This Week's Huge Flap About Organics

I'm in London and this week's tabloid Daily Express has a headline 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. 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.

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.

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.

Comments

[firstrax]

Organic food has never been promoted as being more nutricious than other food. The benefit is no toxic chemicals, which can build up in your body over a lifetime, making you ill, no antibiototics, which you can become immunne to, no genically modified seeds which you may have allergies to.

[acarter-rowe]

The frustration should be with a tabloid news outlet that feeds off public ignorance of the scientific process, not with the authors of a study that "only answers one question." That's what scientists do, answer one question at a time. They even made a point to state their neutrality. Perhaps there was not a reason to think that there would be a significant difference between the nutritional content of organic and non-organic foods, but that still would have been an unscientific assumption. Good scientists destroy assumptions. What if their analysis had found a difference? What if they had found that organic foods on a whole had significantly less nutritional value than those that had been coated with pesticides? Then there would have been a bit of re-examining to do.
The British tabloid took a legitimate meta-analysis and made it seem that nutritional value is the end-all of factors when choosing organic or non-organic foods. The study itself made no such statement; it even made it a point to acknowledge the variety of reasons why people choose organic. Choose to be frustrated with the perveyors of misinformation and misinterpretation, who increase ignorance and mistrust of science for financial gain, not with scientists whose intentions are to inform.

[greentexan]

Thanks acarter-rowe
I see your point on aiming the frustration at the news media and not at the scientists. Point well taken

[Lesscancer]

Reducing the exposures to unnecessary and preventable exposures such as synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones is what I subscribe to for myself and my family-

Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer

[greentexan]

When I read the article that this article is referring to, I thought the same thing....
I buy organic in many things and I do it not for more 'nutritional' value...I do it because of the pesticides, the hormones, the antibiotics, and the environmental concerns with conventional farming.
Saying that "Organics are no healthier" misleads the general public about what organic food is really about. Shame on them for only looking at the 'nutritional value' and then making such a large claim about not being any 'healthier'.

[Aron Cohen]

"But these authors did not compare amounts of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge. "

Are there any studies that suggest such things as irradiation, genetic modification, hormones, and antibiotics in foodstuffs are deleterious to the public health?

[greentexan]

Aron,
There is always controversy as to what is actually bad for us and what is good for us. There are many reports that some of those things do not pose human health risks and there are many reports that substantiate the human health risks...it is up to us as individuals to get informed and make a personal decision.
Here is one link to the antibiotic debate:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html
Here is a link to the hormone debate:
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm
As for pesticide use, similar debates are had...but I look at it from the environmental point of view on that one...don't just think of the health risks to myself, but at the effects on the environment of using pesticides (to an extreme...I am not saying NO pesticides...)
Hope that helps

[greentexan]

Aron,
Found another link you might read about a particular pesticide that is FDA approved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mairi-beautyman/keep-yourself-and-your-ch_b_233693.html