New Year’s Resolution: Eat Healthier. Does that mean organic food?

Labeling for products that meet the USDA-NOP s...

Image via Wikipedia

Perhaps you have decided to toast the New Year with organic champagne or an organically produced high-gravity craft beer because organic is better, not just for you but for the planet. After all, you have made a New Year’s resolution to eat better and healthier while caring for the environment.

So, is organic superior to conventionally raised food? Well, some of my friends say there is. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far, there is not only little extraordinary evidence, there is zero extraordinary evidence that organically grown food is any better for you than conventionally grown food. Nor is there solid evidence that it tastes better.

According to the Mayo Clinic:

No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.

The United States Food and Drug Administration and Mayo Clinic are not alone. An article published in the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition, on the basis of a systematic review of studies, says:

[T]here is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.

A major independent research project released 30 July 2009 and conducted by the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on behalf of the UK Government’s Food Standards Agency, concluded that organic food is no better for health than food produced by more advanced agricultural techniques. The study was the biggest of its kind ever conducted, reviewing all data collected on the topic over the past 50 years. In its conclusion the report says:

No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content.

The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality.

There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake of the nutrients identified in this review which are 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.

For a copy of the UK government’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit report (pdf) click here.

In addition to its own research, Great Britain’s Food Standards Agency cite studies by the French Food Safety Agency and another by the Swedish National Food Administration:

In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food.

Findings published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition say much the same:

Studies comparing foods derived from organic and conventional growing systems were assessed for three key areas: nutritional value, sensory quality, and food safety. It is evident from this assessment that there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison. With the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various nutrients… While there are reports indicating that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent…There is no evidence that organic foods may be more susceptible to microbiological contamination than conventional foods. While it is likely that organically grown foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation of residue levels.

Conclusion, toast to the New Year in with anything you wish. But, if your resolution is to eat healthier by making better choices, grab a vegetable or fruit instead of a bag a chips for a snack.

What about organic being better for the environment? Surely, the earth is better for organically raising food and fiber without artificial pesticides and fertilizers? We will look at that tomorrow.

Post to Twitter

Hello rainforest, it’s me, organic

Does being local and organic make an eco-difference?

I like local produce: local pears, local wines, and ripe local tomatoes. I like buying from the folks who produced them. Maybe it can even put me in touch with the seasons. Those are good things, but buying local food does not imbue such commerce with environmental greenness. And buying organic, may be less green.

Agriculture could be defined as domesticating the labor of plants and animals to provide food for us. Humankind has used agriculture for 10,000 years. Today’s intensive agriculture uses synthetic chemicals and sometimes genetically engineered organisms; organic farming does not. You might think of organic farming as farming the way great-great-granddad did it.

Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, and other advocates for buying local food (aka locavores) proclaim organic food production to be sustainable and better for the soil, with yields comparable to conventional farming. Forgoing industrial fertilizers and pesticides means less pollution. All of this, they say, makes organic food safer and healthier, for you and the planet.

Yet, locavore campaigns have begun taking on cult-like trappings, using food-miles as the yardstick for piety, and the organic label as the talisman of true devotion. According to locavore scripture, local food—with its fewer “food miles” for transport—takes less energy (thus less pollution) than “factory farming.”

“[W]hen we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases,” wrote Pollan. That local produce needs less fuel to get to market than something that had to be carted halfway around the world appears to be a no-brainer, but cargo trucks and railcars carry more than pickups and vans can, so their fuel cost per pound is often less. Nevertheless, farm-to-market fuel is a small piece of the farm-to-table energy pie with transportation accounting for only a 14 percent slice on average. Household storage and preparation of food uses more than twice that amount (32 percent). Thankfully, we don’t hear pleas for us to give up refrigeration and eat only raw foods to eliminate the energy costs of storage and preparation. Oh, wait. We do hear that.

Another study noted, that a dietary shift from red meat or dairy less than one day per week makes a greater difference: “Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than ‘buying local.’ Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.”

To prove that organic farming’s yields are comparable, many proponents point to the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial which compared three methods: conventional, livestock-based organic, and legume-based organic. According to Rodale, yields for corn and soybean in these trials are “the same across the three systems.” Please note, the organic plots produced the same yield because they used extra land elsewhere for feeding animals to provide manure, or for the legume-based system, took the plot out of corn or soybean production and grew nitrogen-fixing legumes instead. Obviously, organic farming needs more land to grow sustainable yields for the world. Worldwide, crops require 80 million tons of nitrogen to feed our current population. Generating that amount of nitrogen organically would require about six billion head of cattle plus the land to grow feed.

Fossil fuels allow conventional farming to use less land than organic methods. “By spending not much energy to make fertilizer and run machinery — and trivial amounts of energy to ship the stuff we grow from the places it grows best,” writes Stephen Budiansky, a former editor of the scientific journal, Nature, “we have spared and conserved hundreds of millions of acres of land that otherwise would have had to be brought into agricultural production. That’s land that protects wildlife, that adds scenic beauty.” That means we spare wetlands, grasslands, forests, and rainforests from being cleared for agriculture.

“But,” you may be saying, “isn’t organic food healthier and safer than food grown using manmade chemicals?” According to the Mayo Clinic, “No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.” The US FDA and Mayo Clinic are not alone. Here is what the UK’s Food Standards Agency says,”In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food.”

I like our local, organic food; it tastes good, and good, hard-working, conscientious folks produce it. Yet, as the Roman philosopher Cicero might have said, “Res ea non est quae prandium gratuitum aquet.” (There’s no such thing as a free lunch.) Measuring food’s “greenness” by how many miles it has traveled, or the way it was grown, considers only two morsels of the seed-to-table menu. By all means, patronize farmers’ markets for the freshness and local experience, but let us stop fretting about the food we buy at the grocery store. Odd as it may seem at first blush, since poorer nations are often also food exporters, you may actually help people in the developing world when you buy food from the grocery store. Buying at Safeway, Ray’s and Shop Smart could actually be good for people and the environment!

Post to Twitter