I'm in London, and tabloid Daily Express had a headline yesterday in type two inches high: "ORGANIC FOOD NO HEALTHIER." The article begins, "Eating organic food in the belief that it is good for your health is a waste of money, new research shows."
Really? This surprising statement is based on the conclusions of a lengthy report just released from the British Food Standards Agency, Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature.
Do animal welfare and environmental concerns not matter?This report, done by excellent researchers at the prestigious London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, looked at the results of 162 studies comparing organic to conventionally grown foods for their content of nutrients and other substances. Although it found higher amounts of some nutrients in organic crops, it found higher amounts of others in conventional crops, and no difference in others. On this basis, the report concludes:
There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.
In a statement accompanying release of the report, the Food Standards Agency says:
The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.
Fine, but do animal welfare and environmental concerns not matter? The authors of the report summarize their findings in a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The paper concludes:
On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.
Oh? I thought that's what organic foods were about--production methods: no antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge. I thought better production methods were the precise point of organic foods.
But these authors did not compare amounts of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge. They did not look at any of those things. They only looked at nutrients. This is an example of nutritionism in action: looking at foods as if their nutrient content is all that matters--not production methods, not effects on the environment, and not even taste.
I'm surprised that investigators of this caliber would focus so narrowly on nutrient content. There is no reason to think that organic foods would have fewer nutrients than industrially produced foods, and there are many reasons to think that organics have greater benefits for the environment, for pesticide reduction, and for taste, all of which affect human health at least as much--or more--than minor differences in nutritional content. I buy organics because I want foods to be produced more naturally, more humanely, and more sustainably. I see plenty of good reasons to buy organics, and this study does not even begin to address them.
SHOP THE ATLANTIC FOOD MARKETPLACE
Subscribe to Atlantic Food
When organics first hit the market that's why I (sometimes) bought them--more sustainable farming methods. That's still the reason.
But "it's healthier" in the sense of "it has more nutrients" has been out there as a selling point for many years. Proponents of organics jumped on the "more nutritious" selling point and will have a hard time convincing folk they meant something else. "It's healthier" was useful shorthand; quibbling about how it's still correct based on what we mean by "it" and "healthy" is going to be one more of those nutrition arguments that drives people to ignore the whole thing.
I agree about nutritionism. But this is more an example of someone, in this case the "buy organic, it's healthier" people, hoist by their own petards.
I disagree. The argument has been "it's healthier" in the sense of "it has fewer foreign substances". Given the absence of long-range pharmacological data for a number of pesticides in commercial use, I think that's a fair enough assumption, don't you?
That's a totally fair assumption, though one that doesn't yet have any evidence backing it up that I know of. But Deborah's claim that proponents of organic food have been using the possibility that organic food has more nutrients as a selling point isn't opinion, it's fact. The Organic Trade Association's page on "Nutritional Considerations," which does mention pesticides, talks far more about potential nutritional upsides to organic food. To Prof. Nestle's credit, What to Eat acknowledges the likelihood that organics don't have increased nutritional value-- but other champions of organics weren't so circumspect, and it's good that this study clears things up.
I can't always afford to buy all organic all the time. So, I try to choose the organic items that seem to have the most potential positive impact.
For example, I always buy organic milk, because there is a better chance that the cows are being treated more humanely, i know i won't be ingesting hormones, and it tastes better because of the cows' diet. I don't buy organic milk believing i am going to get more calcium and vitamins.
Sometimes I fear studies stressing the nutritional content of organic foods are not just missing the point but intentionally trying to mislead people into thinking that there is no difference whatsoever between organic and conventional foods.
Excellent analysis. Given the word is "organic" and not "more nutritious" (after all a banana remains a banana no matter if you used chemical or organic fertilizers) - the whole episode can be called "missing the woods for all the trees"? I find this picture more useful.
Did the report consider and compare the levels of micronutrients, those compounds which occur naturally in organic soil but are largely absent from soil repeatedly bombed with conventional nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium based petrochemical fertilizers? Since the effect of such compounds is not well-understood, I doubt that the authors of the report took them into account. But until that question is answered, I wouldn't be inclined to completely abandon the notion that organically- grown food is more nutritious.
Oh? I thought that's what organic foods were about--production methods: no antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge. I thought better production methods were the precise point of organic foods.
If you read the paper:
The standardized differences in the statistically significant nutrient "means of means" were all less than 10%.
As you wrote about "no antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge" as though there absence indicated use of better production methods, I think it would've been a good idea to cite authoritative material to support those assertions (particularly in relation to fruit and vegetable production as that was the main focus of the review paper).
Given this take on the value of buying organic food (a point of view which I agree with), a logical comparison could be drawn to donating money to a cause one believes in, such as an organization supporting small family farms, animal rights, wilderness preservation, or what you will, without necessarily expecting any easily quantifiable, direct personal benefit in return. However, as opposed to buying a product, if I donate to an organization, the money spent is tax deductible. In another article in this issue, the point is raised that many people are spending lots of money out of their own pockets for alternative health care, so why shouldn't insurers acknowledge that fact, and start covering my yoga classes? Using somewhat the same logic, wouldn't it be great if people were able to claim purchases of organic food (or really, any variety of products) as support (i.e., donations) and thereby be eligible for a cut in taxes? It would take "voting with your wallet" to a whole new level.
Let's be honest here - if they found that organic foods were substantially more nutritious (which doesn't seem completely implausible). Then organic proponents would no doubt seize the opportunity to talk up the superior nature of organic food in regards to nutrition.
A study that only focus on a single point (nutrition) isn't a bad study, in fact its a good study, because it seeks to answer a single question, and answer it well. Instead of looking at a variety of things, and getting bogged down having trying to assess relative value of different parts of the study.
This is an old, old argument and even with this prestigious institution doing it, they are going about it in the wrong way. What I would love to see instead is as complete an analysis of just what is in organic versus conventional food. Grow the same foods using different methods and then compare just exactly what is in each of them. The results would be quite illuminating, I think. What do we really know about micronutrients in food? I think the detailed chemical profiles of conventional versus organic would be very, very different and would tell us a lot about what our bodies truly need...and how sustainable agriculture is part of the life cycle, not chemically removed from it if you will.
Yes, yes, yes, to the pesticides, the sustainability, production methods, etc. There is ample data from sources online and in print that indicates pesticides are carcinogenic, endocrine disrupting, and environmentally devastating. Petrochemical calories post-WWII have been cheaper and easier and may be leading to both the human population explosion and many of the cancers and diseases seen in same. Will it result in a population crash for our species? Time will tell, and certainly the organic movement is part of the answer to that question.
Is there any room to say that organic food just tastes better? That homegrown food tastes completely different than conventional? That it passes through your body differently? That may be kind of out there but I have experienced all of the above.
And finally, who funded all of these studies as well as the LSHTM review? That is another old, old discussion, we find many scientific studies are not as objective as they seem when funding sources and methodology are scrutinized.
Meanwhile I grow what I can, buy organic when I can, buy local more often, buy some industrial organic, some conventional. I look forward to a time when organic is not an outlier term or industry, and the prices level out accordingly.
One final comment: conventional is cheaper due to the real costs of production not being included, like the lingering effects of pollution, soil loss, etc. No cap and trade or carbon tax on the horizon, though. Conventional ag does debase the commons, but its costs, like other energy/pollution/use costs, generally do not reflect that and often are subsidized to boot. Until we look at that seriously, and perhaps when we learn just how beneficial organic growing really is, then organic will always cost more.
At the very least, if these crops are nutritious, they should be spread to the third world. The market will always supply Gaia's faithful with indulgences, let's just not expect the poor of the world to feed themselves with them. Unless you are willing to accept continuing starvation to uphold Paul Ehrlich's honor, in which case, its a little sad...
I would like to present a counter claim: ORGANIC FOOD IS IMMORAL.
When 25,000 people a day die of malnourishment it is immoral to reduce food output so the rich can enjoy luxury goods like oragnic food.
Remember this the next time you reach for a bag of organic tomatoes: organic farming reduces yields by 10%. That's the difference between someone else eating and not eating.
my understanding is that plenty of food is produced, but that food is not distributed to people who need it.
people dying from malnutrition is not a result of people eating organic foods but a result of economic and political factors that have very little to do with organic farming which makes up a very small percentage of farming.
Agreed. Anyway, when I buy organic, honestly, I do it largely because I find that it tends to taste better.
You really hit the nail on the head here. I read the Daily Express article last week and I was a little shocked that they talked about organic foods as though they had no benefits whatsoever. The way the title and the article was worded implied that because organic food are not dramatically more nutritious, that they are in fact pointless. As you pointed out so well, more nutrients was hardly ever the point of organic production methods. They are really focusing on the wrong thing.
It's akin to them saying: "BREAKING NEWS: SEAT BELTS DON'T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CAR ACCIDENTS"
Registry Cleaner Free Download
None of this addresses organic food's role as a class indicator.
So what if Organic Isn't More Nutritious?
But you've been telling us for years that it is!
I think it's extremely significant.
It means organic food proponents are liars.
That's worth knowing, and worth remembering.
Organic food isn't more nutritious and it also isn't less toxic in many cases. Organic fruits and veggies actually contain MORE toxins than those sprayed with pesticides. The reasoning is that the actual amount of synthetic pesticides that is present in a plant is miniscule in comparison to the amount of natural toxins. Since plants can't run away from predators, they produce a lot of natural toxins. Organic fruits and veggies have a higher concentration of these. I've heard from a Cal physics professor in a lecture that the organic plants are somewhere on the order of a thousand times more toxic (if you count natural and synthetic) than normal pesticide sprayed foods. He also said that he eats organics because it tastes better (implying that even being more toxic, it's nothing to worry about).
Unless you foolishly believe that only synthetic toxins are bad for you and natural ones can't possibly be a problem, then I don't think anyone should worry too much about buying organic fruits and veggies for the sake of avoiding toxicity.
I did some googling on this subject and found this:
"Prof Bruce Ames is quoted as saying that the average person consumes 1500mg of pesticides a day, of which 1499.91mg are endogenous toxins, the remaining 0.09mg being synthetic pesticides applied to the produce by the farmer. Indeed, selective-breeding of conventional, as opposed to organic produce has favoured plants that synthesise the least and the most endogenous toxins respectively. Organic systems provide increased opportunities for insect attack and chemical defense. All plants, but especially those with abundant foliage, produce endogenous toxins in defence against attack by insects and their larvae. Organic vegetables are subject to much more insect attack than and hence have concentrations of these toxins considerably higher than in those vegetables treated with exogenous pesticides. (Graham I, “Endogenous Toxins of Plants”, The Thought Field, 10(1), 2004); (Young J et al, Mol Nutr Food Res, 49(12), 2005)"
Two questions for those who've read the article through:
1) Is there mention of bioavailability? Most of what I've read regarding organic foods speak of the body's inability to fully utilize the nutrients in foods that posess man-made chemicals, etc.
2) Is there mention of the nutritional content/quality of foods that have been shipped/shelved for long periods of time? I would imagine that one of the benefits of organic food, particularly produce, is that it must be consumed before the nutritional value depletes, whereas "conventionally farmed" foods undergo processing that allows them to remain edible for longer periods of time.
Thanks for any info! This is of great interest to me.
You really hit the nail on the head here.
However, the big question is... Is there mention of bioavailability? Most of what I've read regarding organic foods speak of the body's inability to fully utilize the nutrients in foods that posess man-made chemicals, etc.
I read the Daily Express article last week and I was a little shocked that they talked about organic foods as though they had no benefits whatsoever. The way the title and the article was worded implied that because organic food are not dramatically more nutritious, that they are in fact pointless. As you pointed out so well, more nutrients was hardly ever the point of organic production methods. They are really focusing on the wrong thing.
It's akin to them saying: "BREAKING NEWS: SEAT BELTS DON'T REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CAR ACCIDENTS"
Registry Cleaner Reviews