EcoLiving Ideas

By Bobby Sciortino on Sep 26, 2012

2 reviews |

| Login to Comment |

The public debate over whether eating organic versus non-organic food matters has been a hot topic for years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established official standards with the National Organic Program in 2002, which brought it to the forefront of the public’s consciousness and made "organic" a household term. People still have differing opinions about whether buying organic is healthier, and the people who do buy organic do so for a myriad of reasons. Unfortunately science does not conclusively provide an answer as to which is better (disclaimer: I am a strong proponent of organic, but want to fairly present both sides of the argument); better also being a relative term.

A very recent study published by researchers at Stanford concluded that there is little evidence of health benefits from eating organic instead of non-organic food. While I think it is good that studies such as this are conducted (the more science and factual information the better), I don’t think it was presented in the right way. The article emphasized the fact that there is no nutritional difference between organics and non-organics. It did say that organics posed a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination, but quickly followed this by saying that organics are not necessarily 100 percent pesticide free. Very well. But that shouldn’t minimize the fact that organics reduce pesticide exposure by 30 percent, which is significant. Buried deep within the article, one of the lead researchers says that the intention was not to discourage purchasing of organic products, but to educate. She even states that there are plenty of reasons to buy organic, including that taste preference and a concern for the environmental effects of non-organic farming practices. There are thorough, robust rebuttals to the Stanford study.

I have never been under the impression, nor has anyone else ever tried to convince me, that organic products are more nutritious than non-organic. In many conversations about food with all types of people of varying opinions about food and the food system, this has never been a topic. The nearly unanimous opinion of those who buy organic food is that they want to reduce pesticide ingestion because they believe it is healthier to avoid synthetic chemicals. Limited long term studies have been done on the effects of synthetic pesticide ingestion. Some explore pre-natal and early childhood exposure, while others established some association between exposure and increased cancer.

The USDA regularly tests harvested food crops for residue of pesticides and then publishes an annual report. There is quite a lag, as the most recent is the 2010 report that was published on May 25, 2012. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) analyzed the data and published a list easily digestible by consumers. It ranks the food in order of greatest pesticide residue, allowing you to easily know what is much safer to buy organic, and what has minimal risk to buy non-organic.

This indicates the great disparity among which crops are naturally more resistant to pests and therefore don’t require loads of pesticides. Worthy of note and not commonly known is that organic doesn’t explicitly prohibit pesticides, but only synthetic pesticides. There are natural, plant-based pesticides that can be used in organic farming according to USDA organic standards. The safety of their use depends on the quantity. In too-high usage, they could be damaging both to the end consumer eating the product as well as the local environment.

There are pros and cons to both organic and non-organic. Non-organic will likely put more toxins in your body, but we don’t yet know the long-term effects of that on humans. It can also be damaging to the land and water where those crops are grown. Organic can be more expensive and thus inaccessible to those with less means. Also, industrial scale organic farming that uses lots of natural pesticides could also be damaging to the earth and people; not the image one conjures up when thinking of organic. Lastly, crop yields are typically lower on organic farms, so it may not be possible to feed the nearly 1 billion hungry people around the world using organic methods, since it would require more land than is currently available.

See All EcoLiving Ideas | Login to Comment

Reviews

By Steven Burke on Oct 15, 2012

Rating:

Comments: This is an ongoing debate that will probably never end, so I commend you on making an attempt to help people conceptualize this incredibly complex topic. There are so many considerations in the organic versus conventional debate that you would practically need a book to cover them all, but I think you did well in highlighting some of the major limitations of the Stanford study. Of particular concern in my mind is the issue of pre-natal exposure to synthetic pesticides which studies show can lead to developmental disorders. I would say that if this is the case, as it seems to be, that not having synthetic pesticides wreak havoc on your central nervous system and developing brain as a child in the womb is a pretty darn significant health benefit. But hey, that is just me.

Separately, I might also be one of the few people that does consider the way that food is grown to have an impact on its nutrient density and potential health benefits to the consumer. Just as we need plants to get the nutrients that fuel our bodies, plants need healthy soils full of nutrients to fuel their systems. The incredibly complex and intricate microbiological dance between plant's root systems and the minerals and nutrients in the soil is very much overlooked by industrial agriculture, both organic and conventional. Just as steaming your broccoli too long can zap out its beneficial antioxidants and nutrients, too much travel time, e.g. flying your out-of-season asparagus (organic or not) from Peru to California to your east cost grocery store, can also decrease the bio-availability of nutrients your body attempts to uptake as the food is consumed.

That is why local and seasonal (often times coming from farms with too low a production output to qualify for "USDA Organic"), in my opinion, are often the better way to go, not just for the environmental benefits, but also for personal health. But, it is probably true as stated in the article that without industrial agriculture we would not be producing the same amount of food we are today. The debate continues....

By Mathilda McGee-Tubb on Oct 15, 2012

Rating:

Comments: Thanks for sharing this, Bobby. My primary concern with the organic debate is the frequent failure to distinguish in marketing between organic and local. Many people think that by buying organic products, they are also buying local products (and vice versa, that local produce must be organic). Local products can offer some of the same benefits of organic ones, e.g., less harm to the environment because of a lower carbon footprint. Local products can also be more affordable than organic options and are more likely to be covered by WIC through the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. But it's important for consumers to understand the difference between organic and local to make informed decisions. Perhaps you can write a subsequent article about this!

Gia's Plum Picks