Here's Whole Foods Market's response, via Facebook.
Our thoughts on the study on nutrition in organics in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The supreme irony is that this study is getting an enormous amount of media attention in part because of heightened consumer awareness of where our food comes from, thanks to the popularity of the documentary Food, Inc. and the discussion it's triggering across the country. Food, Inc. lays bare just how bankrupt and dangerous our current food system really is, and what we are allowed to know about it. The result is that consumers are looking more critically than ever at studies like this.
I agree with the Organic Center (TOC), a non-profit industry think tank, that the authors of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA) study used old data and flawed logic in reaching the conclusion that organic food is no healthier than conventional. TOC alleges that the UK study actually downplayed the positive findings which favored organic food and did not measure important nutrients such as antioxidants.
There are compelling studies that have shown organic foods higher in beneficial antioxidants, substances or nutrients in our foods known to slow or prevent heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer. A 2007 Newcastle University (UK) study concluded organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40% more antioxidants than non-organic varieties; organic milk contained more than 60% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids than conventional. A 2007 study by the University of California found organic tomatoes had elevated levels of up to 97% of two types of antioxidants.
Of greater concern to me is the fact the FSA ignores the environmental and related health benefits of an organic farming system that avoids the use of millions of pounds of toxic persistent pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer and other chemicals that leach into soil, water and air.
The man leading the FSA review actually stated the differences in nutrient content found between organic and conventionally produced food were "unlikely to be of any public health relevance." Tell that to the people who suffer a variety of health issues shown to be linked to pesticide use. Public health is exactly what's at stake here.
I believe studies like the FSA report need to look beyond the dinner plate and recognize that organic farming's avoidance of chemicals offers health benefits beyond nutrition...for the rest, go to Huff Post Green (you won't have to go far, I know).
And here's the Organic Trade Associations' rather weak-kneed response (to my mind). They accept many of the charges, and simply argue around them. Yes, organics are part of an ecosystem, and can't be measured on nutrients alone. But I'd like to see us argue on the points we've been attacked -- that organic food is in and of itself not measurably better than chemical-pesticide-sewage grown "conventional" food.
Organic Trade Association: Organic products offer many benefits to consumersContact: Barbara Haumann
(413-376-1220; bhaumann@ota.com)
GREENFIELD, Mass. (July 31, 2009) -- In response to recent publicity concerning an article in-press for the next issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) reminds consumers that organic has a great story to tell.
"The broader question is about what is health and what is nutrition, and isn't it more than just nutrient density," said Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, in reference to recent buzz about the article, "Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review." "Doesn't a food system that avoids the use of pesticides, synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics while building healthy soil and protecting natural resources promote health and nutrition? I certainly think so."
She added, "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...for the rest, click here.
Here's one more:
I'm in London and today'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 (pdf) 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.
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.
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.
Read more here, at The Daily Green.Here's a new one just in, via my friend Steve Hoffman, an organic/natural products expert, at The Organic Center:
Letter from the Director
Follow Waylon Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elephantjournal
The organic vs. non-organic sourced food "debate" was cooked up by the same kinds of people who feverishly concocted fake "science" to set up public doubt and confusion about global warming. C'mon, use your judgement here. There are trillions more invested in commercial non-organic food production than there are in organic food production. Plus, the grand tradition of government corruption is at stake here, if organics wins. Can't have that in the U.$.A., now can we?
In any case why would you choose to believe the Industry spokesmen (TOC and OTA)? They represent the interests of companies like SAFEWAY (third larges supermarket corporation in the world) among other giant corporations and smaller organic product sellers.
I think you need to investigate a little more on who is who before makeing a decision on who to believe.
lff
Organic Heirloom Tomatoes that taste like tomatos not flavorless mush.
Same for strawberries, those Camrosas made to go on the space shuttle, roided huge, hollow and MUSHY and NO TASTE AT ALL. And the only way to find anything else, organic, NOT CAMROSAS, is go to Farmers Markets.
(BTW has Wall Mart joined OTA yet?)
lff
lff
While not a perfect system is the best system we have in place to let consumers know that by reaching for USDA Organic they can be assured that they are making a choice that reduces the intake of unnecessary and preventable exposures to synthetic pesticides-
Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer
http://www.youtube.com/lesscancer
The higher prices of organic produce guarantee that less fresh fruits and vegetables will be consumed by consumers of organic produce. In order to feed their families more fresh fruits and vegetables and lower their cancer risk consumers should spend their available food budget on conventional fresh fruits and vegetables.
lff
In MY case... I have to make a choice... my LIFE or the remote possibility that I may get sick from e-coli... Let's see... LIFE versus an upset tummy and diarrhea... I'll stock up on Toilet Paper and Immodium thanks.
If organics are grown on dirt that is nutrient free (because of depletion) the demand for the produce is nil. Farming was't just recently invented by big-city roof toppers who are enamored of the latest style for shiek.
Cow manure is still used as a form of fertilizer and compost. Manure gives microscopic organisms and bacteria a place to live (and this is generally a good thing because they are aerating the soil, or breaking down dead organic material and contributing to the nitrogen cycle, thus fertilizing).
The problem with "chemical" fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides is that they kill these organisms and beneficial pests, and basically throw the local ecology out of whack. If done correctly, farmers rarely need to purchase anything from off the farm (like fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) -- and that's what the organic movement means to me.
I want to buy from a farm that raises chickens and uses their poop as fertilizers. I want farmers that will wait an extra couple of weeks to put out a crop in order to miss the detrimental cycle of a harmful pest. I want farmers that put lady bugs out on their crops to eat the aphids. But mainly, I want to know that a local farmer is producing my food, instead of a corporation that could start raising prices arbitrarily because there is no longer any competition (see oil prices).
The study is based on an incorrect premise: that people buy organic primarily because of a perceived higher nutritional content -- I don't know anyone who does that. What a canard, what a deflection.
It's like producing a study that says quitting smoking doesn't increase appetite, so there's no reason to quit. Keep on smokin' up Johnny! And support your local factory farm, because all that organic nonsense is just a waste of money....
lff