Difference between revisions of "Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food"
Lynne Semple (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | EUFIC claims clearly on their website that there is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer, or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref> [http://www. | + | EUFIC claims clearly on their website that there is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer, or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref> [http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic Organic Review] Food Standards Agency website, accessed on 18 november 2010</ref> This advice goes hand in hand with the official advice given by the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref> However, this advice again produces a confusing dilemma for the consumer, as there are numerous conflicting opinions on the matter, most recently a study conducted by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA). The Independent on Sunday reported that the study had found that organic plant products contain more dry matter, and so are more nutrient-dense and contain more minerals such as iron and magnesium than conventional foods. The study also suggested that organic produce contains more polyphenols than its non-organic counterpart.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref> |
| + | There are questions however, over whether or not the debate is not as concerned with health benefits, as it is about corporate interests. | ||
| + | In an article titled 'Organicised Crime' in The Ecologist, journalist Andy Rowell suggested that the backlash against organic food had begun and he suggested that there was a deliberate push by the Agribusiness sector to undermine organic produce. No longer a niche market, but the fastest growing food segment in the US, it | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 18 November 2010
EUFIC claims clearly on their website that there is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer, or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.[1] This advice goes hand in hand with the official advice given by the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.[2] However, this advice again produces a confusing dilemma for the consumer, as there are numerous conflicting opinions on the matter, most recently a study conducted by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA). The Independent on Sunday reported that the study had found that organic plant products contain more dry matter, and so are more nutrient-dense and contain more minerals such as iron and magnesium than conventional foods. The study also suggested that organic produce contains more polyphenols than its non-organic counterpart.[3] There are questions however, over whether or not the debate is not as concerned with health benefits, as it is about corporate interests. In an article titled 'Organicised Crime' in The Ecologist, journalist Andy Rowell suggested that the backlash against organic food had begun and he suggested that there was a deliberate push by the Agribusiness sector to undermine organic produce. No longer a niche market, but the fastest growing food segment in the US, it
Notes
- ↑ Organic Review Food Standards Agency website, accessed on 18 november 2010
- ↑ Is organic produce better for you? The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010
- ↑ Is organic produce better for you? The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010
