Credit: Jim Wehtje/Photolibrary
AMES IS NOT ALONE in his findings. A comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers on the health impacts of organic foods, published by Faidon Magkos and colleagues in 2006 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, concluded there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier.
Even if it can't be proved that eating organic is healthier, advocates claim it is nutritionally superior. Some studies, especially those reported by the organic farming advocate group, the British Soil Association, show that organic produce has a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and anti-oxidants such as flavonols, polyphenols, lycopene and resveratrol.
However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides. According to Bruce Ames, a variety of insect-resistant celery had to be taken off the U.S. market in the late 1980s because its psoralen levels were eight times higher than normal and caused a rash in people who handled it. There was a similar story with a naturally pest-resistant potato variety that ended up being acutely toxic because of its high levels of solanine and chaconine – natural toxins that block nerve transmission and cause cancer in rats. Organic farmers who rely on 'naturally resistant' plant varieties may also be producing plants with high levels of 'natural' toxins. And in this case, 'natural' is not likely to mean better. Think of Abraham Lincoln's poor mother, who died after drinking the milk of a free-range cow that had grazed on a snakeroot plant.
Regardless of how it is grown, the nutritional content of fruit and vegetables is more likely to be affected by freshness or varietal differences. One study reported by Magkos tried to narrow things down by growing the same variety of plums in adjacent fields, with one using organic and the other conventional methods: the conventionally grown plums contained 38 per cent more of the potentially beneficial polyphenol compounds than the organically grown ones did.
The bottom line is that there is tremendous variation in the nutritional make-up of fruit and vegetables regardless of whether they were grown by organic or conventional means.
In fact, it is so difficult to support the claim that organic food is healthier that the Britain's Advertising Standards Authority has directed the British Soils Association – an organic foods advocacy group – to desist from making it.
IF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES ARE hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina — the Agricultural Health Study – suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.
A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. According to James Felton, of the Biosciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also chairs the study, "The bottom line is the results are coming out surprisingly negative. It's telling us that most of the chemicals we use today are not causing cancer or other disease."
And as a flurry of papers cited in Faidon Magkos's review will attest, organic food has been subject to its own food scares. There have been bacterial outbreaks which have been blamed on the fact that organic production involves manure but not antibacterial techniques such as food irradiation or chemical washes. Another concern is the growth of moulds such as aflatoxin B1, commonly found on mouldy peanuts and one of the most carcinogenic compounds known to exist. Among the most notorious recent toxic mould scares was one linked to organic apple juice, where levels of the toxin patulin were 10 times greater than those found in regular apple juice. Levels of the mould toxin deoxynivalenol have also been reported to be higher in organic wheat. Because organics are not treated with fungicides, there is a higher risk of these toxins creeping in.
But as with anything to do with plants, the variations in the levels of these toxins is enormous, and contamination can be found in conventional as well as organic produce. Probably the only lesson to be learned from all this is that as far as human health is concerned, pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables are probably the least of our concerns.
Historically, most food-related diseases are due to bacterial and fungal contamination, so in terms of health consciousness, focussing on pesticides is probably barking up the wrong tree.
"Organic" food... laff...
"Organic" food is the new snake oil. The problem is, this nostrum is being wholeheartedly embraced not just by the pretty people and ivory tower elitists, but by governments, and little inconsequentials like actual facts are clearly not going to stand in the way of Politically Correct "progress".
If these whack-jobs have their way, within our lifetimes, we will once again be living in 14th-Century serfdom, complete with a super-privileged ruling class and rampant poverty, death and disease for everyone else. They won't come out and say it, but the fact remains, this IS the earthy-people's long-term goal.
Hoorah to you for adding another voice in the wilderness, and keep up the good work!
BadKarma Reader - have you actually done any real research?
There are the blind, the dumb and then there is the downright stupid! Hey BadKarma reader have you actually ever done any real research or indeed ever even been to the wilderness from which you say you cry?
Perhaps if you care to stop your blubber for long enough to visit www.i-sis.org.uk (and perhaps Ms Finkel could research a bit more non Monsanto backed data to refer to next time) and read...
"Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London on 10 May 2003.
The conference coincided with the publication of a draft report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World, calling for a ban on GM crops to make way for all forms of sustainable agriculture. This authoritative report, billed as "the strongest, most complete dossier of evidence" ever compiled on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture, is being finalised for release 15 June 2003."
Are all these scientists 'earthy-people' too? Funny that, I thought we all lived on this one earth... maybe you are from a different planet!
GM food
I totally agree, the proof that GM food is bad in many ways are there and we have to open our eyes and do something. That dossier of evidence, where scientist and authority worked on, is the proof that GM free food is the way to go and that we are working against our own good. To produce more is great, but what when our health is at stake. Quality over quantity they said? I'm pretty much certain that is we worked as hard to find ways to solve current agricultural problems in an ecological way, we would have less pollution, better global health and probably a lot less problems with new disease popping "out of nowhere"!
Just my 2 cents..
Vivi Peterson
Sustainable agriculture - a myth
No matter how, where or with what methods agriculture, i.e remove nature and plant whatever is unsustainable. The question then remains how to feed the current most devastating pests of the planet -us! Fiddling around the edges with GM, no GM organic, no organic etc etc is just that - fiddling around the edges of the population problem.
How about some of the 'actual facts' on GM?
Interesting that the first comment listed here is such a strong advocate of the article...hmm? Have you ever even looked into the 'actual facts' that you speak of? I found a very informative pod cast from Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics on wonderfulworldmedia.net. Check it out and then get back to me! The panels on lifting GM bans are sitting right now in Australia - do you even care about what you eat or are you a Mackers consumer? If they lift the ban on GM in Australia in Feb 2008, eventually no one will even have the choice of eating clean non-GM contaminated food and articles like this one are a travesty of mis-reporting.
A rather disappointing effort from a magazine that I had thought would know better.
Organic vegetables, beef, chicken, milk?
I don't agree with the last comment. Even if i respect your opinion, there was no way in the past to see if that snake oil was actually working. But today, scientists from all over the world proved that antibiotics and growth hormones will be bad for us in the long term. Think about kraft dinner and doritos, that just can't be good for out health ;) If we eat modified vegetables, beef, chicken, even milk, it's for only one reason, it's because right now we're putting money before health. Big corporation don't have enough opposition right now, so they do what they want.
Patty
You are ignorant
Organic food means that your body is not ingesting, storing, and altering DDT or other toxic chemicals. Thanks to non 'earthy-people' (by the way you also need the earth to survive) the meat industry is allowed to flourish and now every one who does not hunt for their own meat has to worry about not only whether their vegetables and fruits are genetically modified (which by the way there are no regulations for in the U.S.) but also what types of artificial hormones have been crudely injected (and by injected I mean force fed) into the animals scheduled for mass slaughter. It is sick. If you think that mass produced food is better, more environmentally friendly or nutritious I advise you to seriously reconsider.
Laff and a Haff!
BadKarma (pretty much says it all really!) I find it very ironic that you have been able to connect pastoral traditions to serfdom- You are defiantly suffering from a patriotic bout of paranoia! I see around me everyday, extremely sick, overweight people that have been cut down at a time in their lives that they should be at their healthiest, because of a misguided and abusive system that has no place in nature. If you want to understand what it is like to be subjugated, you need to look at a system that prevents one from having a choice as to how the very thing that they consume is produced!
Organic food
The cafeteria at Monsanto has banned genetically engineered food at the insistence of Monsanto employees. That's a pip, eh? The Bt plants that are so lauded in the article are responsible for the deaths of thousands of sheep , goats and cattle in India after they grazed on Bt cotton.Dr Finkel speaks of Australian farmers and 'modern farming techniques w/ safer pesticides that allow for living soil. Perhaps that is true in Australia, but my first hand experience is that you can't grow healthy food in sick soil. And you cannot have healthy soil by dumping tons of petro chemical additives, be it fertiliser(what?) or synthetic pesticides.As for the good Doctor's assertion that organic farming cannot feed the world,I refer her and anyone else interested to the recent University of Michigan study which shows not only can organic supply enough food to feed the world, but that it is the preferrable model for poor and developing countries.
Petro Additives: Say what it is, Urea
I used to work at a Urea Plant.
Urea is an organic chemical, same stuff you piss out every day in the process of eliminating Nitrogen from your system. It is highly soluble, and actually was the founding of organic chemistry when it was first produced from non-organic chemicals in 1828.
It is put on the soil in a dilted form, but chemically is not any different then your own, naturally produced kidney juice.
We are not putting oil on the ground. We are not putting anything on the ground as fertizer that is not naturally produced by every living organism.
One is just far more pure, clean, and easy to control.
The other is crap.
Josh