Thursday, July 30, 2009

FSA Report - another piece of disingenuity

The latest insult to our intelligence comes from another NGA arm of our bereft government, the Food Standards Agency, who declare that organic food isn’t any healthier than non-organic.

Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University, who has read the report was mystified by the agency’s conclusions, whose ballpark figures approximate those of a report Leifert co-ordinated for a major EU-funded study which looked at the nutrient levels of organic versus non-organic which clearly gave the former the lead. Why then has the FSA come to quite different conlusions?

In my view, clearly its politically (and probably commercially) driven. In a climate where GM crops are once again being toyed with (as reported on Monday) and a US Depertment of Agriculture calling for the mass-irradiation of crops on the grounds that it will kill of bacteria and make it safer for the masses to eat(!), not to mention the dangerous cocktails being used in the Swine Flu vaccine that we will all be urged to take and the imminent spectre of Codex Alimentarius, the FSA’s downbeat and dismissive missive on organically-grown and reared foodstuffs fits into place. It’s all part of the trend towards denying the population its health - a eugenics programme pure and simple.

But criticism of the FSA’s report has been widespread. Peter Melchett, policy adviser at the Soil Association said "We are disappointed in the conclusions the researchers have reached. It doesn't say organic food is not healthier, just that, according to the criteria they have adopted, there's no proof that it is."

It’s the way they spin it and the way the media follows up in unison. Last night’s BBC ‘Lies at Six’ deliberately gave two people a blind tasting of organic and non-organic fruit. Needless to say the verdict came out a draw, mirroring the conclusions of the report. No account was taken into the pesticide-free nature of organic foodstuffs which are grown to rigorous standards or the far-improved health of free-range livestock, whose happier demeanour reflects itself in the quality of its meat, free of any vile agri-waste cocktail fed to it in the name of economy and profit.

Increased cost of organic aside, thinking people will ignore this report and dismiss it for what it is worth, just another pile of worthless ‘research’ tailored to the dictates of a patsy government and an agribusiness lobby whose steered covert agenda is to lead us down the road to hell!

Here are a few of the comments in reply to the Guardian’s piece on the report.

“What a pathetic criteria for a study!
The point of eating organic food is not a higher nutritional content but avoiding pesticides and the like, DUH! Therefore, YES, it is healthier.”

“Big agribusiness has a lot to lose from people rejecting it's toxic, mono-culture, GMO, scorch the earth mentality. And what could this possibly mean!: ‘The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.’ Who is paying for this study? conventional farming poisons the earth and humans and strips the land of nutrients. if there are no nutrients in the soil there won't be any in the food and you can't make up for it with fertilizers and pesticides.”

“You only have to ask yourself, do I want foods intensively produced, often tasteless, inhumanely reared, potentially contaminated by pesticides, fungicides, growth hormones, genetic modification and other allied, often untested, modifications? Or would I prefer food free from interference by food scientists, chemists and the associated denizens of increased profitability.
I don't need a meta-analysis to answer that question wooly minded though I undoubtedly am.”

“It strikes me that the FSA have some agenda with regards this report, it blatantly omits any factor other than the basic nutritional values. Yet it still carries the headline 'no health benefits of organic food' on most media outlets. Looking at their website, they clearly have a biased attitude against organic, Im guessing since the popularity of organic rose out of the GM scepticism that there lies the actual reason behind the report. Look at their website page on GM food, and its an almost entirely positive account...Knowing that Gordon Brown has reopened the debate on GM crops, Im guessing that rubbishing organic farming is the first step in the propaganda initiative to warm mainstream public opinion towards more profitable GM agriculture.”

In other words is the FSA, in this report, also being influenced by the agribusiness cartel - I would say very likely.

PS To partly confirm my suspicions it turns out that one member of the research group at the University of London who were instrumental in the compilation of the FSA report, is one Dr Uauy. According to the Integrity in Science Database, Dr. Uauy has been a paid advisor to Unilever, Wyeth, Danone, DSM, Kellogg, Knowles and Bolton, Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd., and the International Copper Association. Well, what do you know!

Also read this

No comments: