Is organic food worth it?
That’s the question being raised by a recent Stanford study that
concluded that organic food organic produce is not any more nutritious than
cheaper, conventional crops.
The study has received a lot of media coverage and reactions
run the gamut. “Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests,” announced CBS
News. “Is Organic healthier? Study says
not so much…” declared the Washington Post.
“Save your cash? Organic food is not healthier,” proclaimed the New York
Daily News. “Lots of chatter, anger over Stanford organic food study,” reported the Los Angeles Times.
I also questioned the findings after hearing about the
study. Perhaps it’s my background as an
attorney. Also, as a long-time
journalist who has written about numerous studies, I am aware that how studies
are structured impact their results and validity. I’ll say upfront that I’m not a big fan of
“meta-analysis,” which is the model that the Stanford study followed. It is basically an analysis of
a number of published human studies (17 in all) and 223 studies of contaminant and
nutrition levels in unprocessed food such as milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables and
meat. In other words, the study did not
contain original research. The problem with such studies is that it has
significant limitations, including its ability to make like comparisons since
all of the studies considered may have not been similarly constructed.
There are a couple observations that can be made regarding
the study findings and the media coverage it received. First, the study misses the mark because its
emphasis was on nutrition and not the main reason why people choose organic in
the first place: to lessen their exposure to pesticides and other harmful
chemicals. Secondly, much of the press
coverage lacks sufficient context and balance. Many of the headlines and stories emphasize
the nutrition angle while giving short-shrift to the findings that support the
benefits of choosing organic food. The
vast majority of the coverage makes the findings seem more one-dimensional than
they really are.
Although the Stanford
University study concludes that organic food is not any more nutritious or any less
likely to be contaminated with dangerous bacteria than their cheaper,
conventional counterparts, it also found that there are significant benefits of
organic food such as lower pesticide and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
exposure. This is the reason why many
people choose organics, as well as organic farming practices are kinder and
gentler to the earth and help better preserve it for our children and future
generations.
“Consumers seeking to
minimize their exposure to pesticide residues will find that foods bearing the
USDA Organic label are the gold standard. This is because organic foods have
the least chemicals applied in their production and the least residues in the
final products,” said Christine Bushway, the Organic Trade Association’s (“OTA”)
Executive Director and CEO in a prepared statement. “And, because organic
livestock practices forbid the use of antibiotics, including the routine use of
low level antibiotics for growth, organic meat contains less
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” In a
2011 survey of attitudes and beliefs, OTA cites reducing exposure to pesticides
and avoiding antibiotics in the food supply as the top reason for choosing
organic.
So most people who choose organic foods not because they are
more nutritious but because they believe it is safer and healthier.
The Environmental Working Group (“EWG”), a consumer
protection advocacy group, emphasized the study findings that support the
benefits of organics. “The study
confirms the message that EWG and scores of public health experts have been
sending for years, that consumers who eat organic fruits and vegetables can
significantly reduce pesticide concentrations in their bodies,” Sonya Lunder,
senior analyst at EWG, said in a statement. “This is a particularly important
finding for expectant mothers and kids, because the risks of dietary exposures
to synthetic pesticides, especially organophosphate and pyrethroid
insecticides, are greatest during pregnancy and childhood, when the brain and
nervous system are most vulnerable. These are two groups that should really
avoid eating foods with high levels of pesticide residues.”
The OTA emphasized three of the Stanford study's main findings:
- “Conventional
produce has a 30 percent higher risk for pesticide contamination than
organic produce.
- Conventional
chicken and pork have a 33 percent higher risk for contamination with
bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than organic products do.
- There
is no difference in the food safety risk between organic and conventional
foods.”
A number of articles noted that
while conventional produce had more pesticide residue, the levels were usually
under the safety limits set by Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA sets the limits at levels that it says
would not harm people.
The issue with this,
of course, is that there are insufficient studies regarding the impact of even
trace amounts of toxins on babies and young children, who are primarily exposed to pesticides through their diet. Furthermore, some studies and experts suggest that children, whose brain and nervous systems are immature and particularly vulnerable, could be more adversely affected
by dangerous chemicals than adults. Also,
there are insufficient studies on the impact of cumulative exposure to various
toxins in our food.
So common sense
tells us that food with fewer residues of pesticides and dangerous bacteria is
preferable to those that harbor greater amounts of toxins. And when in doubt, it’s best to leave it
out. Not only is this an apt journalism
adage, it may also apply to food we ingest on a daily basis.