Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the
Issues (Part I)
Annual Review of Plant Biology
Vol. 59: 771-812 (Volume publication date June 2008)
First published online as a Review in Advance on February 19, 2008
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
Peggy G. Lemaux
Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720; email: lemauxpg@nature.berkeley.edu
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/annur=
ev.arplant.58.032806.103840
3.16. Are Organic Foods Healthier or Safer?
Organic farming is a method of agricultural production that does not
allow the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or growth
enhancers. Foods grown under organic certification differ from
conventionally produced food by the manner in which they are grown,
handled, and processed, but an “organic” label does not gua=
rantee the
nature of the product, the food, or ingredient, only its production
method. The important factors for many people who consume organic
foods relate to the perceptions that they are healthier, taste better,
are better for the environment, have lower pesticide levels and fewer
food additives, and are better for animal welfare (214). However,
organic certification does not imply that foods produced using organic
methods are more nutritious or safer than those produced without
organic methods (195).
A 2007 review by the British Nutrition Foundation stated, “There
appears to be a perception among many consumers that organic foods are
more nutritious and therefore healthier than conventionally produced
foods. However, to date there are limited data to support this
view” (248). This perception has led in part to increases in the wo=
rld
market for certified organic foods to $34 billion in 2005 (111). A
2007 poll showed that 57% of polled consumers strongly believed that
science had proven that organic food was healthier than conventional
(182, figure 17). Because of the paucity of scientific data, the UK
Food Standards Agency decided in October 2007 to seek a contractor who
will evaluate relevant studies and compare the nutrient and non-
nutrient content of organic and conventional foods to determine if any
compositional differences have nutritional or other health effects in
the context of the complete diet (86).
> Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the
> Issues (Part I)
> Annual Review of Plant Biology
> Vol. 59: 771-812 (Volume publication date June 2008)
> First published online as a Review in Advance on February 19, 2008
> DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
> Peggy G. Lemaux
> Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California,
> Berkeley, California 94720; email: lemauxpg@nature.berkeley.edu
>
> http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/a
> nnurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
>
> 3.16. Are Organic Foods Healthier or Safer?
> Organic farming is a method of agricultural production that does not
> allow the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or growth
> enhancers. Foods grown under organic certification differ from
> conventionally produced food by the manner in which they are grown,
> handled, and processed, but an “organic” label does not guarantee
> the nature of the product, the food, or ingredient, only its
> production method. The important factors for many people who consume
> organic foods relate to the perceptions that they are healthier, taste
> better, are better for the environment, have lower pesticide levels
> and fewer food additives, and are better for animal welfare (214).
> However, organic certification does not imply that foods produced
> using organic methods are more nutritious or safer than those produced
> without organic methods (195).
> A 2007 review by the British Nutrition Foundation stated, “There
> appears to be a perception among many consumers that organic foods are
> more nutritious and therefore healthier than conventionally produced
> foods. However, to date there are limited data to support this
> view” (248). This perception has led in part to increases in the
> world market for certified organic foods to $34 billion in 2005
> (111). A 2007 poll showed that 57% of polled consumers strongly
> believed that science had proven that organic food was healthier than
> conventional (182, figure 17). Because of the paucity of scientific
> data, the UK Food Standards Agency decided in October 2007 to seek a
> contractor who will evaluate relevant studies and compare the nutrient
> and non- nutrient content of organic and conventional foods to
> determine if any compositional differences have nutritional or other
> health effects in the context of the complete diet (86).
>
Never trust a meta-analysis.
Chris
wrote:
> > A 2007 review by the British Nutrition Foundation stated, “There
> > appears to be a perception among many consumers that organic foods are
> > more nutritious and therefore healthier than conventionally produced
> > foods. However, to date there are limited data to support this
> > view” (248).
> Never trust a meta-analysis.
> Chris
Nor book writers or sophists to dictate science.
wrote:
> > Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the
> > Issues (Part I)
> > Annual Review of Plant Biology
> > Vol. 59: 771-812 (Volume publication date June 2008)
> > First published online as a Review in Advance on February 19, 2008
> > DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
> > Peggy G. Lemaux
> > Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California,
> > Berkeley, California 94720; email: lemau...@nature.berkeley.edu
> Never trust a meta-analysis.
> Chris-
yet its more reliable than proselytizing pseudo scientists,
XML site map
> Issues (Part I)
> Annual Review of Plant Biology
> Vol. 59: 771-812 (Volume publication date June 2008)
> First published online as a Review in Advance on February 19, 2008
> DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
> Peggy G. Lemaux
> Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California,
> Berkeley, California 94720; email: lemauxpg@nature.berkeley.edu
>
> http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/a
> nnurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
>
> 3.16. Are Organic Foods Healthier or Safer?
> Organic farming is a method of agricultural production that does not
> allow the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or growth
> enhancers. Foods grown under organic certification differ from
> conventionally produced food by the manner in which they are grown,
> handled, and processed, but an “organic” label does not guarantee
> the nature of the product, the food, or ingredient, only its
> production method. The important factors for many people who consume
> organic foods relate to the perceptions that they are healthier, taste
> better, are better for the environment, have lower pesticide levels
> and fewer food additives, and are better for animal welfare (214).
> However, organic certification does not imply that foods produced
> using organic methods are more nutritious or safer than those produced
> without organic methods (195).
> A 2007 review by the British Nutrition Foundation stated, “There
> appears to be a perception among many consumers that organic foods are
> more nutritious and therefore healthier than conventionally produced
> foods. However, to date there are limited data to support this
> view” (248). This perception has led in part to increases in the
> world market for certified organic foods to $34 billion in 2005
> (111). A 2007 poll showed that 57% of polled consumers strongly
> believed that science had proven that organic food was healthier than
> conventional (182, figure 17). Because of the paucity of scientific
> data, the UK Food Standards Agency decided in October 2007 to seek a
> contractor who will evaluate relevant studies and compare the nutrient
> and non- nutrient content of organic and conventional foods to
> determine if any compositional differences have nutritional or other
> health effects in the context of the complete diet (86).
>