New science! ... MenaquinGold ® - clinically-proven energy booster (VO2Max)
P.L. Thomas (PLT)
The science examining the comparative health effects of organic and conventionally grown foods is shockingly woolly. Much less woolly is the recommendation of a US government panel earlier this month to choose organic foods – or at least wash conventionally grown produce – because you know what, we just don’t know whether all those chemical residues could cause cancer. There may be no evidence that they are harmful, but nor is there evidence that they are not harmful. What an extraordinary admission.
It is this lack of evidence one way or another that could be a boon for the organic food industry, as consumers increasingly take a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach to their diets. Organic food might be healthier, after all, and conventionally grown foods might cause cancer.
So what’s going on?
The latest review of research comparing the relative nutritional value of organic and conventionally grown foods was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last week. Of an impressive 98,727 articles published over the past 50 years, the researchers found only 12 that they deemed relevant. They concluded that the existing evidence is not sufficient to suggest that organic food is any healthier. The same researchers came to the same conclusion last year, when they looked at 162 studies. But so what?
Ignore the headlines that shout ‘Organics not really healthier’ or ‘Organics are waste of money’ – the truth is that the most significant finding of these reviews is that there is a paucity of well-conducted research.
A large number of studies were excluded because they did not specify an organic certifying body; there was no information on the cultivar or livestock breed; no statement of which nutrient or nutritionally relevant substance was reviewed; no information on statistical methods; or no information on laboratory methods.
“A surprising and important finding of this review is the extremely limited nature of the evidence base on this subject, both in terms of the number and quality of studies,” the authors wrote.
Surprising and important indeed.
However, in my view, examining whether an organic carrot contains more antioxidants than its conventionally grown cousin rather misses the point. Many people do not buy organic foods because they think they are more nutritious (although of course some do, and will continue to do so, whether or not there is scientific evidence to validate their choice).
No, a large number of people choose organics because they are worried about chemical residues, both for their effects on health and on the environment. And that’s where the lack of evidence becomes rather startling.
The US President’s Cancer Panel’s recommendation to choose organic (or wash conventional produce) was based on a similarly surprising and important lack of research on the safety of many of the more than 80,000 commercially available synthetic chemicals in the US food supply. Cancers resulting from environmental factors could be “grossly underestimated”, the panel said, because few of those chemicals are regulated.
In the United States buying certified organic food is also the surest way to avoid growth hormones or genetically modified ingredients, other elements of the food supply with an arguably small amount of convincing research. Organic food suddenly seems very attractive indeed – and the organic sector continues to reap the benefits of a lack of clear evidence, as sales continue to grow.
So the debate over whether organic foods bestow real health benefits rumbles on.
As for me, I would rather opt out of an experiment that could find a dietary link with cancer rates thirty years down the line.
As I scrub my conventionally grown fruit and veg, I can only hope that there may be answers in the next 100,000 studies.
Caroline Scott-Thomas is a journalist specializing in the food industry. Prior to completing a Masters degree in journalism at Edinburgh's Napier University, she had spent five years working as a chef.
4 comments (Comments are now closed)
They don't want to know the answer
I have farmed organically all my life. I spent years testing my neighbors vineyards for quality and nutrition. We always scored higher in vitiamins and anti-oxidants. I tried to get the University folks to check this out. They never would respond to this. They don't want to know the answer, they will hide behind lack of funding, and they will go out of there way to support the chemical companies. I know there are a few people in the University system that want the truth, but they are clearly in the minority. The University is in bed hook, line, and sinker with the Genetically Modified Crowd. That is where the money is and they can't wait to knock out organics with some puffed up twinkies. It is so sad that reporters don't take the time to study the issues, and drill down to what the real motivation is behind the lack of studies. But what can we expect when most people don't even know how a light bulb works.
Stephen Pavich
Organic Grower
Report abuse
Posted by Stephen Pavich
02 June 2010 | 01h24
articles are not studies
The review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition does not state that there were nearly 100,000 studies but states there were
a total of 98,727 articles. An article is quite different from a study. the real problem was that there were very few studies. Indeed, they were able to identify only 12 that were relevant. Even these differed from each other to the extent that comparison was difficult. The authors stated that there was a paucity of data and they were unable to do any kind of quantitative meta-analysis.
It's important not to confuse opinion and articles with studies.
Report abuse
Posted by Dr Rosemary Stanton
02 June 2010 | 01h20
Even more evidence
Thank you for your thoughtful article. However, there are plenty of studies that link pesticide residues to diseases other than cancer, such as diabetes, and most recently, ADHD (see the summary of a study from Pediatrics in the May 17 edition of Atlantic). As an educated mother I see enough evidence to convince me that the extra cost of organic foods is worth the peace of mind.
I also think it is important that people of all income levels can feed their children safely.
Report abuse
Posted by Ellen Kennedy
01 June 2010 | 18h57
Orgnic Research
Next time you need research on organics try: http://www.organic-center.org/
Balanced research on nutrition in conventional and organic foods has just begun. You have to start with the same soil types, same seed varieties and grow in the same climate zone, etc. for scientific research.
Here's a simple question, if you eat junk food but take a multivitamin are you as healthy as someone who eats a balanced diet and get regular exercise and qualtiy sleep?
The analogy is perfect for the difference between conventional and organic farming. Organic builds the soil so the plant can readily up take nutrients from the root zone. Conventional Ag sterilizes the soil and adds the nutrients to the plant.
Which farming system do you think will produce the highest quality food?
Report abuse
Posted by George Kalogridis
01 June 2010 | 18h57
Read all comments (4)