We live in a world driven by trends. Organic food (and product) has been one such trend in this country. There are proponents and antagonists in relation to the organic movement; and these factions are militant to their respective points of view. I hope to put forth some data in this post for clarification on both sides of this issue.
Some antagonists (let's call them "A" camp) state that these trends show a marketing triumph over science reality. Also, that science evidence is usurped by the philosophy of organic practice. See:
No Health Benefits from Organic Food
What does this mean? Let’s look at the practices.
The word "organic" refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. For example, rather than using chemical weedkillers, organic farmers may conduct more sophisticated crop rotations and spread mulch or manure to keep weeds at bay.
Here are some key differences in these farming methods:
Here are some key differences in these farming methods:
Conventional
|
Organic
|
Apply
chemical fertilizers to promote plant growth.
|
Apply
natural fertilizers, such as manure or compost, to feed soil and plants.
|
Spray
synthetic insecticides to reduce pests and disease.
|
Spray
pesticides from natural sources; use beneficial insects and birds, mating
disruption or traps to reduce pests and disease.
|
Use
synthetic herbicides to manage weeds.
|
Use
environmentally-generated plant-killing compounds; rotate crops, till, hand
weed or mulch to manage weeds.
|
Give
animals antibiotics, growth hormones and medications to prevent disease and
spur growth.
|
Give
animals organic feed and allow them access to the outdoors. Use preventive
measures — such as rotational grazing, a balanced diet and clean housing — to
help minimize disease. |
Of all the reading I did for this post, the polarized factions could only
agree on seemingly one thing: Organic agriculture's most relative contribution is that it’s about the relationship of
farming to the social and biological environment as a whole, not just to one's immediate biology (the food itself). Aside from antibiotic resistant
bacteria, this is in regards to broad ecological impacts of pesticide use, soil
quality, erosion and runoff, eutrophication of bodies of water, social and
economic consequences of the scale of farming, fossil fuel consumption, air
pollution, substitution of capital for labor. Whether that particular head of broccoli has as many vitamins
as the next one is not the issue (says the A camp).
Rodale web published an article entitled: "Lower Taxes! And 4 Other Surprising Reasons to Save the Earth by Going Organic" (attention grabbing!). Another aspect of organic that is less obvious. They say organic is tax saving because:
The "O" (organic) camp claims organic strawberries look
and taste better, have higher levels of vitamin C and other antioxidants, are
larger and have a longer shelf life before going bad. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.
1371/journal.pone.0012346*. (My personal experience is organic strawberries are a lot smaller, much more flavorful and have an extremely short shelf life -- like a day, two days max. But the flavor! worth their seeming delicate naturalness). The O-camp also say organic vegetables generally contain higher amounts of minerals and weigh more than conventionally grown ones, organically produced animal meats contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids, and 94-100% of organic grown foods do not contain any pesticide residues. “Ecological and agronomic research on the effect of fertilization on plant composition shows that increasing availability of plant available nitrogen reduces the accumulation of defense-related secondary metabolites and vitamin C, while the contents of secondary metabolites such as carotenes that are not involved in defense against diseases and pests may increase. A meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables showed that in organic produce the content of secondary metabolites is 12% higher than in corresponding conventional samples ( P< 0.0001)."* Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417). This site includes a meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables and a computer modeled benefit outcome on antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
I include here some of the literature I looked at. In this reading, I became almost more interested in how the research and evidence based inquiry was done and reported, more than the subject matter. It was like looking at most political discourses; there were almost always two camps with opposite opinions and opposite findings. There was pointing of fingers in regards to primary investigators on a research study (ie: "Illegitimate! the author works for Big Tobacco"). Transparency seemed to be no where near an objective. See ** below. Both factions have an obvious incentive to slant the results of whatever study toward their own bias. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-
1371/journal.pone.0012346*. (My personal experience is organic strawberries are a lot smaller, much more flavorful and have an extremely short shelf life -- like a day, two days max. But the flavor! worth their seeming delicate naturalness). The O-camp also say organic vegetables generally contain higher amounts of minerals and weigh more than conventionally grown ones, organically produced animal meats contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids, and 94-100% of organic grown foods do not contain any pesticide residues. “Ecological and agronomic research on the effect of fertilization on plant composition shows that increasing availability of plant available nitrogen reduces the accumulation of defense-related secondary metabolites and vitamin C, while the contents of secondary metabolites such as carotenes that are not involved in defense against diseases and pests may increase. A meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables showed that in organic produce the content of secondary metabolites is 12% higher than in corresponding conventional samples ( P< 0.0001)."* Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417). This site includes a meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables and a computer modeled benefit outcome on antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
I include here some of the literature I looked at. In this reading, I became almost more interested in how the research and evidence based inquiry was done and reported, more than the subject matter. It was like looking at most political discourses; there were almost always two camps with opposite opinions and opposite findings. There was pointing of fingers in regards to primary investigators on a research study (ie: "Illegitimate! the author works for Big Tobacco"). Transparency seemed to be no where near an objective. See ** below. Both factions have an obvious incentive to slant the results of whatever study toward their own bias. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-
There are apparently many flaws in the way studies evaluate their data. For example:
- The (A camp's) nutritional
analysis appears to favor specific nutrients that were found in similar levels
in both conventional and organics, and ignores nutrients that occur in higher
levels in organics. Studies of conventional versus organic nutrient levels have
been done, and according to at least one published survey of these studies (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/afrd/research/publication/168871), organic produce contain about an average of 12% more
nutrients than conventional produce. See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html
- The amounts of
pesticides and other harmful chemicals in the food were not considered in the
analysis. Both organic and conventional foods have these (organic in trace
amounts), and naturally conventional foods have much higher levels. But in the
analysis the amount and number of kinds of pesticide found was not factored in;
only whether or not any pesticide at all was found. See (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-food)
- The comparative
percents of conventional versus organic foods containing pesticides was also
misrepresented; the report states that conventional food is 30% more likely to
contain them. But the numbers in the details of the report show that 7% of
organic foods sampled contained pesticides compared to 38% of the conventional
foods. That’s a factor of more than FIVE times greater chance of conventional
food containing the pesticides, not to mention that they are in much higher
levels on conventional products compared to their organic counterparts.
"Chemical farming kills jobs. Another perk of organic farming?
Labor inputs are 15 percent higher, compared to chemical farms, writes Rodale
in Organic Manifesto, which means the
organic sector creates more jobs. Many farmers are talked into using
agrichemicals because they're told it will make their jobs easier by saving
labor—which means fewer farm jobs. But the fact of the matter is, the use of
these chemicals is creating "superweeds" that are starting to outwit
chemical pesticides.
• There's an
experiment going on…and all
of us are the guinea pigs. GMOs,
or genetically modified organisms,
have infiltrated every aspect of our food systems, without ever having been
evaluated for their effects on human health. Now that some research is being
done (in spite of aggressive tactics by agribusiness to prevent all testing),
researchers are seeing signs that GMOs cause organ failure, digestive diseases,
even accelerated aging. More studies need to be done to understand how GMOs
affect human health, but in the meantime, buying organic is the best way to
stop being used as a lab rat.
• You can still
eat pineapples and bananas.
There are good reasons to seek out food that's grown locally—you support your local economy, you cut down on the
fossil fuels needed to bring it to your table, you may even be able to talk to
the grower find out how it was produced. But giving up, say, bananas or avocados
because they can't be grown where you live is not a step many people want to
take. Choose organic, though, and you shrink the carbon footprint of your
favorite long-distance treat. "Numerous studies have shown that organic is
much more critical when it comes to carbon than local," writes Rodale.
That's because the production, shipping, and application of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are among the most energy-intensive farming
practices. Organic methods bypass all that and, as mentioned, keep greenhouse
carbon out of the atmosphere. Organic AND local is the gold standard, but organic food has a smaller carbon footprint
than its local but chemically grown counterpart."
Science, research, evidence base-- it all is questionable, even when the "facts" are laid out, seemingly plain as day. One sleuths for hard facts and everything appears to be hidden behind mirrors and smoke screens. Where is Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson when you need them? Where is transparency?
other sources:
**http://www.agronomy-journal.org/index.php? and ” http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html
and
http://www.cargill.com/corporate-responsibility/environmental-sustainability/environmental-partners/stanford/index.jsp
No comments:
Post a Comment