Organic Schmorganic? Thoughts on the Stanford Organic Food Study

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.

New Research Exposes Hidden Dangers

Recently, there’s been some research suggesting that many common chemicals cause more harm than we know, and create damage that may be passed on generation to generation—causing harm not just to ourselves, but our children and beyond.

One of the most widespread and common endocrine-disrupting chemicals is bisphenol-A, or “BPA,” as it is more commonly known.  It is found in the of blood more than 90% of Americans.  And BPA is ubiquitous—found in everything from canned food to plastic containers to A.T.M. receipts. It was even used in baby bottles and children's drinking cups until the FDA banned the practice earlier this year due to "concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children."  

Now research suggests that this chemical may not only affect the people exposed to it, but also their children, and their children's children.  This news sends shivers down my spine, as it corroborates what many of us have suspected all along:  that there are long-term effects to chemical exposure that we are just beginning to understand.  In the peer-reviewed journal, Endocrinology, a study was published showing that even low doses of BPA can have transgenerational effects.  In the study, pregnant mice were exposed to BPA in doses that would roughly be what humans typically receive through everyday exposure.  The results showed that the mice's offspring were less sociable (using measurements similar to those assessing autism in people), and that these changes were evident for the next three generations.  The study stated that BPA affected the mice’s “brain organization and behavior” and that even “exposure to a low dose of BPA, only during gestation, has immediate and long-lasting, transgenerational effects on mRNA in brain and social behaviors.” 

The New York Times, which reported on the findings, stated that, “BPA seemed to interfere with the way the animals processed hormones like oxytocin and vasopressin, which affect trust and warm feelings. And while mice are not humans, research on mouse behavior is a standard way to evaluate new drugs or to measure the impact of chemicals.”

“It’s scary,” said Jennifer T. Wolstenholme, the lead author of the report.  She told the Times that behaviors in BPA-exposed mice and their descendants may parallel autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit disorder in humans.

Like many new moms, I have scrutinized every product that could come in contact with my babies.  But when findings like these get on my radar, I resolve to be even more careful and vigilant with my choices.  It's the only way I know how we can all make a small difference.  I tell folks, vote with your pocketbooks. Support those companies that are making cleaner products and doing the responsible thing by eliminating these unnecessary chemicals.  That’s something that businesses hear loud and clear.

What I know for sure is that we can't wait for the chemical companies to do the right thing.  We have to take matters in our own hands.  As evidence continues to mount and research continues to validate these alarming findings, I’m hoping that consumers will become more aware and demand more changes from manufacturers, and from their government representatives, both at home and in Washington.