- Field Day |
- Buildings Alive |
- Visions |
- CLGBT |
- Green Community |
- Fun & Free S#!T |
- Crossword |
- CL Space |
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The case against organic foods and what you may not know about them
Posted by Louis Thornton on Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Before you run out and splurge on your "organic" products, there are many things you may want to understand. The marketing campaigns from the companies who provide these foods tell you the benefits, and there are benefits, but fail to share all of the facts from the scientific community.
I must admit, when I began research for this article, I was expecting to paint a more negative picture about the organic movement. I just felt like there had to be criticism since most of our knowledge about organic food production comes by way of the folks who make the most money from its consumption. That's like the fox guarding the henhouse. Instead, however, I find a highly regulated industry with a wealth of scientific data to support organic foods but, unfortunately, an equal amount of problems with it. Therefore, I'll highlight what I've learned and you be the judge.
A food product is labeled "organic" after it meets some relatively strict standards and governments around the world have set the bar fairly high. In the US, for example, pesticides for produce are quite limited (but not eliminated) and fertilizer must meet certain standards (not all of which are certified organic). For livestock, no growth hormones can be used and no antibiotics administered (there is no scientific data to suggest this matters one way or another to the consumer -I give antibiotics to my 4 year old). I infer that these measures are desirable but can find no data to suggest they help consumers in any way.
The good news for organic farming, though, is that it generally takes less energy to produce organic products and reduces waste produced at these farms. That most certainly has a positive impact on the environment. With limited pesticide use, fragile ecosystems are spared contamination which reduces risk to drinking water and migratory birds. Okay, so far we're on a good roll. Even with appropriate handling, pesticides have always been a plague for farmers. Studies indicate health risks for workers and higher rates of respiratory problems as well as cancers and other health problems. Still on the plus side for organics. It seems organic farming is less damaging in its contained environment.
Now the problems. To surmise the mountains of research I poured over, I find 3 issues with organics that I cannot overlook. Cost, consumer benefit and availability are all issues that need to be overcome before I jump onboard this bandwagon. First, cost. This is simple math. In a time when job loss is at record highs, mortgages are falling out from underneath homeowners, and the economy is in the general toilet, organic marketers are charging significantly higher prices (10-40%) to make you believe your food is better for you if it's organic. What's more, one might be lead to believe that giving your kid an apple from a conventional farm is child abuse, so organic is a must. Cost is high because most of these farms are smaller family operations and even with local and sustainable sources, demand is higher than production keeping costs elevated. My only charge here is that buying organic is great, but in a time of economic instability, I feel like consumers are being bullied into these higher prices.
Next is consumer benefit. None of the studies I looked at found any life prolonging or definite health benefit from eating organic foods. Some organic foods do show higher levels of stuff that is good for you, such as certain antioxidants, but no study implies that the quantities found in non organic produce is inadequate. No medicated animal meat has been shown to be linked with any disease, disorder or shorter lifespan. The data just isn't there. Residual pesticides are higher on non organic produce (up to 77%) but that's why you wash it. Organic produce isn't off the hook though for residual pesticide (up to 25%) and some organically approved pesticides are equally as toxic to wildlife.
Lastly, this issue of availability brings up an under-discussed topic. While organic food consumption is the fastest growing market in the food industry, currently only 1-2% of the worlds food supply is considered organic. Since organic farms produce far less consumables per acre than conventional farms (up to 40% less), some environmentalists actually think it's a bad idea to try to increase organic consumption arguing that there just isn't enough space. To me, that implies that there is actually a negative benefit to run out and buy certain products. I found one paper that said if organic consumption reached 25% worldwide, we would destroy a large amount of the world's rain forests (not sure I'm on board with that hypothesis).
For me, there is eye opening information available to tell me the jury is still out on organics. If that is your lifestyle, I quite respect that but I hope you are aware there is a yin and a yang. Organic foods and the green movement are separate issues in my eye and while I believe in the whole carbon footprint thing and reducing our impact on the world can only be valuable, I'm not ready to spend 10-40% more in the grocery store because a well thought out marketing campaign pushes me to do so.
You decide.
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
That reminds me of this article: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/394198_honey31.asp Since the Bush administration, the laws that dictate what actually makes food organic have changed. At this point, unless you know the farmer, its probably not truly organic.
like
dislike
Louis- you annoy me. You remind me that people still feel that if you are trying to do something different you must be some kind of extremist. If you feel that giving a non-organic apple to your child is child abuse, then that is on you. I work in the wellness industry, and no one I know is trying to make anyone feel that way, nor have I seen any marketing to that effect. And why are people always asking if organic food has more nutrients? It is not about what it has more of- for those of us who buy it- it is about what it has less of. Duh. Less toxic crap. And you are worried about the rain forests? Um, the food we are already eating is grown somewhere, is it not? Would it be so hard to convert some land? Can someone please write a counter-point article to this one please?
Thank you for highlighting some of the benefits of the organic system, including its strict standards and positive effects on human and environmental health. In an effort to raise awareness of some of the other benefits of organic, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) would like to address some of the issues you comment on in the latter part of your post. First is that of cost. It is true that organic can cost more than its non-organic counterparts. That is because the cost of organic products reflects the true cost of production. By contrast, there are hidden costs of non-organic production for which everyone will pay indirectly. Called ag “externalities,” they include damage to water sources, damage to soil resources, damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity, and damage to human health from such things as exposure to pesticides. These costs are subsidized by and absorbed through government subsidies to non-organic producers. Organic producers receive no such subsidies; therefore organic prices must include the basic cost of production as well as the costs related to the aforementioned externalities. Another issue you raise in your post is that of the health benefits of organic foods. As you point out, there is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. See http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html for a list of studies affirming these findings. In addition, there is growing evidence showing the negative impacts of pesticide exposure, particularly on the health of children (see http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/children.html). Research also shows that there are important health consequences associated with the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Such use poses the risk of the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, which could have profound consequences for treatment of disease in humans. You also call into question organic’s ability to sustain the world’s population. In fact, several studies have shown that organic production is on par with, and sometimes superior to, conventional production levels, and that it offers a compelling and sustainable alternative to conventional approaches toward addressing the world’s hunger problems. In light of such findings, as well as the many personal health and environmental benefits that organic agriculture has to offer, the message is clear: Organic. It’s worth it. www.organicitsworthit.com
Hi Van, I’m glad you responded and I’m quite sorry I annoyed you. I expected an alternative point of view to be commented on but I was surprised to be insulted. Let me say I do NOT find you annoying. I most certainly painted my opinion across the research I did, but the facts that I cited were primarily from FDA and EPA articles. I believe I citied some great benefits from organic foods such as decreased environmental impact and pesticide use. I also don’t find folks who use organic foods to be “extremists”. The lovely young lady who edited this article prior to posting just wrote an article herself about the foods with porous skins that should be bought organically and she welcomed my counterpoint. You brought up my apple comment too. At Publix, where I shop, there is a section for organic products that is labeled “Green Wise” (I think that’s the exact name). To me that implies that buying the same product from another section could be considered unwise. I believe that’s marketing, not science. The apple comment was illustration and obviously you didn’t find it humorous. I’m not sure what your role in the wellness industry is but I have a lot of respect for most of the careers that fall under that umbrella. The exception would be Holistic health care or vitamin marketers but that’s the subject of a much larger discussion. Personally I have been a nurse for over 20 years and hold degrees in mathematics and chemistry from Emory University. Currently I work for a medical device company teaching cardiologists how to put a small device in the heart to provide greater blood flow to the body in critical situations. I am a self proclaimed foodie and I write a little food blog. I am no journalist but I enjoy writing. I do not pretend to be an expert on organic products. Again, I’m sorry I annoy you. OTA- I painfully read ALL of the items you sent and unfortunately I affirm my thoughts from before based on the science. Summary – You get more good stuff from organic products. No question. That cannot be bad. Unfortunately there is no SCIENCE, even in your own documentation, to support any claims of longevity. The pesticide issue –they’re bad. Again, no question. Your cited articles stating kids pee more bad stuff out through urine when eating conventional produce. Still, no argument. As a parent who loves his 5 children, that’s compelling. You also cite a separate article stating too high a level of this bad stuff causes higher disease levels later in life (such as 1.6% higher rate of Parkinson’s disease). Still there remains no correlation between the conventional foods that people eat and disease or disorder. Your comments about my sustainability/availability observations are well noted and I did not consider the effects of the "externalities" you mentioned. I appreciate that. I believe that is an important consideration. I am not against organic produce or meats and, in my humble opinion, it cannot be bad to try all avenues to better our health and care for our families. I applaud every attempt to do so. My only concern is the tight budgeted family who reads all of the positive marketing and doesn’t know that the science isn’t nearly as compelling as even your website would lead one to believe. Whichever way the data falls in line, I will support. You have my respect and best wishes.
OTA- I forgot to mention that I think it’s a travesty not to incentivize organic farming the same way conventional farming is. I recently read that this is changing. You still provide local produce and meats and farmers are hard workers. My best to your industry.
Viewing things from different perspectives is always important. But let me say, a primary reason Organics are so much more expensive is because they are not able to use the markets of scale that large agricultural businesses benefit from. If more people ate organic, it would get cheaper. Also, study's of longevity are extremely hard to make, Science has its limits, but common sense should tell you that pesticides, antibodies (do you realize the issues around atibodies? Improper use of antibodies has spawned 'super' viruses), and other man made chemicals introduced to your system cant be good for you. You also fail to mention Genetically Modified Foods (GMO), most all of the non-organic corn we eat these days in the US is GMO, and the environmental impact of GMOs on our Planetary Ecosystem is potentially disastrous. There is a great movie called "the future of food" (you can watch on www.hulu.com for free) that goes into detail on GMOs and the issues around it. Your last point about limited space for organic growth is interesting, i hadnt heard it before. Cheers, René
I find the scientific approach of this article useful in rationalising an often polarised and emotionally-charged debate. So hat off to you Louis for coming at it from this angle. I work for the plant science industry, representing both pesticide and biotech seed companies. I work for this industry because I believe that there needs to be a serious and rational approach to finding a way to feed the world sustainably in the face of growing challenges, e.g. 9 billion people by 2050, increasing water scarcity (the UN predicts one in three will be living with water scarcity by 2025), climate change and so on. Declining arable land is a big issue. Realistically, we need to be able to feed more people on less land and in often much harsher conditions. I don’t think there is a silver bullet, I believe all the options need serious consideration, including for example plant biotechnology. Through plant biotech, we have the potential to grow food for growing numbers of people on marginal lands, and the possibility to help increase yields. As for pesticide use, if we are to protect against vast crop losses (both pre- and post-harvest), we need them. Today, losses can often be around 40%, if not more, of a crop. We need more infrastructure - like storage facilities- and more access to products that protect against pests, to make sure more of what is grown gets to people. Pesticides also help protect against dangerous fungi or molds, such as aflatoxins, which can kill or cause serious illnesses in livestock and possibly in humans. As arable land diminishes, and population figures rise, we can’t afford to continue bringing in more and more land to grow food on. We need to stem encroachment into carbon sinks and the threat to biodiversity that that represents. Pesticides are heavily tested and when used correctly do not represent a health risk. Responsible use is of course crucial and we work on training hundreds of thousands of farmers every year globally in responsible use and integrated pest management techniques to make sure this happens. Equally, on the health issue, the balance of evidence from the studies conducted to date is inconclusive with regard to any potential health benefit from organically grown produce. Many studies have shown no difference in nutrient content and most often differences are down to soil quality, seasonality, etc, variables that affect both organic and conventional produce. More important is to ensure you get enough varied fresh fruit and veg. And it needs to be affordable, so that healthy eating is not a privilege! Feeding the world is a vastly complex issue, requiring a mosaic of solutions. Particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and other developing world areas, critical obstacles include a lack of infrastructure (for irrigation, harvest storage, transportation to market), lack of knowledge on farming techniques, lack of access to microcredit, etc. As an industry we have joined with other sectors to call for these key issues to be addressed to help more farmers feed themselves and their families (see www.farmingfirst.org). This will require a redirection of policy attention to agriculture and farmers’ needs. Organic agriculture presents good opportunities for farmers to access niche export markets. However, organic agriculture cannot feed 9 billion people in a sustainable way, without incurring serious environmental costs due to extensification. Different agricultural systems can coexist, but meeting challenges of the future requires investments in a new Green Revolution. Failure to do this risks widespread hunger among our future generations, as well as the social and civil unrest that this would inevitably provoke.
Latest in Daily Loaf
-
Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign playlist — Spotify style
-
Another Mitt flip-flop? 2010 interview reveals praise for individual mandate
The Supreme Court might take the issue off the table for the election, but Congressional Republicans seem intent on doing whatever they can to put the issue on the ballot in November.
-
GOP holding up unemployment benefits for recipients who don't have a GED
The GOP also wants to include urine testing for anyone requesting unemployment benefits.
- More »
Top Commenters
