Is Organic Food a Laughable Bourgeois Fad?

Stanford University
Stanford University (Photo credit: alexispz)
Recently, a famous opinion writer of the New York Times, Roger Cohen, attacked organic food twice on the basis of of a Stanford University research concluding that it has no nutritional advantage over products of traditional agriculture using pesticides and chemical additives, including hormones.

In short, organically grown food is not healthier. As Cohen put it,  it's the "romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class able to afford it", it's "a fable of the pampered parts of the planet - romantic and comforting". Now he's done it again (see here), claiming he's added at least one important fact to his store of knowledge: "Hell hath no fury like an organic eater spurned".

Indeed, Roger Cohen has twice spurned organic food, fuming "organic, schmorganic" and drawing after his first attack an amazing tsunami of angry comments and blog posts. He's being accused of disinformation, of being asinine, of making the media look "out of touch with reality". (see articles below)

Painter of the burial chamber of Sennedjem
Painter of the burial chamber of Sennedjem (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


So where do we really stand in this maelstrom of accusations? Much of it is clearly nonsense, and I'm afraid that Cohen who's an op-ed columnist I normally read with pleasure put his foot in it. He's focused his whole argument solely on nutritional value when that is not the point for confirmed organic eaters (disclosure: I'm one of them, I worked 25 years for FAO, the UN Ogranisation for Food and Agriculture, I've rubbed shoulders with nutritionists and agricultural experts, and I think I know a thing or two about organic agriculture).

The nutritional value of organic produce is (about) the same. Surprised? A tomato is a tomato, the vitamin C in it is (more or less) the same, full stop. The problem with modern agriculture is elsewhere: all those chemical additives that are added, from pesticides to fertilizers, from antibiotics to hormones. Any organic eater will tell you he/she is willing to spend more to have chemical-free stuff in their plate. Also, it happens to taste better (that's no small advantage in my view - I love to eat well!)

Moreover in FAO where I worked, organic agriculture was viewed as a major piece of experimental agriculture needed to arrive at a modern agriculture capable of feeding the explosively growing world population - because there's a problem with pesticides and other chemicals: after a while, they don't work, productivity goes down. So you need to reduce the use of chemicals and rely whenever possible on organic agricultural techniques. Also OGMs, long thought to be a solution (by incorporating insect-resistent genes in the plant etc), look now like they are hitting a wall: there's increasing evidence that they may have other very worrying side-effects on human health. In France, some serious research was recently done on rats fed with genetically modified maize and it showed beyond any reasonable doubt that OGM corn had devastating effects on their kidneys, that it caused tumors and was in fact cancerogenous. This of course has fueled once more the debate in Europe where OGMs have long been resisted  on the basis of the "cautionary principle" and European Union institutions are now considering banning the import and consumption of OGM plants altogether, a difficult decision considering how much of  modern agriculture economically depends on them.
English: Riesling vine in organic agriculture,...
Riesling vine in organic agriculture, Germany. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The Stanford study that is causing so much debate in the US  is not new research but a meta-analysis (i.e. it pulled together data from 237 recent studies to permit a balanced overview and evaluation of the question). Actually, on closer examination its findings comfort as much organic eaters as organic haters of the Roger Cohen variety. For a NYT summary of the Stanford study conclusions, see here.

Notice something unusual? Yes, the title of the article: "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce". That, simply put, is very misleading. The study does not actually question the advantages of organic agriculture. It found that organic produce was less likely (and that's to be expected) to retain traces of pesticides; that organic pork and chicken were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic resistent bacteria; that organic milk contained more Omega 3 acids considered beneficial for the heart. The Stanford scientists also found (in the words of the NYT article) that "38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine."

Actually, as the NYT article points out,  reduction of exposure to pesticides is a major reason to move to organic food, especially for pregnant women and their young children. Last year,  three studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan showed that children of pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of pesticides known as organophosphates, had on average, in elementary school, I.Q.’s several points lower than those of their peers.

It is curious that a study with such supportive conclusions for organic eaters should have been presented in this negative light - but then, we all know that good news are no news...Personally, I would like to add that the Stanford study was deficient in other respects as well:
(1) it did not take into account factors like taste;
(2) lumping together studies can lead to conclusions looking stronger than they actually are (for example, it erroneously left out a study on strawberries showing that organic ones contained more vitamin C than conventional ones);
(3) it concluded that the level of pesticide residue, while higher in conventional fruits and vegetables, was almost always under the allowed safety limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency - the implication being that it did no harm to humans.

That is an implication I would contest. It overlooks the result of eating such food overtime with the consequent accumulation of residues in our organism. Ditto for hormones.  Perhaps the Stanford scientists couldn't find any study addressing this kind of issue: the effects of chemical additives over time.

Have you ever wondered why we suffer from an obesity epidemic that no amount of dieting seems to solve and that it happens by chance to coincide with the rise of modern agriculture and the explosive use of chemicals? Now is that really a chance coincidence? Moreover the epidemic started in the United States and is now spreading to Europe, neatly reflecting the timing in the birth and growth of "big modern agriculture" on both sides of the Atlantic pond...But of course, there's still no definitive study on the effects of growth hormones that we get from the meat we eat, or for that matter, on possible cancerous effects.

Perhaps there are some vested interests slowing down research, but we don't believe in conspiracies now, do we? 

To my friends and followers:
LAST DAY PROMOTION PRICE FOR A HOOK IN THE SKY at $2.99
TOMORROW (October 1) THE PRICE DOUBLES! Hurry to get your copy.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Caleb Pirtle said…
jI may be wrong, and I often am, but I figure that manufacturers use the word "organic" to mean, "I can raise the price twenty-five percent because people think it's healthy." It's not unlike the "pure, mountain stream bottles of war" that come straight from the tap.
Jack Durish said…
I have struggled with my weight all of my life. I seem to have the metabolism of a harbor seal. Thus, I have paid attention to articles on the subject and your posting reminded me of one I read many years ago entitled, "Fatter Pigs, Fatter Children" in which the author recounted how farmers were injecting pigs with penicillin ever since they discovered that they "bulked up" as a result. He went on to equate the rise in the incidence in obesity since the time we began injecting children with the same drug in response to almost every disease and often just for the hell of it. No, I don't have anything more to add as regards your posting. It simply send me off on this tangent and I thought I would enjoy your company while exploring it.
Thanks Caleb and Jack, always making thoughtful comments! It's true, Caleb, that organic food costs more, but it also requires more work (pull up weeds, clean plants by hand etc) and uses more expensive inputs (if at all). So there's an economic basis for charging a higher price. But then, you're right, people take advantage of the sympathetic disposition of customers towards organic food and they just charge whatever the market will bear!

And Jack, that's an interestintg study, that pig vs children comparison. It's the sort of investigation that isn't done often enough, I suspect because of "vested interests". On the other hand, there's no doubt that "green"-minded people always overdo it and take extreme positions that are not defensible from a scientific point of view...

Oh, well, there's no doubt that organic food debate isn't going to stop here, it will go on for many more years...
Emma Calin said…
Oh dear, another lion's mouth for the placing of heads. I doubt that studies of any kind will ever provide conclusive proof either way. Deep down you just know that stuff that kills bugs has the capacity to harm life in general. We do know that and balance the risks against the price and the cash in our pocket. Population increase and the political risks of hunger are more likely to have our leaders opening the sack of magic powder than flinging ox dung on their tender-stem broccoli for sale at ye olde traditional farmer's gala. Human history is the infinite extrapolation of short term fixes. The real issue is that of feeding grain to animals to produce meat. This process doubly concentrates toxins and deprives a hungry world. I need a white bread bacon sandwich.
CLC said…
Thanks for your voice of well-honed reason, Claude, and your intuitive wisdom Emma. Until we give up believing that we can actually understand the whole by myopically studying its parts, we will continue to hear such idiotic debates. I farmed for 15 years. The organic mode of farming is one where you hold the biggest picture you can about your crop, farm, product, soil and sustainability and make your management choices based on that. That is largely an intuitive approach and one driven by love. Intuition and love is all we truly have to save us.
Christina and Emma, I truly appreciate your thoughtful comments. And they do bring the debate further along in what I believe is the right path.

Yes, Emma, our focus on meat production is wrong-headed, and yes Christina, organic farming means taking an integrated approach that forces us to place agricultural production in its wider context, i.e. the whole of Nature, this planet, our only one. And we better start taking good care of it!

On the other hand, we also need to care for our fellow humans, particularly those dying (and suffering) from hunger. Organic farming does show us some techniques that are useful to preserve our environment and our resources. But organic farming cannot solve the problems of world hunger.

The solution? A form of agriculture that stands half-way between organic farming and modern agriculture - that uses chemicals but in minimal amounts, just enough to maintain the desired productivity that is needed to feed this hungry world...

And yes, demography is another road to travel to fight hunger: curbing the level of births is essential to ensure that the newborn have a fighting chance to a dignified life, rather than one hunting for food like a tracked animal!
Anonymous said…
Thanks for sharing nice information with us.
Organic Food Toowoomba
Unknown said…
Thanks for sharing information on Claude Nougat The Blog, i have visited your blog great post................

Kerbing Toowoomba











Hi this natural food information. Thanks for sharing the nice post.
amit said…
As concerns for our environment and health have increased, we've become more aware of Healthy Organic Food products and their benefits. There is rapid increase in Online Organic Food Store worldwide.
Anonymous said…
Nice post. I learn something new and challenging on blogs I stumbleupon everyday.
It's always useful to read through content from other authors and practice something from other web sites.

Here is my site; Lift Serum Pro Skin