There is a widespread belief that organic automatically means more healthy or nutritious. So what do you really mean by organic food and is it really nutritious than conventional food?
And concluded that the differences that were detected in crops (nitrate & phosphorus) were biologically plausible and are unlikely to be of public health relevance.
| Mon August 31, 2009
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition’s article on the nutritional quality of organic foods to which you refer brings to light a compelling fact: there is currently a lack of good quality research concerning agriculture and nutrition in general, organic agriculture specifically, and organic agriculture and nutrition even more specifically. As this article points out, few studies have been conducted with the scientific rigor required to definitively show any differences between organic and conventional foods. There is a need for much further research to see if such differences indeed exist.
What is known at this time is that consumers name their health and the health of their families among their top reasons for choosing organic products. They cite concerns about the effects of toxic and synthetic pesticides, synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics and seek out products produced without the use of these substances. Consumers also look to avoid highly processed food produced without any restrictions on additives and turn to organic as a provider of these benefits.
When thinking about the many benefits that organic has to offer, it is important to remember that any time a consumer buys an organic product, whether food or non-food, s/he is supporting a system of sustainable agricultural management that promotes soil health and fertility, fosters species diversity, helps combat climate change, prevents damage to valuable water resources, and protects farmers and farmers’ families from exposure to harmful chemicals. In turn, this benefits both the health of the planet and those who live on it.
Anoop | Tue September 01, 2009
Hi,
From what little studies that have been done, there seems to be no greater advantage of organic foods over conventional foods in regards to Nutrition AND Safety.And the journal article concludes exactly the same.
Agreed about the benefits of organic farming to the soil and maybe to the earth. (there are still some debates about and is not black and white as you make of it). But I think most people forget about the earth when they see the prices which are 20-50% more than conventional foods!!
| Tue September 01, 2009
As you think about the cost of buying organic products, consider this: when you buy organic products, you are paying the true cost of the food. When you buy non-organic products, there are hidden costs for which everyone will pay indirectly—these are called ag “externalities,” and they include damage to water sources, damage to soil resources, damage to wildlife and ecosystem biodiversity, and damage to human health from such things as exposure to pesticides. With these costs in mind, buying organic emerges as the better long-term bargain.
| Fri September 04, 2009
Hi Anoop,
oh boy, that was a revealing article! I should email it to my friends who go nuts about organic products.
Is there a difference between organic and natural foods?
Thanks,
Shannon
| Fri September 04, 2009
It is important to differentiate between certified organic produce and foods billed as “natural.” The terms “organic” and “natural” are not the same. Certified organic producers and processors must adhere to rigorous growing and processing standards verified by a third party, either an independent or a state certification organization. In contrast, the term “natural” may have little or nothing to do with agricultural practices, nor does it indicate the use of independent inspectors. There are currently no consistently defined and regulated agricultural practice standards in place for the term “natural.”
Because natural is not regulated per se, it can mean anything. Organic, however, is regulated and thus it comes with a guarantee that specific practices have been used for its production and processing. Thus, from a consumer point of view, there is an assurance that comes with an organic label; there is no such assurance with a natural claim.
Anoop | Sat September 05, 2009
Thanks OTA for the post.
I think a lot of people think natural automatically means organic. I guess it’s one way to sell your product: Slap a natural sticker on the box and everyone think it’s great.
| Sun January 10, 2010
No evidence that organic foods are safer? Are you silly stupid? Toxins are toxins. They may be “safe”, but they are never truely SAFE.
Anoop | Wed January 13, 2010
Hi Balle,
It is not as simple as you try to make out of it with your one-liner. Like it or not, that’s not how science works.
Read the second reference pls.
Anoop | Wed January 13, 2010
Hi Balle,
It is not as simple as you try to make out of it with your one-liner. Like it or not, that’s not how science works.
Read the second reference pls.
| Wed January 13, 2010
“With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements.”
My ass is preventing me from generalized statements too.
Organic food = no man-made pesticides
Non-organic food = man made pesticides
“The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.” -Wiki
Nothing is ever SAFE, but some things are SAFER than others. With regards to toxins, such as man-made pesticides, organic food is ALLWAYS SAFER. You don’t need science to tell you that.
Anoop | Thu January 14, 2010
After years of testing, we know that pesticide residue is pretty negligible once they reach the market. It becomes even less once you wash your food and cook it. It is pretty much known that he residue levels in food is well below the tolerance levels.
And I agree about problems with pesticides in developing countries. In these countries there is a clear lack of legislation and regulation like developed countries have on pesticide use. But that’s not we are discussing.
And send that last paragraph to EPA, they might change our pesticide guidelines and everyone will go organic. I am sure it will be an eye-opener for them.
| Sat January 16, 2010
Negligible? Please. In some foods that is true, in most it is not. Some pesticides have a long half-life and they accumalate in fatty tissue. There is no telling how much a person can accumalate certain pesticides over time, that’s why it’s so fucking unethical.
A new Norgewian study just showed us that a mothers breast milk contains dangerously high levels of enviormental-toxins and pesticides for a baby to ingest. Great, huh!?
In some countries like Italy, the goverment decided that the food a child get served at school, can only be organic. I guess they made that decision because they are so un-scientific, huh!?
Go and enjoy a big red pesticide-full apple and have a long, painfull death. 😊
| Sat January 16, 2010
Correction; The Norwegian study showed that that a mothers breast milk contains dangerously high levels of enviormental-toxins and pesticides for an ADULT person to ingest, according to WHO standards.
You know, i guess one can feel safe and intelligent allways following the consensus of the scientific community, but have you ever tried thinking for yourself for a change?
Anoop | Sun January 17, 2010
Keep in mind, pesticides is just one class of food contaminant . There are pollutants from industrial & environmental like heavy metals, toxins from processesing and food storage, package derived, and so forth. The main culprits are the massive industrial waste in the form of heavy metals left behind from our industrial revolution .
You have to understand that we use pesticides because don’t have a choice. Thanks to pesticides, the green revolution was possible and we are still here to bad mouth pesticides. So your point of unethical makes no sense here.
And organic farming is not THE solution to the pesticide use. There are other avenues like Integrated pest management, using genetically engineered crops, using bio pestcides like organic farming, and controlled use of pesticides which are being devoloped. Organic farming is very labor intensive and expensive and natural pest control methods they use cannot sustain large farms.
As you said, It is true that there are some pesticide residue which can still stay within the food and may cause harm in the long run. And it is also true that there is also toxin residues in the air you breathe, the water you drink , and soil you grow organic foods, and even the electromagnetic waves from your cell phones , heavy metals in your cloth’s artificial color that may cause harm in the long run. Do you worry abut all those too? That is why scientific studies uses variables like dose and frequency of exposure to determine which environmental hazard is worth worrying about. So it is not as simple as you think or trying so hard to make it. And ever heard about concepts called “parts per million” ( like a drop in an ocean and so on)
We have a long history of people hyping health risks and creating unnecessary fear and anxiety among the public. A few examples , the DDT and breast cancer scare, Radon and cancer scare, power lines & tumor and so on.
And stop going back and forth to science and then your “logic” whenever you lack arguments. Stick with one.
Anoop | Sun May 30, 2010
Here is another article which questions the health benifits of organic food: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5328
Anyway,more research is definitely needed here.
| Mon June 13, 2011
This article makes me smile, especially since there is also an article about ‘all natural body builders’ on the site.
So it is OK and cool to eat conventional foods that are obviously bad for the environment and admittedly bad for the people in other countries, but when it comes to the sport of body building, they have to be ‘natural’ about it and not use the obvious enhancements available to them through science.
I think I am missing something here ... or ... maybe this site is missing something.
Anoop | Thu June 16, 2011
Hi Rabber,
Thanks for writing the comment.
Three things:
1. There is nothing ‘bad’ about conventional foods.
2. Organic foods still hasn’t shown that it is more nutritious than conventional foods nor it is more safer. It is double the price though. It is good for environment agreed.
3. Steroids are patently bad for your health.
I think a more sensible comparison is organic bodybuilding vs natural bodybuilding.
| Thu June 16, 2011
I don’t agree with your reductionist approach.
What is bad about conventional foods is not the consumption but the production of them and the ag business associated with them. It is not about price, quantity and quality of end product. In that sense, conventional reigns supreme.
Steroids, properly used, can be beneficial in many applications. I know, I have used them against poison ivy and have patients that have used them to reduce pain.
The error in this post is that it is all about price. In this globalized world, there are more factors than just price in decision making.
That is why your stance with natural bodybuilding makes me smile. If I simply judge by appearance and strength, bodybuilding with steroids is the way to go. But you want to bring in the health of the individual. Maybe I don’t care about the health of the individual, maybe I just care about looks and strength. Why should I care about some person pumping iron in a gym? Seriously, how does his life or existence affect me. It doesn’t. It is quicker and easier with steroids. That is a scientific fact. That is why they are used, or should I say abused. You can’t argue with just that little bit of fact presented in that context. But we both know that is bad reasoning. Steroids are bad for the individual and society as a whole. We make that statement because of all the evidence, not just a little.
The same is true with food. It is quicker and easier with conventional ag practices. It is priced well too. But then I look at the ramifications of the production and the cheap food available. All the sudden I see the effects to people and environment (Obesity, Type II diabetes, toxins in the cord blood of newborns, Colony Collapse Disorder). The list is becoming endless with the more research done. That is when I change my behavior and look for a healthier choice. One that is better for the whole, not just me.
So please, don’t be so simple in your presentation. Otherwise, do the same to what you care about and be honest that steroids are quicker and easier way to build muscle, period. Focus only on certain facts, not all of the related facts. Be consistent in your posts.
Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, said, “Science is the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another.”
I can’t think of any statement that sums up the organic movement better. It is not just about price and final product. It is about one fact upon another, from start to finish. In that context, conventional foods and mono-culture ag is unhealthy and organic is healthy for the long term of our planet. Does this present challenges. Will food be more expensive? Of course. But we are not just focusing on price, we are looking at the planet and civilization as a whole.
Anoop | Fri June 17, 2011
You are just comparing apples to oranges. And the whole article is about if it is nutritious or not. The environmental problems are beyond the scope of the article.
The evils of conventional foods as you say” All the sudden I see the effects to people and environment (Obesity, Type II diabetes, toxins in the cord blood of newborns, Colony Collapse Disorder). The list is becoming endless with the more research done.”
If the above is the reason why you changed to organic, you may need better reading resources. It is pretty clear that there is no scientific evidence out there showing organic food is more SAFER than conventional foods. Of course organic foods have lower pesticides, hormones and such, but both these products have levels of these lower than the EPA guidelines. Will there be long term health consequences? Maybe, but that can be said about organic foods too. For example, the recent E coli infections in Germany was from a local organic farm.
Basically, you are just comparing conventional foods to ‘banned substances’ and hence we shouldn’t eat conventional foods.I thin it is one good example of how not to use an analogy.
| Fri September 20, 2013
Hi Anoop,
I like your science-based approach and am going through your articles right now. Just can’t believe the idiots who commented here - you should’ve just ignored them. The reason I read this article was the title “Are Organic Foods More Nutritious Than Conventional Foods?” which you’ve given an interesting answer to and for people to suggest readers or the author should worry about anything other than nutrition is not just ridiculous but outrageous. This is a NUTRITION section in and exercise biology blog. It’s not up to individuals to change the way our food chain works and why should we have to worry about the larger picture when most can’t vote for the right candidates in politics (especially here in Australia). It’s every governments’ job to worry about and fix the big picture problems and that’s what they’re there and being paid for. Individuals have enough on their plates (no pun intended!). Thanks for the great articles Anoop. Keep it up and try not to waste too much time debating with people who think they’re making a change in their world and their environment by making one or two comments online.
