From an EWG release:

WASHINGTON - A report from a group of English researchers who claim to have conducted "the most extensive systematic review of the available published literature on nutrient content of organic food ever conducted," downplayed their own results that favored organic food, and failed to consider the use of toxic pesticides or chemical additives when forming their conclusions.

The study, "Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review," prepared by individuals at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, examined thirteen different nutrients. The authors found a significant difference in three of thirteen that favored organic, none that favored conventionally grown produce, yet they reported that there were no differences between the two types of food.

The London team also included studies from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's that analyzed crop varieties that are no longer grown, and failed to include 15 studies published since 2008 that all found important nutritional advantages for organic food. The study also failed to examine differences in total anti-oxidant content.

"The science has consistently shown that organic food provides higher levels of Vitamin C and total antioxidants, two nutrients that the American public needs more of," said Richard Wiles, Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications with the Environmental Working Group. "The London study is not supported by the majority of the science. We should not attach too much significance to its findings until it can be replicated," Wiles added.

Many scientists suspect that the relentless push for higher yields that has produced apples the size of softballs and tasteless tomatoes has also saturated fruits and vegetables with water and sugar to the point that they dilute the nutrient content of conventionally grown food.

There are other critical health advantages of organic food: Organic food is not treated with any synthetic chemical pesticides, it is not irradiated, and it is not genetically modified. The study did not address any of the traits.

To maintain ever-increasing yields, conventional farmers rely on multiple applications of synthetic chemical pesticides. It is not uncommon to find conventional strawberries, peaches, apples or lettuce with seven or eight pesticides on them even after they are washed and ready to eat.

"Consumers are wise to choose organic to avoid the risks of chemical pesticides and additives. On top of that the vast majority of the science shows that organic delivers higher levels of key nutrients like Vitamin C and cancer fighting antioxidants," Wiles added.

A team of scientists convened by The Organic Center (TOC) carried out a similar, but more rigorous, review of the same literature. The TOC team analyzed published research just on plant-based foods. Results differ significantly from the more narrow FSA review and are reported in the study "New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods."

From the TOC:

The London team reported finding statistically significant differences between organically and conventionally grown crops in three of thirteen categories of nutrients. Significant differences cited by the team included nitrogen, which was higher in conventional crops, and phosphorus and tritratable acids, both of which were higher in the organic crops. Elevated levels of nitrogen in food are regarded by most scientists as a public health hazard because of the potential for cancer-causing nitrosamine compounds to form in the human GI tract. Hence, this finding of higher nitrogen in conventional food favors organic crops, as do the other two differences.

Despite the fact that these three categories of nutrients favored organic foods, and none favored conventionally grown foods, the London-based team concluded that there are no nutritional differences between organically and conventionally grown crops.

The TOC findings are similar for some of the nutrients analyzed by the FSA team, but differ significantly for two critical classes of nutrients of great importance in promoting human health - total polyphenols, and total antioxidant content. The FSA team did not include total antioxidant capacity among the nutrients studied, and it found no differences in the phenolic content in 80 comparisons across 13 studies.

Go here for the full TOC report and news release:

In a point/counterpoint piece in Saturday's Argus Leader, EWG Midwest vice-president Craig Cox faced off against the Renewable Fuels Association's Bob Dineen.

Wrong for consumers, engines and environment

Craig Cox • July 25, 2009

Despite lavish subsidies and mandates to use ethanol, the corn ethanol industry wants more government help.

Its powerful Washington lobby is pulling every lever it can find to persuade the Environmental Protection Agency or Congress to increase the maximum amount of ethanol permitted in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent.

This change would vastly expand the market for corn ethanol, but is a lose-lose proposition for consumers.

Fact is ethanol blends reduce gas mileage. A 2009 Department of Energy study found that E15 lowered gas mileage by a whopping 5 percent.

Worse yet, higher ethanol blends can impair engine performance.

It's also well established that burning E15 can seriously damage small and off-road engines such as those in snowmobiles, outboard motors, lawn mowers and chain saws. That's why the Engine Manufacturer's Association, Boat Owners Association of the United States, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and National Marine Manufacturers Association all oppose the move to E15.

These organizations cite a string of studies documenting the threat E15 poses to operators of recreational and motor vehicle engines, from snowmobilers in the Black Hills to walleye fisherman on Lake Oahe.

But all of us who drive cars and trucks could have problems, too.

Virginia authorities have logged more than 500 complaints this summer from drivers who have experienced engine problems after inadvertently pumping higher ethanol blends into their vehicles. Moreover, higher ethanol blends worsen air pollution by accelerating the breakdown of catalytic converters.

The corn ethanol industry must answer two questions:

-- Why is the ethanol industry so intent on short-circuiting Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency scientific tests that aim to quantify the extent to which higher ethanol blends will contribute to engine damage and air pollution?

-- Who will pay when high ethanol blends damage engines?

The ethanol industry claims there's no need for more testing because existing studies prove that E15 is safe. The truth is, the great majority of scientific studies - including a major DOE report - contain considerable evidence that it's not.

The ethanol industry appears to be unwilling to step up to the plate and accept at least some responsibility for taking care of its customers when their cars, trucks, boats or snowmobiles break down because of damage inflicted by E15.

It appears that consumers, in these tough economic times, will be stuck with bills to repair damaged engines so they can drive to a second job or take a break from their busy work weeks to go boating, fishing or snowmobiling.

If we need more research to satisfy questions about the extent to which higher ethanol blends will damage engines and pollute the air, let's get on with it. In the meantime, Americans should just say no to E15.

According to a UC Davis report out today and reported on by the LA Times California's fruit and nut crops will see significant adverse changes in growing patterns.

Only 4% of the Central Valley is now suitable for apples, cherries and pears, all high-chill fruits that could once be grown in half the valley, according to the study. By the end of the century, it says, "areas where safe winter chill exists for growing walnuts, pistachios, peaches, apricots, plums and cherries are likely to almost completely disappear."

Winter chill hours could decrease 60% from 1950 levels by mid-century and by as much as 80% by the end of the century, according to the study.

"Climate change is not just about sea-level rise and polar bears," said UC Davis researcher Eike Luedeling, lead author of the study. "It is about our food security. Climate change may make conditions less favorable to grow the crops we need to feed ourselves."

The study comes amid a spate of reports predicting a decline in agriculture in California -- which produces half of the nation's domestic fruits, nuts and vegetables -- as climate change affects water supplies and growing seasons.

Read it all here.

So says the editorial board of the New York Times in regard to agriculture provisions in climate change legislation being discussed today in the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For instance, the bill would allow polluters to meet their requirements not by paying farmers to put new conservation techniques in place but by paying them to keep doing things they were already doing. The result is that money changes hands, but the atmosphere is no better off. Offsets must be real and verifiable, or the integrity of the entire scheme is at risk.

Recall that on July 13th, EWG released an analysis of the agriculture provisions in the House version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Our analysis shows that current provisions could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate.

From Who's More Evil: Corn Farmers or Goldman Sachs?

Farmers have excellent political clout, and courtesy of Iowa's first-in-the-nation status, they've hijacked the entire system of electing a President. For John McCain to run in 2008, Mr. Straight Talk Express needed to reverse his position on ethanol and other ag subsidies. It's just how the game is played.

Ok, ok. But they're just farmers, right? And they didn't require a huge bailout in order to avoid collapsing the entire system, so they've got that going for them. But while the financial system flamed out spectacularly last fall, the agriculture industry has been waging a quieter war on America.

and

Other areas you'd want to explore include the cost of ethanol subsidies, and the opportunity cost of having gone down the worst possible avenue towards energy stability, rather than focusing on something that could possibly work.

But here's the thing. All this stuff, as we noted above, is a silent war on America. Sure, there's outrage from time to time, but it's slow and it's not event-related. And as Nassim Taleb would tell you, our focus on events cloud our judgment.

We remember Lehman and the day that the AIG bonus story came out. We remember yesterday's Goldman Sachs earnings. We don't remember how our friends got fatter and fatter over the years, slurping soda and corn syrup-laden wheat bread.

Read it all here.

EWG President Ken Cook provided commentary on the current crisis facing the dairy industry in this Newshour piece that ran last night.

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2009 - The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), narrowly approved in the House, is an important first step toward slowing climate change. Unfortunately, the agriculture provisions of the bill open two loopholes that threaten to let power plants and other big climate polluters off the hook and slow progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

An analysis conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) details that ACES will:

· Allow polluters to take credit for meeting their required pollution reductions by paying farmers, not to put new conservation practices in place, but simply to keep doing what they were already doing. This could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate.

· The bill also provides no guarantee that key conservation practices that are generating credits for polluters will actually stay in place over the long-term.

"The stated purpose of this landmark legislation is to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten the health and well being of our planet and its inhabitants. Letting polluters take credit for practices farmers already have in place not only lets the polluters off the hook it also squanders the opportunity for agriculture to play a critical role in fighting climate change," said Craig Cox, EWG's Midwest vice-president.

"Agriculture faces a host of threats from climate change, and should be on the front lines in this fight. Instead, the agricultural provisions in ACES lack the long-term mechanisms needed to ensure carbon emissions are properly sequestered," Cox said.

"We urge the Senate to close these polluter loopholes and enact agricultural provisions that will make farmers and ranchers credible and effective partners in the fight against climate change," Cox concluded.

Go here for the full analysis: http://www.ewg.org/opinion/cap-and-trade-legislation

# # #

Robert Bryce, Managing Editor of Energy Tribune, penned a column in today's Wall Street Journal focusing on the amount of subsidies ethanol receives compared to the oil and gas industry (which has its own set of handouts).

The U.S. gets about 98 times as much energy from natural gas and oil as it does from ethanol and biofuels. And measured on a per-unit-of-energy basis, Congress lavishes ethanol and biofuels with subsidies that are 190 times as large as those given to oil and gas.

Those numbers come from an April 2008 report by the Energy Information Administration: "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007.

Recall that EWG's Craig Cox issued a report in January of 2009 using data from the EIA report detailing how the ethanol industry receives two thirds of all federal subsidies for "renewable" energy, including those for wind, solar and geothermal.