, you get what you pay for.

However, I have no argument against value range products otherwise, after all I too buy value range products as I've pointed out above in my previous post. Most of what I have bought appears OK albeit a little inconsistent from time to time.

Edwardia wrote: »

Sainsbury's SO organic instant porridge is probably just as unhealthy as any other instant porridge, it just doesn't have the added chemicals and GM.

I thought all porridge was good for you (?). By instant do you mean as in Ready Brek as this is also known as an instant porridge?

frugal_shopper_2

Rotenone is no longer permitted for use in the EU either in organic or conventional farming.

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/eu/eu-reviews/products-to-be-withdrawn-from-the-market-containing-rotenone

Lugh_Chronain

I had a funny feeling that might be the case.

SailorSam

Quasar wrote: »

I never pay much attention to critiques based on taste alone.

Eating little salt, I find most raved about foods are too salty for me. Cooking mostly from scratch, I find many ready made or tinned foods a tad artificial. And so on.

On the other hand, critiques based on nutritional content and additives do get my full attention.

I can't remember what the programme was but there was someone on Tv last week saying the reason many people think the basic ranges of food don't taste as nice as the 'brand' ones is, very often supermarket own brands will have less salt in them. And people have grown up getting use to saltier food.

flubberyzing

These sort of reports annoy me, because, for so many people, these are the only options!
TBH, I've never been disappointed by any Value or Basic range I've tried. I've had the tesco equiv. of the basic cheese pizza, and with a handful of extra cheddar I grated myself, it was delicious!
I'm actually struggling to think of any product in these ranges that I wouldn't have again... Although, to be fair, there is a lot I haven't tried, like the cereals.
One of my most liked products is Tesco value chocolate mousses. 25p for 4, and absolutely delicious. FAR nicer I think than their much more expensive rivals! Their fruit squashes are lovely as well. Certainly comparable to Robinsons, which I grew up on.

Edwardia

Organic vs conventional food has been controversial lately because of the study Stanford University released last September. The researchers' conclusion was that organic was no better for us than conventional.

They didn't study the composition of organic vegetables etc they merely used computers to crunch a lot of previous studies. Personally, I think that sort of study is inherently flawed.

The signing of the agreement between the EU and USDA means that American organic food can be imported over here and that includes stuff that I personally wouldn't regard as organic. American farmers have more leeway with regard to stuff they put on/feed/put in organic food because agribusiness owns huge chunks of the organic production process there. Organic food is being diminished by conventional farming, year on year.

Expect to see organic chocolate Cheerios.. in the meantime, instant organic porridge is the just add water type.

A._Badger

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

I
Incidentally, I didn't set out to be anti organic when I started reading up on this subject, I was however surprised to read some of the health claims some people were making. This is the reason I started reading up about it as I wanted to see for myself if the health claims were true. However, I'm not convinced by this argument and haven't found any evidence that supports it.

I 'went organic' back in the early 1980s (and if people think it's hard to do today...!) because I was convinced by the arguments of horticulturalists like Lawrence D. Hills. I found some of the Soil Association's material persuasive, too.

At that stage, though I was a grower, I was pretty ignorant about plant science and not being the sort to just accept whatever I'm told at face value, I decided I needed to learn something about it.

The more I learned, however, and the more connections I made in the then still fairly nascent 'organic lobby', the more it seemed to me that what was going on had less to do with plant science or human nutrition, than with a cultural reaction against science.

People need to do their own research and reach their own conclusions but doing so isn't easy. I wince when see the word 'chemical' used as if it meant 'something evil'. We are all made of chemicals - plants and animals alike. Just because a chemical has a long name doesn't mean it is freshly scraped every morning from the devil's armpit.

Personally, after seven or eight years, I came to the conclusion that if organic food tasted better (some did - but not all) that was due to the varieties or breeds and more care having been taken in the growing and husbandry, than in some 'organic' principle. I also concluded that the health benefits were highly questionable.

That last but is the hardest to decide on. The science behind food is so uncertain that even as recently as last week, Watson (of DNA discovery Nobel prize fame) declared that antioxidants had probably caused more cancers than they had ever cured and that the conventional 'foodie' wisdom about increasing antioxidant consumption being highly beneficial was absolutely wrong.

Well, James Watson may be wrong, too (though he does have a Nobel prize for physiology and medicine) but in either case it means the science is far from settled and that pronouncements are risky.

I wish I could say I think it's easier to reach a balanced point of view today but I don't believe it is. You really have to dig deep to get past the propaganda (on both sides) and I don't blame people for not having the time, energy or interest to do it.

Edwardia

In nature, you won't ever find tomatoes with fish genes or maize that is immune to a particular trademarked weedkiller.

Some manufacturers add potassium sorbate to cottage cheese, others don't. Some makers of prosciutto don't add nitrates, others do.

Most supermarkets don't sell plain pork steaks which are only 89% pork, with added water, sodium citrate, sodium nitrate and dried glucose syrup - Tesco does.

If you can get the same pork cut for the same price, why would you buy the 89% pork in preference to the 100% pork nothing added ? Tesco tried to tell me the water was for flavour. Water ? Water adds weight. 11% water means every 11th pack is 100% profit for Tesco.

Cheap food does not have to be unhealthy food. Aldi sells organic food in Germany cheaper than non-organic food in UK.

Non-organic food can be healthy food. But look around you at all the obese people in the UK we're the fattest nation in the EU with the most expensive food.

Lugh_Chronain

A._Badger wrote: »

the more it seemed to me that what was going on had less to do with plant science or human nutrition, than with a cultural reaction against science.

Yes, this does appear to be the case.

A._Badger wrote: »

That last but is the hardest to decide on. The science behind food is so uncertain that even as recently as last week, Watson (of DNA discovery Nobel prize fame) declared that antioxidants had probably caused more cancers than they had ever cured and that the conventional 'foodie' wisdom about increasing antioxidant consumption being highly beneficial was absolutely wrong.

Well, James Watson may be wrong, too (though he does have a Nobel prize for physiology and medicine) but in either case it means the science is far from settled and that pronouncements are risky.

Very good point. Though the general consensus amongst scientists however is that antioxidants are beneficial for preventing cancers. Though I suppose you could say this is disputable.

One of the points I keep making about science is that scientists appear to always point out that further research is needed regardless of the pronouncements. They have a tendency to point out that their evidence is never completely conclusive. Though sometimes it's better to er on the side of caution. And as you point out, the science is far from settled.

A._Badger wrote: »

I wish I could say I think it's easier to reach a balanced point of view today but I don't believe it is. You really have to dig deep to get past the propaganda (on both sides) and I don't blame people for not having the time, energy or interest to do it.

Very good point and can't say I haven't noticed.

A._Badger wrote: »

I don't blame people for not having the time, energy or interest to do it.

I keep reminding myself about this point, I appear to find myself thinking "it beggars belief". Though as you say, don't blame people for not having the time, energy or interest.

Edwardia wrote: »

In nature, you won't ever find tomatoes with fish genes or maize that is immune to a particular trademarked weedkiller.

Very true, though haven't people been cross breeding for hundreds if not thousands of years? And let's not forget, the technology we have these days is more advanced, we have the ability to push the science further.

And what if GM varieties spared farmers and the environment from the risks of pesticide overuse?

Did you know that cotton farmers in India have reduced their use of pesticides and accidental poisonings by 80% since the introduction of genetically modified BT cotton?

These points don't mean ethics shouldn't come in to play however. It would be lazy of us to try to avoid this. They remain questionable.

Edwardia wrote: »

Cheap food does not have to be unhealthy food. Aldi sells organic food in Germany cheaper than non-organic food in UK.

Non-organic food can be healthy food. But look around you at all the obese people in the UK we're the fattest nation in the EU with the most expensive food.

I'm not sure but I don't think this is what you are saying, nevertheless, it is so difficult to support any claim that organic food is healthier than conventional food.

And isn't it high sugar content that is one of the main factors of obesity? The main factors of obesity appear to be consumption of energy-dense foods such as those high in fat and sugars.

Also, doesn't marketing play a big part in the pricing of food? Isn't popularity a factor that plays a part in the pricing of certain foods? Food that is expensive here might not be so expensive in other countries for example. Popularity and public perception does appear to play a part. People appear to be more inclined to pay extra if food is deemed healthier for them (and the environment). Unhealthy food appears to be more accessible and cheaper in most cases. Also additives as you have pointed out appear to play a part in keeping food prices low for example. One of the reason why cheap food can be unhealthy I suppose. Of course this isn't always the case however.

Edwardia

There are two sides to every story..

Bangalore.. with 68 stores which carry organic produce
http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/metroplus/its-raining-organic/article4302421.ece

Growth of 20% in organic food sales in India
http://post.jagran.com/Middle-class-spending-power-fuelling-organic-food-products-market-1345737520

Welsh organic dairy exports to China
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/fresh/dairy/welsh-dairy-trioni-scores-organic-milk-deal-with-china/234966.article

Beijing mothers doing it for themselves
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/organic-only-for-beijings-middle-class-moms/829

So while Western scientists are saying this is how we feed the world with GM, many people in those countries are wanting organic food.

Russia wants to export organic to Europe and the UAE is formulating it's own organic standards, growing organic produce and importing it from India.

Wherever the standard Western overprocessed junk food diet goes, so does the obesity, the heart disease, diabetes etc.

Maybe some communities can stand back and think do we want McDonald's.. do we want our hard earned money flowing to the West to build up their companies ? Can we afford all the health problems ?

For starters...