Good news! You can rest assured that the organic food you bought today is every bit as beneficial for you and the planet as it was three days ago. Advantages for health and ecological soundness are still there, despite a review released this week claiming that there is insufficient evidence to prove organic superiority on the nutritional grounds it evaluated.
The work, a review of research completed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA), was rigorous in its selection of 55 studies from 50 years of nearly 50,000 studies, some of which were conducted before the creation of national organic standards. Unfortunately, it failed to include contemporary research showing organic strengths, and dismisses areas of organic superiority within its reviewed work, including antioxidant capacity (important for cancer-fighting properties).
There is no reason to be less confident in your organic choices.
The study appears to say absolutely nothing negative about organics, despite valiant attempts by the media to create sensational headlines. In the data reviewed, they found that organic food was superior to non-organic food in the measurements of beta-carotene by 53 percent and flavonoids by 38 percent, as well as in the amounts of phenolic compounds, protein, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur and zinc, all of which are required to foster complete nutrition.
The reviewers also reveal higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products (between 2.1% - 27.8% higher) compared to non-organic meat and dairy.
This review will likely be eclipsed by actual scientific research from a European Union-funded study. Completed in April 2009 and involving 31 research and university institutes, the world awaits the summary statement, to be released later this year. Results from more than 100 papers released so far show that food grown by organic methods contains more of what people want to be healthy, and less of what might harm them. Specifically, organics have:
In March 2008, a team led from the Organic Center published their review of research since 2003, "New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods." The review, which focused on comparing regional, soil, crop, harvest and plant variety similarities, found significant organic benefits in key nutritional components: antioxidants, precursors of vitamins A, C and E, the minerals potassium and phosphorus, total protein and in nitrogen, where lower levels in food are considered to be healthier.
Organic food continues to be the best way to eat to save the world. The FSA study, in the three areas where it found organic food to be more healthful than non-organic food attributed those distinctions to "differences in production methods." I agree. At the Rodale Institute, we've been comparing organic and non-organic practices for nearly three decades, and released a report in 2008 explaining the regenerative capabilities of organic agriculture as a solution to confront global warming. Organic production methods are responsible for fewer pesticides and herbicides in our soils and water, better management of land, and food with little to no risk of doing long-term damage to our planet, its people, and its biodiversity.
You can continue to believe you are making good choices. Continue to demand organic.
We are a separate entity from Rodale, Inc., the for-profit publishing company. We have different boards of directors, different governance, and different funding sources.
If you read my post, at no point did I attack the credibility of the scientists. I did, however, make the point they only reviewed research, and did not conduct actual studies. And, highlight the wealth of research that they ignored when making their claims. Before accepting any report one should evaluate how the claims were made and consider the study's context. Myriad reports about this study have largely ignored those factors.
I come from a background of non-organic, chemical-based agricultural practices. In my career, witnessing the decline of soils in over 85 countries over decades I was personally challenged to find ways we could build, rather than deplete soils, prompting my transition to organic methods and advocacy.
The Rodale Institute is offering what science we can to the questions of today. As toxic revelations emerge about the human health effects of the unnecessary chemicals used to grow our food, it is vital to consider how we all approach our future.
Check out some of our work here:
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
lff
So the attacks are predictable.
Can't say that Dr. LaSalle would be the first person I would ask for an unbiased opinion of the benefits of organic produce.
lff
Today 58% of the FDA's funding comes from pharmaceutical companies, which means that the FDA is under the employment of the pharmaceutical industry. This is why dangerous drugs make it into the market and they don't get pulled until after the drug companies have made a few billion dollars.
These same companies often are involved in the chemicals and genetic testing that is associated with crops and livestock. So if the FSA is like the FDA, then the results of this bogus study is no surprise.
First of all organic farming IS conventional farming, GMO's and chemicalized pesticides are the unconventional way of farming. There's no comparison and no equivalent to organic farming. No equivalent in taste, no equivalent in environmentally sound growing, no equivalent in livestock health, no equivalent in sustainability - organic farming is without equal.
Well that's clearly not true. While we can debate the relative nutritional merits of organic produce vs. other methods, there is no debate that organic is a low yield method, requiring several times the amount of land as farming that includes pesticides and such.
So, unless your definition of "saving the planet" involves either somehow coming up with vast amounts of farmland or starving out about a billion people, organic comes up short.
Ironically, Genetically Modified foods could eliminate much need for pesticides and other chemicals. But then you get a bunch of people jumping up and down and screaming "frankenfood."
Anyone reading this should do themselves a favor and google (or wikipedia) the name Norman Borlaug.
Organic is the way to go- and is the future!
It's too bad that pedestrian thinkers tend to believe that things that appear to be obvious, must be true!
The idea, if nothing else, is that organic foods are not poisoned with pesticides. That alone may contribute to a healthier quality of life; which goes to show that even the obvious isn't always obvious.
If you care about your health, get to know your local farmers at the Farmers Market and take home fresh, local, organic food that was just picked that morning. Or better yet, grow some of your own food, for a food miles score of zero! The shorter the distance between the soil and your table, the more nutrients available for your body.
Thanks, Timothy -- good post. Rodale is a wonderful organization that has always been so far ahead of its time.
What's next? "Organic" gas?
"Organic" has been, for some time now, nothing more than a marketing strategy. A buzz word. The meaning, the concept, has completely been lost.
Folks, support community based agriculture programs. Start a neighborhood garden, in your own backyard if needs be!
And, please, read those ridiculous labels on all these products before buying into their claims.
Here, for example, are the complete standards from CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers), a non-profit organization to certify organic farmers based out of California:
http://www.ccof.org/pdf/US%20National%20Organic%20Standards.pdf
Here are the organic standards of the national organic standards board:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004445&acct=nopgeninfo
As you point out, there are other concerns when it comes to food production, including the whether the farm is local, whether the farm is family operated or owned by a large conglomerate, the working conditions of its employees, etc... Being certified organic does not address these concerns.
However, a certified organic label does inform the consumer that the production of the food did not contributing to pesticides in our water supply, did not contribute the depletion of the soil nutrients where it was produced, and that the food itself will not contain potentially harmful chemicals. And this knowledge is important to consumers such as myself.
I'll stick to keeping my freedom of choice both financially and dietarily.
You can use some of that money that you have the freeddom to spend or not.