Earlier this week, the Food Standards Agency upset the organic apple cart when they published a review of available literature that failed to find any health benefits associated with organic food. Moreover, the nutritional value of organically-produced food was little different to that produced by conventional farming.
As the Islington set choked on their (Duchy Originals) cornflakes, the backlash was as quick as it was predictable. Nobody likes to feel they've been taken for a fool, especially those who can afford to pay £3 for a loaf of bread.
The Soil Association, accused of over-egging its wares, contested the findings by claiming that long-term studies hadn't yet been carried out - an argument that works against them as much as for them. Writing in the Daily Mail, Joanna Blythman claimed the report was "a cancerous conspiracy to poison your faith in organic food". Her article is peppered with factual inaccuracies, and the good folks at HolfordWatch have already started fisking the embarrassing details. For someone who has carved out a career writing and speaking about food, you might expect a more comprehensive view, but then, she did write "How to Avoid GM Food: Hundreds of Brands, Products and Ingredients to Avoid" at the height of the hysteria surrounding "Frankenfoods".
To be honest, I don't care to argue about organic and the benefits (real or imagined) that are touted by its proponents. It's been done before and little has changed since. What bothers me is the false choice offered to consumers between "organic" and "conventional". Certain people paint a fictitious dividing line between the two systems, like the stripes on a Tijuana Zebra, and want pretend these are incompatible with each other. The reality, as Ben Goldacre likes to say, is a bit more complicated than that.
At its heart, organic could be summed up as a "low input agricultural system" - one that relies as much as possible upon existing environmental factors (soil, nutrients, crops, climate). At the other end of the spectrum would be hydroponics, where everything is imported and carefully controlled - light, heat, water. The latter is far more energy intensive, but as a consequence, you can expect to have much more choice in what you grow, and produce much more of it. In between are a thousand different systems with various priorities and merits, and different agencies offering appropriate labels - "locally grown", "British", "rare breed", "Farm Assured", "line caught", "sustainably sourced", "Freedom Food", "Fairtrade", etc.
The picture editor at the Daily Mail has threaded the Blythman article with contrasting images of "organic vs conventional", with all the subtlety of a donkey punch:
This image is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the opposite of organic is not battery farming. There is no opposite to organic, there are alternatives. Secondly, used properly, antibiotics make animals healthier. Because labelling organisations such as the Soil Association insist that organic producers use magic remedies such as homeopathy over evidence-based medicine, animals on organic farms won't be treated when they get sick. For this reason, it's much harder for an organic farm to be granted the RSPCA's badge for animal welfare.
In the UK, the closest most people get to a working farm is through Enid Blyton books, and the result is a Babe-style image of rolling hills, clean animals, and simple rustic farmers listening to Bakelite radios. Organic food relies upon this imagery, but the reality doesn't match up to fantasy. Michael Mack, CEO of Syngenta, sums this up quite nicely:
You're saying we have to bid farewell to the old image of the farm with a cockerel perched atop the dung heap, happy farmers, lots of farm labourers and a few horses,
cows and pigs...
That image hasn't applied for over 50 years. It's the romantic perception of people who don't know how food gets onto their table.
So industrial farming is the future?
It has been for ages - and it's good that it is. Farmers with the cockerel scratching about on the dung heap, to stick with that image for a moment, have to work extremely hard. Go and visit peasant farmers in mid-China or India who lack the equipment, fertilisers or crop protection products needed to farm efficiently. There's nothing romantic about their lives, which we who live in cities try to idealise.
You'll have to destroy a whole load of children's books about life in the country!
That's not want I want to do. However, I do think we also have responsibility to provide them with a realistic picture of how food is produced.
At its heart, organic faces a conundrum. It wants to be the best system for food production - but there's no single best system. If you don't like the idea of battery farming, buy free-range eggs. If you're concerned about animal welfare, look for the blue RSPCA sticker. If it's human welfare that you're conscious of, buy Fairtrade. Perhaps one day there'll be a system that draws together all the different areas of food production that you worry about and offers a complete solution. In the meantime, we have to abandon ideological fantasies and make decisions based upon the best available evidence. There's no evidence to support the idea that organic food is more nutritious than other food, and its supporters need to swallow their pride and think carefully about what they are paying a premium for.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
As I understand it, people don't eat organic food because it's more nutritious. They eat it because it's more flavorful (hey, it can be) and for "save the planet" kind of reasons. Those "save the planet" kind of reasons range from: (questionable) assertions that using fewer chemicals is better, to: supporting people trying to save the planet is good, to: organic growers tend to be smaller, tend to sell local, and buying local means less fuel was used to get it to you. That latter might actually have a point.
I do think smaller farmers have a chance to grow more tasty products; they can give more individual attention to each plant, and they can wait for produce to be really ripe, harvest, and sell right away.
Really fresh, farm-ripe produce can be more delicious. So can eggs from hens that get a more varied diet (the free-range hens I kept for a while produced fantastic eggs). I don't know about meat, since it's not something I'm willing to pay a premium on, but people claim it tastes better when raised on a small scale...and hey, if you can pick your own before slaughter, you don't have to worry about things like "downer cows" getting into your package of beef.
It may not be significantly, measurably more nutritious, but I don't think that's what people are buying anyway.
One of the major arguments for organic agriculture is that food produced without pesticides will (ahem) have a much lower level of toxic chemical residues.
Why is that claim not addressed by these fearless "debunkers"?
@1 Galadriel
Absolutely. There are lots of reasons people buy organic, regardless of whether those are sound or not. The evidence isn't there to support organic as any better for the environment, biodiversity, nutrition or pesticide residue. I think it's important that if someone is asking 30% more for their product, they provide evidence to support the premium. Also - an interesting note: lower food miles doesn't necessarily mean less energy intensive. Fruit grown in heated greenhouses uses more fuel than fruit shipped in from overseas. It's very complicated, which is why it's important to study the evidence behind any claim of "better".
@2 Pierce R. Butler
I'm not debunking the science of organic here, I'm explaining that there isn't a single metric on which we can call one food production system "better" than another. But seeing as you asked:
a) the pesticides used on conventional crops are strictly controlled and tested to ensure there is the smallest possible risk to human health. To my knowledge, there is no evidence whatsoever that the residues on food pose any threat to health
b) Organic production uses pesticides. Rotenone, Sulphur, Copper, Soft Soap. Copper sulphate is one of the most toxic and problematic chemicals used in food production, the EU has been trying to ban it for over 10 years. But the organic lobby insists that safer, shorter-lived and more environmentally friendly pesticides are 'not suitable', simply because these are man-made. This "man-made = bad" ideology is terribly damaging because it prevents people making rational choices.
Good points (if a bit broad-brushed in implying one category of pesticides is by default "safer, shorter-lived and more environmentally friendly") but did the Food Safety Agency review actual pesticide measurements on actual marketed produce that "failed to find any health benefits associated with organic food"?
Please note, fwlil, that I'm writing from the US, where both the definitions of "organic" and the types of "conventional" chemicals allowed are different. We'd probably have to work out a series of terms in a serious discussion before we're comparing Malus and Malus.
The reason that I used to buy organic was not for health reasons, but instead it was because I believed it to be better for the environment. Everyone I know who buys organic does so because of either this, perceived better flavour, or a combination of the two.
Since I learnt more about organic production, and since that production has been ramped up to industrial levels, those reasons no longer hold true for me. Organic farming can be very, very harmful to the environment, and the artificial division between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals is insane. The principle is that if you have two identical chemical products and one was derived from 'natural' sources like plants, and one was derived from non 'natural' sources in a lab, then the natural source is deemed organic, regardless of which process has a lower impact on the ecosystem.
The other clear problem with organic is the intensive use of chemicals that do not break down in the soil. Many pesticides are designed to break down int he soil, but cannot be used as they are not organic, so organic farming uses metals as pesticides. Copper does not degrade in the earth and over use poisons soil. But this is organic because copper is 'natural'.
As for the taste, that is not always guaranteed in organic food. I stick to local now, and just hope it's a nice farmer. Of course small farms can be just as damaging as large ones, but what can you do......?
@5. Simon
You've hit the nail on the head. I may rewrite this article to explore this issue further. In the UK at least, the Soil Association is the de facto label for organic. But they have many policies that are not good for the environment / animal welfare. Both they and Joanna Blythman take a negative stance toward GM crops. This to me is bizarre - better designed crops (that need less pesticide or so forth) should be the pinnacle of organic farming, not the antithesis. I've been told that the biggest organic farmer in the world is Gallo wine, who decline to apply for organic status because they want the freedom to use pesticides when necessary. I don't know if it's true, but this moderate approach is a great idea, and should be encouraged.
As Pierce R. Butler points out, "organic" is a poorly defined term, and I think consumers are being sold a concept that doesn't reflect reality.
Was there ever a real reasnon to believe that organic food would actually have a diffferent nutritional content compared with the same food produced conventionally? I admit that I'm no biologist but shouldn't two plants of the same species have the same composition?
Random side question, what the Hell is a Tijuana Zebra? I normally just google references I don't get, But I've learned not to for references involving mexico and large mammals...
@ 7. A Tijuana Zebra is a donkey with black & white stripes painted on it. A popular sight in Tijuana, Mexico, and seen in the picture at the end of the article. Best I add a link, huh?
i've never been particuarly fond of the label 'organic', mostly becuase it raises the question of whether the rest of thefood is 'inorganic'. I'll pay extra for little labels telling me the animal was treated well, the workers were paid fairly, or the food didn't travel far, but the whole 'organic' thing I've never found particularly important.
Hmmm... interesting article. On organic use of antibiotics, organic trade associations say the following:
"Because organic practices recognize and respect the powerful nature of antibiotics, organic practices protect human health in the long term. Organic practices prohibit the use of hormones, antibiotics or other animal drugs in animal feed for the purpose of stimulating the growth or production of livestock."
That seems like a good practice, considering the rise of antibiotic resistance - but then, they veer off into strange territory:
"If an antibiotic is used to restore an animal to health, that animal cannot be used for organic production or be sold, labeled or represented as organic. Thus, organic practices avoid the abuse of antibiotics that could have profound consequences for treatment of disease in humans, including the serious dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
In practice, the animal can then be sold as conventional meat at a lower price, so it's not like organic farmers don't use veterinary services. However, if you really want to be sure of the quality of your meat, you must raise, slaughter and butcher the animal yourself - and if you find that distasteful, maybe you shouldn't eat meat?
Regardless, there's little doubt that the prophylactic use of antibiotics on a general basis rapidly generates antibiotic-resistant microbial populations, who can then transfer those genes to human pathogens, often via plasmid swapping. For the technical details, here is a decent review:
Antibiotic Resistance: What Is the Impact of Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics on Childrenâs Health?, 2003, Pediatrics
E. coli 0157:H7, anyone? That one in particular has antibiotic resistance associated with factory farming operations, for example:
Antimicrobial Resistance of Escherichia coli O157 Isolated from Humans, Cattle, Swine, and Food, 2002 AEM
"Highest frequencies of resistance occurred among swine isolates (n = 70), where 52 (74%) were resistant to sulfamethoxazole, 50 (71%) were resistant to tetracycline, 38 (54%) were resistant to cephalothin, and 17 (24%) were resistant to ampicillin. Based on the presence of Shiga toxin genes as determined by PCR, 210 (58%) of the isolates were identified as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC).
Swine operations in particular are breeding grounds for novel pathogens - in fact, it appears that pigs are 'natural incubators' that can pick up influenza from both human and avian species and blend the genes together - and the genetic elements of the new H1N1 flu strain were circulating in pigs in the U.S., Mexico and China for at least a decade before leaping to humans (probably in La Gloria, Mexico, near the big Smithfield-Mexico million-hog operation in Veracruz).
So, while the benefits of an organic apple vs. a non-organic apple could be debated (residual pesticides are an issue), there's no doubt at all that unprocessed organic meat is far healthier than the factory-farmed hormone-pumped stuff. However, keep in mind that organic farming still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power equipment - and the use of fish meal on organic farms is a major global contributor to overfishing (yes, vegans, you are eating dead fish residue...).
Thus, fossil fuel-free and fish-free farms powered by wind and solar and biofuels are the next logical developments in organic agriculture. This still leaves the nitrogen issue - but really, which is better:
1) Making nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas?
2) Making nitrogen fertilizer from fish?
3) Making nitrogen fertilizer from water, air and sunlight?
#3 is simply the solar-powered Haber process, a fairly novel concept in the age of fossil fuels, but entirely plausible.
Thanks, that is the strangest thing I've seen in days, it trumps the cat trying to climb into a cereal box by a significant margin...
Great. You just made it that much more complicated to do what is good for the environment and my family's health. Argh. Curse you and your objective science!!!
Mon 9:34 August 3, 2009
Hmmm... interesting article. On organic use of antibiotics, organic trade associations say the following:
"Because organic practices recognize and respect the powerful nature of antibiotics, organic practices protect human health in the long term. Organic practices prohibit the use of hormones, antibiotics or other animal drugs in animal feed for the purpose of stimulating the growth or production of livestock."
That seems like a good practice, considering the rise of antibiotic resistance - but then, they veer off into strange territory:
"If an antibiotic is used to restore an animal to health, that animal cannot be used for organic production or be sold, labeled or represented as organic. Thus, organic practices avoid the abuse of antibiotics that could have profound consequences for treatment of disease in humans, including the serious dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
In practice, the animal can then be sold as conventional meat at a lower price, so it's not like organic farmers don't use veterinary services. However, if you really want to be sure of the quality of your meat, you must raise, slaughter and butcher the animal yourself - and if you find that distasteful, maybe you shouldn't eat meat?
Regardless, there's little doubt that the prophylactic use of antibiotics on a general basis rapidly generates antibiotic-resistant microbial populations, who can then transfer those genes to human pathogens, often via plasmid swapping.
Swine operations in particular are breeding grounds for novel pathogens - in fact, it appears that pigs are 'natural incubators' that can pick up influenza from both human and avian species and blend the genes together - and the genetic elements of the new H1N1 flu strain were circulating in pigs in the U.S., Mexico and China for at least a decade before leaping to humans (probably in La Gloria, Mexico, near the big Smithfield-Mexico million-hog operation in Veracruz).
So, while the benefits of an organic apple vs. a non-organic apple could be debated (residual pesticides are an issue), there's no doubt at all that unprocessed organic meat is far healthier than the factory-farmed hormone-pumped stuff. However, keep in mind that organic farming still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power equipment - and the use of fish meal on organic farms is a major global contributor to overfishing (yes, vegans, you are eating dead fish residue...).
Thus, fossil fuel-free and fish-free farms powered by wind and solar and biofuels are the next logical developments in organic agriculture.
@12. Thanks cargocult. You make an excellent point about the evolution of organic. An intriguing problem is many supporters of organic are dogmatic, and won't accept evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. Worse yet, there aren't any clear measures by which organic can be judged. What is it supposed to be? (It might use lower inputs, but if 50% more land needs to be converted to agriculture, is it any better for the environment? etc)
It would be difficult to build a strong brand based on a farming system that changed yearly to reflect the best available evidence though. Encouraging green-fuelled and fish-free farms is probably best done at a Government level.
What do you think?
I've pulled you up about this before, haven't I? They (the Soil Association, specifically) don't insist, but rather suggest the use of homoeopathy, and the only specific ailment for which homoeopathy is recommended is for the treatment of mastitis in dairy cattle, where the available evidence indicates that conventional antibiotic treatment is no more effective than placebo. However, they do insist that animals receive appropriate treatment as recommended by a veterinary professional. Furthermore, there is no prohibition or restriction on the use of antibiotics for the treatment of individual sick animals - the only prohibition is against the prophylactic use of antibiotics at the herd level.
There is plenty to criticise about the SA without resorting to misrepresentation. I would strongly recommend that you actually read the standards before pontificating about what they say. Is that too much to ask?
@ 15. Dunc
The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. From the Soil Association website (can't link due to rubbish url structure):
Also the ambiguous:
Used widely as in a lot of farms, or a lot of different systems - can't tell.
Even if it is just for cows and then just for mastitis, and even if current evidence-based treatments were ineffective, that's no reason to sanctify voodoo water as a treatment. My point is that despite its claims (and intentions) for better nutrition / welfare / environmental impact, the Soil Association is building a case on ideology rather than evidence. There's no reason why it should do this, which is why it is so infuriating.
As I said in our last discussion on the subject, the various bits of marketing / PR blah are actually quite different in emphasis from the real normative standards. It's the standards that actually set out what is and is not required for certification. They seem to let the nutters write a lot of the other stuff, presumably to try and keep them away from the documents that actually matter.
And yes, the SA are guilty of "building a case on ideology rather than evidence". I quite agree. However, in this particular case (the quote in my previous comment), you're building a case on statements which are objectively and unequivocally false, which isn't really much better. Are you entirely sure that you're completely free from ideological bias here yourself? As I said before: "[t]here is plenty to criticise about the SA without resorting to misrepresentation". Their absurd preference for old-fashioned copper-based pesticides would be a very good example.
On the specific subject of the use of homoeopathy to treat mastitis in dairy cattle, I'm afraid that the evidence is somewhat debatable, but there is some evidence that while homoeopathy and antibiotics are statistically indistinguishable, they may be slightly more effective than other placebos. Since I regard homoeopathy as a placebo, this is a confusing result. I suppose it may possible that there's something about the specific mode of application that's having some benefit. Anyway, they seem to have gone to some lengths to find a condition for which the evidence is at least equivocal in order to claim effectiveness.
Organic food doesn't mean food that will help you lose weight or stay lean, it means: certified food that is monitored by the officials while being grown in organic farms, manufactured, produced or packaged without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in compliance with certain standards. An average apple has about 30-35 pesticides even after being washed, this is greatly reduced in organic produce.
Organic meat, poultry and dairy producers are not allowed to use growth hormones or antibiotics.
@18. Hi Kate, thanks for commenting. I'm afraid you're mistaken on a couple of points.
Organic farming DOES allow some chemical pesticides to be used. ALL pesticides are chemical, because everything you can touch is made up of chemicals. Calling them natural does not mean they are any less toxic!
The Soil Association forbids the use of synthetic chemical additives, which it believes to more be harmful than "natural" pesticides. One of the pesticides they allow is copper sulphate, a substance that is so toxic to a huge range of creatures that scientists refer to it as a "soil sterilant".
Newer, synthetic pesticides are safer, less persistent and more targeted - in other words they hit what you're trying to control without damaging the environment or the farmer.
In fact, environmentalists have been lobbying a long time to have copper sulphate banned for use as a pesticide. The legislation has been opposed by - you guessed it - the organic lobby, who argue that no alternatives exist!
It is true that there are some pesticide residues left on food in supermarkets, but that is NOT the same as having harmful levels of residues. Look at Bt for example - toxic to pest species but completely harmless to humans.
In conclusion, look at it this way: if Syngenta want to release a new pesticide they must pass a raft of tests showing that the agent is as safe for humans, environmentally-friendly, short-lived and safe to non-target species as possible. Organic regulations don't demand any of these questions - they simply follow a set of ideals without ever asking: is this really better for the world?