Scientific papers showing the advantages of organic food and farming

Updated November 2004

More bio-diversity on organic farms There is now (Oct. 2004) significant evidence for increased biodiversity on organic farms. An extensive study just published in the journal, Biological Conservation, Vol. 122, p. 113 , two non-partisan groups, English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reviewed research in Europe, New Zealand, Canada and the US on biodiversity in different farming systems. In almost two thirds of the comparisons, organic farming was shown to benefit wildlife, a quarter gave mixed results or showed no benefit and about 8% concluded that organic methods were detrimental to wildlfe!*
This is one statement in the report that should wake up the dinosaurs; "During the next 50 years, global agricultural expansion threatens to impact worldwide biodiversity on an unprecedented scale that may rival climate change in its significance".
All in all, it's good news. Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's Policy Director said: "The scientific case for the wildlife benefits of organic farming is now settled and beyond doubt". And it might be even better - some of the studies were of newly-converted organic farms where the benefits would not have kicked in. On the other hand, some farms may have been well disposed towards wildlife conservation before they converted and had higher than average counts of the various species.
An interesting finding from one study is that two populations of bats - the greater and lesser horseshoe - are found in the UK only on organic farms. 
There's hard science for you - organic farmers have more bats (I resist it!) than anyone else. But I can't see that becoming as popular a marketing claim for organic farming as e.g. the Danish higher sperm counts in organic farmers. 
This review of a wide range of research and its findings is welcome news for organics. One can at least quote a headline or two from it - remember the Soil Association getting nobbled over unsubstantiated claims for organic produce? But more research needs to be done to refine the information. 

See New Scientis article; Wind carries GM record distances madelon 22/09

Anti-organic propaganda has become organised and well-funded in the last three years. I have referred to it many times in this website. One of the most active and virulent is www.consumerfreedom.com. 

I've made an attempt here to gather some of the major peer-reviewed papers and others that support the case for organics. It's not complete, of course and I would be delighted to hear from visitors about other research. 
See also - Organic Attacks, www.ngin.org.uk,  http://ngin.tripod.com/organic.htm  and Andy Rowell's, Organicised Crime, http://ngin.tripod.com/godfathers.htm.
The large US based Organic Consumers Assocoiation has a very good section worth seeing - Benefits of Organic

Research Papers
Eating organics cuts kids' pesticides loads*  See this research from Univ. of Washington, at the Pesticides Action Network site. Bottom line - children eating organic produce had six times less pesticides in their bodies than those consuming conventional food. Published Jan 2003,  www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20030131.dv.html 

* Full title and source of research; Organophosphorus pesticide exposure or urban and suburban pre-school children with organic and conventional diets, Cynthia L. Curl, Richard A. Fenske, Kai Elgethun, Environmental Health Perspectives, October 13, 2002, National Institute of Environmental Sciences, EHP Online, http://www.ehponline.org;

Pesticide residues in conventional,  IPM-grown* and organic foods; Insights from three U.S. data sets. by Brian P. Baker, Charles M. Benbrook, Edward Groth III, and Karen Lutz Benbrook. This landmark study shows organic produce has much less pesticide residues than conventional food. 
Summary in, www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm 
Another summary of the study, as well as charts and tables that illustrate the results, can be found at www.omri.org/FAC.html 
Published in: Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 19, No. 5, May 2002,
pages 427-446. 10 tables, 39 references.  Full article at;   www.biosciencearena.com/biosciencearena/home/home.htm  I think, without subscription.
*IPM - Integrated Pest Management.

Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains, Virginia Worthington, MS, ScD, CNS published in the Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine Vol; 7 No: 2 Page: 161 - 173.
http://isacco.ingentaselect.com/vl=14374302/cl=29/nw=1/rpsv/~1011/v7n2/s7/p161 

Organic apples beat conventional  A study in Nature compared the sustainability of organic, conventional and integrated apple production systems in Washington State from 1994 to 1999 and found the organic systems ranked first for environmental and economic sustainability, with the integrated second, and the conventional last. 
John P Reganold, Jerry D Glover, Preston K Andrews and Herbert R Hinman (2001), Sustainability of three apple production systems, Nature, Vol 410, 19th April, pp 926- 930.

Synthetic chemicals in our environment, especially in food, may be the triggers for current obesity epidemic. This is the substance of a paper published by Dr Paula Baillie-Hamilton, Chemical Toxins: A Hypothesis to Explain the Global Obesity Epidemic. The current world-wide obesity epidemic cannot simply be explained by overeating and inactivity. The problem may instead lie with the hugely expanded production and usage of   synthetic chemicals in the last five decades. Environmental factors, like the widespread use of growth promoters in our food chain, she argues, are much more likely to be the causative factors in obesity than genetics. Although a definite link has not yet been established, the author says, the close coincidence of the appearance of certain weight-promoting chemicals in our environment and an obesity epidemic, cannot be ignored. 
One of the areas of further research she suggests is "to compare farmers who farm organically to farmers who farm conventionally." *
 http://ramiro.ingentaselect.com/vl=25265194/cl=11/nw=1/rpsv/catchword/
mal/10755535/v8n2/s13/p185  Click on the PDF option to get full article. If you experience difficulties, I can send you a copy - jim@planorganic.com 

Organic farming is as viable as conventional - April 2003  A ten-year study by scientists at the University of Michigan reveals that corn and soybeans yields were only minimally reduced when organic production practices were used instead of conventional production practices. But the net results, taking the lower production costs of the organic systems into account, were that the two systems were more or less equal. When the organic premium price is factored in, the organic method was obviously much more profitable. These long-term experiments carried out in the heartlands of conventional maize and soyabean production. Source to follow.

Science and Organic Farming is the title of a paper delivered in 2001 by Lawrence Woodward of the Elm Farm Research Centre.  www.efrc.com/updates_main.htm  Whilst not a strictly scientific paper it nevertheless is an interesting review of the state of organics vis a vis science.

GM Food: Scientific evidence of health risks www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256
a6b00298980/80256ad80055454980256a2a0053a59c!OpenDocument 

 
Organic farming could diminish global warming The eminent Rodale Institute in the US has just published the results of 23 years of experiments into organic farming. Called the Farming Systems Trials, they have come up with the not-too-surprising conclusion that there is "compelling evidence about the economic viability of organic agriculture".  What is surprising, if not stunning, is that long-term trials show that organic farming could reduce global warming significantly. It's all to do with "carbon sequestration" - the retention of carbon dioxide in the soil - which they conclude is between 15 - 28% higher in organic farming systems. 
When you realise the huge contribution to global warming - millions of tons of carbon dioxide - from world agriculture and that a switch to organics could potentially reduce that by 25% you can see how powerful a negotiating tool this could come to be in seeking future goverment support for organic agriculture. 
Organic farming as a tradeable "carbon sink". Wow!
Other scientists don't agree with Rodale's findings and the debate is on. We'll be hearing much more about this, methinks
See www.rodaleinstitute.org and their new site full of all sorts of practical and entertaining information on organic gardening and farming www.newfarm.org (from News 7th November 2003).


Other Articles, books, letters etc

Science and Organic Farming is the title of a paper delivered in 2001 by Lawrence Woodward of the Elm Farm Research Centre.  www.efrc.com/updates_main.htm 

Organic facts and figures - 2003 - Nutritional benefits of organic food. Headings include, Additives, Pesticides, Anti-biotics, GM, Hiddden Costs of Intensive Farming, Food Miles andLocal Food www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Briefing_Sheets10102002.html 

Organic farming a realistic choice  An article on the BBC News site following the publication of the results of the 21 year Swiss research comparing conventional and organic farming systems. The report was published in Science magazine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2017094.stm  

Organic farming can feed the world  This is the title of another BBC News article. "Organic farming could produce enough food to feed large populations, according to British scientists at the Festival of Science in Sheffield". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/specials/sheffield_99/447337.stm 

Saving the planet with pestilent statistics, exposing the anti-organic bias and twisted statistics of  Dennis Avery and the corporate-backed Hudson Institute. See www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html 

Summary of Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health Report - Jan 2003
 www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/
80256ad80055454980256a9d004983d4!OpenDocument 

Danish research showed that organic farmers had more sex than conventional and their sperm counts were much higher. Full details later. April 2003.

Norfolk Genetic Engineering Network UK, NGIN, has done a fabulous job in watching and reporting, blazingly fast at times, the shenannigans of the Agricultural Biotech Corps (the ABCs), in the areas of GM and organic farming. If you had any doubt that the ABC's were not targetting organic food and farming with concerted, well-organised and well-funded propaganda, see Organic Attacks, www.ngin.org.uk and http://ngin.tripod.com/organic.htm  Also see Andy Rowell's, Organicised Crime, http://ngin.tripod.com/godfathers.htm  

Fatal Harvest ; The Tragedy of  Industrial Agriculture, edited by Andrew Kimbrell*, and published by the, intriguing sounding, Foundation for Deep Ecology through Island Press. Fatal Harvest takes an unprecedented look at our industrial way of producing food and attempts to detail a new ecological and humane vision for agriculture. Profusely illustrated with over 250 colour photographs showing the current state of our agricultural crisis, the book also features essays from more than 40 leading environmental thinkers, including Wendell Berry, Jerry Mander, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Vandana Shiva, and Alice Waters. 
Hardback £ 62.50. Softback £37.50. Reader edition (Text without the illustrations) £14.50. UK postage £ 2.00 Irish and other EU £ 4.00 
Support the publication(in anycase it may not be in the bookshops) by ordering straight from the publishers at The Eurospan Group, Island Press, 3,Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, WC 2 E8LU. Email; colin.pierce@eurospan.co.uk 

*Public interest attorney, activist and author Andrew Kimbrell is considered to be one of the world's leading visionaries. Kimbrell is the Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) in Washington, D.C.

Letters on the subject.  April  2003 
This is one I sent to the Irish Independent, April 2003, in response to a particular piece "rubbishing" organics. It was published. 

To the Editor
Maeve Dineen's item on Tuesday's Farming supplement, "Organic farming rubbished" is very old hat. Alex and Dennis Avery of the right-wing American think-tank, the Hudson Institute, have been saying these things about organic farming for years. That's what they are paid to do by their corporate sponsors, which include many multinational agri-businesses such as Monsanto.
They, and their anti-organic, pro-GM intensive farming propaganda have been exposed and discredited several times.
The Avery's and their colleagues' favourite lines are "There is no advantage, health or nutrition-wise in buying organic food." They ask, " Where is the scientific evidence of the benefits of organic farming?"
Well there are many substantial advantages, and there is also hard, scientific evidence. The most recent is research from California that shows organic crops have over 50% more cancer-fighting flavonoids than conventional food. This and other papers, such as "Organic farming is as viable as conventional", "Organic farming can feed the world" are detailed on my website www.planorganic.com (open News&Comment page and click on "Answering the organic attacks...").
The articles that I list are scientific, peer-reviewed research that clearly demonstrate the benefits of organic food and farming.
None of what the Averys say or publish is peer-reviewed or backed with accurate scientific information.
It is in a way flattering to the organic community that the Averys and others like them are targeting organic farming with such negative propaganda.
But it's easy to see why they would - world-wide sales of organic food are now worth more than $25 billion and growing at over 25%. The organic sector has now overtaken the market for GM crops in value terms and it's debatable whether the controversy-ridden GM industry is going to grow any further at all.
No wonder they are worried. Billions are at stake and in the absence of facts they try to make their money talk through spin merchants like the Averys. It must be very galling for the industry that they have to pay extravagantly to have their angles projected, whereas the organic movement largely relies on unfunded people like myself to make their case.
A look at the evidence I point to will undoubtedly show that it is the anti-organic lobby that's "rubbished".
Sincerely etc.

This one I sent to the Daily Mail, April 2003 following an article, The Great Organic Con, and letter in the paper. 

To the Editor of the Daily Mail 
Hard evidence of the benefits of organic food
Ms Hewitt's letter (Eat organic for your health, not for flavour, Letters Mail10th April replying to article 8th April) about her daughter's ME (of which there are at least 250,000 cases in the UK) caused from "organophosphate pesticide sensitivity" was heart-rending.
However, despite her own deep research into the subject and her daughter's subsequent astonishing recovery due to an organic diet, her case would be described as "anecdotal".
Sceptics would argue that only "peer-reviewed" research would be accepted as evidence of the benefits of organic food. Many sources still say that there is no such evidence.
That is no longer true. On my website, www.planorganic.com  I detail several peer-reviewed articles, that, for example, show the nutritional advantages of organic versus conventional produce; how organic farming can feed the world; and even to demonstrate (although it doesn't always follow - taste often being a subjective product of variety rather than growing method ) that organic fruit tastes better than conventional.
That kind of hard evidence, despite gross under-funding in this pioneering area, continues to grow apace.
Whilst Ms Hewitt's story, and so many others like hers, are what inspires us all to think, and hopefully to act, it will immeasurably strengthen the logical case for organics having verifiable research as well.
We have all been "conned" about our food, for sure, but I don't think that organic produce is the culprit.
Sincerely etc.

November 25th 2002 from News&Comment pages.
Organics Attacked. The ABCs (Ag Biotech Corps) are getting their shit, specifically bullshit, together in London this week as they sponsor the World Conference on Food and Farming, a showcase for their biotech products in the lead-up to the Smithfield Show. Their organic-slayer, Denis Avery of the US, right-wing Hudson Institute, has been having a field day as he slashes and burns with his usual cant against the organic industry. See http://ngin.tripod.com/averylies.htm for samples of his well-paid-for invective.
But, as we say, he may be getting ahead of himself and Avery might soon have to pay the price of his cavalier sensationalism. Even his own side is getting uncomfortable over his selected use of statistics, "which doesn't seem to be convincing anybody who doesn't already have a predilection to believe you in the first place." (Greg Conko, co-founder of Ag Bio World to Avery on the pro-GM, Ag Bio List). 
A challenging, alternative view of how to feed the world is to be posed today at the Conference by the eminent Indian economist, Devindar Sharma, who will argue that with plenty of food available to feed the hungry of the world, claiming that bio-technology or free trade is needed to solve the problem is a deliberate distortion. See Paul Brown, The Guardian, November 25 www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,846939,00.html 

ORGANICS ENTER THE SCIENCE WARS (The anti-organic debate has even reached the pages of  top science journals with some prominent scientists getting involved. Angela Ryan here reviews and rebuts the main arguments put forward, with footnotes).
http://www.i-sis.org/isisnews/i-sisnews11-18.shtml
ISIS News No 11/12 October 2001,
Institute of Science in Society, www.i-sis.org

Sir John Krebs, Head of the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) said, "in my opinion and in the opinion of the FSA, consumers who buy organic produce are not getting value for money if they think they're buying food with extra nutritional quality or extra safety" [1].

Soon afterwards, as if on cue, an article appeared in Nature entitled, Urban Myths of Organic Agriculture, by Anthony Trewavas, Prof. of Plant Biochemistry, Edinburgh University. It sets out to refute a common argument "that organic farming is ‘holistic’ and superior to reductionist ‘chemical’ agriculture".
This dichotomy is false, and "neither is superior". He claims "there is very little science to organic farming"[2].

Organic agriculture bans the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fungicides, veterinary drugs (antibiotics, growth hormones), synthetic preservatives and additives, and irradiation, many of which are associated with harmful effects on health and biodiversity. Not only that, a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 1998 report on organic farming suggests considerations like ethical values and sustainable production principles are gaining weight in the food sector as "integral product values" for consumers [3].

The former UK Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) 1998 Review examined comparative studies on biodiversity, and concluded,"organic regimes have the greatest benefit for biodiversity at the farm level".
But according to Trewavas, organic farming practices do not "necessarily conserve the environment". He claims that "current synthetic pesticides are very unstable; only transient declines of most field insects are reported even at full pesticide dosage". And conjectures, "lower levels of aphids observed on organic farms could well reflect lower nitrogen and protein content of organic crops".

A new study comparing arthropod communities and pest damage levels to fresh market tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, was carried out on 18 commercial farms in California, representing a range of management practices, half operating as organic and half as conventional [4].

The study found that insect pest damage varied across the spectrum of farm management practices and organic and conventional farms did not differ significantly for any type of damage to tomato foliage or fruit.

However, there was a significant difference between the actual community structures of arthropods. There was higher abundance of natural enemies, and greater species richness of herbivores, predators, parasitoids and others in organic farms where arthropod biodiversity was one-third greater.

Trewavas claims "developments in the past 25 years have shown how conventional agriculture can be much more sustainable and environmentally friendly than organic farming". He cites the Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR) website as reference.

The scientific literature contradicts his claim. A new study in Nature compared the sustainability of organic, conventional and integrated apple production systems in Washington State from 1994 to 1999 and found the organic systems ranked first for environmental and economic sustainability, with the integrated second, and the conventional last[5].

The researchers measured soil quality, horticultural performance, orchard profitability, environmental quality and energy efficiency, which are all specific indicators of sustainability.

They found that all three systems gave similar apple yields. The organic and integrated systems showed higher soil quality and lower negative environmental impact. But the organic systems produced sweeter and less tart apples, higher profitability and were more energy efficient. Tree growth was similar for all three systems but analysis of fruit firmness at harvest and after storage showed that the organic fruit was firmer.

Environmental impacts were assessed using the rating index employed by scientists and growers. The total environmental impact rating of the conventional system was 6.2 times higher than that of the organic system, and the integrated system was 4.7 times higher.

Energy accounting was divided into inputs (labour, fuel, fertilisers and so on), output (yield) and output/input ratios (energy efficiency).
Energy efficiency for the organic system was 7% greater than the conventional system and 5% greater than the integrated system.

Enterprise budgets were generated each year to calculate net returns from total costs and gross receipts. There was no price premium for integrated fruit but the price premium of organic apples averaged 50% higher than conventional prices. Hence, the organic system was more profitable.

The use of manure on organic farms results in higher, beneficial levels of biodiversity, especially earthworms, but Trewavas claims there are "numerous problems", including "possible effects on human health".

Manure is also widely used on conventional farms. Faecal matter is known to contain a range of human pathogens but properly treated manure is effective and safe. Furthermore, unlike conventional regimes, mandatory organic certification bodies inspect farms to ensure standards are being met.

Trewavas states, "ploughing in of legume crops on organic farms to improve soil fertility and continued manure breakdown leads to nitrate leaching into aquifers and waterways at identical rates to conventional farms".

The occurrence of nitrates is a major public health hazard as they can be converted to nitrosamines, which are carcinogens and nitrates impair the ability of blood to carry oxygen.

But FAO reports that nitrate content on organic farms is "significantly lower" due to absence of soluble fertilizers and the governments of Germany and France encourage conversion to organic farming in a bid to improve water quality in certain areas.

Furthermore, the use of ‘biosolids’ from wastewater treatment facilities (sludge) on conventional farms raises concern over heavy metals, toxic organic compounds, such as dioxin, PCBs and persistent microbial pathogen contamination. The Codex and EU organic standards prohibit the use of sewage sludge and the US National Organic Programme also bans it.

Organic regulations recommend hay for animal feeding, but Trewavas claims "hay-fed animals infected with Escherichia coli 0157 incubate this dangerous organism longer than conventional animals fed with grain".

FAO report that the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) identifies the main source of E. coli infection as meat contaminated during slaughter.
Virulent strains of E. coli such as 0157, develop in the digestive tract of cattle that are fed mainly with starchy grain [6]. Cows fed with hay generate less than 1% of E.coli found in faeces of grain-fed animals. FAO concludes, "ruminants like cattle and sheep fed in the organic system reduce the risk of E. coli infection".

Trewavas writes, "food mycotoxins from contaminating fungi definitely contribute to European cancer rates, and fumonisin and patulin are both reported to be higher in organic products". He claims "failure to use effective fungicides on organic farms has led to these farms acting as repositories of disease" and "organic farms may be protected from the full effects of disease outbreak because they are surrounded by conventional farms using proper fungicides."

Mycotoxins are toxic by-products of certain moulds that can grow on food. Since fungicides are not allowed in organic systems, many studies have investigated their presence in both organic and conventional foods [7]. From these, FAO conclude, "it cannot be concluded organic farming leads to an increased risk of mycotoxin contamination".

FAO report two studies that found aflatoxin levels in organic milk were lower than conventional, suggesting additional risks involved with feeding mainly grain to conventionally raised livestock. Aflatoxins are most toxic and can induce liver cancer at low doses if ingested over time. The report states, "as organically raised livestock are fed higher proportions of hay, grass and silage there is a reduced opportunity for mycotoxin contamination."

Several other hazards are associated with conventional food production. In Central and Eastern Europe, there are areas of high contamination due to industrial activities, from mining, smelting, the energy sector, agricultural practices and disposal of hazardous and municipal wastes.

FAO reports, "A more widespread use of organic agriculture would contribute to a reduction of environmental degradation, ultimately resulting in reduced levels of contaminants in food". Furthermore, "EU member states increasingly see organic agriculture as a tool for improving rural economies and stability, while simultaneously increasing biodiversity and environmental sustainability".

It is clear that holistic approaches that link ecology and economics benefit both the ecosystem and human health, and are competitive in commercial markets.

[1]Urban Myths of Organic Farming, by Anthony Trewavas, Nature, Vol 410, 22 March 2001 pp 409-410
[2]'Nutritionists question study of organic food', Nature, Vol 412, 16th August 2001
[3]Twenty Second FAO Regional Conference for Europe, Porto, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000, Agenda Item 10.1, Food Safety and Quality as Affected by Organic Farming, Available for download at http://www.fao.org/organicag/frame2-e.htm
[4]D.K. Letourneau & B Goldstein (2001) Pest damage and arthropod community structure in organic vs. conventional tomato production in California, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 38, pp 557-570
[5]John P Reganold, Jerry D Glover, Preston K Andrews and Herbert R Hinman (2001), Sustainability of three apple production systems, Nature, Vol 410, 19th April, pp 926- 930
[6]Couzin, J et al (1998) Cattle Diet Linked to Bacterial Growth, Science Vol 281, pp1578-1579
[7]Marx H, Gedek,B & Kallarczil, B (995) Comparative investigation of mycotoxicological status of alternative and conventional grown crops, Z Lebensm Unters Forsch, 20, 83-6.

Is Organic Food Provably Better? That is the question - and the title of an article by Marion Burrows  at least for the doubting Thomases that, unlike us (well, most of you that read this site), enjoy the benefits of wonderful food produced by ourselves or buy organic/sustainable produce regularly. 
If the glory of my 25-ingredient salad*, the taste bud-bursting succulence of home-grown strawberries, the powerful food value of steamed heritage potatoes fuelling your day's energy with need for little else (as our ancestors proved**) could only be demontrated in a laboratory or lecture theatre, the argument would be won. 
But all this is subjective, hippy, unscientific shite, the naysayers argue, and they still insist that there is no hard evidence of any benefits at all from organic food - that, in fact, it may even be dangerous to eat! 
Can the gooks peddling these stories really believe what they are saying or are they just bright - if immoral - people trying to earn a golden crust from Big Agri, Big Chemical and Big Pharma? Read the world leaders of this non-organic, counter-propaganda manure, the Amazing Avery Kids, at www.hudson.org.  
I've seen people die from agri-chemicals and I've witnessed the frightening destructive power of common defoliant herbicides like Gramoxone. I've read a lot on the subject over the last twenty years, and more from the web in the last three, which still, frustratingly, leaves an awful lot unread. All of which convinces me that we eat our modern food at our peril. 
My experiences and those of countless others would be classed as "anecdotal", by the Kids and their kind. They want "hard scientific evidence".
Well they've got it! Or at least they would get it if it wasn't their day-job to not get it. And convince other people that it's not there. You will be aware that I have had this page, Scientific evidence of the benefits of organic food and farming  on the go for a few weeks. There is enough, in what little I've gathered so far, to convince the sceptics, you would think, but I'll be adding to it - and, I hope, you will help me - in the next few days and months. In the meantime, savour this article, Is Organic Food Provably Better? (free, unlike our Irish Times - and the NYT is a good paper) in the New York Times on Wednesday last. The reporter, Marion Burros, apart from doing a good job with the article (she mini-reviews the organic-favourable research) managed to stich up Alex Avery good and proper. The Times they are a' changing - perhaps!
Dr Marion Nestle, author of Safe Food Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (interviewed by me in June - see below, somewhere), is quoted at the end of the Burrows article; "I don't think there is any question that, as more research is done, it is going to become increasingly apparent that organic food is healthier."
She could have been a bit more enthusiastic!