From Here & Back Again
By Jim Coufal
(Cazenovia, NY – Sept. 2011) Do you proudly eat only organic food? Or are you one of those who don’t, but feel guilty about it?
I’ll probably get a few people upset, but the issue of organic food is not as straightforward as it is often made out to be (it’s better, and that’s it!), but I’ll try to put some perspective to the story.
In the first research article I reviewed, Science Daily reported “New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical industry’s Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals.”
Unequivocal, but look at the source, you say.
The very next piece I read reported, “Some organic foods, including fruits, vegetables and milk, may be more nutritious than non-organic produce, according to an investigation by British scientists.”
“May be” is a weasel phrase, but the source is sound.
Another study, from the University of Copenhagen Department of Human Nutrition found that no clear evidence that organic food is better than non-organic food. But again, The Organic Center reports that a consumer buying conventional peaches is greater than 11 times more likely to choose fruit with seven or more residues than fruit with no residues, and the average peach has 4.25 residues.
The average celery had five or more residues, with less on organic than non-organic-grown celery.
So is organic food healthier for you or not?
It’s complex, and it depends. For example, with the residues noted above, it depends on just what they are (how toxic), how much one consumes, how much one weighs, how healthy one is and other factors.
Further, there is no doubt that organic foods contain residues, or that some “natural foods” are themselves toxic. Also, how food is treated (shipped, stored, cooked) impacts nutrient content. Toasting bread creates carcinogens, yet many of us eat toast most every day.
It is consensus that in poor parts of the world, the inhabitants can’t afford to grow organic food because it takes more land and produces less crop per acre, yet some studies claim millions of deaths of children due to chemical residues.
These people are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place.
The debate continues with a wide variety of scientific findings because results depend on such factors as the individual farm, the soil and weather, the quantity and timing of chemical use and other things.
Research results can be shaped to obtain results based on the inclination of the researcher, and one must be careful to search for truly unbiased research. (My intent above was simply to show the range of results available.)
A cross-party British Commission studying the question of organic versus non-organic food found no convincing evidence in favor of organic food. But they recognized it as a life-style choice, one especially prevalent among those who can afford it.
Left unsaid here are questions about the impacts on the environment, cost, flavor and other considerations of organic versus non-organic foods. In general, research on these questions is as varied in results as those noted above. Yes, there are taste studies finding no difference or even favor for non-organically grown fruits and vegetables.
I’ll close with a quote from what I think is a neutral research group, the Mayo Clinic. On their website (Google it) they ask ‘Is organic food more nutritious?’
Their answer is, “Probably not, but the answer isn’t yet clear. A recent study examined the past 50 years’ worth of scientific articles about the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods; the researchers concluded that organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are comparable in their nutrient content.”
As a lifestyle choice, I hope those who eat only organic food enjoy and prosper on it. If you choose not to eat organic food, there is no need to be guilty.
Jim Coufal of Cazenovia is a part-time philosopher and full-time observer of global trends. He can be reached at madnews@m3pmedia.com.
In our grandparents’ day, before Monsanto and Cargill and their ilk, everyone ate “organic” food, typically grown or raised on the family farm. Because of the work required to create food successfully, and because there were no televisions, computers, or game consoles, everyone engaged in serious physical activity, which kept people relatively healthy. In just 2-3 generations, the chemical companies and corporate food producers have taken over, creating hundreds of thousands of acres of monoculture crops grown on increasingly depleted soils that are fortified with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides and herbicides. I have read one study (although I couldn’t tell you how to find it; I’m only 4 sips into my first cup of coffee this morning and still not fully awake) that determined that organically grown broccoli, among other produce, does have more nutrition than “conventionally” grown broccoli. But the real issue is not just nutrition — the bigger issue is that the longer we allow toxins of any kind to contaminate our food and our soil, the longer we tamper with the way plants have grown and reproduced for millennia, we adulterate a massively intertwined and complex system that we have no idea what the end result will be. Add genetic modification to the mix, and the “end” could very well be massive starvation.
That any “residues” are found in organic food only illustrates the extent to which chemicals and toxins pervade the environment, even indirectly. More important than simply organic is a return to local and regional food production, which supports local farmers, leaves a much smaller footprint on the environment, and takes profit away from the corporations that slowly poison us and the land even as they claim to feed us.
Chris,
Please give citations for each thing you claim. Facts are, your facts are false.
The organic food fad is BULL****.
You made some claims, Chris. Prove them.
Eric
Eric — How I love a challenge! You’ll have to read my column next week. Seriously doubt that 75 million organic consumers can be called a “fad.”
Skal!
I enjoy good natured diatribe and debate sir! I eagerly await your response; be warned, I come to the table armed with info as well!
(nice to see someone respond with dignity and respect! I enjoy that!)
However – numbers don’t mean anything other than lots of people are duped. 75 million misguided people does not change the fact that “organic” food is a shell game and nothing but smoke and mirrors!
Eric
Chris:
As I noted, I believe the issue is complex, especially as rfelated to the claims made by many organic food advocates. He is what the Consumer’s Union had to say:
“Reducing dietary exposure to pesticide residues is an important goal of public health and environmental officials, farmers and other segments of the food industry, and consumers. Organic agriculture, with its strictures against the use of synthetic chemical inputs, seems to offer a low-residue alternative to conventionally-grown produce; avoiding exposure to pesticides is one major reason consumers buy organic foods. Foods sold with claims of reduced pesticide use or use of integrated pest management (IPM), sometimes certified as containing no detectable residues (NDR), are now on the market as well. In general, the effects of different agricultural production systems on dietary exposure to pesticides is a question of considerable interest to scientists, regulators and the public.
Surprisingly, few empirical analyses of residue data have addressed this question, mostly because of a dearth of data on residues in organic produce. In the absence of better data, public controversy has swirled about this issue, with conservative media commentators and critics of organic agriculture going so far as to suggest that foods grown organically have just as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.”
I haven’t found much scientific evidence on the last statement in the quote above, but it is not unusual to see that organic foods contain “fewer” pesticides than non-organic foods, implying they do have residues. And studies indicate both have less residue levels than government established safety levels. Studies also find production is often 20% to 50% less for organic production compared to non-organic, and that becomes very important in a world of burgeoning population. You don’t really want to go back to the “old days”, do you. No electricity, no sewage systems, outhouses, shorter life spans, and no computers to pick at each other?
I’m happy if people want to grow and/or eat organic foodstuffs, but to reiterate, I find the issue more complex than it is often made out to be. By the way, as I’m sure you know, all vegetables and fruits are “organic,” although in the era of scientific advances who knows where we be going. Even “soylent green” was organic.
JIm
Yes, it is a complicated issue — but perhaps a better descriptive would be “convoluted,” mainly because we now live in a world that is overly contaminated by all manner of toxins primarily because their use has not been adequately regulated, and that, in turn, came about because of the undue influence of industry on lawmakers and regulatory bodies. Eventually, a saturation point is reached, and I think we are very close to that reality. If we don’t figure out how to unpollute the environment that produces our food as well as return to safer, transparent farming methods on a local land possibly regional scale, with less distance (literally and figuratively) between producer and consumer, we are doomed. This will, of course, take decades, so the sooner we start, the better. Promoting and supporting sustainable farming practices, regardless of the current shortcomings and problems, is the place to begin. Simply put, I would rather buy produce locally that perhaps has “some” unacceptable residue, through no fault of the farmer, than knowingly buy produce that is intentionally grown with pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified seed or seed that has been coated with systemics.
Chris,
Do you eat corn? Any corn? Do you use any corn oils?
You do realize that corn does not occur naturally in North America, right? Corn is a genetically modified food.
You:
“I would rather buy produce locally that perhaps has “some” unacceptable residue, through no fault of the farmer”
You do know that “organic” farmers are allowed to use pesticides and chemicals and still have the food labeled “organic”, right? Your statement, “through no fault of the farmer” is specious at best. Organic farmers routinely use pesticides and chemicals to control crop growth, reduce insect infestations and increase size and alter taste to the food, but you know this, right?
The other big issue, is that this is a lovely “prep-school” argument in that we fortunate few who live in developed nations with an abundance of food have the luxury of choosing; but for the majority of the world (much of Africa, for example), food insecurity is a daily issue. When people in the west start saying “you cannot do this or that” with crops, it harms more than it helps.
Genetically altered crops represent of the best ways of ensuring everyone has access to plentiful or healthy food. The US lobbying industry is a main cause of preventing much of the third world from gaining access to this type of technology, mostly from mis-guided individuals who believe that organic and the family-farm is the wave of the future. The small organic farm yields less food, and places more stress upon the soil.
Chris, don’t you want people in other nations to have access to adequate food? Or do you just want to sit in a gilded cage of organic apples and soy milk?
And the point too, has already been made, but it is worth saying again; ALL food is organic.
Eric