Organic Versus Conventional Food: UK Report Flawed

A report issued yesterday [PDF] by Dr. Alan Dangour of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK, claims that there is no substantial difference in nutritional content between organic and conventional food. The report was based on the review of fifty years worth of research papers on the subject. But reading it makes one wonder if influence caused a misreading of the findings, and in addition, if the agency has addressed the wrong questions entirely.

Even with very few studies comparing organic to conventional out there, evidence has proven that certain nutrients, such as Vitamin C and antioxidants, are on average higher in organic food. For example, a US study released in 2008 by The Organic Center focused on the nutrient quality of plant-based organic versus conventional foods, using matched pairs, "crops grown on nearby farms, on the same type of soil, with the same irrigation systems and harvest timing, and grown from the same plant variety." According to their report,

"Across all the valid matched pairs and the 11 nutrients included in [The Organic Center] study, nutrient levels in organic food averaged 25% higher than in conventional food. Given that some of the most significant differences favoring organic foods were for key antioxidant nutrients that most Americans do not get enough of on most days, the team concluded that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, in particular, offered significant health benefits, roughly equivalent to an additional serving of a moderately nutrient dense fruit or vegetable on an average day."

The Soil Association in the UK also pointed out yesterday that the FSA left out a more rigorous report commissioned by the European Union that found a range of "nutritionally desirable compounds" like antioxidants, vitamins, and glycosinolates were present in greater amounts in organic crops, while the amount of "nutritionally undesirable compounds" like mycotoxins, glycoalkaloids, cadmium and nickel were present in lower amounts by comparison in organic crops.

For research purposes the FSA report took into account studies beginning in 1958, from before we knew about the role certain nutrients played in our diet. In addition, studies show that nutrient content of our food overall has been going down over time. According to Michael Hansen of Consumer's Union, "including older studies, with crop varieties that no longer are on the market, and which did have more nutrients, only serves to lessen the possibility of finding any significant differences between organic and conventional foods."

The FSA study also ignored the 15 relevant studies that have come out since their February 2008 cut off date that could have changed the outcome of the report. In addition, the FSA analysis actually found that organic food contains more phosphorus, a beneficial nutrient, while conventional food on average contains more nitrogen, which scientists have linked to cancer. (Read more here) Why wasn't this information considered before issuing a substantial equivalence?

Aside from nutrients, contaminants are not considered in the FSA report. It has been proven that antibiotics are being taken up by plants via manure application on fields. The study did not address this or the unhealthy side effects of continued intake of pesticide residues, which accumulate in our bodies. There are a lack of studies on this subject, and investigators' claimed that these questions were "beyond the scope" of this report, but that also might be due to a certain interest in keeping the scope small and thus the outcomes skewed.

The FSA is a branch of the government of the United Kingdom, but states on it's website that it "works at 'arm's length' from Government because it doesn't report to a specific minister and is free to publish any advice it issues." With no oversight, influence over the selected research could have been a factor in the outcomes. 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.

The FSA report was commissioned to determine whether or not the nearly 4 billion dollar organic industry in Great Britain could claim higher health benefits when selling its products. By rendering the playing field equal for conventional farmers, the government and the agricultural sector wouldn't have to begin the difficult work of shifting the unwieldy agricultural system towards sustainability.

One of the biggest hurtles to reforming our food system in the United States is our unwillingness to acknowledge at the governmental level the superiority of sustainable agriculture. Leaving aside the nutrient question, organic agriculture helps improve the soil, protects farm workers from exposure to toxic chemicals, places an emphasis on animal welfare, and keeps toxic runoff out of our waterways. In so doing, sustainable agriculture improves not just our personal health, but our collective environmental health.

The nutrient content in our food is going down because our soil is being degraded. Sustainable agriculture, by contrast, improves the food we eat by improving our environment. Instead of focusing on puny reports that tell us next to nothing and yet dominate the media with simple binaries, we should be taking an integrative approach to analyzing data and therefore face the hard truths before us. As Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson, two of our countries most respected voices on our soil wrote in a New York Times op-ed back in January, which continues to be as scary as it is relevant: "Civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland."

So we have a decision to make. If we chose business as usual, it will be at our own peril.

Originally published on www.twitter.com/civileater

Comments

[organicfarmercanada]

crops pre harvest sprayed with round up cannot be used for seed. the seeds germinate abnormally. poeople eat these seeds everyday. roundup is linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer . Lymphoma is a form of cancer that afflicts the lymphatic system. It
can occur at virtually any part of the body but the initial symptoms are
usually seen as swellings around the lymph nodes at the base of the neck.
There are basically two main kinds of lymphoma, i.e. Hodgkin's disease and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The incidence of NHL has increased rapidly in most Western countries over
the last few decades. According to the American Cancer Society, there has
been an alarming 80% increase in incidences of NHL since the early 1970's

[daryapino]

Great article! Saved me from writing it myself this weekend. It's so frustrating to me, as a scientist, when work is so blatantly distorted in the media. Here's to blogs and freedom of the press! :)

[toxicbrainpoison]

I knew it! I was thinking how can toxic chemicals that cause leukemia in children and health problems in pregnant women and everyone else be the same as a non chemically treated or genetically engineered product.

[ddanimal]

Nutrional content of food is critically dependent on the soil in the case of plants, and what an animal eats in the case of animal foods.

The Big Lie of the food industry is that all food is created equal. This is total nonsense.

[lff]

Hey you got that right! Pound for pound the nutritional value of organic agricultural products may be at least as good but dollar for dollar conventional agricultural wins hands down. Just to compare apples and oranges for instance. Organic certified Granny Smith apples cost 150% more than the conventional product and certified Valencia Oranges go for about 38% more than conventional. Not much to argue about there!!

All comparisons used prices for the week ending 08/06/09 from Rodale Institute Price report at:

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/Organic-Price-Report

c h e e r s
lff

[gsteinum]

healthiness: good health, the state of being vigorous and free from bodily or mental disease. it's understandable that people would talk about heathiness and nutritional value in the same breath. the two are related. try living for very long without food. i hope everyone can agree that staying alive is healthier than being dead. in case noone's noticed, nutritional value is the primary biological reason to eat food, and you will not live for long without nutrients. people are very much like the computer you are using, garbage in, garbage out. you are indeed what you eat. it's called metabolism, or more commonly: digestion. and so far (physiologically) people haven't evolved to the point where we can make something (tissue) out of nothing. check that out. in the mean time: keep eating.

[LeeCalif]

This 'misunderstanding' was promoted by a P.R. Firm working for the Food Industry.

I'll bet you a dollar.

[Aron Cohen]

I wish you could all watch Penn and Teller's B*ll S***t episode from tonight, it was about organic food.

For scientists, they said nothing new... For people who have faith in the organic farm industry, they outlined the problems with the premises in which the ostensible superiority of organic food is based.

[gsteinum]

penn & teller: two comedians, both of which are self-made magicians (the art of tricking people into believing you did the impossible) and entertainers. so you allowed yourself to be tricked by these captivating individuals into believing that what they wanted you to believe is factual. look if you don't want to eat or can't afford organically grown food, don't eat it. that's just means there's more for me.

[Aron Cohen]

I am not a rube, I wasn't tricked into anything. I remain a skeptic, and someone who reviews the literature before I come to any conclusion. I have no problem with you eating organic food, please by all means go ahead. If it makes you feel better, then it has the effect you are seeking.

Regardless, I don't believe you have enough knowledge to make your accusations regarding me.

[dsws]

It should be obvious that Red Atrocious apples, Pink Rock tomatoes, Giant Bland strawberries, and Green Wooden peaches have less of various nutrients, antioxidants, and other presumably­-beneficia­l phytochemicals than less-shippable varieties of the same vegetables. Organic produce includes a higher proportion of the premium varieties that have lower yields and greater losses between field and table, so a cross-section of the organic market will show better averages than a cross-section of the conventional market -- even if organic practices themselves make no difference at all.

[gsteinum]

which indeed organic processes do (make a difference).

[SvrWx]

Part of the reason I try to eat organic food and shop at the local farmers market plus local small community farms is that I feel that the food is grown with more controls. I don't believe that it is more healthy than non-organic, but feel that it is grown with care. I'd rather eat it knowing that the food came from sustainable sources (hopefully). Plus, shopping at the local farm and buying their chicken and beef and bacon is wonderful. Smelling the cow manure, watching the chickens scratch, listening to the goats bleet. That in itself is very worthwhile shopping.

Plus, the vegetables are normal size. Not these monster overgrown veges or huge chicken breasts.

[leduck]

this one is a no brainer to me.
i don't care what one study or another says. I don't care who funded the study. I don't care what other people think on the subject.
I think the foods people should be eating are the foods our ancestors ate. the foods we evolved on. of course, cooking allows us to eat more then we could b4 cooking.
i think people should avoid processed junk. Eat much less sugar. sugar kills more people then cigarettes. it's called diabetes.
eat more raw fruits and veggies. and throw in some nuts, seeds and roots.
plus, eat much less meat, espescially, RED MEAT.

i doubt my ancestors evolved on pesticides and frankenfoods

i don't always buy organic, but i prefer it. just like i prefer mountain spring water because reverse osmosis doesn't give you minerals.

[gsteinum]

leeduck: i agree with you mostly,but you are aware that anthropologists report that humans once ate insects? that would be our ancestors. (and there are still people that do that today.) you want to eats bugs that's your decision,and i know some people in nyc that would like to have you as a house guest. pretty much free-range bugs too. but i like to think of myself as more evolved than that.
as far as not caring what other people think, then why are you responding? and then why should anyone care what you have to say? (and what you have to say is worth saying).
i like what you say about red meat, even if you don't care that i said it. just think how much carbon would not be emitted into the atmosphere if there were fewer industrially raised cattle. oops, there i go saying something you don't care to look at. uh oh. :)

[nemain]

CODEX ALIMENTARI­US....lear­n about it.....it is coming to pass in dec.2009
This is not good for the food system....it will take away essential nutrients and later
will be sold over the counter or prescribed by your doctor. Imagine getting a prescription for vitamin c from your MD.

[AngieMom57]

"...our unwillingness to acknowledge at the governmental level the superiority of sustainable agriculture. Leaving aside the nutrient question, organic agriculture helps improve the soil, protects farm workers from exposure to toxic chemicals..."

That said it all ... "farm workers" exposure to toxic chemicals!

Nutrient value is equal, toxicity value is a bit heavy handed on the side of profits! Chew on that one and then swallow.

[nemain]

fanning!

[hutom]

Study from "The Organic Center"? To support your thesis that organic food is better? Other than that pretty much whatever you have said above is hand-waving.

The study compared nutrients, nothing else. I heard the researcher on radio today. He sounded very reasonable and repeatedly stressed the point that the study was only about nutrients, nothing else including the pesticides and herbicides. Why trash an entirely reasonable person with your new-age hooky?

[gsteinum]

the point is the report is flawed because the data it examines is flawed. that was one of the points detailed in the above critique. but you are very observant in pointing out that a study funded by an entity with a vested interest in the outcome is flawed as well. i was going to write the same, but then noted your comment. also, newt gingrich and even rush limbaugh sound reasonable to some people, so saying that someone sounds reasonable carries no water. i can conclude, at this point, that dr. dangour, despite his title or because of it might have a vested interest/ bias in the skewed conclusions he drew. nutritional analysis is normally cut and dried, but if your salary is paid by some giant food corporation, then that corporation might just be using your name and title in an attempt to bolster decreasing sales figures of their product. it seems to be a least worth a look into where he gets his money from. also, you may note, in the same critique, the author notes that fsa people have several ties to u.k. and european mass food marketers. should there be a light bulb turning on over your head? also the author notes that the fsa has little if any government oversight. red flag time! i guess it's reassuring to notice that the usa doesn't have a lock on corruption and vested interests. the conclusiion is obvious: the report is a scam.

[saami]

Organic farming and food is better for mother earth not just for us.

[blueskybigstar]

This is the solution. Subsidize the healthy food. Tax the unhealthy food. This is how we will then begin to supply the whole nation with the foods they deserve to make them healthier and smarter. Healthy food should be affordable by all of the population.