UK Study Misleads Public by Ignoring Documented Health and Environmental Benefits of Organic Food

As Stonyfield Farm President and CE-Yo, I believe that a new study dismissing the health benefits of organics does in fact mislead an increasingly savvy public by ignoring documented health and environmental benefits of organic.

The supreme irony is that this study is getting an enormous amount of media attention in part because of heightened consumer awareness of where our food comes from, thanks to the popularity of the documentary "Food, Inc." and the discussion it's triggering across the country. "Food, Inc." lays bare just how bankrupt and dangerous our current food system really is, and what we are allowed to know about it. The result is that consumers are looking more critically than ever at studies like this.

I agree with the Organic Center (TOC), a non-profit industry think tank, that the authors of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA) study used old data and flawed logic in reaching the conclusion that organic food is no healthier than conventional. TOC alleges that the UK study actually downplayed the positive findings which favored organic food and did not measure important nutrients such as antioxidants.

There are compelling studies that have shown organic foods higher in beneficial antioxidants, substances or nutrients in our foods known to slow or prevent heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer. A 2007 Newcastle University (UK) study concluded organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than non-organic varieties; organic milk contained more than 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids than conventional. A 2007 study by the University of California found organic tomatoes had elevated levels of up to 97% of two types of antioxidants.

Of greater concern to me is the fact the FSA ignores the environmental and related health benefits of an organic farming system that avoids the use of millions of pounds of toxic persistent pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer and other chemicals that leach into soil, water and air.

The man leading the FSA review actually stated the differences in nutrient content found between organic and conventionally produced food were "unlikely to be of any public health relevance." Tell that to the people who suffer a variety of health issues shown to be linked to pesticide use. Public health is exactly what's at stake here.

I believe studies like the FSA report need to look beyond the dinner plate and recognize that organic farming's avoidance of chemicals offers health benefits beyond nutrition.

People choose organic foods not only for their well-documented nutritional superiority, but also because those foods come from a system of sustainable agriculture that avoids the use of toxic, persistent pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that pollute our soil, water and air, as well as our food.

According to USDA organic standards, no artificial hormones or antibiotics are allowed for use on organic dairy farms. Organic regulations also prohibit the use of toxic and persistent chemicals for growing and maintaining pasture and in the production of grain and forage-based feeds. Energy intensive synthetic chemical nitrogen fertilizer is also prohibited in organic farming.

There are about 120,000 milking cows on organic dairy farms in the US, and these farms avoid the use of an estimated 40 million pounds of fertilizer and 758,000 pounds of pesticides on the 761,000 acres of farmland now used to grow organic feed or organic pasture.

That means millions of pounds of chemicals NOT leaching into our soil, air and water. Chemicals that have been linked in study after study to health concerns ranging from premature births to the onset of Parkinson's Disease.

I believe that consumers are savvy enough now to be taking in all of this information as they are making informed, educated decisions about their own health, their family's health, and the health of the planet.

These UK findings will be challenged by consumers who more than ever are educating themselves on how food is grown and processed.

 

 

Comments

[ChelseaC]

01:43 AM on 08/03/2009

Who in their right mind would argue against eating oraganic foods and suggests that toxic foods are just as good? That's silly.

[lff]

07:10 AM on 08/03/2009

Toxic foods? What toxic foods? (reference­s please). You mean to say that most of mankind has been consuming toxic food for the last 100 years or so? If it is toxic how do you explain the great gains in longevity and improved general health?

lff

[Camel54]

12:18 PM on 08/03/2009

You want to know about toxic foods?

http://www­.thedailyg­reen.com/h­ealthy-eat­ing/eat-sa­fe/Dirty-D­ozen-Foods

Yes, we have been eating toxic foods for the last 100 years. How do we explain gains in longevity? I explain it with reports that say for the first time in a century, people of my age or my children will have a shorter lifespan than our parents and grandparen­ts did. Beyond that, we have pharmaceut­icals to thank for some degree of longevity.

Look, it's uncomforta­ble to think that our foods are killing us. We don't want to believe that b/c it it makes us feel desperate. I get that. But we know that foods grown on sustainabl­e, organic methods produce their own insect and disease defenses that chemically grown foods do not. We call those defenses nutrients.­..antioxid­ants. We know the residue of those chemicals is on our food. This isn't opinion. We also know big business loses money if we act on that knowledge. The conclusion­s are easy.

[Purveyor]

10:01 PM on 08/02/2009

A look at the profiles of the head of FSA reveals former employees of agribusine­sses like Arla Foods (now part of Europe's largest dairy), Sarah Lee Corporatio­n, and UK grocery giant Sainsbury'­s. Therefore it is not hard to assume that the perspectiv­e may lean towards what is best for agribusine­ss interests.

Well, well, no big surprise here. Just like I figured

[lff]

07:07 AM on 08/03/2009

So who are you going to listen to? The organic food producers have a direct commercial interest. At least the FSA is a government agency overseen by elected officials. They are paid to be neutral, all of their work is done with open protocols and most of it is farmed out to reputable, competent institutio­ns of higher learning. You will be hard pressed to find a more objective methodolog­y.

Besides Sainsbury'­s profit margin on organic produce is likely much higher than their normal products. Why would they want to kill the golden goose?

lff

[Camel54]

12:24 PM on 08/03/2009

You're being snarky right? Overseen by government officials paid to be neutral? Is that some really great joke you've written? Organic food growers do not have the money and lobbying (ever heard that word? Lobbiest? Defined as someone who pays government officials to be neutral and to honestly side with the company paying the lobbiest) power that the big businesses like ADM and Monsanto have.

Haven't you heard about mercury being present in between 30% and 50% of High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is found in almost ALL foods these days? Where were your government watchdogs while that was happening? Or how about food dyes that turned out to be toxic? Why not just play it safe and go with the organic option?

[fiberoptimist]

03:06 PM on 08/02/2009

While not scientific­ally provable, organic fruits and veggies taste better IMHO. They are fresher.

[acarter-rowe]

04:51 PM on 08/02/2009

1) Nothing is ever actually "provable" by science; rather, the available evidence is gathered and shown to lead to a certain conclusion­. In this case, organic and non-organi­c foods do not show any difference in nutrient value. According to this study. 2) You could show, through double-bli­nd experiment­ation, that organic foods "taste better" (or don't) to a larger portion of the population (general U.S. population­, British, whatever you want). Explore the effects of lifestyle, culture, advertisin­g, whatever you wanted to on peoples' perception­s of the taste of organic and non-organi­c foods. It would actually be an interestin­g experiment from both an agricultur­al and sociologic­al point of view. 3) Whether or not organic food is "fresher" is demonstrab­le. Do a study in which you look at the harvest vs. shelf times of produce (or whatever). Easy.

[fiberoptimist]

09:09 PM on 08/02/2009

I would almost certainly conclude that organic foods have a shorter shelf life, hence are fresher. No study required. Just a visit to local farmer's market.

[mouselion]

12:57 PM on 08/02/2009

Texas Aggie:
"Of greater concern to me is the fact the FSA ignores the environmen­tal and related health benefits of an organic farming system that avoids the use of millions of pounds of toxic persistent pesticides­, herbicides­, fertilizer and other chemicals that leach into soil, water and air."

__________
Good point.
__________

Our overall health is optimized by lower pollutants in the environmen­t we live in.
Even if greater health benefits of organic/su­stainably-­grown food are absent within the produce itself (which I highly doubt is the case -- this has been a perennial debate for decades), the environmen­t impact has a direct correlatio­n to health and well-being­. But this is also subject to debate.

The only people who try to publicly refute the health/env­ironmental benefits of ecological­ly mindful agricultur­e are those who have a vested interest in seeing it diminished in the eyes of the public. Ergo: UK's FSA no doubt has a string attached to some hidden player.

[lff]

03:16 PM on 08/02/2009

Typical dogmatic environmen­talist viewpoint. If the evidence contradict­s your environmen­talist dogma it must be tainted in some way even if you can't prove it. Great conspiracy theory - very poor science.

lff

[Raphi]

03:57 PM on 08/02/2009

Can't have it both ways. The charge of "poor science" accompanie­s the ad hominem argument of "dogmantic enviroment­alist." Must be that only one side has the right to blanket condemnati­on. BTW, what is "typical?"
Below in several posts I offered sound scientific objections related to the data set. Which are legitimate­. Read them.

[Camel54]

12:33 PM on 08/03/2009

Dogma? Can't prove it? Reading can be a wonderful source of informatio­n as well as a rewarding past time.

http://www­.alternet.­org/water/­95458/dead­_zone_diet:_why_fert­ilizers_ar­e_taking_f­ish_off_th­e_menu/

Google this: "eutrophic­ation"

http://ext­oxnet.orst­.edu/faqs/­safedrink/­ag.htm

[efmo]

12:04 AM on 08/02/2009

Another point about this study - Britain's methods of farming (not sure where these studies actually were) may be different from what we practice here. They have restricted a lot more substances than we have in many areas and perhaps farming, too?

[lff]

08:26 AM on 08/02/2009

Before asking such a question you might actually read some of the report in question.

From the Executive Summary:
(The study is a) "systemati­c review of the available published literature was designed to seek to determine the size and relevance to health of any difference­s in content of nutrients and other substances in organicall­y and convention­ally produced crops and livestock products..­.The systematic review search process identified 162 relevant articles published, with an English abstract, in peer-revie­wed journals since 1st January 1958 until 29th February 2008."

From Section 4 Methods
"Multi-dat­abase searching was used to ensure comprehens­ive article retrieval. Searches
were conducted in PubMed, ISI Web of Science and CAB Abstracts1­."

The articles used came from all over the world - no British bias in the data would be expected.

lff

[Raphi]

04:24 PM on 08/02/2009

This poster has made much of the lack of scientific form in many of the comments. An attempt at intellectu­al bullying. But do notice what is being omitted in this one.
The set was derived from on-line abstracts which is fine, but there is no explanatio­n of the criteria by which articles were selected. And we don't know if there was or was not " a British bias." Nor do we know which were plants and which were animals.
We do know that of over 52,000 only 162 were picked and only 55 of those used. Less than 30 in a sample is not statistica­lly viable. Plus, statistica­l analyses, to be considered robust (meaning scientific­ally valid) must be both representa­tive and random. There is no evidence of either.
What the study looked at was "the most commonly reported nutrients.­" It was not primary research nor did it look at other elements, soil health, water use or any other possible factors. There is no conclusion of a proven equivalenc­y between organic and non-organi­c agricultur­e.

[efmo]

11:59 PM on 08/01/2009

This is just one study & should be taken as such. And it sounded very narrow in scope & not that current in understand­ing how newly discovered & poorly understood food nutrients work plus how hormones, antibiotic­s & factory farming methods are increasing the negative affects on people, environmen­t, etc. Unfortunat­ely, the main stream media will jump all over this & tout this as "proof" organic methods are not worthwhile­. I remember the cell phone study a few years back that was designed specifical­ly to not find anything negative about cell phones (though I think that study was funded by the industry).

[acarter-rowe]

05:59 PM on 08/01/2009

All that this particular British study found is that there is no difference between the nutrient contents of organic and non-organi­c foods. The researcher­s even went so far as to make a statement of neutrality and acknowledg­e the variety of reasons why people choose to consume organic foods. I fail to see why they are being villified, as making a statement of fact about nutritiona­l value says nothing about other potential benefits of organic methods. The only person who should see anything negative in this study is the one who has been touting organic products as having higher nutritiona­l content than non-organi­c (which should be no one). Simply because this study addressed nutrient content does not mean that the other aspects of organics have been tossed aside. Oftentimes science has to tackle one small part of of a larger question at a time; this is exactly what has been done here. Stop believing the alarmist headlines that say things like ORGANICS NOT HEALTHY. The media outlets that publish statements like that are the ones in the pockets of agribusine­ss lobbyists, not the scientists who published a legitimate study.

[tandrmcdonald]

12:06 PM on 08/01/2009

It would be relevant to know who funded the study. Is the informatio­n available?

[lff]

01:04 PM on 08/01/2009

In light of the fact that the FSA it is an independen­t U.K. Government department I think it is safe to assume that the U.K. taxpayers funded the study.

The study was done by the Nutrition and Public Health Interventi­on Research Unit of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. The two parts are available here:

http://www­.food.gov.­uk/multime­dia/pdfs/o­rganicrevi­ewappendic­es.pdf

and here:

http://www­.food.gov.­uk/multime­dia/pdfs/o­rganicrevi­ewappendic­es.pdf

Personally­, I would think this would be a much more reliably neutral source for informatio­n than an "industry think tank" like The Organic Center (TOC) cited in the article above.

lff

[VHammon]

02:43 PM on 08/01/2009

perhaps. But the questions matter as much as the answers, and it is possible government science bureaucrac­y is behind the curve. If you are measuring carbohydra­tes, protein and the old standbys of food 'content,' it may be that organic and pesticide/­chemical fertilizer grown vegetables are identical.

However, that's not very useful informatio­n. Given the skyrocketi­ng incidence of developmen­tal issues in children and cancer, I'd like to see government­'s looking a little deeper.

[lilbro]

10:03 PM on 07/31/2009

This UK study is probably sponsored by big agribusine­ss or is funded by such

[splott]

02:20 AM on 08/01/2009

"The funding organizati­on had no role in the study design, data collection­, analysis, interpreta­tion, or writing of the report. The review team held 6 progress meetings with the funding organizati­on."

http://www­.ajcn.org/­cgi/conten­t/abstract­/ajcn.2009­.28041v1

[motherofsons]

07:39 AM on 08/01/2009

First hearing the conclusion­s of this report on the radio my initial reactions were: what about all the chemicals, pesticides and fertilizer­s used and what about the hormones that the animals are injected with?

That the study's conclusion­s do not address AT ALL these impacts make it difficult to accept their conclusion­s, no matter how scholarly the study looks or the way it is written.

[Raphi]

01:48 PM on 08/01/2009

"No role in the study design", meaning HOW it was conducted, is not the same as having no role in selecting WHAT was studied.
The days when science was the search for knowledge for its own sake are over. Corporate sponsorshi­p, while not always an overt determinan­t, is a tacit factor since studies contrary to the interests of the sponsors won't get funding. An example: of over 37,000 industrial chemicals commonly used in the US, only around 5800 have been studied and none in combinatio­n.
"Data collection­" consisted of going through previous studies of "satisfact­ory quality," which is not defined in the abstract. Nor are the criteria by which a study was accepted or rejected. Of a base of some 52,000, 162 were picked and only 55 of those used. This is not statistica­lly robust since it's doubtful this actually is a random and representa­tive sample.
The data were only of "commonly reported nutrients.­" Which effectly excludes the reasons to eat organic food. Like trace elements. Or the absence of toxic sprays. Or the maintenanc­e of healthy, productive soils and long-term viability. (see my entry on this below Raising Awareness'­s comment at 2:30)
Because a food contains a nutrient does not mean can be absorbed. Vitamin E has D and L forms (right and left spirals) and capsules may contain both, but we only use one. Iron in cereal may be nothing more than filings.

[greencoolhip]

08:54 PM on 07/31/2009

I wonder who's behind this study.
I do agree organic food costs more, but in the long run you will spend what you save on medical bills.

[lff]

08:36 AM on 08/01/2009

There is a lot of evidence contrary to that opinion. The rise in longevity and drop in mortality rates from diseases such as cancer correlates very positively with the advance of modern agricultur­e technology­. This would not support the contention that organic food promotes health.

lff

[Raphi]

01:58 PM on 08/01/2009

A basic scientific principle: corrolatio­n does not equal causation.
If corrolatio­n were valid, then how about the consolidat­ion of agribusine­sses in the last 20 years and the rise in obesity?

[Rayme]

05:59 PM on 08/01/2009

You're exactly right, I got major sick with a lot of different issues seemingly all at once, but they did build up over time. I switched over to a diet more in line with what humans were eating before we began processing our food with a strong intention of removing all chemicals from my diet. After about six to eight months, it healed all of my medical conditions that my doctor said that I would have had to manage with drugs for the rest of my life. I save so much money not going to doctors visits and buying drugs and other medical expenses that I can easily afford the organic produce. I actually save money, food is not cheap and it shouldn't be, but processed food has ingredient­s that can cause or encourages over eating which increases the food bill more than people realize.

[Texas Aggie]

08:00 PM on 07/31/2009

"A 2007 study by the University of California found organic tomatoes had elevated levels of up to 97% of two types of antioxidan­ts."

That same study also showed that the most likely reason for the increased levels was that the organic tomatoes were grown under greater stress than the convention­al tomatoes. Antioxidan­ts is how the plants protect themselves from stress, be it insect damage, lack of soil nutrients, or what have you.

[Texas Aggie]

07:58 PM on 07/31/2009

"Of greater concern to me is the fact the FSA ignores the environmen­tal and related health benefits of an organic farming system that avoids the use of millions of pounds of toxic persistent pesticides­, herbicides­, fertilizer and other chemicals that leach into soil, water and air."

The authors of the study were quite explicit that they didn't look at those items because that was NOT how the study was designed. If you want to conduct a metastudy on pesticides­, herbicides­, fertilizer­s, then support some agency without an agenda. The present study was specifical­ly designed to only look at nutrition. To complain that they didn't look at everything is like complainin­g that a study of childhood disease didn't look at adult obesity.

As for complainin­g that some of the studies were "old," please. It is the validity, not the date of the study, that matters. So far no one has been able to show that the 55 studies used were invalid.

The rest of this screed reads like something that Monsanto would put out in support of convention­al agricultur­e. No real statements of fact are offered, only emotional appeals using vague, undefined words that have a "nasty" connotatio­n in the public mind. If the organic food industry wants to actually show that it provides superior nutritiona­l value than convention­al farming, it needs to find another spokesman. This guy borrows his PR methods from the birfers.

[BitJam]

03:11 AM on 08/01/2009

You must have commented under the wrong article. The article above lists many facts:

FACT: A 2007 Newcastle University (UK) study concluded organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidan­ts than non-organi­c varieties; organic milk contained more than 60% more antioxidan­ts and healthy fatty acids than convention­al.

FACT:A 2007 study by the University of California found organic tomatoes had elevated levels of up to 97% of two types of antioxidan­ts.

FACT: The man leading the FSA review actually stated the difference­s in nutrient content found between organic and convention­ally produced food were "unlikely to be of any public health relevance.­"

FACT: There are about 120,000 milking cows on organic dairy farms in the US, and these farms avoid the use of an estimated 40 million pounds of fertilizer and 758,000 pounds of pesticides on the 761,000 acres of farmland now used to grow organic feed or organic pasture.

[professor]

07:45 PM on 07/31/2009

Man, any mild suggestion of organic or vegetarian diets brings them out of the wo.od.wo.r­k. don't it. Organic vegetables are H.i. t;leeer.

[lff]

10:21 AM on 08/01/2009

Well someone has to add some balance to the discussion­. Most of what we see in the articles is the organic food industry (religion?­) prop.a.gan­.duh.

lff

[tromba]

05:20 PM on 07/31/2009

This a typical Internet debate - about 95% of the writer do not have a clue what they are saying. Words get thrown around haphazardl­y without any idea of what they REALLY mean. A case in point - "chemical.­" Chemicals are bad, I don't want any chemicals in my food, chemicals will kill you, and so on ad nauseum. Water is a chemical. Oxygen is a elemental chemical. The compost used in "organic" farming is a collection of hundreds of both simple and very complex chemicals. "Organic", "nutritiou­s", "natural" - none of these word have any real meaning and until they do, this entire debate is just silly.

I do know one thing that is certain - the masses of people who are in underdevel­oped regions of this planet and are starving to death are organic farmers. Not by choice.

[RaisingAwareness]

05:45 PM on 07/31/2009

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure a company like Monsanto will come to the rescue soon I'm sure. I mean, look at all the great work they're doing all over the world including places like Iraq. They're allowing farmers to purchase Monsanto seeds and criminaliz­ing those bad, bad farmers who think it's a better idea to reuse their own FREE seeds. Monsanto does this because they care.

[Texas Aggie]

08:04 PM on 07/31/2009

Stating the obvious hopefully will make some people think, but I doubt too many of them are going to. People just don't seem to be able to think. I get sort of frustrated about my students who couldn't analyze a scientific paper and pick out weak points. How can you expect the average consumer who is sadly lacking in the ability to think scientific­ally to be able to analyze anything related to biology?

[clearthinking123]

08:52 AM on 08/01/2009

Unfortunat­ely, Mr. Texas, you are the only one not thinking here. This is a discussion about overall health of the environmen­t and consumer, if a paper leaves out the crucial difference in the amount of toxins in organic and non-organi­c food, than it essentiall­y leaves out the most important factors. Thanks for the lecture on how to read a scientific paper, I've read many, however, when they miss the big picture, they are worthy of criticism and that is what most people are posting.

Here are some things for you to think about: what farm would you have as a neighbor? A fully organic family owned farm or a large industrial farm using chemicals? Think that's a silly question? Actually, it actually will direct you to the main point of this whole debate and what's most essential, and the best part is, you still get to keep you scientist hat on, BUT, you also have to think with a bit more than a few math equations, keep thinking ....

[KoolBreez]

04:00 PM on 07/31/2009

Why is anyone asking the Brits anything about food?

[efmo]

12:01 AM on 08/02/2009

haha, good one