The legend about the benefits of organic food is dissolved. British scientists found no significant differences between foods of organic and conventional origin. Scientists noticed differences only in the three dimensions: it was only defined that organic food contain greater nitrogen amount, while the typical food has lots of phosphorus and higher acidity.
There are many other claims about organic food which cannot be considered as truth. As following we would like to introduce you some of them.
Claim 1: Organic farming is good for the environment
Disclaimer: the production of organic milk requires more land usage than usual, stronger influences climate, stronger pollutes water sources and makes a big contribution to creation of acid rains than production of non-organic milk. Moreover, organic cows produce twice as much methane than non-organic cows, which is 20 times more harmful than CO2 emissions.
Claim 2: Organic farming is more environmentally friendly
Disclaimer: organic potatoes require more energy for planting and the harvest is still 2.5 times less than usual. And tomatoes which grow in British greenhouses require 100 times more energy than for example African fields.
In general, greenhouses pollute the environment three times stronger and require on a quarter more water than normal fields. For the sake of justice, it can be mentioned that wheat from farmer’s fields requires less energy. But the content of harmful substances in such wheat is three times higher than in inorganic fields.
Claim 3: Organic farms do not use pesticides
Disclaimer: Actually the do. But only very harmful which have been prohibited in the past and which will not pass any modern safety tests.
Claim 4: The level of pesticides in conventional products dangerously high
Supporters of organic food shout about the «cocktail of pesticides» contained in ordinary food. Some shout about the «epidemic of cancer». Firstly, the epidemic of cancer does not exist. Secondly, the level of morbidity from cancer decreased for the last 50 years.
According to the logic of organics supporters, “traditional” farmers should suffer from cancer first. However, these farmers surely fall into the group with the least risk. Carcinogenic effects of pesticides logically should provoke the stomach cancer; however the figures for this disease are going down faster than others.
Claim 5: Organic food is healthier
Disclaimer: First of all, the health of organic animals is not very good. Large studies in the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria showed the presence of poisonous Campylobacter and Salmonella in 100% of organic chicken which covers only 1/3 of non-organic ones.
Moreover, 72% of organic chicken are infected with parasites. It is clear why - organic farmers boast that they do not feed chicken with antibiotics and anti-helminths drugs. Austrian and Dutch studies in 2006 showed that pneumonia of organic pigs meets six times more frequently than pneumonia of normal pigs. And their piglets died twice as often.
Claim 6: Organic food is more nutritious
Disclaimer: There were only 2 advantages found. First - flavonoids are higher in organic tomatoes. And the second is that omega-3 fatty acids are higher in organic milk. But at the same time flavonoids are produced not from an excess of organic forces but from the protective reaction on the lack of nitrogen.
Claim 7: Demand on organic food increases over time
Disclaimer: In fact, demand for organic food in UK is less than 1%, but you will never hear about that in mass media. Soil Association calls itself the first and the main fighter for the idea, but let's not forget that it is a big trade company which is very successful in lobbying for their interests. But the square of lands used for growing organic substances is reduced because the majority of consumers returns to traditional farming.