The Science of Food

It's easy for psi-advocates to think they are waging a lonely battle against misrepresentation, but they aren't the only ones. Exactly the same battle is being fought all over the place on different fronts.

Take this week's eye-catching claim by the Food Standards Agency that any extra nutritional value in organic foods is tiny and 'unlikely to confer any health benefit'.

So that's cleared that up. If you thought it made no sense to pay extra for the wrinkly fruit and veg in the organic basket, you're right. It's pointless.  The billions collectively invested by the army of smallholders all over the country, all earnestly pursuing the good life, has been a complete waste. 

The sceptics are out in force. 'What con trick will we fall for next?' asks Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph, who characterises the organic 'craze' as an opportunity for sharp businessmen to levy huge mark-ups on produce targeted at gullible shoppers.

In my part of the world, it seems to have become a form of outdoor relief for thick ex-public schoolboys who never quite made it as estate agents or low-rent antique dealers, but had an overwhelming instinct to empty the wallets of the middle classes. I don't blame them for a moment - there's one born every minute, after all. But I do blame us. The next time such a bus comes along, can we be brave enough not to get on it, whatever everybody else is doing?

And this from the Yorkshire Post:

In truth, eating organic is nothing more than a fashionable lifestyle choice - like buying an iPod or splashing out on a new pair of trendy shoes... It is a harmless enough modern fad, but the idea that it is somehow healthier or better for you is clearly bunkum.

To be fair, the FSA acknowledged that people have other reasons for buying organic, which have all been on display this week. Good for the environment... organic farms are more humane, and have on average 30% more species and 50% more wildlife like birds, butterflies and bees...less dangerous waste, almost no pesticides, no nitrogen fertilisers that poison rivers ... no antibiotics, no hormones... the taste and smell are vastly better, if your palate hasn't been wrecked by too much Coke and crisps... and so on.

The Soil Association went further and claimed the FSA study ignores the most up-to-date research on the nutritional benefits of organic food, which I read as implying that it was being misleadingly selective. That seemed to be backed by food author Joanna Blythman, who had some interesting numbers to share. According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables actually contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones. Similarly, she says, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins. She adds that an in-depth study by Newcastle University, 'far deeper' than the FSA's, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods - research the FSA appears to have overlooked.

So what's going on here? For Blythman, it's simple: supposedly an independent body, the FSA is fighting a propaganda war on behalf of the food industry, which, 'in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies, has waged a long, often cynical campaign to convince the public that mass-produced, chemically-assisted and intensively-farmed products are just as good as organic foods, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.'

I'm starting to collect these examples, because I think it helps to explain to people why the evidence about psi is so ambiguous and contradictory. The better we understand how easy it is for people to present scientific findings in a way that matches their prejudices, the more we can motivate people to check these things out for themselves.

Comments

[Guy Lyon Playfair]

There they go again. A couple of years ago it was the dirty tricks campaign headed by that Edzard Ernst trying to con us into thinking that alternative/comp medicine - all of it - was useless if not actually dangerous - which indeed it is to the health of the drug companies. Now we are asked to believe that organic produce is no different from non-organic.

Wrong. It is. For just one example, get some org watercress (e.g. John Hurd from Waitrose) and compare it with the non-org stringy stuff. (And keep the nice fat stalks and turn them into juice, which mixed with carrot and tomato plus a bit of ginger makes a delicious vitamin-crammed drink).

As for alt/comp medicine, if you have prostate problems, get some Saw Palmetto. I'd be glad to hear from anyone who has benefited from this or any other natural products. I certainly have.

Sure, some alt/comp medicine is probably useless, and it would be nice if some serious research were done into what is and what isn't. This is what Prof. Ernst was allegedly supposed to be doing, but clearly hasn't.

This is an important issue and I'm glad it has been raised here.

[Harley]

There goes Guy again. Alternative and complementary medicine has no scientific evidence that it is effective in any way over and above the placebo effect. Edzard Ernst, whom Guy criticises so quickly, is qualified to give his informed opinion in this area. As a cure for anything, CAM is, indeed, useless. People like Guy are quick to criticise science, but at the same time would give anything to have science validate their quackery and paranormal claims.

If anyone wants an example of a dirty tricks campaign, consider the fact that the British Chiropractic Association are suing the science writer Simon Sing for libel because he pointed out that they are providing treatments that have no evidence to support them. But libel? Why didn’t they just produce the evidence? Answer: they don’t have any. But they are now finding a sudden backlash: there are currently more than five hundred complaints lodged against chiropractors on the grounds that they are providing healthcare without evidence of efficacy; chiropractors all over the UK have been instructed to take down their websites; they have also been told to remove printed materials that also make unsubstantiated claims; and there is a general feeling of panic among providers of chiropractic, who, clearly, cannot provide evidence that their treatments can cure anything.

Guy might be right that a vegetable-based drink has plenty of vitamins, but that is by virtue of the fact that all vegetables happen to contain vitamins. That’s not a special claim.

There is something very important, though. Guy’s advice for anyone with prostate trouble is to “get some Saw Palmetto.” My own advice is: see a doctor. By the time you follow Guy’s “advice” it might be too late to save your life. But it is typical of such quackery that Guy would like to hear from anyone who thinks they have benefited from his advice, but he is not asking anyone who has not benefited – or even suffered any adverse reactions or outright harm – to let him know about it. Quacks happily quote people who claim to have been helped by their treatment, but don’t take people who have not been helped, or who have even been harmed by it into the equation. Then again, to do that is starting to sound like a scientific investigation, and we wouldn’t want that, would we? Those awful scientists just spoil everything.

By all means pop into your local Waitrose if you want and can afford organic food. Bear in mind, however, that there are people starving in the world who do not have that option. If we are to feed people as the world’s population increases, pesticides, and genetically modified foods that can survive in harsh environments are the only viable solution.

[Robbie]

Having parents who recently have started buying local organic food I can safely say that it tastes and smells much better then processed food and I feel much better after eating it!

[Zerdini]

You pays yer money and takes yer choice.

[antiskeptic]

Hey, I have been saying for a while now - on many different message boards - that we need a general anti-skeptic or counter skeptic movement to protect people who make non-mainstream claims from these types of dishonorable tactics. Most people don't seem angry enough at the skeptics to get on board. Shame. I see that a group called SCEPCOP has popped up, but I do not have much respect for them given some of the policies that they have allowed on their message boards, and some of the arguments they have made. I hope that they are successful, or at least successful at getting a movement started, but I will not personally support them.

[Winston]

antiskeptic, what problem do you have on the scepcop forum policies? we preach open mindedness and tolerance, so we have to be that way on the forum too, in order to practice what we preach. we allow free speech within boundaries. when people cross the line, we gave them warnings and that was usually enough to put them back in line. you left us just because someone made a joke about coming here at the call of the "NWO headquarters" which was a joke. If you can't take a simple joke, then you are too high strung for public discussion. Part of having good people skills and communication skills is understanding what people mean when they say something, not twisting every little remark into an insult.

Anyhow, the forum has grown a lot and there are many interesting threads going on now. Hope you can join us again. But please lighten up.

Winston
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com