Saturday Quack - “Organic” Foods
Sat, September 23, 2006 at 05:08PM I’m tackling a belief held by a large and growing section of the population - that so-called organic foods are better for you than conventional foods. I don’t buy it. Especially as they cost more – quite a bit more, in fact. No wonder supermarkets are promoting them - they charge premium prices which increase their profits.
People are bombarded with claims from lifestyle magazines, TV chefs, health food stores, and true believers, that organic food increases health. They are supposed to be not only safer (fewer pesticides) but also more nutritious. And organic foods taste better, and are better for the environment.
Are these claims true? Organic foods are certainly not more nutritious, as many studies have shown. The nutrient content of plants is determined primarily by heredity. Mineral content may be affected by the mineral content of the soil, but this has no significance in the overall diet. If essential nutrients are missing from the soil, the plant won’t grow; if plants grow, that means the essential nutrients are present. A review of published studies revealed that organic produce does not have significantly higher nutritional content than conventional produce. An exception may be vitamin C in organic vegetables, but the difference is minimal. The Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by government to safeguard our welfare, declared, "on the basis of current evidence... organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".
Are they safer? While a report by the Texas Department of Agriculture indicates that conventional produce is eight times more likely to have pesticide residue than organic produce, of the few samples in which a residue was found, the amount was negligible (between 1% and 5% of government standards). Moreover, because organic farmers rely on cow and pig manure for fertilizer, organic foods are vulnerable to bacterial contamination, which can lead to E.coli outbreaks. Organic poultry have their own problems. Free-range birds have higher rates of bacterial contamination than conventional poultry due to their higher exposure to wild bird droppings. If you still have doubts about conventional foods, visit the FDA site.
I grant that organic foods may taste better – but taste is in the mouth of the taster. Taste usually depends on freshness, and Farmer’s Markets can often shorten the distance from harvesting to consumer. But this doesn’t always apply. Personally, I can’t taste much difference between an “organic chicken” and a similarly-priced conventional one. (By the way, coffee drinkers, did you know that a cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet?)
Manfred Kroger, Professor of Food Science at Pennsylvania State University , summarized succinctly: Scientific agriculture has provided Americans with the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. Agricultural chemicals are needed to maintain this supply. The risk from pesticide residue, if any, is minuscule, is not worth worrying about, and does not warrant paying higher prices.
Commercial break: Always bear in mind that it is not necessarily how food is grown or processed that will determine how healthy it is for you. Be sure to check the nutritional information on all of your food and do dresearch on nutritional facts before starting any new diet regime.
Reader Comments (2)
Bob G.