Organic food loses our taste test – surprised?

This was a flawed trial.
I will continue to buy organic. To me it does taste better. It is better for the soil, animals, wildlife and the environment. Compare soil that has been continually treated with pesticides to that gardened/farmed organically. Which is the living soil?

I agree with Mark Shaw the experiment was flawed.The benefits acheived from managing soil organically will last in the soil for years. The trial plots should have been non-organic, the plot chosen for organic should be given two years conversion (which is the rule for certified organic growers) before the experiment started . As for the tomatoes, the organic grow bags are not allowed to include peat a which is not allowed for sustainability reasons, but is an ideal growing medium so it not surprising the tomatoes in the non-organic bags were deemed better.

Are the full results including measures of statistical significance and confidence intervals available? Having read the report in my copy of Gardening Which this month I am disappointed by the unscientific reporting of an allegedly scientific investigation. Such comments as “Significantly higher anti-oxidant capacity” should be accompanied by a p value and 95% confidence intervals to clarify whether these are statistically or biologically significant (or both).

Songbirds endangered, Hedgehogs endangered, Bee populations facing extinction – 2 species of bumlebee now extinct in UK, evidence of diminishing pollination in UK. The silent spring is here. And the voice of science replaced by small scale tests on 3 types of vegetable. Can ‘Which’ magazine tackle climate change next and allow us all to sleep a little better?

The Gardening Which trials set out to assess the crops for yield and quality, taste and nutritional value and to determine which growing method, organic of non-organic, came out on top. Nothing more.
Sadly the design of the trials did not allow any conclusions whatsoever to be drawn that could be extrapolated to your garden or mine. This was because they did not make sure that the amounts of nutrients supplied by the two methods were the same. Organic materials when added to the soil provide nutrients and can with some soils improve structure and water holding capacity. The results will be skewed according to the amounts of nutrients applied and interpretation made impossible.

For many years, at least up to the 1950s, the advocates of organic farming in the UK believed that the soil fungi which were intimately associated with crop roots via the fungal threads (hyphae), brought an unspecified health-promoting chemical or chemicals from the organic matter in the soil. The chemicals was supposed to enter the root then the shoots and seed and ultimately into the diet where, according to Balfour, there would be dramatic improvements in the health of the nation. They even believed, and said they had evidence, that animal diseases such as foot and mouth could be prevented if animals were fed on organically grown crops. It is possible that some believe this nonsense today.

Believers in the organic food and farming will continue to find a basis for their beliefs regardless of the evidence. I will address one such belief which is that eating organically grown crops means eating pesticide-free food.

This is not correct.

If you wish to ensure you consume the minimum amounts of hazardous pesticides (both natural and man-made) you are advised to eat vegetables and fruit crops (in fact all crops) that have been treated with synthetic pesticides.

This advice is the inevitable conclusion from the evidence that has been building up over the last 20 years on the quantities and properties of natural pesticides in plants.

All plants contain a formidable array of natural pesticides which protect them from pests and diseases. When a plant is attacked they produce more of their particular set of natural pesticides.

The concentrations of natural pesticides are much higher than those of synthetic pesticide residues. The result is that daily we consume about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides compared with 0.1 mg of synthetic pesticides.

Natural pesticides are just as hazardous as synthetic pesticides in that they have been found to be carcinogens, mutagens etc in rodent tests. As is the case with all chemicals, whether man-made or natural, 55% of natural pesticides are known to be hazardous when assessed by rodent toxicological tests.

It is therefore far more important to reduce the amount natural pesticides in the food you eat than that of synthetic pesticides if you want to restrict your intake of hazardous pesticides.

A crop that has not been treated with synthetic pesticides, as is the case in organic farming, is likely to contain more natural pesticides because any attack by a pest or disease will have stimulated the production of more natural pesticides. It is therefore preferable to eat food produced from crops that have been sprayed with synthetic pesticides.

Removing the pesticide-rich skin of a vegetable or fruit will reduce the amount of natural pesticides consumed.

It is estimated that there are thousands of natural pesticides in plants. It would be an enormous task to study them all but much more work is clearly required on the natural pesticides that are judged to be the most hazardous. At the moment it can be said that about 55% of the natural pesticides are hazardous. All crops contain hazardous natural pesticides and therefore all crops are potentially hazardous.

Finally all believers know that the Haughley experiment (concluded by the Soil Association) which lasted 30 years did not show any benefits of farming organically in terms of crop or animal production or health. Moreover when organic matter was used soil fertility fell.

I do not doubt that the tests were right however I was horrified to see headlines in the media that Organic grown food does not taste as good as Non Organic.
The fact is that everyone I know says what a huge difference my and other organic grown are compared with shop non organic veg.
Shop non organic veg and fruit are often grown under industrial methods, seeds to make quick results and picked before they are ripe and the outcome is a poor taste.
I am saddened that WHICH have not spelled out to the public that their test was just like for like trials and not the difference between end products in supermarkets and Organic Growers.

Did you use the same varieties for organic and conventional systems? Was it the same soil types? Randomized replicated design in production? Same amount of water and other treatments?

Calling this “research” without showing your methodology does not cast a positive light on your organization. It’s like calling something a “survey” when all you did was ask a half-dozen friends the same question. Poor work, and disappointing considering your organizations status.

You still haven’t answered any questions about which plant varieties were used.

wow, I think many people who’ve read this do not understand, this is a taste test for the HOME GARDENER. It makes sense to me. I don’t use any chemicals on my home garden for fear of killing beneficial bugs, butterflies, and such. But, I know if I was trying to grow tomatoes and my plants had blight so bad that the tomatoes couldn’t get enough nutrients from the plant itself, that if I did use something to combat bugs and disease, I could make a tastier more nutrient rich product. It depends on the season and what’s going around in bugworld, and fungus world. Our japanese beatles are so bad in the u.s lately that it’s almost worth considering toxic chemicals. How can something taste good if you can’t even grow the host plant sucessfully?