The idea of organics being a marketing hoax, however, is far from the truth. Smart people question everything, and don't just accept what is written in print. Let's dissect the New York Times article that announced the publishing of this study.
Here is a link to the original New York Times article about the study, which I've also pasted below in black, along with my commentary, in red. Share your opinion by commenting below.
Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce
By KENNETH CHANG
Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?
Maybe — or maybe not.
Stanford University scientists have weighed in on the “maybe not” side of the debate after an extensive examination of four decades of research comparing organic and conventional foods.
They concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. What about this study? Or this study? Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli. Of course not, bacteria like E. coli come from improper handling of produce by the farm workers. They are not inherent in produce itself.
The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats. The structural nutritional content of the meat may be the same (fat, protein, etc.) however non-organic meat is pumped full of anti-biotics, which will contribute to making you anti-biotic resistant. I would say that is less "nutritionally beneficial."
 |
| Preparing to spray a popular herbicide still used in America, but now banned in Europe for causing neurological damage. |
Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans. Many chemicals that the US EPA deems as "safe" are banned in Europe and Canada after studies have revealed their harmful or carcinogenic effects. In the US, thanks to chemical company lobbying, of the 62,000 chemicals on the market, only 200 have been tested for safety. See the article: Toxic Inaction. If you forget hard science for a minute, it's common sense that if the person spraying the pesticides has to wear a hazmat-like suit so that don't inhale the chemicals or come in contact with the skin, it's probably not too healthy to be ingested.
“When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. “I think we were definitely surprised.”
The conclusions will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people into overpaying. The production of organic food is governed by a raft of regulations that generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, hormones and additives.
The organic produce market in the United States has grown quickly, up 12 percent last year, to $12.4 billion, compared with 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association. Organic meat has a smaller share of the American market, at $538 million last year, the trade group said.
The findings seem unlikely to sway many fans of organic food. Advocates for organic farming said the Stanford researchers failed to appreciate the differences they did find between the two types of food — differences that validated the reasons people usually cite for buying organic. Organic produce, as expected, was much less likely to retain traces of pesticides.
Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
“Those are the big motivators for the organic consumer,” said Christine Bushway, the executive director of the trade association.
The study also found that organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.
“We feel organic food is living up to its promise,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, which publishes lists highlighting the fruits and vegetables with the lowest and highest amounts of pesticide residues. Check out the Environmental Working Group's Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 on their website.
The Stanford researchers said that by providing an objective review of the current science of organic foods, their goal was to allow people to make informed choices.
In the study — known as a meta-analysis, in which previous findings are aggregated but no new laboratory work is conducted — researchers combined data from 237 studies, examining a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and meats. For four years, they performed statistical analyses looking for signs of health benefits from adding organic foods to the diet. During meta-analysis, it is possible for crucial studies to be left out, intentionally or unintentionally, which will obviously skew the data. See below.
The researchers did not use any outside financing for their research. “I really wanted us to have no perception of bias,” Dr. Bravata said.
One finding of the study was that organic produce, over all, contained higher levels of phosphorus than conventional produce. But because almost everyone gets adequate phosphorus from a wide variety of foods, they said, the higher levels in the organic produce are unlikely to confer any health benefit.
The organic produce also contained more compounds known as phenols, believed to help prevent cancer, than conventional produce. While the difference was statistically significant, the size of the difference varied widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. “I interpret that result with caution,” Dr. Bravata said. If the result of an analysis is statistically significant, that means the correlation is based on a concrete pattern, not just chance. Despite the sample group being small, it hardly seems intelligent to dismiss the findings.
Other variables, like ripeness, had a greater influence on nutrient content. Thus, a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one. Great point. But what about comparing the ripe conventional one, to a ripe organic one? Obviously that would be a better comparison, seeing as nutrient content of fruit changes as it ripens.
The study’s conclusions about pesticides did seem likely to please organic food customers. Over all, the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce. (Even produce grown organically can be tainted by pesticides wafting over from a neighboring field or during processing and transport.) They also noted a couple of studies that showed that children who ate organic produce had fewer pesticide traces in their urine. The headline of this article would make it seem there is nothing beneficial about organics. But clearly, this is, and if you're like me, this is the reason I choose organic in the first place: to avoid harmful chemicals.
The scientists sidestepped the debate over whether the current limits are too high. “Some of my patients take solace in knowing that the pesticide levels are below safety thresholds,” Dr. Bravata said. “Others have questioned whether these standards are sufficiently rigorous.”
Similarly, organic meat contained considerably lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than conventionally raised animals did, but bacteria, antibiotic-resistant or otherwise, would be killed during cooking. I don't recommend eating meat.
Dr. Bravata agreed that people bought organic food for a variety of reasons — concerns about the effects of pesticides on young children, the environmental impact of large-scale conventional farming and the potential public health threat if antibiotic-resistant bacterial genes jumped to human pathogens. “Those are perfectly valid,” she said.
The analysis also did not take factors like taste into account.
But if the choice were based mainly on the hope that organic foods would provide more nutrients, “I would say there is not robust evidence to choose one or the other,” Dr. Bravata said.
The argument that organic produce is more nutritious “has never been major driver” in why people choose to pay more, said Ms. Lunder, the Environmental Working Group analyst. Agreed.
Rather, the motivation is to reduce exposure to pesticides, especially for pregnant women and their young children. Organic food advocates point to, for example, three studies published last year, by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. The studies identified pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of pesticides known as organophosphates and then followed their children for years. In elementary school, those children had, on average, I.Q.’s several points lower than those of their peers.
Critics of the Stanford study also argue that lumping all organic foods into one analysis misses the greater benefits of certain foods. For example, a 2010 study by scientists at Washington State University did find that organic strawberries contained more vitamin C than conventional ones.
Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, another member of the Stanford team, said that the strawberry study was erroneously left out but that she doubted it would have changed the conclusions when combined with 31 other studies that also measured vitamin C. Who knows what other studies are missing?
So in conclusion, when you see a questionable headline, even in the New York Times, remember to read carefully and do your own research.
No comments:
Post a Comment