Is organic better? It depends - useful

[Guest guest]

Useful links at end of article- - - -Food Conscious: Is organic better? It depends.Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff WriterWednesday, November 28, 2007http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/28/FD1FTE4KM.DTLFans of eating organic have always believed that organic fruits andvegetables packed a bigger

nutritional punch than conventionally grownproduce.But until pretty recently, hard scientific evidence has been lacking.Studies that seemed to prove the theory often turned out to be poorlydesigned - the organic and conventional crops weren't grown in the samearea or weren't the same variety, for example. Or the samples were toosmall, the studies too short or they were flawed in some other way,according to food chemist Alyson Mitchell, an associate professor in theDepartment of Food, Science and Technology at UC Davis.Mitchell says it was just a few years back that her own studies that foundhigher nutrient levels in organic crops were dismissed as nothing morethan wishful thinking, no matter how well done the science was.Now, though, the scientific fulcrum is swinging. It seems like a weekdoesn't go by without a headline from university researchers somewhere inthe world who have shown that organic

tomatoes, corn, or some other fruitsand vegetables contain more nutrients, especially when it comes to vitaminC and other antioxidants."There's definitely a trend," Mitchell says.Just this year, three European studies have reported the benefits oforganic crops, including peaches in France and apples in Poland.The biggest was a four-year European Union-funded study of organic andconventional crops grown in side-by-side plots on 725 acres near NewcastleUniversity, in the United Kingdom. The study showed levels of antioxidants20 to 40 percent higher in organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage andlettuce, according to news reports.Also making headlines was a 10-year study by a UC Davis team led byMitchell, which looked at dried tomato samples collected over 10 yearsfrom side-by-side organic and conventionally farmed plots just west of theuniversity. The results, published in the Journal of Agricultural

FoodChemistry, were dramatic: The organic tomatoes contained 79 percent moreof one antioxidant, and 97 percent more of another.Another UC Davis study this year showed similar results for polyphenols(the antioxidants in red wine and blueberries), vitamin C (an importantantioxidant) and some minerals in organically grown kiwi as compared withconventional fruit. Earlier research showed similar results formarionberries, strawberries and corn.Mitchell says her team's review of studies since 2000 shows that researchtechniques have improved, and that the "better studies demonstrate a trendof higher levels of flavonoids (one type of antioxidant) and vitamins infruits and vegetables."Results seem to vary widely in the size of any organic benefit - orwhether there is a benefit at all. Mitchell's team spent three yearslooking at solids (a reflection of sugar) and antioxidants in freshtomatoes and bell

peppers. The organic tomatoes had higher levels of bothsolids and antioxidants than the conventional, but the bell peppers showedno differences, Mitchell said.She's looking at spinach now, curious if a leaf will show the same resultsas a fruit.The trend would seem to be great news for shoppers. It should mean thatconsumers are getting a nutritional bonus when they ante up the extra fororganic, along with avoiding pesticides and contributing to a cleanerenvironment."No," says Mitchell. It's just not that simple.You can't just figure you're getting more nutrients by buying organictomatoes instead of conventional, she says.Where the tomatoes were grown, what kind of tomatoes they are, how ripethey were when they were picked, if they were kept cool or not, and howlong they've been in the store all affect nutrient levels."Variety is critically important," Mitchell says. Different varieties

oftomatoes grown in the same area, in the same way, with the same handlingand same amount of time on the shelf, will still vary in their nutrientlevels simply based on their variety."The consumer doesn't have a clue, except for apples, what variety they'rebuying," Mitchell says. Yellow onions, for example, can be a dozendifferent varieties throughout the year.UC Davis scientists have done any number of "market basket" studies -comparing store-bought fruits and vegetables - and "they've all failedmiserably," says Mitchell. "It's very depressing."A two-year study of market broccoli will never be published, she says,because good research proved impossible. "How do you make a comparisonwhen the conventional broccoli is on ice and the organic isn't?"Processing adds another wrinkle. Mitchell's team studied 10 tomato-basedpasta sauces, half organic, half not, and "we saw really no difference."If the

organic tomatoes had more nutrients to start with, the extra haddisappeared by the time they hit the jar."I think we're losing a lot of nutrition in processed foods," she says.When it comes to variety, whether it's corn, tomatoes or peaches, moderncommercial crops have been bred for high yield, resistance to disease,long shelf life, uniform size and an attractive appearance - anything buttaste, or nutrition.Mitchell says her recent tomato study showed that organic farming methodsthemselves - using manure and compost instead of synthetic nitrogenfertilizers - not only built healthier soil but pushed plants to producemore of their defense mechanisms, which are often antioxidants.None of the recent research has been enough to get the U.S. Department ofAgriculture to reconsider its stance that organic has nothing to do withnutrition. However, its counterpart in the United Kingdom, the FoodStandards Agency,

is taking another look at its official neutrality on thesubject, according to the British press.Nutritionist Marion Nestle, professor at New York University and author of"What to Eat," (North Point Press, 2006), says, "I'm still skeptical -though there are so many reasons to buy organic." Among the reasons: muchlower pesticide residues and healthier land.Organic versus conventional produce is such a hot research topic, and thefinancial stakes are so high on both sides that this debate will onlyintensify.Mitchell, for her part, says, "What I'd like to tell everyone is to growfood when you can, support local farm systems when you can, try to buyorganic and, whatever you do, buy fresh and cook it yourself."In a related story, a recent study by Mother Earth News, a magazinedevoted to sustainability, found that eggs from pastured chickens are morenutritious and contain less cholesterol than conventional

eggs.The 2007 study compared eggs from 14 pastured flocks around the countrywith USDA nutritional data for commercial eggs.The results, according to Mother Earth News: Eggs from chickens thatroamed freely outdoors and augmented their grain feed with grasses andbugs had twice the omega-3 fatty acids, three times more vitamin E, seventimes more beta-carotene (an antioxidant), one-third less cholesterol andone-fourth less saturated fat.The new study was a follow-up to a smaller one done in 2005, which showedsimilar results.To learn moreAmong the many places to find information about the nutritionalcomparisons of organic versus conventional fruits and vegetables, here area few relevant to the accompanying story:UC Davis studies: Both the 3- and 10-year studies done by AlysonMitchell's UC Davis team can be found by searching pubs.acs.org (abstractsare free; full studies require

subscription).Organic Center: This science-based pro-organic organization gathersinformation on studies worldwide that compare organic crops, milk and meatfavorably with conventional. Search "state of science" section athttp://www.organic-center.orgSoil Association: Search http://www.soilassociation.org to findinformation collected by Great Britain's leading organic certifier.Mother Earth News: http://www.motherearthnews.com.- Carol NessE-mail Carol Ness at cness (AT) sfchronicle (DOT) com. For previous Food Consciouscolumns, see the links with this column at sfgate.com/food.This article appeared on page F - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle*The material in this post is distributed

withoutprofit to those who have expressed a prior interestin receiving the included information for researchand educational purposes.For more information go to:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.htmlhttp://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htmIf you wish to use copyrighted material from thisemail for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', youmust obtain permission from the copyright owner. Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Mail. See how.