how come this is dated march 2004? madelyn Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:41:10 -0800 "Thomas E. Billings" <[log in to unmask]> writes: > here's a recent scientific journal article that may be of interest: > > Journal: Food Quality and Preference > Volume 15, Issue 2 , March 2004, Pages 91-95 > > Organic food claims cannot be substantiated > through testing of samples intercepted in the > marketplace: a horticulturalist's opinion > > F. Roger Harker, > > Abstract > > Some studies comparing organic and non-organic foods continue to > source products from retailers > (see review by Bourn & Prescott [Critical Reviews in Food Science > and Nutrition, 42 (2002) > 1]). While the reasons for taking this approach are rarely stated, > it is likely that in part the decision > reflects the difficulty in obtaining test samples from agricultural > field trials, and the assumption that > mixing of products and/or raw materials during processing and > marketing results in an unbiased and > randomized distribution of samples on the retail shelf. However, > decisions on appropriate sites, > cultivars, and harvest criteria can differ between organic and > non-organic sectors of agriculture. > These decisions do not govern the organic status of a commodity, but > may introduce systematic bias > in the quality of food intercepted in the marketplace. Furthermore, > the normal distribution of `quality' > obtained at harvest is sometimes modified through the imposition of > `quality standards', which aim to > provide the consumer with a higher quality product than they might > otherwise receive. Thus `quality' > on the retail shelf can reflect industry regulations as much as the > different production systems. This > article uses experiences in the apple industry to highlight how > differences between organic and > non-organic fruit observed in the marketplace may be confounded by > factors not prescribed within > organic production protocols. Claims that an organic product tastes > `different', is `preferred' and/or > `more healthy' have the implicit expectation that the improvement is > due to the way the food has > been grown. Therefore, robust experimental approaches should source > product from field trials > rather than from retailers. > > > (Apologies for the line over-runs -- above is how it appears on the > journal website.) > > Tom Billings > >