Future Now
The IFTF Blog
More food for thought . . .
We often seem to have food on our minds around here at the Institute. All that thinking and creativity makes for hungry folks. And within the Health Horizons Program, we really are thinking a lot about the role of food in health as we launch our work on Foodscapes (see my entry from yesterday).
So I was not surprised when my colleague, Crystal Lynn Keeler, brought the following news headline to my attention for the blog: "Organic food 'better' for heart."
It turns out that a ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard ones found that the organic produce contained almost double the level of the anti-oxidants known as flavenoids. Flavenoids have been shown to reduce high blood pressure, thus lowering the risk of heart disease and stroke; they have also been linked to reduced rates of some types of cancer and dementia.
So does this really mean that organic food is healthier? The New Scientist article on the same study points out some of the conflicting evidence. Other research has found no difference between conventional and organic crops like wheat and carrots. And even though organic milk has been shown to have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, it turns out that these are "short-chained" fatty acids, which do not offer the same health benefits as "long-chained" omega-3 oils.
Also, there is conflicting evidence about the health-promoting benefits of flavenoids themselves. Even if such benefits exist . . .
higher flavonoid levels do not necessarily make organic food healthier, says John Krebs, former chair of the [United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency] and now at the University of Oxford. "This depends on the relevance of the differences to the human body," he says. "Tomato ketchup has higher levels of lycopene than either organic or conventional tomatoes. So if you wanted lots of lycopene you should eat ketchup."
No wonder the people I know who smother their bacon and eggs with ketchup are so much healthier than I am!