The Great Organic Benefits Debate

Summertime & the Livin' is Easy...

I know I should be happy-go-lucky this month, I really do. It's August and everyone's lounging on the beach, playing hooky from work and generally just sipping lemonade all day long, but there's something that has me so fired up that I just can't let it slide. So forgive the seriousness of my missive, and don't let this become rain on your summer parade ... just let it help reinforce what you already know to be true.

Last week, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition released something they call a "systematic review" of the nutritional quality of organic foods, and you know what? They determined that there are no significant differences between the nutritional content of organic and conventional foods. This story was picked up by what seemed to be every news outlet on the planet, and consumer reactions can more or less be summed up as: "Aha! Just as we thought! Another great hoax perpetrated upon us to get us to spend more money."

For those of us who are passionately committed to spreading the "organic gospel," this was not welcome news. Not that we actually believe or accept the findings of the review, but we already deal daily with feedback from adults who may have "survived" growing up on processed, non-organic fare, and their mentality is often that of, "well, it didn't kill me, so it probably won't kill my kid." Sadly, that this isn't necessarily so, as the stakes are much higher today, what with a frequently polluted food supply. This generation has to dodge all sorts of nutritional bullets, from pesticide residue to tainted packaging.

Luckily, there is a voice of sanity in all this, as the Organic Trade Association took on the broader questions of "what is health?" versus "what is nutrition?" and emphatically declared that a food system which does not include pesticides, synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics, while generating healthy soil and protecting natural resources absolutely does promotes good health and nutrition. Amen! (Read OTA's Statement here.)

The days that followed the initial wave of anti-organic feedback have since been filled with voices of outrage; and thank goodness for that. So, as you bask in the glow of summer's final month -- eating outdoors and enjoying the season's bounty -- please do try to choose foods not treated with harsh chemicals and pesticides, or grown amid sewage sludge. By the way, you'll also be opting to promote soil fertility, combat climate change, protect farmers' health and livelihoods and more. And that matters, nutritionally and otherwise.

Comments

[LianeW]

In response to commenters who would like clarification of my mission to spread the "organic gospel," rest assured that my passion on the subject it is not religious in nature, nor is it intended to be dogmatic in tone.

Yes, I most certainly concur that everyone should have access to abundant and affordable fruits and vegetables. Personally, I prefer mine to be pesticide-free (not to mention sewage sludge-free). Clean, organic produce is also what I choose to feed my children and to grow in my garden, and it is exclusively what we use in my company's products. And no, my blog was in no way intended as "advertising." It's simply an honest and admittedly biased reaction to an ongoing debate. I'm as openminded as they come, but my article happens to be an opinion piece, and I never claimed to be "reporting."

[lff]

Except for a "religious" belief that the "oganic gospel"(dogma) puts you on the side of the angels, I can't understand why you would think we should give your commercial interests any less consideration than we would give those of the president of Monsanto - should he write an opinion here. As a journalism major you surely understand that.

You are very fortunate to be able to choose your family's diet so carefully. Unfortunately, your article supports an unreasonable fear of conventional agriculture. This cannot help but influence some less well off families to misallocate their meagre finances and consume fewer fresh fruits and vegetables to the detriment of their health. The numbers from the Rodale Institute's pricing report (link: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Report) clearly indicate the seriousness of this price difference. Consumers can buy 30% more conventionally grown apples than organic and nearly 20% more oranges and most of poor families go not get enough fresh fruits and vegetables even in good times. I invite others to do the math for other fruits and vegetables.

lff

[organicthemepark]

As long as Farmers use pesticides . . . I'll continue eating organic certified! Also, when it comes to eggs and cheese ditto! When I made the switch, I could see and feel a tremendous difference - no more skin allergies ! Keep your chin up as more studies will reveal the benefits of organics.

[lff]

Think again. Organic certified also has pesticides. See below:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2007-0947.ch005?prevSearch=organic%2Bfarming&searchHistoryKey=

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2007-0947.ch006?prevSearch=organic%2Bfarming&searchHistoryKey=

lff

[Barbara Barker]

It's true the USDA found some residue on organic produce, but far less than on conventionally grown produce. Often, conventionally grown food had multiple residues on a single vegetable. Organic produce was far less likely to have any residue and was usually positive for a single pesticide.

It's tough for large scale farmers to grow the world's food with no pesticides. We can all reduce our pesticide intake by growing a little of our own.

http://www.containergardeningforhealth.com

[sixyfivepercentwater]

"For those of us who are passionately committed to spreading the "organic gospel," this was not welcome news." It was obviously skewed and bogus "news." I'm fully prepared to believe that the measurable nutritional values are about the same in food raised organically and food watered with septic tank sludge. That doesn't mean I want to eat the latter, and I will still buy the former. There are a lot more parameters involved in making the decision about what goes into my body than just a few measurements of chemicals.

". . .their mentality is often that of, "well, it didn't kill me, so it probably won't kill my kid." Any parent who makes decisions based on "I guess it won't kill my kid" should have their kid(s) taken away from them.

[wolfgangmo]

". . .their mentality is often that of, "well, it didn't kill me, so it probably won't kill my kid." Any parent who makes decisions based on "I guess it won't kill my kid" should have their kid(s) taken away from them.

And usually right before they say something like that they say "Hey! Hold my beer and watch this."

[lff]

Seems more logical than "it didn't kill me, so I guess it will kill my kid". There is no evidence that pesticides are a threat to health in conventional produce. All the kids will be healthier if they just eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables - organic or conventional. The big difference is the cost and the more the world spends on organic fruits and vegetables the fewer fruits and vegetables they actually get to eat. That cannot be a good thing.

lff

[lff]

You asked: Work for Monsanto do you?

I'm not sure why you would bring up Monsanto, they have nothing to do with the subject, but I'll answer.

No.

Do you work for SAFEWAY? or perhaps Wallmart?

Now SAFEWAY and WallMart are big organic food sellers - big profits for them in organic food - SAFEWAY is even a member of the Organic Trade Association - not sure of Wallmart's status there - but the OTA was quoted in the article so my question is not out of place.

I never suggested that people with allergies eat things they are allergic to - but you knew that.

lff

[EcoMom]

The debate over the merits of organic vs. non-organic reminds me of Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason. In it, Gore states that we, the American public have moved from an educated citizenry to an amused audience. That many would so quickly fall prey to the PR of one study - a study paid for by whom is the real question of the day - and that our lack of intelligent reasoning leaves this subject open to debate a great sadness. My eight year old son knows that he does not want to eat chemicals that are used to kill bugs and plants.

Fortunately, those whose brain processing has not been slowed by pesticides and other toxic chemicals see that a food system which does not include pesticides, synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics, while generating healthy soil and protecting natural resources absolutely will promote better overall health, nutrition and longevity within the entire circle of life.

[lff]

Actually, the only privately funded PR in the article is the OTA Press Release. The report
was done for the U.K. Food Standards Agency by the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention
Research Unit of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, so it was publicly
funded.

See the report here: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf

Your son is already eating "chemicals that are used to kill bugs". Plants produce
their own pesticides and toxins to defend themselves against insects, fungi, and animal
predators and these are present even in organically grown foodstuffs. Interestingly enough
most of these natural pesticides have never been tested for safety as required for
synthetic pesticides- but about 50% of those tested were shown to be carcinogenic in
rodents.

The far greater danger to your son is bacterial contamination (E. coli especially) in organic produce primarily fertilized with manure. (Your son does know better than to eat food corrupted by feces doesn't he?)

lff

[lff]

It is difficult to understand why anyone would trust an industry trade association to provide an unbiased critique of a government report contrary to the industry's interests. The author trusts them. However, once her business interests are taken into account this piece is more advertising than news.

The OTA Press Release falls all over itself getting its message out concerning the supposed toxins in the conventional food supply without really contradicting the report. Unfortunatly, important facts are missed entirely.

The OTA goes on and on about pesticides, and hormones and antibiotics with liberal use of the meaningless "synthetic" adjective without referring to a single study showing that the miniscule amounts of these substances involved are in the least harmful. I suppose this is a revealed truth of the organic religion but us non-believers need something substantial. After all, now that the nutritional value has been shown to be the same there is little reason to pay the higher price for organic.

Now, when many people, especially the poorest, must watch every penny they spend on food. Buying organic means fewer fruits and vegetables and studies that I don't think even the OTA would dispute clearly show that the best protection from cancer is a diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables.

Many families will not be able to afford healthy amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables if they buy organic and they should not when there is no proven health risk to consuming conventional fruits and vegetables.

lff

[SelenicMagick]

Work for Monsanto do you?

I have long grown my own produce and meat. The primary reason is because, quite frankly, I am ALLERGIC to antibiotics. Commercially prepared hicken is positively swimming in them and leaves me physically ill for days. The same holds true for beef, fish and pork products.

FRESH manure should never be used for fertilizer. What I use is several years old and has been tested for e-coli. There is LESS e-coli in well-rotted manure than there is on an apple sitting in the bin at Walmart.

IF My choices are endangering my life due to severe allergic reaction OR running the very remote risk of becoming ill due to e-coli... l'll take the e-coli EVERY time. Sorry but DAILY trips to the emergency room by ambulance because I can't BREATHE are NOT in my future.

[lff]

You asked: Work for Monsanto do you?

I'm not sure why you would bring up Monsanto, they have nothing to do with the subject, but I'll answer.

No.

Do you work for SAFEWAY? or perhaps Wallmart?

Now SAFEWAY and WallMart are big organic food sellers - big profits for them in organic food - SAFEWAY is even a member of the Organic Trade Association - not sure of Wallmart's status there - but the OTA was quoted in the article so my question is not out of place.

I never suggested that people with allergies eat things they are allergic to - but you knew that.

lff

[sixyfivepercentwater]

"I don't think even the OTA would dispute clearly show that the best protection from cancer is a diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables." I can't speak for the OTA, but I bet a very good protection from cancer is a diet which doesn't contain pesticides.

[lff]

And why would you think that? Because that is what you read in the newspapers? There is no good scientific evidence to show that pesticides in food produced by conventional agriculture cause cancer. This isn't news of course so what you see in the papers and online is the alarmist reports (FUD) produced by the organic food industry.

This article is a good example. The author unabashedly declares herself as one "passionately committed to spreading the "organic gospel" (I'm not sure if it is commitment to a religious dogma or a pocketbook issue actually) but don't expect much openminded reporting here.

You might start here for a little more open view of the subject: http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html

lff