ORGANIC MILK SCORES BETTER NUTRITIONALLY...AGAIN

Organic milk yet again scores better nutritionally.......

Before anyone starts, have a look at my take on the UK FSA report(part 1 and 2) on organic food and its nutritional superiority or otherwise. (Much of this Newcastle milk research, btw, was just outside the time frame of the UK FSA study....but then, 2/3 of all relevant and published peer reviewed research was too, so what's the biggie!?!)

A new study by researchers from Newcastle University has found significant health and nutritional benefits to organic milk. The research has found that organic milk is higher in beneficial nutrients and fatty acids and, importantly, it is so throughout the year. It also found that saturated fat levels are considerably lower in organic milk.

Saturated fats are considered unhealthy, and are implicated in heart-related conditions.

The European Union-funded study analysed 22 brands of milk available in supermarkets, including 10 organic brands. The milk was all purchased between 2006 and 2008.

The peer-reviewed paper said the health benefits were present all year round rather than just during the summer. Previous research by the same team on milk directly from dairy farms had found that organic milk's benefits held for the summer but less so for winter.

This new study is published in the Journal of Dairy Science. Lead researcher Gillian Butler, livestock project manager for the Nafferton Ecological Farming Group, said: "We wanted to check if what we found on farms also applies to milk available in the shops. Surprisingly, the differences between organic and conventional milk were even more marked. Whereas on the farms the benefits of organic milk were proven in the summer but not the winter, in the supermarkets it is significantly better quality all year round."

The researchers found that the conventional milk collected during a particularly poor UK summer and the following winter had significantly higher saturated fat content and far less beneficial fatty acids than in a more standard weather period.

The more proscribed dietary regimes for organic dairy cows, as compared to their conventional counterparts, is significant in explaining the differences. No more than 40% of the diet can be non-grass under the organic rules.

According to the Soil Association, the UK largest organic certification body:

�The paper not only shows why there is a difference in the nutritional quality of organic and non-organic milk, but also identifies the importance of feeding at least 60% grass or conserved grass to organic cows, as required by organic standards.

The research emphasises the huge importance of allowing cattle to graze outdoors and to eat a natural diet high in grass. This means organic cows do not depend on high levels of grain and proteins such as soya.�

Butler also pointed out that �we're always being told to cut down on the saturated fat we consume and switching to organic milk and dairy products provides a natural way to increase our intake of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, vitamins and antioxidants without increasing our intake of less desirable fatty acids�

"By choosing organic milk you can cut saturated fats by 30-50 per cent and still get the same intake of beneficial fatty acids, as the omega-3 levels are higher but omega-6 is not, which helps to improve the crucial ratio between the two."

Organic milk is considered the most researched of certified organic products.

In total, six studies have now found that organic milk has more fat-soluble nutrients - omega-3 fatty acid, Vitamin E and beta-carotene - than non-organic milk, as well as a healthier omega 3:6 ratio (skimmed milk does not have these nutrients).

The most scientifically robust study is by Glasgow and Liverpool Universities, which found that UK (whole) organic milk has on average 68% higher levels of the essential fatty acid omega-3 and a healthier omega-3:6 profile than non-organic milk.

Other recent research found that there were also specific health benefits: Dutch research showed that if infants up to two years old and their mothers eat organic dairy foods, then the infants suffer a 36% lower incidence of eczema - a type of allergic reaction common among Western children. This could be due to the higher CLA level in organic milk and in the breast milk of mothers consuming organic milk, as shown by another study.

Positive as these results are for the organic diary sector in Ireland, the research is on milk available in the UK, not in Ireland. Irish conventional cattle do consume more grass than their UK counterparts. Irish-specific research on organic milk is therefor needed.

French study finds organic is in fact more nutritious

The French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) has found that organic food is superior nutritionally, in research published in the Journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

This contrasts with the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report, lead authored by Alan Dangor of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The UK FSA report concluded that there was no significant nutritional differences between organic and conventional foods.

However the French study, authored by Denis Lairon, found key differences between organic and conventional foods.

According to the French study, organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals, specifically Iron and Magnesium, and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid. Organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids.

The report also found that organic vegetables contain far less nitrates. 80% of human exposure to nitrates comes from vegetables. Nitrates, which convert to nitrites, are linked to gastric cancer, circulatory problems and respiratory conditions such as asthma.

Significantly, the French research also examined pesticide residues, whereas the UK FSA research did not consider this area. Lairon found that 94-100% of organic food has no pesticide residues.

The UK FSA research only considered research with an abstract (i.e. academic summary) written in English. This makes the French research all the more significant, as it is based on a comprehensive 2003 report written in French, as well as more recent findings.

The French study is here

UK FSA report on organic vs conventional food's nutrition: part 2

As revealed last posting on this, the recent UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) report, comparing the nutritional levels of organic and conventional foods from 1958 to February 2008, actually left out every publication from before 1990.

In total, 2/3 of all the relevant peer reviewed research was rejected.

The logic given in the report is that in the 66% of rejected work, various failings in the peer review process were uncovered. The biggest single fault found was that no certification body was listed or inferred for the organic produce analysed (p 15).

In many cases this was because certification was in its infancy.

This is a very big and very important decision to make. Many state bodies, such as our own Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF), does not actually have a certification body.

DAFF is what is called the competent authority: it delegates to private inspection and certification bodies. However, it does not have private certification bodies inspect its own research centres.

Thus, any research done by DAFF would not have been included in this report, irrespective of which scientific journal it appeared in.

It is reasonable to assume that the same could also hold for at least some other state institutions across the world, who inevitably delegate authority to private certification bodies.

Often, the state does not see the need or value in inspections on its own research by these private bodies: after all, it delegates power to these bodies.

This certification issue is especially significant because in this rejected 66%, the findings are far more positive for organic than in the 34% considered at the quality level.

Interestingly, the report itself does actually list nutritional findings taken from an analysis of all 162 publications.

It is just that the official findings and conclusions, which suggest that there are no significant differences between organic and conventional in nutritional terms, come from their analysis of just 55 publications: i.e. the smaller 1/3 or 34%. For example, they claim:

�Organically produced crops were found to have significantly higher levels of sugars, magnesium, zinc, dry matter, phenolic compounds and flavonoids than conventionally crops� (p 17).

These significant differences were found when taking all 162 peer reviewed published papers into account.

When taking the narrower quality criteria, and considering just a maximum of 55, or 1/3, only three differences were found: Conventional crops were found to have more nitrogen, and organic crops more phosphorus and titratable acidity.

Based on the latter three findings from the smaller set of publications, the authors claim that no significant differences were to be found between organic and conventional nutritionally.

The same holds for livestock products: 3 out of ten significant differences were found between organic and conventional. However with the narrower selection criteria, which leaves out 2/3 of all published research, just one was found. The other two were rejected due to insufficient data.

Out of a possible 162, just 25 in total dealt with all livestock products: i.e. all meat and dairy products.

Incredibly, within these 25, it seems that hardly any were considered to actually have met the quality criteria: according to appendix 13, p.3, no more than 6 publications were at the required level for the authors.

To say that more research is needed sometimes just sounds like an appeal for funding: in this case, it seems fairly clear that this handful of livestock product papers, supposedly spanning five decades, is fairly paltry.

Professor Carlo Leifert co-ordinated the major EU Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) initiative, which involved 31 research and university institutes.

Leifert's own research, suggesting organic milk's nutritional superiority, appeared in April 2008 - technically 2 months too late for inclusion in the study.

He said: "I'm worried about the conclusions. The ballpark figures they have come up with are similar to ours. I don't understand why the FSA are not going away and saying, 'Right, there's something you can do on a farm to improve food.' But they are so blocked by not wanting to say positive things about organic farming."

UK FSA report on organic vs conventional food's nutrition: part one

I'll be giving my interpretation of the UK FSA report into organics and nutrition in two postings here. However I'm not in a position to put the second part up until next week.

The recent report comparing nutritional levels of organic and conventional food excluded 2/3 of all relevant peer reviewed research from its findings.

The report claims to be the most comprehensive study into this subject ever conducted, examining every relevant publication from 1958 to 2008.

However, through a controversial selection process, most publications, including every single publication before 1990, were considered below the authors' quality standard.

Pre-1990 publications were omitted because no organic certification body was listed or inferred in the relevant journal articles, as organic certification was then in its infancy.

Slightly bizarrely, the exclusion of pre 1990 publications was obscured by an unfortunate typo on page 15 of the report. This typo resulted in half a paragraph being omitted from the report, a fact acknowledged in correspondence with lead author Dr. Alan Dangour.

Here, precisely, is what he said to me what I spotted this typo:

BEGINS

Thank you for spotting this. Not sure how it happened as it is not in my final version of the report. The second half of that paragraph should read:

Finally, more than half the studies in the review (54%) failed to provide a clear definition of the organic production methods used (we required a statement of certifying body, although if no certifying body was named it was inferred when possible from the text provided). No study published pre-1990 met this final quality criterion, largely due to the general lack of certifying bodies at that time, although even recent studies often failed to state the name of the organic production certifying body. In total, one third of studies included in the review (34%) met the pre-defined quality criteria (see Table 1).

ENDS

While a careful examination of the publications lists in the appendices would reveal this to the intrepid scholar, the vast majority of readers would have lost this fact.

The study was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) for the UK's Food Standards Agency.

The LSHTM�s team of researchers, led by Dr. Alan Dangour, claims to have reviewed all papers published over the past 50 years that studied nutrient content and health differences between organic and conventional food.

According to Dangor �our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.�

To date, many of the criticisms of the report have been well aired. It: rejected publications with foreign language abstracts (i.e. summaries); excluded areas of health concern such as biocide residues and additives; left out important nutritients, downplayed its own significant findings where they suggested organic is superior nutritionally.

For the latter, this includes the findings with regard to polyunsaturated fats in dairy and and meat products.

Indeed, the mean differences revealed in the report do point to the following higher levels in organic food: Protein 12.7%; Beta-carotene 53.6% Flavonoids 38.4%; Copper 8.3%; Magnesium 7.1%; Phosphorous 6%; Potassium 2.5%; Sodium 8.7%; Sulphur 10.5%; Zinc 11.3%; Phenolic compounds 13.2%.

When I put this to Alan Dangor, he replied �It is important to distinguish between "mean differences" and "statistically significant differences".�

However many consumers would be pleased to hear of almost 40% more Flavonoids, over 50% more beta-carotene, and indeed any extra zinc and magnesium.

One of the underreported problems with the report is the fact that individual foods are not considered. Instead, every product within the broad categories of livestock and crops are considered together.

So if, as recent research suggests, organic tomatoes and kiwis are superior nutritionally, this is balanced out by the overall grouping of all fruits and vegetables into one category.

According to the report itself:�The authors understand that combining all crops and all animal products into single groups and analysing the results by nutrient category may have obscured possible nutrient differences within specific foodstuffs. Certain types of foodstuffs may be more

responsive to organic or conventional production systems than others, and these

differences may have been diluted or lost when all foodstuffs were combined in this

manner�.

Considering Dr. Dangor's statement above on mean vs significant differences, this is ironic to say the least.

However leaving out 2/3 of all the relevant research is surely the most glaring issue.

162 publications were identified. Only 1/3, or 55 of these, were considered as at the authors' pre-defined quality criteria.

Yet all of the 2/3 considered below the quality level were actually accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

In other words, the scientific community examined them and found them to be up to the required level for publication in a scientific journal.

So the authors of this report have peer reviewed the peer reviewing process, and rejected 2/3 of what others in the scientific community accepted.

This is especially significant because it is in the 2/3 of peer reviewed publications the authors reject, that the majority of positive research into organic food's nutritional levels is found.

Next posting on this will further examine the rejection of 2/3 of all relevant publications.

The new Northern situation: the challenge intensive organic food from Northern Ireland poses

On top of general recession-related worries, Irish organic farmers have another thing to contend with: technically organic but nonetheless intensive produce from Northern Ireland.

Northern Irish economies of scale and the sterling differential are continuing to put pressure on southern Irish organic producers.

In light of these effects, what were reported last week as strong signals for producer price reductions are reported to be continuing, whatever about the brave public face farmers and operators put on.

Organic farmers and operators fear and risk de-listing for putting their heads above the parapet and complaining. There are few processing and retailer options in Ireland.

Today I encountered an organic chicken in Tescos for E5.71. It weighted 1.118 kilos, and was E5.11 a kilo � down from E6.81 per kilo.

This chicken, from John Connolly in county Tyrone, was from Northern Ireland. Sourcing from the north seems to be an increasing trend for retailers.

The chicken was labelled UK2 - the Organic Farmers and Growers (OFG) certification code. There are nine UK certifiers, which includes the two Irish certifiers. This is mainly because Irish and UK certifiers can operate in Northern Ireland.

The Soil Association are the UK biggest organic certification body. They have been very critical of the OFG poultry standards.

While the Soil Association have a 500 recommended and 1000 birds maximum, OGF and others allow for 4800, with the option of going up to 9000 birds.

Southern Irish poultry farms tend to have up to 500 birds.

The natural flocking size of chickens is considered to be about 100. It is possible on smaller enterprises to allow for this, though some organic farmers stick rigidly to housing arrangements which encourage this.

Inevitably, this sort of flock size becomes more difficult when the numbers run into the thousands.

However the economy of scale of thousands of birds bring the price down for the consumer: hence half the price per kilo for Northern Irish as southern Irish organic chicken in supermarkets.

Competition from Northern Ireland is also effecting organic milk producers. Organic dairy farms in Northern Ireland are larger and more intensive. They rely more on concentrates than grass for feed. This increases the negative environmental effect, as feed production and transportation adds to global warming and the use of pesticides and herbicides more than grass growing does.

Organic dairy farms also have 2-3 times as many cows in Northern Ireland as their southern counterparts.

Up to half of the milk in Glenisk's pool comes from Northern Ireland. All of the organic milk in the discounter LIDI comes from Northern Ireland. This retails at E1.19 a litre, as does Tescos own brand organic milk. Glenisk' on the other hand, is usually about E1.65.

Inevitably, competition from the more industrialised Northern Irish farmers effects the price southern farmers can get.

There are also nutritional effects: organic milk regularly scores better than conventional when it comes to nutritional data, in particular the Omega 3 and 6 ratio. This has been found in studies across Europe.

Upon closer inspection of some of the more recent data, however, it appears that grass is at least as important as organic: milk from predominantly grass fed animals is nutritionally superior to milk from diary cows fed significant amounts of concentrates.

See for example the research of Professor Carlo Leifert from the Quality low Input Farming project in Newcastle University.

In southern Ireland, organic dairy cows are both predominantly grass fed and organic � a win win nutritionally.

However, for poultry and diary and the broader organic sector in general, scientific research specific to the Irish situation, followed by the marketing of the results, needs to be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

Otherwise people will see the word organic and think one product is the same as the next.

Consumers sometimes use the world organic as an anxiety appeaser: they see it and stop thinking, or worrying, about the broader ethics.

However, as even these two simple examples suggest, organic in one place is not necessarily the same as in another, even on an island as small as Ireland.

New review of the available research confirms organic plant-based foods usually more nutritious.

It is a perennial and slightly tiresome debate, but it just won�t go away. The debate about whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food is just one of those constant points of argument between the organic and conventional food sectors.

There are a range of issues. It can be difficult to accurately compare the two farming systems. It is difficult to account for broader but important comparative factors such as the relative ripeness or age of the products studied � is the organic tomato as old or as young as the conventional tomato studied? Has it travelled a longer or shorter distance? What about varieties?

There are still more: Does the research compare food fresh from the field, in controlled growing conditions, or available in the supermarket?

And are we all being overly reductive in focusing on one nutrient at a time, and indeed nutrition in such detail? Does the debate on nutrition background other important debates � do we fail to take into account the bigger picture, of biodiversity levels or carbon footprints, when we focus so selfishly as humans on nutrition?

All of this said, it does genuinely seem that more and more research is coming out to suggest organic food is more nutritious, most notably the QLIF research findings from Newcastle University. People point to this as being the beginning of some evidence that organic is more nutritious. That said, many still repeat the mantra that there is no scientific data to suggest that organic is more nutritious.

Which is funny. Because most of the research on the issue says the exact opposite. Conveniently, an overview of all peer-reviewed research comparing organic and conventional foods has just been issued. Charles Benbrook led a team of researchers over a two year period into the topic.

The report, New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods, was issued in March.

97 peer-reviewed publications from 1980 to the present were examined. Of these, the authors found enough similarities to compare 236 �matched pairs�.

Matched pairs take into account co-measurability issues. As an example, tomatoes grown organically on one farm and grown conventionally on another close by, with climate, aspect, soil types, plant genetics, irrigation, nitrogen levels and harvest practices all relatively similar.

For 61% of these 236 matched pairs, organic food was shown to have higher nutritional levels. For 8 out of 11 of the nutrients studied organic food had on average 25% higher nutritional levels.

Where conventional food scored best was for nutrients relatively commonly available � potassium, protein and phosphorous. Even where conventional scored better, the amount it scored better by was relatively low: 2/3 of these involved a superiority of below 10%.

Interestingly, where organic scored best was for polyphenols and antioxidants. There was a 10% or more superiority in the antioxidant capacity of a whooping 80% of the organic samples over the conventional.

The authors pointed out that polyphenols and antioxidant capacity is an area of growing scientific investigation, both because of improvements in the analytical tools and because of the evidence that we need these to be healthy.

According to the authors, daily intake of antioxidants and polyphenols is half what it is supposed to be, which makes this nutritional superiority of organic all the more salient.

The number of comparative studies is increasing all the time: more than 40 new studies have been published since 2001.

What�s also interesting to note is that, back then, organic was scoring better in the studies of the research anyway. Indeed two reviews of the literature were published in 2001, and both suggested that organic had higher nutritional levels.

While one was published by the Soil Association, the other was published in a peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Virgina Worthington reviewed 41 studies, and found higher levels in organic produce of all of the 21 nutrients analysed. This included statistically significant higher levels of some, including iron (21% more), magnesium (29% more) and vitamin C (27% more).

And yet, some time soon, you will hear the mantra; �there is no evidence that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventional�.�

To download the Benbrook report, go to previous posting.

organic vs conventional: the nutritional debate goes on... and on and on.....

A new report led by Charles Benbrook compares 97 studies into organic and conventional plant-based foods since 1980, and find organic to be, on average, 25% higher in 8 out of 11 nutrients. Importantly, its all the hard to get ones that organic scores best in!

Download the report here
Download an executive sum here
Download tables and more info on and from the report here

And see my full article on it in next Thursday's Irish Examiner farming supplement

the wine diet: a book review

Here's a review I wrote early last year for organic matters, about a book I'd just completed at the time. The book was called the Wine Diet, and it has recently been reprinted, this time called the Red Wine Diet. Which is fair enough, as Corder has nothing particularly positive to say about white wine. The book also ties in with the fighting foods article I posted here recently.

I have to say that I'm happy with the style of the article below - I'm glad it reads as it does. This isn't always the case for me, so enjoy.

I got The Wine Diet by Roger Corder as what could be called a reluctant Christmas present. Anyone who already enjoys his fair share of beaded bubbles winking at the brim doesn�t necessarily need help convincing himself to further integrate wine into his life. So the present-giver was hesitant, but I�m glad she gave it. And the sauce-consumption hasn�t skyrocketed since then either.

Part of her trepidation may have come from the by-line on the front cover of the book: �Drink red wine every day; Eat fruit and berries, nuts and chocolate; Enjoy a longer, healthier life�. Wow. Bold claims indeed, in both senses of the word. No, this wasn�t written by a spin doctor for some global wine brand, quite the opposite in fact. Rodger Corder is a very level-headed Professor of Experimental Therapeutics at the William Harvey Research Institute in London. And most if not all of the big global wine brands come out badly from the book, as will be seen later.

The types of wine Corder advocates in his own version of moderation � one glass at lunch, one or two with your evening meal, every day � are wines high in a particular type of natural plant chemical, or polyphenol. Specifically, the holy grail of polyphenols is called procyanidin. This is the most abundant polyphenol in young red wines, and according to Corder�s extensive research, it is a key to keeping our blood vessels from clogging up and thus to keeping ourselves healthy.

But not all red wines have them. While he provides some handy examples in the book, it�s possible to guesstimate on the basis that traditionally-made, regional wines on small family vineyards are probably well on the way to healthy. With this in mind, consider the following specific traits: Fermentation where the seeds and skins stay in contact with the fruit for a long time; particular regional grape varietals with plenty of seeds in the first place; vineyards at reasonably high altitudes; low yields; well established vines that don�t need or get too much irrigation; tough soil conditions; long, slow ripening; natural settling in the bottle, rather than excessive fining or especially filteration; aging in oak rather than steel barrels � all these characteristics can help the procyanidin levels in a wine stay high.

These wines can be considered socio-culturally and environmentally embedded rather than anonymous and globalised, as some many of our available wines are today. Why? Because Corder takes his cue from the lifestyles, including the wine-drinking habits, of people in various mountainous rural parts of Europe. In general, there has been a French Paradox, whereby the French who drink plenty of wine seem to live longer than they should because of their lifestyle and diet. However, hilly parts of the islands of Sardinia, Crete and the south-west of France have populations that live Europe�s longest and healthiest lives. What�s more, there are dietary anomalies along with a deficit in anything approaching a modern health care infrastructure in these remote places.

While these peoples do consume a typically good Mediterranean diet, and have a lot of outdoor work and indeed hill walking integrated into their daily routines, they also consume too much saturated fat, and many of them smoke a lot. Along with this, they often don�t have nearby hospitals or easy access to GPs. Crucially, from Corder�s perspective, they are old without medical interventions. Few of the many centurions in Sardinia have had a heart bypass. Who knows what age these people would actually get to if they had their local red wines, slightly tweaked versions of their current lifestyles and the full gamut of modern medicine at their disposal? For Corder, the missing link, the answer to that French (longevity) Paradox that�s been knocking around for decades now, is the type of wine these people drink.

None of the big boys of the wine world do well from this book. As he says himself, �I�m very sorry to tell you that the big brands that have led to the huge expansion of Australian wine exports are, on the whole, low in procyanidins�. In fact, having read the book, it�s possible to extract a rule of thumb for red wine - if a particular wine is advertised on TV it�s almost certainly of little or no health benefit to you at all.

Corder has written a health and diet book, not a wine book. Importantly, diet here refers to a way to eat, not a way to avoid food. Essentially Corder thinks that procyanidins are vital, and some red wines just happen to have them. Hence the byline quoted earlier that refers to dark chocolate, berries, nuts and fruits. Many of these foods have this healthful thing too. Again, however, Corder is clear � processed versions of these are of little use either. To get any health benefit from chocolate, make sure it is as pure and high in coca solids as possible. Likewise, pure apple juice should be naturally cloudy. In fact, more than just wine, Corder provides a nutrition and lifestyle plan, including two weeks of recipes. And it�s simple � like the food we should be eating.

In celtic tiger Ireland, we have wines of the world at our disposal. We have more choice than consumers in most parts of the wine producing regions in Europe do. But we don�t have easy access to many potentially healthful regional varietials - grapes like the uber-healthy Tannat are deemed too quirky, idiosyncratic, old worldy, perhaps even farmyardy for the sophisticated Celt. The irony is on us � our retarded palate may be clogging up our arteries.

And what about our culture? What would our friends, loved ones and colleagues think if we suddenly started drinking a glass of red wine at lunch every day, and two more every evening? And what about ourselves? Would we have the discipline to stop at about three spaced-out glasses every day? Or would we start looking to the Sardinians with their four to seven glasses as the sauce kicked in? Would we even realise that they use 125 ml glasses, not 175mls, after glass three? As he says himself, moderation is the key - for Corder, moderation is regular but small doses.

So approach this book as if it has a health warning attached. Which of course it does.

organic 2007 becoming organic 2008

Here is my review of key organic news 2007, with a look towards 2008. as often is the case, the emphasis is particularly on Ireland. No hyperlinks as of yet, but they are nearly all in the labels on the left in any case.

As a year turns over it is apt to look back on 2007 from an organic perspective. There were a mixture of highs and lows, with perhaps more of the former.

2007 saw a rise in both global and national organic food consumption: globally up to �30 billion, nationally up to �76 million. Production has also been rising: globally it now stands at over 31 million hectares. Nationally, there has been an increase since 2006, following the lean years of 2000-2005. Currently, there are about 1300 organic farmers in the republic of Ireland farming about 40,000 hectares.

One thing that might have a bearing on these figures, and a definite high of 2007, is of course the Ministry Trevor Sargent has taken on, which has organic under it�s remit. The Greens entering government was certainly a noteworthy event of 07, and their choice of ministries clever strategically. Minister Sargent�s aim to increase the organic acreage to 5% (from just under 1%) by 2012 is laudable. The first minor changes - the decoupling of organic from REPS, tillage and horticulture changes, and the establishment of the Organic Farming Scheme � are worthy enough. However we now need to see more targeted, timelined action in key areas.

Separate to policy issues, organic companies in Ireland seem to be lording it at present. St. Tola�s organic cheeses scooped top prize at the inaugural SHOP (organic) awards. Meanwhile, Glenisk dairies, Ireland�s biggest organic company won the �making a difference� award at the Food and Drink awards.

Glenisk seem unstoppable at present. They now export to the UK and have invested �8.5 million in their new production plant, where they process 5,300 tonnes of yoghurt annually.

They have also managed to maintain and develop their eco-credentials. These include converting their truck fleet to biodiesel, powering their plant with wind power through Airtricity and installing a reed bed system for waste.

One thing that was not a highlight however, was national organic week. If anything, this year�s week was weaker than last year�s week (which was weak anyway!). The supposed showcase does need considerable enlivening and, in particular, better funding. There are many causes of the week�s relative obscurity, which have been outlined here before. Organic producers themselves, retailers, Bord Bia and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food all share some of the blame. Next year�s will have to be better, but it will need co-operation, vision and hard work.

From the beginning to the end of 07, in the UK and in Ireland, people in authority have continued to deny the benefits of organic food. The then UK Environment minister, David Miliband was lambasted for calling organic food a lifestyle choice way back in January. Likewise, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland were criticised for also describing organic food as a lifestyle choice in November.

This position seems increasingly untenable in the face of mounting research into the nutritional benefits of organic food. Amongst other 2007 research into organics the QLIF project�s research was perhaps the most headline-grabbing.

This University of Newcastle-based study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than their conventional counterparts. Antioxidants are thought to play a role in the better cardiovascular health.

Another noteworthy piece of organic-related research from 2007 found that children who consume organic milk are less likely to develop eczema, asthma and related allergies. However the research referred not just to cow�s milk but to mother�s milk: it suggested that mothers who consumed organic dairy products passed on this beneficial effect to their babies. This research is also the first example of specific health benefits (as opposed to simple nutritional superiority) being revealed in an organic product and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

2007 was also the year when food prices and climate change became centre-stage issues. Globalisation in all its nuances has begun to bite. Bali may have been a bit of a bail out for the industrial world, but if the approaching change in administration in the US is anything like that of Australia�s, there may be hope on that front too.

On both these fronts, and on so many more, organic farming has a role to play. Here�s to an organic 2008.

should restaurants label for calories?

I wrote an article recently on compulsory calorie labelling in the US, and asked some chefs and others in the food area in Ireland if the same should happen here. I have to say I wasn't expecting the chefs to be overly supportive of the idea, but I was suprised at the sheer range of disagreement. Compulsory calorie labelling in Ireland might take some time...

Imagine walking into a restaurant and seeing the calorie count of the meal you are about to have on an overhead display or on the menu? Would you think twice about that big juicy option? This is currently the situation in New York, where there has been an inordinate amount of twoing and frowing between representatives of the restaurant industry and fast food chains on the one hand, and food advocacy groups, pubic health officials and Major Bloomberg�s administration on the other.

During the summer, calorie labelling became compulsory for standard portions in all manner of standardised eateries, from sandwich bars to fast food chains in New York. Restaurants with more variable dishes, menus and portion sizes were exempt. The legislation required that the calorie count be prominently displayed on menus in the same font, and be the same size as the price.

However, after much pressure from the New York Restaurant Association and others, a federal court last September found against the initiative. However, the situation has since further developed, with the reintroduction of an amended version of the ruling. As and from October 24^th last, it has been compulsory for chain restaurants to display calorie information on menus.

According to Professor Marion Nestle of New York University, the average US citizen consumes around 3,900 calories per day � twice what they need. The New York City Department of Health (NYCDH) claims that that people eat more when they eat out: they claim that adults eat one third more calories while children consume twice as many calories when eating out as compared to eating a home coked meal.

According to research conducted by the NYCDH, only 3% of customers saw or accessed calorie information in a selection of chains, whereas 31% of customers did so in Subway, where calorie labelling was on menus beside the cash registers. These customers also consumed about 634 calories, 50 less than those in the other chains, according to the research.

All across the US, similar initiatives have been undertaken, where obesity rates are soaring. 20 states have brought in some type of similar legislation, with the Californian effort being the most high profile: there, unlike Bloomberg in New York, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB120, California�s restaurant nutrition labelling law. According to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 84% of Californians supported calorie labelling on menus.

There is little doubt that in almost all other areas of food, there is an abundance of information easily accessible. It is also the case that eating out can no longer simply be seen as a treat; the jumbo breakfast role is eaten outside of the home, after all.

So could or should the same thing happen on this side of the Atlantic? Perhaps unsuprizingly, those in the industry have a plethora of problems with any such move. I canvassed responses from across the food system.

Delphi restaurant in Connemara got straight to it: �Ludicrous. Impractical, inaccurate, misleading and thus meaningless�.

Jacques Barry, from Jacques in Cork were equally against the idea: �We here in Jacques would hate that idea as we feel the sourcing of food is way better than the calorific value of food. If one eats a proper balanced diet of freshfruit, vegetables, meat, fish and cheese that is enough. Analyising the calorific content takes away from the joy and pleasure of food. All the food we cook in Jacques comes from Cork County as we have such wonderful produce and the biggest coastline in Ireland�.

Brid Torrades, of Osta wine bar, the Atrium caf� and the newly opened Tobergal lane, all in Sligo, was equally dismissive of the idea. �If something like that comes in, I think it�d be time to hang up the apron� she tells me. �Chefs would be doing sums rather than cooking. Already the paperwork and the records that have to be kept are burdensome .This would take the whole spontaneity away from cooking.�

She goes on: �If you are making a sauce, or a la carte cooking, where you have to adjust things, they�ll never be accurate.�

Ross Lewis of Chapter One in Dublin is also unconvinced; �This approach would be barking up the wrong tree. I don�t see how they could calculate that. We take in 2-300 products per week, to make the dishes we have. And we rotate very sensitively with the seasons, and that has its own merits. The food is more nutritious, better, and tastier.�

Ross and Brid disagree however, on whether the big boys should have to do display calorie count. In the Californian proposals, there was a limit of 14 outlets before the legislation was to be applicable. There are also restrictions in New York, where only 10% of eateries, those with 15 or more outlets, are affected. Importantly however, these provide over 30% of the food eaten outside the home.

�It�d be fine for contract, or industrial type catering. But for spontaneous cooking it would not work� according to Bird. However Ross is against compulsory labelling for calories, even for those producing the more standardised meals: �I�m against it in general. You can preach all you like, but people should get up off their arses and do their own homework as well. Look, no one thinks that you can go to McDonalds 4 times a week and remain underweight. They are only fooling themselves if they think they can. People need to develop a broader more holistic view of food. It�s up to people to find out�.

But just how easy is it to estimate? In Surrey, a unit from the local council tested 36 meals from restaurants and found some surprising results; Shepherd�s pie and mixed veg had just over half the calories of a Thai green curry with egg fried rice. The UKs� Food Commission underscored the difficulty consumers have; according to them, a McDonald�s Hot Fudge Sundae had 330 calories, whereas a shake can have up to 1160.

It is also the case that the healthy option can have secret, hidden sodium and fat: a winter root vegetable soup might, along with those seasonal, local vegetables also have more than a pinch of salt and a hearthy dollop of butter and cream. Who�s to know?

McDonalds� themselves gave me this response to the issue: �Mcdonalds has calorie labelling on its core products i.e. Big Mac, McChicken sandwich, filet of fish etc for the last 18 months. This info is available on tray liners in restaurants and on the Mcdonalds website�.

It is much the same for fast food chains in the US and UK, where this and other nutritional information is available on the trays and on websites. The problem is that this information is not accessible just before purchase, when many feel it would be most useful.

I asked McDonalds for their opinion on prominent display of compulsory calorie labelling before purchase, but received no response at time of going to press.

One Irish healthy food advocacy group I put the idea to expressed a mixed opinion. Dave Burns of Red Branch are an advocacy group that promotes healthy lifestyle options for children, with a particular focus on food. �I think something like that wouldn�t go amiss. But we in Red Branch don�t believe you should be telling people what to do, we think you should empower people to make up their own minds. You�ve got to give people the information they need to make an informed choice.�

However, Dave isn�t too optimistic: �But for what it�s worth, in our experience, and we�ve worked with parents and school children all over Ireland, we don�t think it would work. You might be better off with something like the traffic light labelling system�

This UK system uses the red, amber and green light sequence of traffic lights to grade three things: fat, saturates and salt in foods. �It�s clear and easy to use. If a product has a red light, red doesn�t mean that you stay away from something all the time. It�s not poison, it doesn�t mean avoid it altogether, but we all know about the deep fried Mars bars in Scotland � that would be a red light product. And what that�s telling you is; better not have too many of those�.

Guess what? The Shepherd�s Pie and mixed veg got three green lights in the Surrey survey above, and the thai green curry three reds. But with so much opposition, we may be a long way from seeing either the calorie count or traffic lights on menus here.

Ollie's Christmas list: santy calling....

Dear Santy, Ollie again. I know some people think I�m a bit old for all this Santy stuff, but after last year, I can say with absolute conviction that I am a believer!

I mean, I wanted an overall majority for the Greens, and a Minister for as opposed to against the Environment. Now, I didn�t get the overall majority, but I did get a Green Minister in the Department of Ag with responsibility for organic, and a Green Environment minister.

And I wanted the Minister for as opposed to against the environment to at least watch the movie An Inconvenient Truth. Our new minister for the Environment met with Al Gore a few weeks back. I also asked for a dig out for the small organic growers. Fair play Santy, you really are a miracle worker.

And, while it�s tough for conventional farmers at the moment, with rising prices for all their agri-industrial inputs � the fertilizers, feeds, pesticides, fuel and all that, it just might encourage a few of them over to organic. Organic farmers� costs are also rising, but the playing field seems to be levelling a bit.

So it is with both hope and expectation that I�m writing this note to you. I feel a bit like the boy who has a fair bit and wants a fair bit more.

Anyway, the first one is fairly straight forward: I want the bits the Greens actually got into the programme for government to happen.

Especially 5% organic farming by 2012 and more support for farmers� markets. So if you could start working on that, Santy, great. I�d say the IOFGA manifesto is probably a good place to start, if you want to increase the organic acreage. There�s plenty of good advice in there; what�s more, I think the new Minister has already been listening to them. So, like most other kids these days, for me Christmas is just one big gift giving season.

You could add to his work by establishing a new organic development agency to kick start production, magic up a �20 million annual budget for the sector, encourage public institutions to provide organic food, and help out the tillage and horticulture sectors.

Minister Sargent, Santa�s little helper, has already done a bit for horticulture and tillage, but far more needs to be done.

He�s also started on the farmers� markets, but he really needs to start cracking the whip in a way befitting of a man with a double-barrelled authoritarian name; a minister and a sergeant.

He needs to get the county managers into a room, to tell them to tell their underlings to treat farmers� markets with the respect they deserve. And he needs to follow up on this by, with other Ministers like John Gormley, who has local government under his remit, setting local authorities targets to change their behaviour and attitude. In particular, all local authorities need to allow roadside advertising of farmers� markets. That way, you Rudolf and the rest of the Reindeers might actually find your way to one on your travels.

Here�s a real tough one for you now Santy: can you try to get some of our dusty old nutritionists to finally start accepting that, sometimes, organic food actually is more nutritious? What are they afraid of? There is so much recent research, especially into fruits, vegetables and milk, to suggest that it is more nutritious, that they�ll have to change their minds soon Santy.

In fact, if you could only stop them from trumpeting that ould broken record mantra �there is no evidence to suggest that organic food is more nutritious�, that�d be a start. It just keeps on popping up everywhere, so it does Santy, no matter what evidence comes out.

I know you have some sort of connection to Coca Cola Santy, which might colour your opinion, but even Coke are adding Green tea to a new product range of theirs, Diet Coke Plus. They advertise that this increases the antioxidants in the product, but really Santy, antioxidants are what all this new research is showing at higher levels in organic food.

So I�d recommend laying off the Coke Santy, and joining the reindeers in chompin on the organic carrots I�ve left out for you.

Yours in anticipation,

Dr. Ollie Moore

Organic foods: foods that fight for you

IF I asked you what fighting food was all about, you wouldn�t necessarily think of organic food. I haven�t mixed up my words, I�m not talking about food fights, or fighting about food. So what is fighting food?

Organic food has a fairly soft and cuddly image. Well, it turns out that food produced organically is actually fighting food, if the explanations suggested by some recent researchers are taken on board.

It turns out that there are two ways in which organic food can be seen to be fighting food.

But first, let me tell you about the research. A June 2007 publication in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (which is ranked #1 in total citations, impact factor and articles published in the agriculture multidisciplinary category) measured the amount of two flavonoids � quercetin and kaempferol � in dried tomato samples that had been collected as part of a long-term study on agricultural methods.

Foods containing flavonoids can be called fighting foods because research studies have consistently suggested an association between consuming them and reduced risk of cancer and heart disease. That's the first fighting food meaning.

Dr Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at the University of California, and colleagues, found that on average they were 79% and 97% higher respectively in organic tomatoes than in the conventionally grown fruit.

Flavinoid levels for the organic tomatoes also grew during the course of the ten year study, but stayed the same for the conventional tomatoes.

More recently again, preliminary results from a large University of Newcastle study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants (another substance which may play a role in the better cardiovascular health of those who consume more fruit and vegetables).

Organic milk produced in the summer contained up to 60 to 80% more antioxidants than conventionally produced milk; in the winter, it contained 50 to 60% higher levels. Along with this, organic milk also was found to contain higher levels of vitamin E.

In what has been hailed as one of the most comprehensive studies into organic production ever conducted, researchers on the Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) project grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on a 725-acre site at Nafferton Farm, Northumberland. They grew organic and conventional test crops side by side � including cabbages, lettuces, carrots, potatoes and wheat � and compared factors such as nutritional quality.

What makes this research especially fascinating is a theory being postulated to possibly explain why organic food is showing up so often with some very specific nutritional benefits.

The theory is that plants grown to certified organic standards have to fight harder to fend off threats, from nutritionally deficiencies to pests. To do this, they produce more of these very things scientists are finding in them, the antioxidants which are believed to help us fight cancers and cardiovascular diseases.

In the study on organic tomatoes and flavonoids, the researchers suggested, �Flavonoids are produced as a defense mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency, such as a lack of nitrogen in the soil.�

This is the second fighting food definition - plants fighting to exist. This point about plants fighting hard and difficult growing conditions to produce flavonoids reminded me of a book written recently by an expert in cardiovascular health and Professor of Experimental Therapeutics at the William Harvey Research Institute, Dr Rodger Corder.

This book has a brilliantly bamboozling title, �The Wine Diet: drink red wine every day, eat fruit and berries, nuts and chocolate, live a longer, healthier life�.

The book suggests that these foods and drinks are very high in polyphenols, which are a beneficial type of flavinoids. However, the production conditions have to be specific for these foods. Only some dark chocolates with over 70% coca solids were found to have these beneficial properties.

In the case of wine, some traditional, regionally embedded idiosyncratic wines produced in places like Crete and Sardinia, wines made with grape varieties such as Tannat, scored best in his research.

The best wines also came from grapes with plenty of seeds, seeds and skins left in contact for a longer time, fermentation in wooden barrels and, importantly for the point I�m making here, difficult, hilly growing conditions where low yields were usually produced. So the harder the vine fights, the more nutritious the wine. Hence the longest longevity rates in Europe for those islanders in the Mediterranean. This despite their isolation from a modern interventionist medical system and some other negative dietary and lifestyle habits � heavy consumption of saturated fats and cigarettes in particular.

So it turns out that naturally produced foods fight for us. Which makes them all the more worth fighting for.

If you come here to see what's on, I'd also recommend having a look over at matt reed's blog, for Matt always seems up to date with what's going on in the world of organics....
there today, I learned that more research has come out suggesting that organic is more nutritious....like Matt, I'm a bit skeptical about this sort of research, though I have written the odd article in this vein before myself....
when I did write one for the Irish Times in this style, I got some positive feedback from various places. Two valid criticisms, or additions to the debate, were the following:

1: essentially it's v difficult to really compare the products - you have to take into account so many issues (distance, age of product, size of farm, crop rotation used, and some of these aren't strictly comparable between conventional and organic)
2: Science should also look at the subjective effect of both conventional and organic over a period of time on an individual, not just 'product x vs product y'.

As a further addition, you should then really start to look at how the products are used differently by consumers in a variety of settings, e.g. the home (Lockie et al 2002 quotes consumers who used to let conventional veg go off at the back of the press, but wouldn't dream of doing this to their organic veg...why does this happen and what does it mean?)

And then we have the age old problem of organic embedded into a world of conventional distribution, trying to maintain it's own certs and standards, which add to organic food miles and thus to the age of organic products, while only being a 4ish% of food production accross the EU...how would organic and conventional compare nutritionally if they each had all the inputs and processes necessary within each, or more importantly comparable reach of their respective places of production?

Nutrition today and in days of yore..

Here's another way to understand how nutritious our food is...compare it to the past

While there is much debate about whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food, there is little debate needed about the fact that the nutritional content of food has been in decline over the last 60 years.

Modern agriculture has enrolled ever more industrial inputs and processes. In tandem, an ever-longer and more complex food system has moved foods further and faster around the globe.

According to some recent research, this has had a detrimental effect on the nutritional content of the food we eat. The data available on food nutritional decline since the middle of the last century is staggering. Simply put, it suggests that we have sacrificed quality over quantity.

One the one hand, due to advances in medical science and a variety of lifestyle changes, we in the west can live for longer than we could previously. On the other hand, living a long life does not necessarily mean living a healthy or a particularly happy life.

Medical interventions have become, in many ways, a substitute for healthy lifestyles.

According to the UK�s Food Commission �the recent changes in dietary habits towards highly-processed foods means we are likely to be overfed yet malnourished in terms of�micronutrients�.

These micronutrients are increasingly being seen as vital for the healthy functioning of the brain, nervous system and the wellbeing of the body in general.

The Food Commission studied fruits and vegetables last year. They compared data from the 1930s to the 1980s for the fruits and vegetables. Typically, they found a 20% decline in minerals. Increased water content was partly to blame, but �intensive farming on exhausted land was likely to be the major cause of the decline in nutritional value of food, along with selection of varieties for characteristics other than nutrition�.

Similar research in the US (Davis et al 2004), covering the period from 1950-1999, tested 43 garden crops, and found that there was a statistically significant decline in 6 of 13 nutrients tested for. The researchers concluded that change in the varieties chosen by growers �in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content� explains their findings.

The Food Commission have just released their follow up comparative study to last year�s fruits and vegetables study. This time, they compare meat and dairy from the 1930s to the year 2002.

In milk, calcium was only marginally down, but magnesium and iron were down significantly; 21% and 62% respectively. In fact, across the 15 different food categories compared, iron decline was pronounced; it was down 47% on average, and by as much as 80% in some cases.

It is noteworthy that while calcium levels were almost unchanged for milk in the two periods, calcium content of cheese had declined significantly. This suggests that processing and scale changes have had an effect on the quality of the product.

In the case of Parmesan cheese, calcium has fallen by 70%, a fact that suggests �considerable dilution of the original highly concentrated recipe, or some other significant shift in ingredients� according to the Food Commission.

In fact, the more processed meats such as corned beef showed a far greater decline in nutritional content than the less processed meats such as beef, over the two periods. In the UK, cattle are still to a significant extent grass fed and outdoors. That said, the decrease of 55% in iron content in beef is obviously a cause for concern.

Copper, essential for enzyme functioning, was significantly down across dairy and meat categories. On average, it was down 60% in meat and an extraordinary 90% in dairy.

These findings suggest that, along with other problems, nutritional deficiencies occur with the rise in the industrialisation and globalisation of agriculture.

The anthitesis of this agri-industrial model could improve nutritional levels. Smaller scale, more locally-orientated, more seasonal, fresher and less processed foods have lots of socio-environmental benefits. Based on these findings, it is now possible to make the case for the nutritional benefits of foods produced in this less intensive way too.