Is Organic Food Healthier?

A new meta-analysis of the benefits of organic food was released July 11, 2014 open source by the authors and will be published in the British Journal of Nutrition on Tuesday. The study from Newcastle University in the United Kingdom team included one American, Charles M. Benbrook an agricultural economist from Washington State University. The study looked at 343 peer-reviewed publications comparing the nutritional quality and safety of organic and conventional plant-based foods, including fruits, vegetables and grains. The study team applied the most current meta-analysis techniques to quantify differences between organic and non-organic foods.

According to Dr. Benbrook the researchers found that (1) organic crops have, on average, higher levels of antioxidant than conventional crops (on average 17% higher), (2) organic crops have lower cadmium levels than conventional crops, and (3) pesticide residues are present much more frequently in conventional crops than organic ones. Whether these findings would translate into better health outcomes from the long term consumption of organic food is not known. There have never been long-term dietary intervention studies on organic food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

While there have been studies that have found an association between some antioxidants and decreased risk of cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, there is no evidence of a causal link. According to Dr. Benbrook antioxidants protect our cells against the effects of oxidation. While oxidation is a normal chemical process that takes place in the body, it can be accelerated by many factors, such as exposure to UV light, exposure to pollution, stress, processed food, and smoking. The oxidation process can trigger the formation of free radicals, which can damage cells in the body and trigger diseases.

A Stanford University meta-analysis study published in 2012 found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

There are health and environmental risks associated with pesticide exposure. Even at low doses, pesticides can act as an endocrine disruptor and can pose development risks to infants and children. Developmental and other health risks are higher for infants and growing children, because children eat more relative to their body weight than adults, and a child’s organs are less efficient in detoxifying pesticides than adults. Exposure to pesticides for women and men of reproductive age can undermine reproductive health and may increase the risk of spontaneous abortions, certain birth defects, and undermine long-term neurological health of the child. In addition, pesticides can impact the environment and other animals.

Organic food sales in the United States have grown to more than $28 billion in 2012. Traditionally, before the government stepped in to regulate the market, organic foods were grown under “natural conditions” (without the use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides; and either not processed, or processed without the use of additives) there is now an industrial organic food complex. You may think that you intuitively know what organic means; however, under standards adopted by the U.S. Agriculture Dept. (USDA) in 2000 there is a legal definition. Organic food is food grown, raised and processed without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and antibiotics may not be used in raising organic foods. In addition, the use of irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer is also banned. Food whose ingredients are at least 95% organic by weight may carry the "USDA ORGANIC" label; products containing only organic ingredients are labeled 100% organic. So now you have certified organic processed junk food.

However, organically produced food is not entirely free of pesticide residues. A large, high-quality U.S. Department of Agriculture database reports pesticide residues in several dozen organic and conventionally grown foods on an annual basis. A study was performed to evaluate the presence of synthetic pesticides in Organic food and found while organic food significantly reduces pesticide exposure, organic farming does not eliminate pesticide risk. Risk levels arising from pesticide residues in organic food differ by over 1,000-fold, with most posing very modest risks and a limited number associated with possibly worrisome exposure levels.

Most pesticides in organic food tested by the USDA were detected at very low levels and were assumed to be incidental and inadvertent from pesticide drift, pesticide carry over in soil, contaminated compost or organic soil amendments, and contamination of irrigation water. Drift is a widely recognized environmental problem. Aerial application, air blast sprayers, and micro-droplets are application technologies that increase the risk of drift from conventional crops. Legacy contaminants in soil were another cause of pesticides, and without testing the soil it is not possible to predict what levels of contaminants will occur in crops. Not much can be done in the immediate future about legacy contaminants, although organic farmers can avoid problems by planting crops not prone to the uptake of legacy chemicals bound to the soil. More than a third of the pesticide contamination was found to be caused by post-harvest pesticides picked up when the food was processed, packaged etc. Most pesticides in organic food tested by the USDA program were detected at very low levels.

Organic food offers consumers fruits, vegetables and grains that dramatically reduces dietary exposure to pesticide residue compared to industrial farming. There are low use pesticide farming practices that also reduce pesticide exposure. In addition, total antioxidant levels were a 17% higher in organic versus the conventional crops. The levels for much greater — 69% higher levels of flavanones, 28% higher levels of stilbenes, 50% higher levels of flavonols, and 51% higher levels of anthocyanins. Whether this will have any impact on long term health is not known. Also, organic foods were found to have higher levels of phosphorus, but similar levels of vitamins to conventional food. Cadmium exposure is reduced in organic food.

Putting the information together from all these studies I still believe that organic practices are good for the planet, but so are modern conservation farming practices. I am sticking with my mix of organic and conservation farming produced food from my neighbors whose farming practices I know. I avoid distribution networks and food processing exposures to pesticides and everything is fresh.

What is Organic Food?

Until recently, organic and natural were just claims growing out of a desire to balance human, animal and environmental health based on the principals of Sir Albert Howard, a British botanist. Organic and natural farming has been practiced in the United States since the late 1940s after the rise of the new generation of pesticides. Organic farming has grown from experimental garden plots to the emergence of the “organic industrial complex” selling its products under a special organic label. It was the government intervention and regulation of the organic food market that has given rise to the organic industrial complex.

In the 1990, after an attempt to develop a consensus of production and certification standards during the late 1980’s, Congress drafted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, adopted as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, which required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural products marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. This process took twelve years. This resulted in the labeling you have seen on fruit and vegetables in the form of those little stickers on your fruit and vegetables. Any number beginning with a 9 is organic. The Act also requires USDA to establish an organic certification program. These standards were loose enough to allow for the manufacture of organic junk food

To be certified organic food must be grown without the use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides (there is some allowance to use controlled amounts of pesticides as a last resort). Fruits, legumes, vegetables, herbs and grains are produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except nitrogen, lime and potash from approved sources. The food is produced on land that has not had synthetic chemicals applied in the past three years. There are reportedly more than 400 chemical pesticides routinely used in conventional farming and residues remain on non-organic food even after washing. One class of pesticides, endocrine disruptors have recently become and area of investigation for the EPA. Organic food is grown without synthetic pesticides and in compliance with an approved organic plan that specifies amongst other things treatment of compost and biological waste.

For livestock and dairy, Organic animals aren't given drugs. Organic farming standards prohibit the use of antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically modified vaccines in farm animals Organic animals aren't fed slaughterhouse waste, blood, or manure. Organic animals are either pastured in organic pastures or gain feed organic feed. Organic crops and feed are supposed to be free of genetically modified species. Recent questions have arisen regarding the cross pollination of genetically modified perennial crops such as alfalfa contaminating organic pastures. Note that there is no US standard for organic fish. Any fish labeled as organic is a farm raised fish feed an organic diet (probably grain) and certified by another entity. I prefer wild fish.

The organic label is now conferred on processed foods. The creation of this “value added” category has encouraged the entry into the organic category of large food manufacturing companies. The organic standards differentiate between single ingredient foods discussed above like produce, milk and multi-ingredient foods like cookies and yogurt. Under the government regulations processed food can now be certified as organic. Foods such as beverages, snacks, and other processed foods are classified in different ways to indicate how much of their ingredients are organic. Processed foods are labeled; 100% Organic, Organic, Made with Organic Ingredients. Only food with at least 95% organic ingredients by weight may display the USDA Organic seal.

100% Organic—Foods bearing this label are made with 100% organic ingredients* and may display the USDA Organic seal.

Organic—These products contain at least 95–99% organic ingredients (by weight). The remaining ingredients are not available organically but have been approved by the NOP. These products may display the USDA Organic seal. These are typically foods that require baking soda, ascorbic acid to retain their color when packaged and other processing ingredients, food additives and flavor.

Made With Organic Ingredients—Food packaging that reads “Made With Organic Ingredients” must contain 70–94% organic ingredients. These products will not bear the USDA Organic seal; instead, they may list up to three ingredients on the front of the packaging.

Agricultural Run Off and Nonpoint Source Pollution

National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress was intended to identify widespread water quality problems of national significance. This has served as a proxy for the quality of the waters of the nation despite a non systematic approach to identifying water quality by the states. Many states target their limited monitoring resources to waters they suspect are impaired and, therefore, assess only a small percentage of their waters. These may not reflect conditions in state waters as a whole and tend to reflect areas of concern in the “water community.” The US-EPA in its report to Congress in 1994 identified agriculture as the leading cause of water quality impairment of rivers and lakes in the United States. Agriculture is also cited as a leading cause of groundwater pollution in the United States. In 1992, forty-nine of fifty states had identified that nitrate was the principal groundwater contaminant, followed closely by the pesticides in the samples taken. The US-EPA (1994) concluded that: "more than 75% of the states reported that agricultural practices posed a significant threat to groundwater quality." The way to reduce impact of these non point source pollution on the environment is to implement what has been called “best management practices.”

Agriculture contributes significantly to water pollution problems in many areas of the United States. Many synthetic pesticides (organic chemicals) behave largely in an unknown fashion in nature; their persistence, transport through food chains, and degradation patterns are often not well-understood. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watershed. In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors.

The current generation of herbicides and pesticides were developed with the encouragement of the US EPA. These newer herbicides were encouraged by the US EPA because they are applied at much lower levels, were broken down more quickly in the environment and were less toxic to animals. The new generation of herbicides was based on sulfonylurea and imidazolinone, but unintended consequences have come to light. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped. Pesticide runoff may be carrying undesirable nutrients and endocrine disruptors to the waters of the nation and now we should again examine older, natural pest solutions.

Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are based on, pyrethrum which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. Others like boric acid (used to kill amongst other pests termite colony invasion inside homes and ant hills) and soap salts are just older and though modesty less effective are believed to be far less toxic. These older, naturally occurring pesticides based on, pyrethrum and rotenone both derived from plants are not as effective, but believed to be safer than the new generation of herbicides developed during last quarter century.

The state of Washington has performed private well testing in various regions of the state over the years. In the 1980’s their sampling program in Yakima, Franklin, and Whatcom Counties, which are strongly agricultural tested 81 wells for 46 pesticides and nitrate contamination. Of the 81 wells tested, 23 tested positive for at least one of the pesticides and seven exceeded drinking water standards. Sixty-one of the wells tested positive for nitrates, at concentrations ranging from .10 to 24.4 mg/L, and 18 exceeded the 10 mg/L standard for drinking water. Additional testing in the 1990’s found ethylene dibromide at 62% of the sites and nitrate plus nitrite-nitrogen in all tested wells though only a few of the wells tested exceeded drinking water standards. None of the wells were tested for endocrine disruptors because at the time even proxy testing was not done for these things. The point is that the agricultural and routine use of pesticides needs to be reexamined in the light of increasing use of groundwater and growing populations. The risks involved with biocides and toxics impacting our water may be large and are uncertain, but could impact current and future generations.