"Organic" Food, Part I

The sales of "organic" food have been growing by about 20% every year for nearly two decades.[1] This is bolstered by claims that "organic" food has more nutrients, fewer toxins (including synthetic pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides), and is better for the environment. That's a pretty bold set of claims. Now consider that the word organic originally meant: "Having organs, or an organized physical structure; of, relating to, or derived from a living organism or organisms; having the characteristics of a living organism."[2] Well, all plants and animals fit that definition, so technically all food is organic. Labeling a certain type of food as "organic" is just a clever marketing ploy to make you think it's better than other types of food.[3] (And now you know why I put it in quotes.) So if the very name is dishonest, what about their claims? Can they be trusted? Or is it just more hype? Let's investigate.

The first claim: Do "organic" foods have more nutrients than conventionally-grown foods?

In 2009 a scientific article was published which reviewed the last fifty years of research into "organically"-grown food.[4] They reviewed over 150 scientific papers published about "organic" farming methods. They found that conventionally-grown foods were higher in nitrogen than "organic" foods; that "organic" foods were higher in phosphorus and sulfur than conventionally-grown foods [5]; and that there was no difference for all other nutrients tested (vitamin C, phenolic compounds, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc, or copper). They concluded that "there is no evidence to support the selection of organically produced foodstuffs over conventionally produced foodstuffs to increase the intake of specific nutrients or nutritionally relevant substances."

There are lots of studies out there which can be cited to show that "organic" foods have more and/or better nutrients.[6] However, the article cited above dismissed the majority of these studies because they lacked statistical rigor. In other words, their results weren't reliable or reproducible.[7] It makes logical sense that there would be no difference in nutrition content between conventionally- and "organically"-grown foods since there is no way for a plant to know that its nitrogen came from manure or from a pellet.

The answer: No.

Next time: Do "organic" foods contain fewer toxins than conventionally-grown foods?

---

Notes:

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic food.

[2] See The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (1989), organic adj. def. A1b.

     Def. A7a gives the chemical definition: "Originally: relating to or designating compounds which exist naturally as constituents of living organisms or are formed from such substances (all of which contain carbon and hydrogen). Later: of, relating to, or designating any compounds of carbon (other than certain simple compounds such as oxides, carbides, carbonates, etc.), whether of biological or non-biological origin."

     The current usage as applied to a particular set of farming practices didn't come about until 1940 when Walter James, 4th Baron Northbourne developed his theory of the farm as an organism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter James, 4th Baron Northbourne#Agriculture and writing.

[3] In fact, Dan Glickman, the Director of the USDA during the Clinton Administration said this when the National "Organic" Standards were implemented in 2000: "Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is "organic" a value judgment about nutrition or quality. USDA is not in the business of choosing sides, of stating preferences for one kind of food, one set of ingredients or one means of production over any other. As long as rigorous government safety standards are being met, we stand ready to do what we can to help support any farmer and help market any kind of food." See http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/12/0426.htm.

[4] Dangour, A. D., et al. (2009) "Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review." (full text article) Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 90:680–685. See also http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html.

[5] However, conventionally-grown food still had enough phosphorus to meet dietary needs (see http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/09/05/science debunks the organic fantasy garden 106363.html), so the excess phosphorus found in "organic" food would simply end up going down your toilet and potentially contribute to eutrophication of local waterways.

[6] See, for example, the results cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic farming#Food quality and safety.

[7] For example, one of the labs in my department has made some interesting findings about the content of antioxidants in conventionally- versus "organically"-grown blueberries. But they haven't published their data, so at this point it would be disingenuous of me to report their findings as fact.

Image attribution:

Gooseberries are by Kristen Taylor, available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kthread/2698119395/in/photostream/.