Paradoxically, my long-standing interest in organic food has encompassed both ardent support and concerned opposition.
My support for organic food -- and my own family's frequent selection of it -- has largely been based on potential benefits to the planet. These, I think are self evident, so I won't elaborate them here. My concern has been based on the misinterpretations of what organic means.
Organic does not mean "nutritious." Broccoli may be grown conventionally, but still has the nutritional profile of broccoli. Gummy bears -- and sugar, for that matter -- may be organic, which says something good about what they don't contain (pesticide residues). However, it says nothing good about what they do contain, or add to your diet.
Considerable mischief has come from supply-side misrepresentations of organic. Tapping into the burgeoning public interest in "going green," the food industry has draped products in labels touting organic ingredients even when such ingredients are a nominal part of the whole.
According to the USDA, any food sporting "organic" on its label must be "produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations."
Further, "organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides, fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge [a comfort, to be sure], bioengineering or ionizing radiation."
There is, of course, the fine print. A label that says "organic" is noteworthy for not saying "100 percent organic." Ninety-five percent of the ingredients in such a product must be organic, but the rest can be ... whatever. In products "made with organic ingredients" up to 30 percent of the content need not be. We may get the truth on a food label, but rarely the whole truth.
The industry has done much to propagate the view that organic and nutritious are synonymous. The prevailing view, for example, seems to be that Whole Foods sells only nutritious foods, when, in fact, its commitment to selling "natural and organic" products guarantees no such thing. Standard offerings include, for instance, whipped cream and pepperoni pizza. In any other supermarket, shoppers would recognize these as dubious choices for health promotion -- but under the halo effect of "natural and organic," Whole Foods shoppers may feel they can't go wrong nutritionally. I beg to differ.
When developing the Overall Nutritional Quality Index that now powers the NuVal nutrition guidance system (www.nuval.com), an international team of leading nutrition and public health experts and I wrestled with this dilemma. While we unanimously supported organic food philosophically, we were forced to conclude in 2007 that there simply wasn't sufficient science to include organic in an evidence-based measure of nutritional quality. Work on updating the NuVal algorithm will begin with the release of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and we will once again need to address this issue.
Ironically, both sides of the organic/health debate have received a boost from recent research. A study just published in Pediatrics found higher levels of pesticide metabolites in the urine of children with attention deficit disorder. The association between organochlorine pesticides, which affect the nervous system, and ADD makes sense, and was clear in this new study despite a good attempt to control for other factors. Pesticides residues may or may not "cause" ADD, but they are at least implicated by association. Other research over recent years suggests that organic produce may be, on average, 20 percent more concentrated in vitamins and minerals than conventionally grown produce.
On the other hand, a systematic review of the literature on organic foods published May 12 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that "evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects."
This paper, however, bespeaks absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Consider what it would take to PROVE that organic foods confer a health benefit.
Imagine a clinical trial in which 1,000 people are assigned to strictly organic foods, and another 1,000 to conventionally grown foods, for 10 years. Such a trial would be enormously costly, cumbersome and logistically demanding -- if feasible at all. Some chemical contaminants would almost certainly get into the diets of the 'organic' group despite the very best efforts to prevent it, and these would also contaminate the study- because they would narrow the intended difference between treatment groups.
Nonetheless, imagine there were three fewer cases of cancer, and/or of ADHD, and/or perhaps several other maladies, in the organic group. Just "three fewer cases" over 10 years would be too few to distinguish from a statistical fluke in a sample of a thousand people. And, realistically, there might be even less than three fewer cases of cancer, because many cancers develop over a period of more than 10 years; a 10 year study might just not be long enough.
But let's imagine there were, indeed, three fewer cases of cancer, three fewer cases of ADHD, three fewer neurological ailments, and so on, in the organic group over a 10 year period. While none of this would likely be statistically distinguishable from random variation, consider what it would mean to the public health. Three extra cases of cancer per ten years in 1,000 people caused by pesticide residues would mean 3,000 extra cancers every ten years per million people! In a population of 300 million, it means 300,000 extra cancers every decade!
What this tells us is that the health effects of pesticide residues and other common contaminants of conventionally produced food could be truly enormous at the population level, and still all but invisible to epidemiologic research.
Organic and nutritious do not, and never will, mean the same thing -- please be aware of that, and beware marketing messages to the contrary. But along with known benefits of organic food for the planet, we have more and more hints of potential health benefits as well. The case gets incrementally stronger with time that a food that is nutritious to begin with is better still if organic.
While we don't have, and are unlikely to get, definitive proof of the health benefits of eating organic, perhaps it's time for the burden of proof to go the other way: since organic food is better for the planet and is likely to be better for health, we should accept it as such ... unless someone can prove it isn't!
-fin
Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
David Katz, M.D.: Medical Research, Lifestyle Choices and Your Health Destiny
Leo Galland, M.D.: Surprising Health Benefits Of Garlic And Onions
The comment about the eggs? Buy eggs from local farmers who have not washed the eggs. Likely the chickens roamed the farm eating what chickens are supposed to eat. Those two factors make them worth the extra money. Yes, 'organic' eggs from the grocery are just labeled differenty, with the eggs being not much different. Anyway, who ever heard of a vegetarian chicken?!?!?
In a surprising admission, a July 8 Time magazine story revealed that organic eggs are no healthier than factory eggs. In the past, Time has championed organic foods and green lifestyles. The egg story included a survey of egg prices in a random city - Athens, Georgia - and predictably, the survey discovered factory eggs were only $1.69 a dozen whereas organic eggs ranged from $3.99 to $5.38 a dozen. In other words, pay up for a belief.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz0tZT8RA3Q
What does matter is each person's daily ingestion of essential nutrients, and micro-nutrients like antioxidants, and our intake of chemicals/animals drugs/food additives that are not terribly good for us. If we happen to be pregnant, or less than two years old, these chemicals can trigger some serious disruption in the developmental process.
The nutrient density of many organic foods now exceed comparable conventional food largely because the nutrient content in conventional food has fallen as a result of what scientists call the "dilution effect."
The science is building most rapidly in support of the developmental benefits of lessened exposure to pesticides not allowed for use on organic farms, and grassed-based beef and milk, both of which contain elevated levels of heart-healthy CLAs and omega 3s. Katz should do a column on the highly skewed and unhealthy ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 intakes in the Western diet, and how this contributes to cardiovascular disease, among many other health problems. One of the cheapest sources of extra CLA and Omega 3 in the grocery store is organic milk, dairy products, and eggs. The same amount of Omega 3 via salmon costs far more than the added Omega 3 in organic vs. conventional milk.
The use of chemical in farming hurts farmers. Industrial farming techniques have proved to be cruel and impractical in many parts of the world. In India, tragically, hundreds, perhaps thousands of farmers have committed suicide because they cannot afford the special seeds, fertilizer and other energy inputs which are required for factory food growing.
As far as I am concerned, organic food is about both the selfish desire for good food and the selfless desire to fulfill the former without hurting farmers or the environment.
If you trust Corporations based on profit margins for your health and welfare and that of the planet, then you get what you deserve.
Sad but true:
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005001.htm
www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html
Organic food is a luxury item that is harder on the environment than conventional food. It would be helpful if supporters of this kind of food stopped fooling themselves into thinking they are helping the environment. The opposite is true.
The farm has a waiting list to join, and has expanded it's operation in the last two years to include a second farm. I usually come home from the farm and google half of the things I brought home to see what to do with them!
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055%5B0573%3AEEAECO%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Hope you will read this . Pilmentel has been right aboutmany important issues from the start.d
Growing food without the use of artificial chemicals requires other, more harmful inputs. For example, organic producers use extensive tilling to control weeds. All that tilling requires lots of diesel fuel, meaning that organic farming has a higher carbon footprint.
It also means that organic fields are more vulnerable to erosion and run-off. Flushing all that organic fertilizer into streams and rivers produces high levels of pollution. Conventional no-till methods are much better for water quality.
Organic farming does a great job of producing very high quality food. I do organic farming myself. But it's simple common sense that all that extra time and energy translates into more pollution. As Dr. Katz points out, people make a lot of claims for organics despite a lack of evidence. This is a prime example. Organic does not equal sustainable or environmentally benign. Don't be fooled.
This person has no real idea of true organic farming methods and practices, and appears to be a shill for either monsanto or some other chemical entity.
Allow me to de-bunk.
"Growing food without the use of artificial chemicals requires other, more harmful inputs. For example, organic producers use extensive tilling to control weeds" yes, that's so much more dangerous than using roundup or other herbicides, and besides, a few people with hoes requires NO DIESEL or any other fossil fuel. Also, the use of mulches such as hay/straw is practiced by any good organic grower. This keeps down weed growth while maintaining moisture and soil nutrients.
"It also means that organic fields are more vulnerable to erosion and run-off. Flushing all that organic fertilizer into streams and rivers produces high levels of pollution. Conventional no-till methods are much better for water quality."
Already debunked the first part, the only conventional 'no till' methods (an oxymoron to begin with) use herbicides and other noxious chemicals are not better for water quality.
"But it's simple common sense that all that extra time and energy translates into more pollution."
On what planet does labor intensive chemical-free farming yield higher pollution. That statement is ridiculous on it's face.
"Organic does not equal sustainable or environmentally benign. Don't be fooled."
Yes, don't be fooled into thinking conventional chemical-dependent farming is sustainable or environmentally benign.
Poor reasoning, whatever!
Organic is great. But simple common sense dictates that adding expensive steps to the process of farming will inevitably create more pollution. I get the feeling that organic has become something like a religion to some folks. This has been studied repeatedly and the results are predictable.
Whatevah happens to be right on this. It seems kind of odd that you get all defensive when someone offers a fact-based argument.
Check it out:
www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2643-real-scientists-debunk-organic-myths
Small farms also mean better communities and quality of life.
But it just isn't true that it takes less energy. All that tilling requires tractor fuel. It also causes erosion and run-off. These are simply facts.
When you look at studies, it is important to distinguish between research into things that are theoretically possible and research into actual practices. When you look at the actual practices of America's organic farm operations, they produce more pollution per pound of food.
The inability of organic boosters to grasp this simple fact is kind of weird.