Organic Foods: Weighing the Positives and Negatives

The organic food industry has become more competitive with conventional foods in the last decade. In fact, according to the Organic Trade Association, organic foods and products are growing three to eight times quicker than the conventional competition. Due to the increasing popularity of organic foods, it is important to ascertain the health benefits in consumption as well as the external benefits to the environment. Specific benefits include less pesticides present on produce, increased nutrient value and the betterment of animals. However, there are some negatives such as trying to determine whether or not food is really organic and the increased cost of purchasing organic foods. If purchasers can afford it, organic foods provide worthwhile health and environmental benefits.

One of the biggest benefits to buying organic foods is the limited number of pesticides. This is especially true in terms of buying organic for the “dirty dozen” which are considered the most pesticide ridden produce when bought conventionally. “The fruits and vegetables on “The Dirty Dozen” list, when conventionally grown, tested positive for at least 47 different chemicals, with some testing positive for as many as 67. For produce on the dirty list, you should definitely go organic…” (Pou par 3). Unfortunately, the list for the dirty dozen includes many popular produce items: sweet bell peppers, nectarines, potatoes, grapes, celery, apples, strawberries, peaches, collard greens, spinach and kale, cherries and blueberries. Fortunately, there is also what is called the “clean 15” which are believed to be safe to consume from conventional growth. Most members of the clean 15 contain outer skins that are not edible such as pineapple and watermelon. The outer skin works as a pesticide resistant surface, which makes the fruit or vegetable inside, relatively pesticide free. While research is somewhat mixed on the harm of these chemicals, it is reasonable to believe that fewer pesticides are better for overall human health.

Given the nature of mixed results surrounding the superiority of organic foods to conventional foods, it is important to examine the counterargument against organic foods. “Some [studies] have reported that organically produced foodstuffs have higher nutrient content of organic and conventionally produced foods have been incomplete and non-systematic, and very few have undertaken new statistical analysis of existing published data” (Uauy 2). In a nutshell, the argument against organic foods lies in the lack of a comprehensive viewpoint as well as minimal statistical usage within these studies. However, it is important to note that rules and regulations for organic food production vary by country and even by region. This makes it very difficult to have a uniform and standardized bar by which to measure organic and conventional foods on an objective scale. While the point is valid, realistically, organic foods cannot be measured in this way. Therefore, it is important to take the available studies seriously that suggest the benefits of organic foods, particularly produce. Even though there are some questionable study results, it is clear that in terms of children’s diets, organic rich food is very beneficial.

In 2006, a study was published testing the effectiveness of organic foods in their ability to lessen pesticide consumption in children. Over the 15-day duration of the study, 23 children were given urine tests in different phases to measure pesticide presence. “Children consumed their conventional diets during phase 1 (days 1-3) and phase 3 (days 9-15). During phase 2 (days 4-8), organic food items were substituted for most of children’s conventional diet, including fresh fruits and vegetables, juices, processed fruit or vegetables, and wheat- or corn-based items for 5 days” (Chensheng et al. 260). By the end of the study, it was obvious that the replacement of conventional food with organic food resulted in pesticide reduction, specifically pesticides in the OP class. “Such protection is dramatic and immediate. This is particularly true for certain OP pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos and Malathion, as measured in this study, and is probably true for other OP pesticides…” (Chensheng et al. 262). In addition to health benefits for children, organic food also provides increased nutritional value for the average consumer.

As mentioned, the organic food industry has skyrocketed in recent years compared to conventionally produced food. “Sales of organic food and beverages grew from $1 billion in 1990 to $21.1 billion in 2008…” (Crinnion 4). It is for this reason that studies are popping up more often to attempt to determine whether or not organic food is better and healthier than the conventional variety. In terms of mineral and vitamin presence in organic foods, the facts are impressive. “…regarding minerals, organic foods have 21-percent more iron and 29-percent more magnesium than non-organic foods. When vitamins were studied, ascorbic acid was the most common vitamin found in higher quantities in many organic fruits and vegetables” (Crinnion 5). Subsequent studies found similar levels of improvement in organically produced food as well as the addition of higher levels of vitamin C and phosphorus. In terms of vitamins and minerals, it is clear that organic food offers a higher level of nutrition than conventional food.

Revisiting pesticides, a USDA study found glaring differences between pesticide levels of conventional foods and organic foods. “The study found that an average of 82 percent of conventional fruits were positive for insecticide residues compared to 23 percent of organic fruits. Regarding vegetables, 65 percent of conventionally grown produce tested positive, compared to 23 percent for organic vegetables” (Crinnion 8). It may sound surprising that organic foods are tainted in anyway with pesticides of any kind since the growing standards for organic foods prohibit their use. However, the presence is due to environmental factors such as neighboring farms that grow conventionally as well as trucks that transport conventional and organic food. Chemicals are illusive and can infiltrate organically grown foods. Due to the lower level of pesticides in organic foods, a big health benefit is the prevention of cancer.

While it is important to note that studies measuring cancer prevention in conjunction with organic foods are few in number, the results are impressive. One study measured the effects organic and conventional foods had on benzo(a)pyrene (a carcinogenic found in car exhaust) and chemical 4-nitroquinoline (a compound associated with several cancers).

In a study of the potential for vegetables to suppress the mutagenicity of various environmental toxins, including benzo(a)pyrene…organic vegetables were more active than their conventional counterparts. Against the chemical 4-nitroquinoline oxide, organic vegetables suppressed 37-93 percent of the mutagenic activity, while the commercial varieties suppressed mutagenicity by 11-65 percent. When measured against BaP, organic vegetables suppressed 30-57 percent of the mutagenic action, while commercial vegetables only suppressed 5-30 percent of the mutagenic activity. (Crinnion 9)

Although the ranges are undeniably wide, suggesting that the prevention of cancer by organic foods may not be consistent, the fact that the ranges are wide on the conventional scale as well suggests that organic foods are preferable to conventional foods in combating and preventing mutations that can lead to cancer. In addition to overall health of human beings, organic foods also contribute to the betterment of animals.

While many studies have been conducted on produce, the animal treatment process for organic animal products is also better than conventional animal products. This can be demonstrated just through the treatment of the animals themselves. Even though organically produced animal foods have strict restrictions regarding the raising of animals, it is important to note that these restrictions vary between different countries which makes it hard to determine to what degree organic animal foods are better. Despite the variations in requirements, some properties are the same across the board. “Organic livestock are fed organically produced feed that is free of pesticides and animal byproducts and are provided access to the outdoors, direct sunlight, fresh air, and freedom of movement” (Smith-Spangler et al. 348). The theory behind this method of farming is that healthier animals consumed by people contribute to people having a higher level of health. In a study published in 2012 that compiled several studies within the last several decades, it was determined that conventional animal products, specifically chicken and pork contained higher health risks when consumed than organic chicken and pork. “…conventional chicken and pork have a higher risk for contamination with bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics than were organic alternatives” (Smith-Spangler et al. 358). Since the use of antibiotics is common among conventional animal products, human health is compromised because an increase in consumption of antibiotics, produces more forms of bacteria that become resistant to them.

In addition to lower traces of harmful bacteria, animal products produced organically also provide better sources of nutrients. “Farm-raised animals are also higher in conjugated lineoleic acids, fatty acids that, according to studies of lab animals may help reduce the risk of various cancers. What’s more, animals not raised on feedlots have less chance of spreading E. coli bacteria through contact with other animals’ manure…” (Kluger 2). It makes sense that animals with healthier organic feed and adequate space provide more quality meat for people to consume. Also, the quality of life of an animal prior to its slaughter is an ethical and moral problem that needs to be considered. As shown, there are many factors that contribute to the truth that organic methods of raising animals is superior to the conventional kind. Additionally, distinctions between conventional and organic animal products could be pivotal to improving the health of people who routinely eat meat. While it is demonstrable that buying organic, especially in terms of animal meat, is preferable to the conventional variety, it is important for buyers to be aware of the fact that sometimes foods are purposefully labeled organic when they are not.

Since the organic food business has soared in the last decade, it is reasonable to suspect fraudulent claims are attached to food in order for producers to make more money. Mischa Popoff, an independent inspector, studied hundreds of farms to figure out if certain farms were guilty of knowingly mislabeling food as organic. “Popoff, who inspected more than 500 farms in North America over five years before he left the industry in 2003, says that he’s suspected 16 instances of negligence and fraud by farmers who were nevertheless certified organic…” (Gulli 82). While 16 out of 500 farms is not astronomical, about 3 percent of the farms investigated, it is hard to determine if that figure is accurate across all farms. Obviously, one series of inspections cannot demonstrate this. However, what makes the organic food industry susceptible to this kind of fraud are the inconsistencies within the industry. This makes filling in the cracks very difficult. “…made up of dozens of certifying organizations that are accredited by various standards groups instead of one central body overseeing what qualifies as organic” (Gulli 83). In addition to non-uniform regulations, the current system used to ascertain whether or not food is organic is also easily manipulated.

Taking Canada as an example, most of the certification for organic foods takes place solely through paperwork records of farmers. Obviously, this can be misconstrued without much effort. Since the value of organic foods is quite a bit higher than that of conventional foods, the motive to misrepresent foods under the label of organic can be appealing. “Farmers are expected to keep records and receipts showing what is done to their fields, from crop rotation to fertilization and pest control. But the paperwork doesn’t always tell the true story” (Gulli 83). Bodies in charge of monitoring this, specifically the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), have found, through further investigation, that some farms routinely grow “organic” foods in violation of the provisions. Fortunately, in contrast to Canada, the United States has invested in tests to check the accuracy of paperwork submitted by farmers.

One factor contributing to the increased price of organic foods, especially in the United States, is due to the costs of the tests conducted in the fields. “[This is done by taking] samples of green plant tissue from the crops while they grow in the field and analyze those in a lab for prohibited chemicals—at a cost of up to $500 each test” (Gulli 83). Understandably, this method of discovering whether or not foods are certified organic, can add a significant amount to the price tag in the grocery store. Additionally, the ever increasing demand for organic food can add pressure to certain farmers who are struggling to make a profit on their yields. “Growers…have an uphill battle ahead as they try to quickly convert conventional crops to organic – a transition process that typically takes three years to complete” (Gulli 84). Due to the lengthy process of conversion as well as the high potential for profit, particularly for farmers in Canada, the motives to misrepresent organic foods are clear and apparent. It is important, therefore, for buyers to be aware of these falsehoods.

A common misconception associated with organic foods is the belief that number stickers (PLU codes) on produce alert the buyer as to whether a product is organic, conventional, or genetically modified. While this method is still prevalent in grocery stores today, it is not reliable because the process is voluntary and can be misleading. For organic produce there is a five digit id beginning with the number 9. Conventional produce sports a four digit code, beginning with the number 4. Genetically modified foods contain a five digit id beginning with the number 8. However, it is very unlikely, given the potential health hazards of genetically modified foods, that sellers would voluntarily label those foods. Further, since some farmers knowingly misrepresent conventional foods as organic, the number system is another avenue used to do this. Instead of going by numbers, buyers trying to determine whether or not a food is organic should look for agency certification. In the United States, organic foods have the USDA certified organic label on the packaging. For this reason, it is good for buyers to purchase produce in bunches, such as bagged apples rather than individual apples since the numbers alone are not indicative of a food being organic.

Like so many other purchases, the decision to buy organic is multifaceted. The decision can encompass health, positivity for the environment or the higher standard of treatment for animals. Whether this decision is made due to one of these factors or all of them, it is reasonable to assert that organic foods are preferable to the conventional variety. Organic produce, containing less chemicals, helps retain vital nutrients like vitamins and minerals that are often lost through conventional farming and growing. Organic animal products, help to contribute to sanitation as well as to the respect and wellbeing of animals during their lifetime. While the costs associated with organic foods are undeniably greater and the counterfeit potential for organic foods are reasonable factors to consider, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in the overall decision to buy organic.

Works Cited

Chensheng, Lu, Kathryn Toepel, Rene Irish, Richard A. Fenske, Dana B. Barr, and Roberto Bravo. "Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children's Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides." Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114 no. 2 2006, pp. 260-63. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.

Crinnion, Walter J. "Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits to the Consumer." Alternative Medicine Review vol. 114 no. 2 2006, pp. 4-12. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.

Gulli, Cathy. "The Truth about 'organic' Food." Maclean's 10 Sept. 2007: 82-84. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.

Kluger, Jeffrey. "What's So Great About Organic Food?" Time 30 Aug. 2010: 1-4. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.

Pou, Jackie. "The Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 of Produce." Need to Know on PBS. Creative News Group, 13 May 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.

Smith-Spangler, Crystal, Margaret L. Brandeau, Grace E. Hunter, Clay J. Bavinger, Maren Pearson, Paul J. Eschbach, Vandana Sundaram, Liu Hau, Patricia Schirmer, Christopher Stave, Ingram Olkin, and Dena M. Bravata. "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?" Annals of Internal Medicine vol. 114 no. 2 2006, pp. 348-66. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.

Uauy, Ricardo. "Organic Foods Are Not Healthier than Non-Organic Foods." Nutrition (2012): 1-6. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.