Yesterday's report out of Stanford that organic foods may not be much healthier or more nutritious than their conventional counterparts has caused quite a stir.
A deeper investigation into the study reveals a few things that the researchers failed to report.
While the scientists analyzed vitamins and minerals, food isn't simply a delivery device for these things alone. We are quickly learning in this industrialized food era that our food can be full of a lot of other things. It has become a delivery device for artificial colors, additives, preservatives, added growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides and so much more.
The term "organic" actually refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed and legally details the permitted use (or not) of certain ingredients in these foods.
The details are that the U.S. Congress adopted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 as part of the 1990 Farm Bill which was then followed with the National Organic Program final rule published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The standards include a national list of approved synthetic and prohibited non-synthetic substances for organic production, which means that organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of:
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, these added ingredients are actually what differentiate organic foods from their conventional counterparts. Yet nowhere in that Stanford study, comparing organic food to conventional, are these things measured. There is no measure of the insecticidal toxins produced by a genetically engineered corn plant, no measure of the added growth hormones used in conventional dairy, no measure of the fact that 80 percent of the antibiotics used today are used on the chicken, pork, beef and animals that we eat.
Food is not just a delivery device for vitamins and minerals, as measured in the study, but it is also used as a delivery device for these substances that drive profitability for the food industry. To fail to measure these added ingredients, while suggesting that there is essentially no difference, is incomplete at best. Some might even go so far as to suggest that it is irresponsible in light of the fact that we are seeing such a dramatic increase in diet-related disease.
Additionally, anyone who knowingly sells or mislabels as organic a product that was not produced and handled in accordance with the regulations can be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. In other words, if an organic producer were to add any one of the ingredients listed above, they would be fined.
WHY ORGANICS COST MORE
Admittedly, the high price of organic food can irritate anyone. But the scrutiny that these foods undergo is enormous and expensive, driving prices at the cash register and for those producing them on the farm. Why the costs? Because the cost structure on our food supply offers taxpayer-funded resources called subsidies to the farmers using genetically engineered seeds and saturating crops in insecticides and weed killers, while charging the organic farmers fees to prove that their crops are safe.
That's like getting fined to wear your seat belt.
So while conventional food production allows for the addition of cheap, synthetic and often controversial ingredients that have been disallowed, banned or never permitted for use in developed countries around the world, organic food carries the burden of having to prove that its products are safe -- products produced without the use of added non-food ingredients that other countries have found controversial or removed from their food supply.
In other words, it's an un-level playing field right now. And if we were all sitting down as a national family at our national dinner table, I don't think that any of us would want to be using our resources this way. Wouldn't we rather have the organic food be the one that we fund, making it cheaper, more affordable and more accessible to all Americans?
Or if given the choice, would we rather eat food hopped up on growth hormones, antibiotics and chemical pesticides? You can answer that.
And while correlation is not causation, in light of the growing rates of cancer, diabetes and other conditions affecting our families, the answer would appear to be "eat less chemicals."
But right now, the majority of the population does not have that choice. Food, clean from antibiotics, added growth hormones and excessive pesticide residue, should be a basic human right, afforded to all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status.
WHERE TO START?
But since the high price of organic produce and a flawed food system that continues to charge organic farmers more to prove that their products, produced without ingredients that mounting scientific evidence has shown to cause harm, is still an insurmountable hurdle to the majority of the population, especially the growing number of unemployed, where can an American who wants to avoid these ingredients start?
Start with baby steps. None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something. And thankfully, foods without these controversial additives and ingredients are increasingly sold in grocery stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, Kroger and Safeway, which represent the largest single distribution channel, accounting for 38 percent of organic food sales in 2006. Look for milk labeled "RbGH-free" or look for products without high fructose corn syrup or artificial colors. A growing number of companies, from Kraft to Nestle, are producing them, because their employees have kids battling conditions like asthma, allergies, diabetes and cancer, too.
So maybe you rolled your eyes at this whole thing a few years ago, dismissing it as an expensive food fad. The Stanford study goes a long way towards reinforcing that. But read between the lines. You are smarter than you realize and braver than you think. And the love that you have for your family and your country can propel you to do things you could never imagine. So navigate the grocery store a bit differently, get involved with a food kitchen, a community garden, a child's school. And reach out to your legislators. They have families, too.
Because as the science continues to mount, from the Presidents Cancer Panel to the American Academy of Pediatrics, we are learning just how much the food we eat-- and the artificial ingredients being added to it -- can affect the health of our loved ones.
Follow Robyn O'Brien on Twitter: www.twitter.com/unhealthytruth
buyorganicnuts / com
To the scientist that are posting: do I really need a PhD in chemistry, epidemiology or molecular biology to know that a tomato in a supermarket looks different, smells strange, and can't compare in taste to a tomato from my neighbor's garden in July and according to this study they have the same nutritional value?
This study is exactly why America (and her children) have never been fatter, sicker or malnourished and strangely we can't seem to figure out why.
Had breast cancer nearly 12 years ago at the age of 38 and had no idea about America's fake, highly processed, factory farmed, franken food supply, that is feed growth hormones, arsenic....
Changed what's on my plate and have been healthy ever since. I now focus on the "quality" of the food not the "quantity". Who knows, maybe America will shed a few pounds when they eat an 1/8 of a hamburger with no pink slime filler or growth hormones and a "real" slice of a tomato instead of a factory farmed 1/4 pounder with cheese for the same price.
What lies behind our organic extra virgin olive oils is not only nutritional facts, but our concept of producing the healthiest and best possible quality products. Quality can only be reached by a long-term chemical, pesticide and fertilizer free production that doesn't alter the smell, taste or DNA of our olives.
At LA Organic we not only care about our consumer's health but are also committed to protect our farmers from the devastating toxic consequences of the use of agrochemicals. Last but not least, we also offer them fairer market prices for their olives, and therefore they have more profitable harvests and avoid having to sell to the multinationals.
Does it take the long way? Yes. Who has a longer life expectancy? People with healthier eating habits.
Elisa Alvarez Mera
CEO LA Organic
I do not advocate that chemicals are good for your body, but organic is not a solution; its a death sentence for a third of the planet.
Instead what would happen is prices for farmers would drop as supply increases and much of that difference would result in larger profits for our corporatized food processing/shipping/retail system. Kind of like how a box of corn flakes originally cost a couple bucks with almost half that going to the farmer...but now a box costs $4 or $5 and the farmer gets about 15 cents.
There are a number of studies out there that show that organic production is equal to or better that "conventional" production for a number of crops. Off the top of my head, potatoes were a crop that was actually better with conventional farming vs organic.
Also, this study has a number of problems. In fact, the head of this study previously used the same methodology when he was previously writing papers "proving" that smoking wasn't harmful. For example, one of the studies he actually refers to, if you read it, openly showed that when it comes to vitamin C, anti-oxidants and some other nutrients...they are noticeably higher in organic crops 80% of the time.
The Benefits of Organic Food by Andre Leu
http://www.acresusa.com/magazines/archives/0504OrganicFood.htm
Organic farming can feed the world, U of Michigan study shows
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
Documentary Investigates Our Current Food System and the Solutions to World Hunger
September 01 2012 |
http://tinyurl.com/arqxh
The study's co-author, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.
The following document shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html
Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics.
This research was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.
Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: "The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!"
http://andrewgelman.com/2012/09/cigarettes/
And the reason these are bad for you is...
"You are smarter than you realize and braver than you think."
Yes, smart enough not to buy into platitudes.
"And the love that you have for your family and your country can propel you to do things you could never imagine."
What the hell has that got to do with food? You do realize that if all food was organically produced there would be mass starvation, right? It doesn't have a high enough yield.
"Good food ain't cheap, and cheap food ain't good."