CUESA response to latest organic not healthier headlines

[Guest guest]

Critical Look at the Latest Organic Headlines

With all the shots being taken at organics lately, this week's headline

proclaiming " Organic food not healthier " probably wasn't a surprise for

sustainability-minded eaters. (Tough economic times have many Americans looking

for ways to spend less in the short term, so it's an opportune time for

agribusiness to step in and seal the deal.) The coverage — which, in some cases,

leapt to conclusions beyond those drawn by the study — prompted an outpouring of

passionate, articulate testimony about the many-faceted value of organic food.

The research in question is a survey of many studies, encompassing the last 50

years. It was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent

government body in the UK, and, as the headlines imply, it concluded that

organic and conventional food have around the same nutritional content.

Many, like food politics expert and author Marion Nestle, were outraged by the

narrow focus of the research in question. " These authors did not compare amounts

of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers,

irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge, " she wrote on Thursday.

" This is an example of nutritionism in action: looking at foods as if their

nutrient content is all that matters — not production methods, not effects on

the environment, and not even taste. "

The Organic Center (TOC) gave a point-by-point response, showing that the study

had " downplayed positive findings in favor of organic food. " When the scientists

at TOC reviewed the same literature just last year, their results differed

greatly; they found that levels of key antioxidants and polyphenols were in fact

noticeably higher in many organic crops.

Timothy LaSalle of the Rodale Institute also pointed out that, despite the media

angle, the FSA study does show organics as having more beta-carotene and

flavonoids, as well as more protein, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, and

potassium — all of which, he says, " are required to foster complete nutrition. "

Perhaps more importantly, LaSalle mentions what's missing from organic food. In

one recent (April 2009) survey he points to, organics are said to have fewer

heavy metals, less pesticide residues and less of several other toxic compounds.

And although there is very little research being done about the health benefits

of food free of these substances, it is worth noting that pesticide exposure has

been linked to birth defects, male infertility and nervous system disorders.

Home pesticide use has also recently been tied to cancer in children.

 

As Paula Crossfield of Civil Eats wrote in the Huffington Post, the results of

the study may have also been skewed by the fact that the nutrient content of all

our food has been going down over time (and a number of the earlier studies in

the survey examined crops that are no longer grown at all). Crossfield also

pointed to the fact that a number of the individuals in the FSA have at one

point been employed in some branch of agribusiness, including Arla Foods (a big

European dairy), Sarah Lee Corporation, and the UK grocery giant Sainsbury's.

" Therefore, " she concludes, " it is not hard to assume that the perspective may

lean towards what is best for agribusiness interests. "

 

One expert from the Soil Association chimed in with an eye toward the years

ahead, years she worries could be significantly worse if organics don't become

the norm. " Our future will be dominated by climate change. " she wrote. " Here

organic farming is leading the way…For our own health and the health of the

planet, organic food and farming will play a big part in a sustainable future. "

We couldn't have put it better ourselves.

http://www.cuesa.org/cuesa/e-letter/archives/webmail-073109.htm