A
recent report suggests that the nutritional value of organic food is the same
as that of conventionally grown produce. See from this you can imagine money
can buy anything even the so called Scientific Report which is based on
evidence, proof and research.
First
of all let me give an example of the fruit that I ate 20 years back and
difference of the same fruit that I am eating now. Take the case of Pineapple. Pineapple is a fruit that is very acidic and
if you eat 1 or 2 slice, it is more than enough, 20 years back, but it was very
sweet and tasty to eat at that time. I
had ulcer and even if I ate even 1 piece of the Pineapple, but I would
literally take to vomiting and bed ridden because the acidic content would
really play havoc with my stomach since I had ulcer so I stopped eating pineapple
but it is very good, I longed to eat it but couldn’t because of my health
issue. Pineapple contains Bromelain
which is a natural anticoagulant that works by breaking down the blood-clotting
protein fibrin and various benefits due to its acidic qualities. Few months
back, I decided to try it again though now I am down with more issues than 20
years back and surprisingly found that the acidic nature of Bromelain has
completely vanished in the conventionally grown pineapple and the pineapple
also was not sweet tasting, very bland, which means that it has been so
modified conventially that eating a pineapple nowadays is just wasting money because
it does not taste good on your tongue and neither does it has the properties
that makes up pineapple like it used to 20 years back so you decide, are all
the fruits that you are eating 20 today same taste and beneficial properties
which you were eating 20 years back and you will realize that these so called
scientific research are taking people for a ride and most of the educated
illiterates believe such so called scientific backed reports which can be
bought.
Just
when the demand for organic food was increasing, comes a report that might
force consumers to think twice before paying that extra rupee. An independent
study funded by the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has found that organic
food fares no better than conventionally grown food as far as nutrients are
concerned.
Food
crops that are cultivated without using pesticides and artificial fertilisers
are known as organic food. Organic foods cost 25 to 30 per cent more than
mass-produced food because their production cost is higher (much of the yield
gets destroyed due to little or no use of pesticides).
The
study, which appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
states, “On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory
quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between
organically and conventionally produced foodstuff. The small differences in
nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to
differences in production methods.”
The
results of the study —conducted by Alan Dangour of the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine — has thrown up a moot question. Should we pay extra for
organic food when their nutritional value is the same as that of food grown in
the conventional way?
Some
experts feel that organic foods cannot be viewed on a par with those that are
grown with the use of fertilisers and pesticides. Says Anil Kumar Gupta, who
teaches at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, and is one of the
pioneers of the organic food movement in India, “Nowhere in the study have they
said that organic food is less healthy than chemically fortified crops. It’s
just that according to the criteria selected by the researchers, organic food
was found be on a par with conventional ones. Organic food is definitely the
healthier choice.”
Gill
Fine, director of consumer choice and dietary health for the FSA, disagrees. In
his blog (http://blogs. food. gov.uk/roller/science/entry/
on_organic_food) he writes, “To me, the main take-home message from this
report is that in order to eat a healthy diet it doesn’t matter if it’s made up
of organic or conventionally produced food. Surely that’s good news for all of
us?”
Organic
food aficionados beg to differ. Says Samantak Das, head of the department of
comparative literature, Jadavpur University, Calcutta, and one who has been
into organic food for quite sometime, “The report does not say that organic
food is not healthy. One needs to keep in mind that conventional methods allow
the use of more pesticides. In the UK, there are regulatory methods to control
the usage of pesticides even in the conventional method of cultivation.
However, in India there is no regulatory system and farmers use fertilisers in
abundance to avoid crop destruction.” Chemical fertilisers can not only be
carcinogenic but also hamper the ecosystem, says Das.
Rakesh
Chandra, the owner of Prakriti, a chain of organic food outlets in Maharashtra,
feels that even if organic foods do not have an edge over conventional crops on
the nutrition parameter, the former would still be a better bet as it doesn’t
contain preservatives and pesticides. Chandra too is sceptical about the study.
“I don’t have faith in this study — it could be backed by companies that
manufacture fertilisers and pesticides. I don’t think that buyers of organic
food are being cheated. They are getting healthier food at a little extra cost,
which is better than having food that’s contaminated with poisonous chemicals,”
he says.
Says
Nina Singh, senior diet and nutrition consultant at BP Poddar Hospital and
Medical Research Ltd, Calcutta, “The study might say that the nutrient value is
the same. However, as a nutritionist, I would still suggest that people who can
afford organic food opt for it.”
Others
say that organic foods have anyway never claimed to be nutritionally superior.
As Mumbai-based consumer activist Jehangir Gia points out, “I don’t think
consumers will lose out even if the nutritional levels of organic foods and
conventional foods are the same. In any case, organic food has never claimed to
be nutritionally superior. Those promoting it say it’s healthier, which it is.”
In
fact, many experts say that more than the nutritional value, the key issue is
whether or not the consumer is getting authentic stuff when he or she buys food
that is touted as organic. “With very few certifications for organic foods, the
consumer often has to depend upon the assurance of the seller,” says Gia.
The
National Programme for Organic Production is one body that does issue certifications.
Experts advise that consumers who wish to buy organic food should go for those
that carry certifications by the National Programme for Organic Production.
Organic
foods need to be certified as well as classified properly. “The soil of a farm
newly converted to organic farming has residual pesticides and other chemicals.
So the crops also have traces of these chemicals. A farm and its produce become
truly organic only after a few years of not using any chemicals at all. These
zero chemical crops are more expensive than the earlier ones,” explains Das.
According
to Das, the best way to get authentic organic food is to get in touch with NGOs
promoting it. Those who live in Calcutta can contact the Development Research
Communication and Service Centre (www.drcsc. com), a non-government
development organisation that ensures food and livelihood security of the rural
poor through sustainable management of natural resources. They would help you
contact producers of organic food.
So,
go organic if you want to. But if you are paying more to have zero chemical
food, make sure that the food is truly so.
