Meditation – An Essential Preventative Measure?

Swami Vivekananda, the influential modern proponent of Hinduism who first introduced Eastern philosophy to the West in the late 19th century, describes meditation:

“Meditation has been laid stress upon by all religions. The meditative state of mind is declared by the Yogis to be the highest state in which the mind exists. When the mind is studying the external object, it gets identified with it, loses itself. To use the simile of the old Indian philosopher: the soul of man is like a piece of crystal, but it takes the colour of whatever is near it. Whatever the soul touches … it has to take its colour. That is the difficulty. That constitutes the bondage.”

In Buddhism, the historical Buddha himself, Siddhartha Gautama, was said to have achieved enlightenment while meditating under a Bodhi tree. All twenty eight Buddhas used meditation to make spiritual progress.

Meditation has been practiced in one form or another by Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and Christians throughout the ages. One could infer from this that there would be good reason; yet meditation is not widely accepted or recommended as an important element of preventative medicine. In this Age of Information, where there is a cynical devotion to evidence-based science, people seem more likely to turn to pharmaceuticals than to explore the world of the not-understood. When considering one’s health, it’s important to keep in mind that the absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily indicate a fallacy.

In another example of science slowly catching up with time-tested health wisdom, a new study a new study was recently published in Psychosomatic Medicine, reporting that Zen meditators have lower pain sensitivity both in and out of a meditative state, when compared to non-meditators.

“While previous studies have shown that teaching chronic pain patients to meditate is beneficial, very few studies have looked at pain processing in healthy, highly trained meditators. This study was a first step in determining how or why meditation might influence pain perception.” says Joshua Grant, co-author of the paper from the Université de Montréal.

In this study, a computer controlled heating plate was pressed against the calves of subjects. Researchers noticed a significant difference in how their two test groups reacted to the pain testing: Zen meditators had much lower pain sensitivity (even without meditating) compared to non-meditators. It appeared that the meditators experienced an even greater ability to withstand pain when meditating.

The ultimate result was that meditators experienced an 18 percent reduction in pain intensity. “While previous studies have found that the emotional aspects of pain are influenced by meditation, we found that the sensation itself, as well as the emotional response, is different in meditators,” says Grant.

This one single benefit to be gained from meditation, if taken on board by practitioners of modern medicine, could help reduce the use of side-effect-baring pain medication.

This is not the first time health benefits of meditation have been “discovered”. Other recent scientific findings have concluded that meditation:

Increases Thickness of Brain Regions
Researchers at Harvard Medical School examined Westerners who meditated for about 20 minutes every day (but didn’t necessarily believe in the tenets of Buddhism). MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was used to look at brain parts involved in memory and attention. The thickness of those regions had increased.
While those areas generally shrink as people get older, older meditators in the study were able to avoid some of that shrinkage. This suggests that a regular meditation practice could help people maintain their ability to remember and focus on details. The study also showed that meditation helps slow down age-related brain deterioration.

Boosts Performance on Attention Tests
One study indicated that meditation may boost performance on tests that measure attention. A University of Kentucky study showed that 10 people taught to meditate for 40 minutes did better on a test of attention than they did after reading for 40 minutes. The study also showed that meditation can improve attention worsened by lack of sleep.

Produces a Jump in Brain Waves
In this study, mostly of Buddhist monks, Electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings of skilled meditators showed a significant rise in gamma wave activity in the 80 to 120 Hz range during meditation as well as an increase in gamma activity while not meditating. These brain waves are associated with vigilance. The study also showed that meditation activated brain regions involved in attention.

Enhances Perception
A study conducted in 1984 explained that “[the higher rate of detection of single light flashes] involves quieting some of the higher mental processes which normally obstruct the perception of subtle events.” (Brown). In other words, meditation may temporarily or permanently alter some of the top-down processing involved in filtering subtle events usually deemed noise by the perceptual filters.

This was supported in 2000, when a separate study found that “a person who meditates consequently perceives objects more as directly experienced stimuli and less as concepts… With the removal or minimization of cognitive stimuli and generally increasing awareness, meditation can therefore influence both the quality (accuracy) and quantity (detection) of perception.” (Tloczynski).

Other Benefits

A host of biochemical and physical changes in the body that alter metabolism, heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and brain chemistry have been identified. Meditation has been studied specifically for its effects on stress and it has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction. This has implications for all sorts of health challenges people face, including anxiety, high blood pressure, headaches, sleep disturbances, fatigue, depression, poor immune function, respiratory problems, IBS and PMT.

Further, in the July/August 2003 edition of Psychosomatic Medicine, researchers found that people who did eight weeks of meditation training produced more antibodies to a flu vaccine. Recently, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), which is about 80 percent meditation, was approved in Britain for use with people who have experienced three or more episodes of depression.

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies and concluded that “firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. However, the results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field.”

In other words, they are not satisfied that there is enough evidence at the moment, but think it’s probable that many more benefits will be “discovered” in years to come. The medical science community doesn’t know. The good news is that you don’t need to wait for them! Give meditation a go, and see how it makes you feel.

Getting Started

There are different types of meditation that you might like to look into at some point further down the line, but getting started and enjoying the health benefits is easy.

Set aside some time, 15 to 20 minutes as a minimum, and somewhere comfortable, with a straight spine. It can be on the ground or on a seat, indoors or outdoors. Breathe slowly and rhythmically, and try to “switch off” your mind from conscious thoughts or pressures.

You can focus your attention on something such as your breathing, an object, an image, a candle or even just being in the moment. Some people like to face a wall, and some prefer to close their eyes to block out all visual stimulation. You may find that visualisations help you focus. You can learn plenty more about visualisations and how beneficial they can be, but a simple one to start with and to aid your meditation could be for you to close your eyes and picture clear, cleansing, soothing blue coming in with in-breaths; while your troubles and pollutions are expelled with every out-breath. Wherever your focus, if you find that your mind starts to wander, direct it back to the focus point and continue from there.

When starting out, you will have two main obstacles, both of which are easily overcome. The first obstacle will be finding the time. Meditation is a matter of discipline and habit – you just have to schedule the meditation in and stick to the plan, avoiding procrastination. It is much easier to do this once it is a matter of habit and you find yourself looking forward to your meditation sessions. The second obstacle will be that your mind will wonder and you will feel unsure. Just rest assured that this is normal. You are still gaining the benefits, and meditation will become much easier and more effective with practice.

Try to do this as often as possible – a few times a week as a minimum to start off if you can’t fit it in every day. You will soon see and feel the positive effects it has on your mind and body.

info@theblueberryclinic.co.uk

www.theblueberryclinic.co.uk
Copyright Joe Summerfield 2011

What's In The Water?

Campaigners in Southampton have failed to stop South Central Strategic Health Authority from fluoridating the water supplies of 195,000 people, following a judicial review at the High Court. The judge said that there was no illegality in the decision-making process: “our democratic Parliament decided long ago that water can, in certain circumstances, be fluoridated… it is not the law that fluoridation can only occur when a majority of the local population agree…this SHA have not acted unlawfully and no court can interfere with their decision”.

The decision to add fluoride to water came after 72% of those who responded to public consultation opposed it, with 28% in favour. The authority had originally instructed Southern Water to add fluoride to improve dental health in February 2009, and the SCSHA now plans to press ahead.

Water fluoridation is commonplace in the USA. In the UK, 10% of our mains water supply is fluoridated. Under current laws, the decision to consult on fluoridation does not need approval of the Health Secretary or special legislation. A spokesman for the Department of Health said it was a “local decision”. In light of the recent ruling in Southampton, local health authorities across the nation are now pushing for fluoridation.
Before the practice of water fluoridation spreads across the UK, I would like to share some of the information that I believe the public should be informed of.

Fluoridation – Why?

The only reason sited is support in the prevention of dental cavities. I would question this as a reason to fluoridate water on the following grounds:

• It is utterly undemocratic to dose the public water supply. Water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• There is no dosage control. Dosages will depend on water consumption and will not be sensitive to other factors that increase the dangers of fluoride such as young or old age, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, diabetics and people with impaired renal clearance.
• This measure is almost surreal when you consider any number of other steps that can be taken to support dental health – ones that are not dangerous. Dentistry professor David Locker and philosopher Howard Cohen argued that the moral status for advocating water fluoridation is “at best indeterminate” and could even be considered immoral because it infringes upon autonomy based on uncertain evidence, with possible negative effects.

In light of these points, it seems amazing that this is going on. At this point, one might resign from the debate – “I’m sure there is a good reason – they woudln’t do anything that could hurt public health”. If only that was the case.

Does It Really Work?

The most comprehensive systematic review of studies into fluoridation and dental health, published in the British Medical Journal, found that the evidence in favour of the practice was only of moderate quality: “many studies did not attempt to reduce observer bias, control for confounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis.”

Richard Foulkes, M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, revealed in a presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials: “The water fluoridation studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were “selling,” were either omitted or declared to be “bad science.” The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic “facts” presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced.”

Dr Paul Connett points out that “the countries which are fluoridated are doing practically no health studies. They are far more concerned about protecting this policy for some reason than protecting health.” Former United States Environmental Protection Agency scientist Robert Carton went further, stating that “fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century.”

Bear these facts in mind when you learn that the U.S. Center for Disease Control hales water fluoridation as one of the top medical achievements of the 20th Century, ranked ahead of “Recognition of tobacco use as a health hazard”…

What Are The Dangers?

It should be noted that small amounts of fluoride do naturally occur in water, in the form of calcium fluoride. Calcium is an antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Additionally, calcium fluoride is not toxic enought to be used in vermin poisons and pesticides…

Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has also been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that it is highly toxic. It is included in toothpaste, with the instruction “if your child swallows more than the recommended amount, contact a poison control center.” The amount that they’re talking about, the recommended pea-sized quantity, is equivalent to one glass of water. Yet, although it sounds absurd, there are no labels taps saying “if you consume more than one glass of water, contact a poison center.”

The fluoride that is added to 90% of drinking water is hydrofluoric acid. Entirely manmade and with no nutrient value whatsoever, it is one of the most caustic of industrial chemicals and the byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. It is illegal to dump in the sea and too concentrated to dump locally because it destroys vegetation and livestock. It is 85 times more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

So what are the effects on the human body of thos toxin? One side effect that nobody disputes is fluorosis – coloured mottling of the teeth. While promoters of fluoridation dismiss this as purely cosmetic, I would suggest that this is clearly an indication that there has been some damage to the bone. Approximately fifty percent of the fluoride that you ingest each day ends up accumulating in your bones over a lifetime. Bone is a living tissue which is constantly being replaced through cellular turnover. It’s a finely balanced and complicated process; one which fluoride has been known – since the 1930s – to disrupt. The concern is over the potential of fluoride to damage the bone, causing symptoms such as susceptibility to fracture, osteoporosis and arthritis.

While health authorities assert that Fluoridation is safe (for whom?) up to 4ppm (parts per million), studies have shown that exposure to more than 1.9ppm lowers the IQ of children. Even at levels as low as 1ppm (part per million), studies have demonstrated direct toxic effects on brain tissue. Another risk – particularly to women – is that fluoride lowers thyroid function. Until the 1950’s it was used to treat patients with overactive thyroids. This is a significant concern as tens of millions of people today suffer from low thyroid function.

The most chilling concern over the use of fluoride is that once in the body, fluoride is a destroyer of human enzymes. It does this by changing their shapes. In human biochemistry, thousands of enzymes are necessary for various essential cell reactions that take place every second we’re alive – they trigger specific reactions in the body. One way they do this is by having the exact shape necessary, like a key in a lock. Fluoride changes the shape so that they no longer fit. Once they have been changed, they appear to be foreign. The body now treats them as invaders and the body attacks itself. This is known as an autoimmune situation and is at the heart of many of the diseases that seem to be epidemic in modern western society.

Chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk, when confronted with mountains of data, stated before Congress: “In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.”

Seeking Clarity
 
While flawed studies showing fluoride’s efficacy in cavity protection are heavily promoted, supporting a slightly surreal logic of dosing public water to prevent tooth cavities, studies showing the dangers of fluoride consumption are downplayed. Why is this happening? The fact of the matter is that a toxic industrial waste is being passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of £7billion or more per year. This is a substance that, as Dr. William Hirzy from the Environmental Protection Agency has pointed, is “called a pollutant if it goes into the air; pollution if it is released into the water; but if the public water utilities buy it and pour it in our drinking water, it’s no longer a pollutant. All of a sudden like magic it’s a beneficial public health measure.”

The real danger of this situation is that most people are not impartial medical academics with the time to really study the issues. So, as with most of the decisions about our health, we have to take the word of the authorities. More often than not, this seems to be to our detriment. The path is now clear for chemical companies to lobby local health authorities to give them the go-ahead to dispose of their toxic waste in our water supply while pocketing our money. I'd always urge you to seek to be informed; and to be vigilant.

Further Reading

I can recommend a couple of articles for you to read if you would like to take control of your health and be better informed on water fluoridation:

Video: Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Dr. Paul Connett
Fluoride Research Facts List – Dr. Darryl Roundy
Fluoride – Risks and Benefits – David R. Hill, Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary
Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation – John Colquhoun, School of Education, University of Auckland, published by The University of Chicago Press
Is Fluoride Really As Safe As We’re Told? – Dr. Joseph Mercola
The Fluoride Debate – Presentation of both sides of the argument, one issue at a time
How To Remove Fluoride From Your Water

info@theblueberryclinic.co.uk

www.theblueberryclinic.co.uk
Copyright Joe Summerfield 2011

Staying Healthy Through the Spring, According to Chinese Medicine

The Huang Di Nei Jing (The Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon), one of the principal medical books of Traditional Chinese Medicine, was written thousands of years ago. In it, the Yellow Emperor of China asks the Daoist master Qi Bo questions about health and disease.

The first question that the Yellow Emperor asks is “I am told the people in ancient times could all survive to more than 100 years old, and they appeared to be quite healthy and strong in actions, but the people at present time are different, they are not so nimble in action when they are only 50, and what is the reason?”

Qi Bo responds to the Yellow Emperor, “those who knew the way of keeping good health in ancient times always kept their behaviour in daily life in accordance with nature. Their behaviours in daily life were all kept in regular patterns such as their food and drink were of fixed quantity; their daily activities were all in regular times. They never overworked. In this way, they could maintain both in the body and in the spirit substantiality, and were able to live to the old age of more than 100 years.”

The key element in Qi Bo’s answer seems to be concerned with living in harmony with nature. Of course, this has strong implications for our habits as the seasons change.

Of Spring, Qi Bo says: “In the three months of spring, all things on the earth begin to grow. The natural world is resuscitating and all things are flourishing. People may sleep late in the night and get up early in the morning, taking a walk in the courtyard with hair running free to relax the body and enliven the mind. Such a natural resuscitating process should be activated instead of being depressed, promoted instead of being deprived and encouraged instead of being destroyed. This is what adaptation to chun qi (spring-qi) means and this is the principle for cultivation of health. Any violation of this rule may impair the liver and result in cold diseases in summer due to insufficient supply for growth in summer”.

Spring in Traditional Chinese Medicine

In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Spring is represented by the element of wood. The element of the East, wood relates to the morning and the sunrise. Characterised by renewal and upward and outward energy and growth, it gives us a connection to the future and the flexibility to plan and design in all areas of our lives.
The element of wood also relates to the liver, the gallbladder, tendons and joints. The liver helps us neutralise poisons – both physical and emotional. As Spring is the time of renewal, the Liver can become overburdened (also called “over-heated”). As heat moves upward, it can cause problems in the head section: dry skin, dry hair, hair loss, migraines, headaches, high blood pressure, and indigestion.

You might like to try making your own cleansing tonic at home, to be drunk before a main meal. Simply add 1 tablespoon of apple cider vinegar and 1 tablespoonful of raw honey in a glass of water and mix well.

Emotional problems that arise when the liver is over-heated are depressive or anger related states, including irritation, resentment, belligerence, impatience and mood swings. People with a consistently over-heated liver may develop heart problems. So it’s important to de-stress and detoxify in Spring. Exercise should be gentle and smooth styles, i.e. breathing, stretching, Qigong, yoga, light weights, walking, meditation, light cardio – all of which simulate the animal coming out of hibernation. Outside air helps liver Qi flow, so it’s important to get outside for air and sunshine whenever possible.

The appetite should be slightly smaller, and the foods easier for your body to cope with. This means lighter foods, and including more lightly cooked (preferably steamed) or raw foods where possible; as well as avoiding all processed and denatured foods (i.e refined grains and sugars) and high fat foods. Avoiding foods that contain chemicals always applied.

As green is the color of Spring – and of the liver – try to consume plenty of young plants and fresh greens. Legumes and seeds are also good to eat, especially if they are sprouted. Basil, fennel, marjoram, rosemary, caraway, dill and bayleaf are all good spices to use in Spring.

Seasonal Spring Foods
 
One of the easiest ways to stay healthy in any season is to eat fresh seasonal foods. A good guideline about what to eat during any season is to build your meals from what is available at your local farmer’s market. There are also the added bonuses that shopping in this way is better for farming and better for the environment. For your convenience, here is a list of Spring foods:

Vegetables:
Asparagus, Beets, Corn, Green Beans, Peas, Peppers, Artichokes, Fava Beans, Fiddlehead, Ferns, Spinach, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rhubarb, Bok Choy, Purple Sprouting Broccoli and Calabrese Broccoli, Wild Garlic, Green Onions, Lettuce, Morels, Wild Mushrooms, Nettles, Spring Onions, Cabbage, Carrots.

Fruits:
Bananas, Berries, Figs, Kiwi, Mangos, Pineapple, Nectarines, Peaches, Plums, Apricots, Cherries, Melons

Fish and Seafood:
Pacific Coast Clams, Oysters, Lobster, Mackerel, Mussels, Wild Salmon, Sardines, John Dory, Sea Trout, Brown Crab, Haddock, Lemon Sole, Langoustines, Bass

Meat:
Lamb, Pigeon, Wood Pigeon, Rabbit, Hare, Guinea Fowl, Grouse and Duck.

With all of this in mind, you can be in harmony with all the renewal and upward and outward movement of Spring.

info@theblueberryclinic.co.uk

www.theblueberryclinic.co.uk
Copyright Joe Summerfield 2011

Setting The Record Straight: Organic Foods

Organic foods have made the headlines again last week, as Which? published a study suggesting that Organic food may not taste better or contain as many nutrients as conventionally grown food. The Telegraph reports: click here. You’ll probably remember that organic food was “debunked” in 2009 when a review of studies concluded that organic food had no nutritional benefit – and the FSA agreed. While these kinds of headlines are apparently delicious for a certain kind of person, they can leave a bitter taste for the rest of us. Have we been duped? Is “organic” just another premium pricing tool? Read on to get to the bottom of these studies and make an informed decision about your food.

What Does Organic Mean?

To qualify for organic status, farmers must adhere to strict limits on artificial fertilisers and pesticides. Instead of using these, pests and diseases are controlled using wildlife. For example, clover is grown to boost nitrogen in the soil in place of fertilisers. In the case of livestock, high standards of animal husbandry must be adhered to and all poultry must be free-range. Drugs, antibiotics and wormers are allowed only in emergencies and genetically modified animal feed is banned. This is all monitored by – and producers are licensed by – The Soil Association.

Historically, this is how food has been produced – there was no need for the differentiation indicated by the “organic” label before intensive industrial methods and artificial chemicals made their way into food production. Only in the later part of the 20th century did farmers start regularly using new, and often untested, synthetic chemicals to increase crop yields. In the 1980s, as public interest grew over animal welfare and the use of chemicals, demand grew for a return to a more ecological style of farming. Since then, organic food production has increased by about 20% a year – a rate of growth way ahead of the rest of the food industry. In the past five years sales of organic food in Britain almost doubled, from less than £900m in 2003 to about £2 billion last year (although they are believed to have dipped in the recession).

This does come with a note that some foods of compromised quality can still be called “organic”. Of course, as the market has grown, large scale producers have found ways of working within the rules while defying the spirit – now some organic vegetables and salads are not grown in soil at all; and some are compromised due to transportation.

The Food Standards Agency – Acting In Our Interests?

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was set up by the Government in 2000 as an independent department with the objective of protecting public health and the consumer’s interests in food. The first chairman, Sir John Krebs, was supportive of the biotechnology lobby and clearly keen to promote GM as the future of farming. On the day that it was announced that he would become the first head of the FSA, Krebs endorsed GM food in a radio interview, saying all GM products approved for sale in the UK ‘were as safe as their non-GM counterparts’. He then appeared on BBC TV in August 2000, stating that consumers who were buying organic food were “not getting value for money, in my opinion and in the opinion of the FSA, if they think they are buying extra nutritional quality or extra nutritional safety, because we don’t have the evidence.” A month later, the chief executive of the Irish counterpart agency, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (Dr Patrick Wall), dismissed Kreb’s views as extreme and reminded people to buy organic food because it was more ‘environmentally friendly, more wholesome, and better produced’.

In March 2002, Krebs was again criticized over the organic food issue, this time by John Paterson (a biochemist at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary), for having attacked organic agriculture “on the basis of very little information”.

Krebs also aligned himself with the Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC), which gets part of its funding from large food companies as well as front organisations for the drinks and pharmaceutical industries. When the science correspondent for Channel 4 News contacted Sir John to query the appropriacy of his involvement with an organisation that had such links, Sir John denied any knowledge of the SIRC’s links and refused to make any comment to camera. You can read more about Sir John Kreb’s background – which includes a healthy dose of badger slaughter – here.

One early review of the FSA’s work, by the Labour peer Baroness Brenda Dean, warned there was a risk of the Agency losing its ‘objectivity’ and ‘rigour’ in its support for GM crops and its opposition to organic production. The departure of Sir John Krebs in 2005 did not bring any change in policy. It’s important to note that it’s worth supporting non-GM food for political reasons. The GM seed market is dominated by one powerful company with aggressive expansion strategies, regarded by many as ruthless. GM seeds are not reusable, so there is the potential for GM seed companies to take control of world food production.

Proving That Organic Is Nonsense… 

With this in mind, let’s look at the study. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) published a report, claiming that a comprehensive review of scientific evidence had shown that people who believe organic food is healthier are wasting their money. “There is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food,” declared Gill Fine, the FSA’s director of dietary health.

Led by Alan Dangour (a public health nutritionist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), researchers sifted through 50 years of studies into organic food, analysing nutritional reviews of fruit, vegetables, dairy products and meat. Dangour’s analysis was narrower in scope than it first appears. The FSADangour concluded that these results were irrelevant.

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: “I’ve read the report and the devil is in the detail. The detail clearly shows there are real differences in nutrition.” The research recorded that organic vegetables had 53.7% more beta-carotene – which is believed to help protect against heart disease and cancer – as well as 38.4% more flavonoids, 12.7% more proteins and 11.3% more zinc. These records have been ignored by the FSA on the grounds that they are not relevant, “due to the overall level of statistical error in the research”. Melchett points out that “they included ‘shopping basket’ studies, which are very variable and unreliable… If you include such studies, you get lots of variation, allowing you to declare the whole thing statistically insignificant. It is supposed to be a report, not an opinion piece. But it is designed in a way that almost guarantees they are able to claim there is no difference.”
 
One significant study that Dangour excluded from his report is an EU-funded four-year study by Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University. Leifert’s study, which involved 31 research and university institutes and was peer-reviewed, found that organic milk contained 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids than normal milk. Results from his crop studies suggest vitamin levels are up to a fifth higher in organic tomatoes, wheat and onions. It was also found that while nutritionally desirable compounds, such as antioxidants and vitamins, were higher in organic crops, and levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as toxic chemicals, mycotoxins and metals such as cadmium and nickel, were lower in organic crops.
Leifert himself has claimed that the FSA study was misleading, stating that “they have ignored all the recent literature as well as new primary research which shows the heath advantages of organic… They admit in their own research that some compounds are 50% higher in organic. How can you call that a non-significance?”

The FSA’s study looked purely at the nutritional content of organic foods; and even then it had to sneak its way out of evidence that was contrary to its cause. The Which? study is just as questionable. Like the FSA’s study, it ignored a host of key benefits of organic food and focused primarily on taste. It was an extremely small and narrow study, which ignored countless variables. Anyone can construct a test to show organic tastes no better than conventional, if they want to, just by selecting the right produce. And although taste isn’t the beginning or the end of the story, we know that our Riverford vegetables taste a whole lot better than what’s on supermarket shelves.

So What Should We Make Of This?!

In the face of the soaring popularity of organic produce – and a general increase in public interest in health and the environment – the food industry, along with pharmaceutical and large biotechnology companies, has been fighting harder than ever to convince the public that mass-produced, chemically-assisted and intensively-farmed products are just as good as organic foods. They propagate the portrayal of organic foods as a fad amongst neurotic consumers.

Even if these studies were reliable, they would still be a distraction from the two key reasons that people eat organic food: uncertainty over pesticides and chemicals; and environmental responsibility. Simon Wright, a food consultant for Organic Fair Plus, says that one of the main reasons that people buy organic is because of concern over chemicals and long-term health. “It’s a cocktail effect,” he said. “A variety of pesticides and other chemicals are applied at legal levels but interacting in a way that’s impossible to predict.” Studies do exist showing that these chemicals have an effect on people but there is no clarity on the full long-term impact. Nobody wants to fund research.

When it comes to the study of the impact of recent developments, impartial science cannot keep up. The industry that creates processed and GM food aims to manipulate nature in ways that usually target a particular simple objective like ‘yield per acre’. Multinational chemical companies do not care about our health. All the time that they push toward their objectives, we must be conscious that we have a different objective – to stay healthy. Can anyone possibly say that ingesting cocktails of chemicals and food that’s been tampered with is safe in the long-term? If so, at what levels? The truth is that best they can do is to indicate that no links with health problems have been made… yet.

Often we will sense by intuition or taste that a food (or our medical treatment or any other issue like this) is not working well for us, yet it will be much later that science recognises or acknowledges that there has been a negative impact. In our view, sense on this matter says: if we choose to use farming methods that work as much in harmony with nature as possible, we are most likely to have food that tastes good, is well suited to our bodies and gives us a sustainable agriculture.

Our advice, if you want the best food, is to know the source (as much as possible) of your organic food; and to buy seasonal produce.

Saving Money on Organics

All of this information comes with a small note that not ALL Organic food represents good value. One issue that's already been identified is that creation of the "Organic" label has given some cynical retailers the opportunity to charge more for produce that is not in the spirit of Organic Food but does comply with the rules. Another thing to watch out for is foods that have been labelled "Organic" when it really doesn't make a difference. People who trust in Organic food can sometimes find themselves spending more money than they have to.

If you'd like to save on your shopping bill, you'll be glad to hear that you do not need to buy any of these things from an Organic producer, according to a report from the Environmental Working Group (full list in "Further Reading"):

Onions	Avocados	Watermelon
Pineapple	Mango	Frozen sweet peas
Asparagus	Kiwi	Cabbage
Eggplant	Cantaloupe

Frozen sweet corn is also on the list but I've removed it to avoid confusion. I don't recommend consuming non-organic corn and even organic corn should be consumed sparingly.

The foods that you really should by Organic are foods that have permeable or edible skins, and/or that are conventionally grown with higher amounts of pesticides.According to the EWG's report, the top twelve foods to buy Organic are:

Grapes	Potatoes	Kale / Collard greens
Cherries	Spinach	Sweet bell peppers
Nectarines	Blueberries	Apples
Strawberries	Peaches	Celery

Further Reading:

The Environmental Working Group Report - 49 common vegetables and fruits in order of toxin content. This will help you prioritise your shopping.
Riverford Organics – UK grower of organic vegetables and distributor of organic veg’ boxes.
The Soil Association Website – full of information on organic foods, techniques and producers; as well as information on supporting organic food production.
The Organic Farmers and Growers Website – more information on organic foods, techniques and producers; as well as information on supporting organic food production from another organic certification body.
WikiLeaks Cables on GM Seeds – a report on WikiLeaks cables pertaining to the use of GM seeds in Europe.

info@theblueberryclinic.co.uk

www.theblueberryclinic.co.uk
Copyright Joe Summerfield 2011