Luomuinstituutille miljoonapotti Tekesiltä

Luomuinstituutti on saanut Tekesiltä 1.5 mijoonaa euroa LuomuKasvu-hankkeeseen.

Luomuinstituutille merkittävä hankerahoitus Tekesiltä

 

Hankkeessa tunnistetaan tekijöitä, jotka estävät tai edistävät koko luomuarvoketjun kestävää muutosta ja sopeutuvuutta kysyntään, markkinoiden vaihteluun ja ympäristömuutokseen.

Vastaukset ovat tosin jo valmiina, mutta mitäpä siitä, jos on miljoonia törsättäväksi. Kuluttajat eivät osta luomua, koska se on liian kallista ja kalliina se pysyy, koska sitä on kallista tuottaa. Sadot ovat surkeita, koska järkeviä lannoitteita ei saa käyttää ja jos satoa sattuu tulemaan, tuholaiset, joita ei saa järkevillä nykymenetelmillä torjua, tekevät tuhon lopusta sadosta.

Lisäksi useat tieteelliset tutkimukset ovat jo selvittäneet, että luomu ei ole terveellisempää, eikä ympäristökään hyödy yhtään, niin kovin vaikea on nähdä tilannetta, että kuluttajat innoistuisivat luomuarvoketjusta sen enempää, kuin mitä tällä hetkellä suurimmillaankin innostuvat.

Mutta sitten uutisessa on mielenkiintoinen nimi, sillä tutkimusprofessoriksi on valittu Carlo Leifert.

Kyseinen herra on kuuluisa siitä, että hänen tutkimustiiminsä piti todistaa luomu ylivertaiseksi muutamia vuosia sitten, josta löytyy oikein uutisiakin:

Luomuruoan terveellisyys todistettu

 

 Vuonna 2007 Carlo Leifert päätti antaa tiedotusvälineille uutisen, että noin vuoden kuluttua hän tulee julkaisemaan tutkimuksen, joka todistaa luomuruuan ylivertaisen terveellisyyden tavanomaiseen ruokaan nähden!

Tässä vaiheessa jokaisen skeptisen ja järkevän ihmisen päässä syttyy jo muutama herätyskello, sillä meillä on paljon esimerkkejä siitä, millaista on sellainen tiede, joka antaa ymmärtää julkaisevansa hamassa tulevaisuudessa mullistavia tuloksia, ennen sitä hetkeä kuin sitä tutkimusta on julkaistu tai vertaisarvioitu.

Ja jatkokysymys kuuluukin sitten niin, että missähän tämä mullistava tutkimus nyt sitten on, jonka piti Carlo Leifertin mukaan ilmestyä noin vuoden sisällä siitä hetkestä, kun hän vuonna 2007 antoi tutkimuksestaan pientä esimakua?

No sitäpä ei ole yhtään missään, eikä mistään löydy kyseistä tutkimusta ja tästä flopista tai luomuhuijauksesta löytyykin hyvä juttu täältä:

The Skeptic Dictionary : Organic farming

The QLIF project co-coordinator Carlo Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said. The Sunday Times reports that the Food Standards Agency is reviewing the evidence.

Two things concern me about the QLIF study. Going directly to the media and the public, bypassing the peer review process, is a sign of voodoo science. Second, having an organic advocacy group produce the leaflets does not instill confidence that the studies are objective and unbiased. Even so, I will review the leaflets and see if there is enough information given to evaluate this research.

I did find a summary of one study called "Comparison of the quality of organic and conventional crops" by Jana Hajšlová et al., Institute of Chemical Technology, Czech Republic. The report says that comparisons were made, but no results are given. The study, “Does Organic Offer a Nutrition Edge Over Conventional Crops,” was published in Environmental Nutrition, on page 7 (Apr. 2005).* A one-page study doesn't sound too promising. Much is made in the organic research community about producing products with greater amounts of antioxidants, a good idea. But there is no reason why GM foods couldn't also be produced that increase the amounts of antioxidants in foods.

The BBC quoted project co-coordinator Carlo Leifert as saying: "We have shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods, or improved amounts of the fatty acids you want and less of those you don't want. Our research is trying to find out where the difference between organic and conventional food comes from." In other words, Leifert claims it an established fact that organic foods are superior and his group is trying to explain that superiority. Yet, in one report he states:

...compositional differences between organic and conventional foods are relatively small, generally 10-30%, and it is clearly possible to obtain a nutritious healthy diet with either organic or conventional plant foods.*

He contends, however, that since people usually don't eat enough fruit or vegetables, any difference in organic food is a bonus. A few years ago, Leifert resigned from the British government's GM science review panel. Leifert is based at the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture at Newcastle University. There is nothing on his web page about a new study being published. I have e-mailed Dr. Leifert, requesting a copy of any published studies that show the superiority of organic food. (Read on for his response.) The BBC reports that results of the project are due to be published over the next 12 months, but some of the leaflets have been out for more than two years. In other words, it seems that what is new today is the media blitz, not the study.

Twelve leaflets have already been produced. They do not appear to be presenting the results of scientific studies so much as promoting various ideas regarding organic food. Here are descriptions from six of the pamphlets on the QLIF website:

1. The leaflet informs consumers on how freshness, taste and nutrient content of organic products are affected by production, processing and storage of the products.
2. The leaflet informs consumers on what is done to secure authenticity and integrity of organically produced food and what consumers can do to further support efforts that meet their demands.
3. The leaflet informs consumers on what is done and what consumers can do to further control the risks from pathogenic bacteria, mycotoxins etc. in organic food.
4. The leaflet informs retailers on what affects the taste, freshness and nutrient content of organic food and what retailers can do to support further improvements and ensure the best possible food quality.
5. The leaflet informs retailers on what is done to secure authenticity and integrity of organically produced food and what retailers can do to further support efforts that meet their costumer's demands.
6. The leaflet informs retailers on what is done and what retailers can do to further preserve food safety until purchase.

Apparently, at present, there is no study or pamphlet available to the public that would allow us to evaluate the claim that organic food is superior. We will have to wait for another leaflet or the book from Blackwell's. Stay tuned. However, my guess is that if Dr. Leifert and his team of organic proponents had new slam-dunk evidence for the superiority of organic food, we would be writing about an article published in a major scientific journal. Instead, we're writing about some media stories apparently instigated by a group that has been putting out pro-organic food leaflets for several years.

update (Nov. 2, 2007): I have heard from Carlo Leifert, who informs me that the recent media interest was associated with the publication of the last QLIF report and the "Handbook of Food Safety and Quality." In his e-mail, he said the handbook is published by Woodhouse publishing (www.woodhousepublishing.com), but a review of that site indicates its only interest is in publishing items about Ogden, Utah. I did find a Handbook of Organic Food Safety and Quality edited by Julia Cooper and published by Chipsbooks. Leifert wrote me that the book is available from CRC Press in America. It is, for a mere $309.95 (as of 9/1/08). According to Leifert, this Handbook reviews the literature on differences between organic and conventional foods and includes some early results from the QLIF project. The blurb on the CRC website says: "This handbook provides comprehensive coverage of the latest research and best practice in ensuring the safety, sensory and nutritional quality of foods from organic and low input production systems to enable professionals to meet consumer demand for safe and high quality foods." In any case, none of the news stories I read mentioned any handbook (including Nature.com and the Guardian). 

Leifert also confirmed my suspicion that, despite the hype in the news media about new evidence showing that organic is better, their project "was not so much focused on demonstrating differences between organic and conventional foods (based on the literature available 4 years ago we were already convinced that there are systematic differences), but on identifying which components of the production system contribute to differences." He refers to the leaflets as "workpackages of the QLIF" and notes that there are more to come over the next one to two years.

It seems obvious that the bulk of the work of the QLIF project has had nothing to do with testing the nutritional differences between organic and conventional crops. Yet, that is the thrust of the recent flurry of media coverage. QLIF's main focus seems to be to provide good press for the growing organic food industry to counteract the bad press it had been getting about the quality of organic foods. In short, the leaflets are part of a food fight between the proponents of organic crops and the proponents of conventional, including GM, crops. Even so, there are three reports in the last QLIF report that address the issue of food quality in organic as compared to conventional crops.

Joten tällaisen herran leveille harteille Tekes antaa 1.5 miljoonaa euroa, jotta hänen johdollaan tehtäisiin taas sellaista tutkimusta, jota hänen johdollaan on totuttu näkemään.

Luultavasti tämä luomuhuijaus tulee menemään niin, että näemme Mikkelistä julkaistuna lukuisia uutisia siitä, kuinka ihan hetken päästä julkaistaan "tutkimus", joka kertoo pyhästä luomusta ja sen yliluonnollisesta vaikutuksesta kuluttajan terveyteen, mutta todellisuudessa ainoa vaikutus tapahtuu kuluttajan lompakossa, joka kevenee huomattavasti enemmän kuin mitä tutkimukset antavat ymmärtää.