Pin It
MNN.COM›Food›

Healthy Eating

Are organic foods really about better nutrition?

A trip to Costa Rica reminds the author of the chemicals you avoid when buying organically grown products.

By Cool Green Science BlogTue, Sep 01 2009 at 2:40 PM EST
 7

Banana bags in Costa Rica. (Photo: Margaret Southern/TNC)
The Nature Conservancy logo. Protecting nature. Preserving life.
A few weeks ago, word got out that a review being published in September’s American Journal of Clinical Nutrition had concluded that organic foods are not healthier or more nutritious that conventional food.
 
Organic advocates were outraged. Mildly engaged consumers began to wonder if organics were really worth the higher price tag.
 
Momentarily leaving aside some the review’s conclusions, my first thought was: Is higher nutritional quality really what motivates consumers to buy organic food, anyway? Isn’t it more about what’s not in the food than what is?
 
Most people I know who make a point of buying organic do so to avoid ingesting antibiotics, pesticides and other toxins. Sure, if my organic tomato had a few more vitamins than a conventionally grown one, that would be a nice bonus, but it’s not the reason I’m buying it.
 
And according to the Organic Trade Association, there are plenty of other good reasons to buy organic food that don’t have anything to do with what goes in your body. The association provides information on how organic agriculture can improve soil fertility, prevent chemical fertilizers from polluting waterways and accommodate higher species diversity.
 
The environmental reach of conventionally grown food is longer than most of us can even imagine. I stopped buying non-organic bananas after a short visit to Costa Rica revealed something about the industry I never would have known about: the use of plastic bags.
 
During my visit, my colleague and I drove past millions of banana trees, but I never saw a single banana. Instead, I saw big, blue plastic bags covering each banana bunch on every single tree.
 
My colleague explained that these bags were filled with pesticides and placed over the bananas to protect them from insects that might cause brown spots on the fruit, making them aesthetically unappealing to American consumers.
 
According to FleetWatch, these bags are used three times before being recycled, but locals will tell you that these blue bags are everywhere, littering the forest floor and choking rivers and streams.
 
But back to the review.
 
The review of 55 studies from 1958 to 2008 found that conventionally produced crops had a higher content of nitrogen, while organically produced crops had higher phosphorous and acidity content. No differences were found between the two classes of crops for the other nutrient categories — including vitamin C, zinc, and calcium — that were analyzed.
 
The review, funded by the U.K. Food Standards Agency, didn’t look for differences in pesticide residues between organic and conventional growing methods.
 
Organic advocates had strong objections to the review for a number of reasons.
 
Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior scientist at Consumers Union, cited the use of older studies as a major flaw. He told WebMD that most studies done before 1980 probably had flawed methodologies, and newer studies show clear differences in nutrient content between the two growing methods.
 
Secondly, the study doesn’t look at differences in polyphenols and certain antioxidants, which chief scientist for The Organic Center Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., says are 25 percent higher in organically grown food.
 
So, what does this mean for your food purchases?
 
Benbrook actually has some really sound advice: If you want to maximize the nutrient content of your produce, choose the freshest and most colorful fruits and vegetables. And if you want to minimize pesticide residues and environmental pollution, choose organic.
 
For now, my habits — choosing organic and local produce when I can — aren’t changing.
 
— Text by Margaret Southern, Cool Green Science Blog
 

 

You might also like:
Related Topics: Organic Products

Comments

Follow this conversation
Add your comment
View:

anonymous
Patricia Shannon 09/05/2009 15:44 PM

I started buying organic foods as much as possible some years ago, for the same reasons most people do. One reason was to avoid possible long-term health effects. But after a few months, I realized I was feeling better. We are used to feeling a certain way, we often don't realize that we could and should feel better.

anonymous
Grey Garvin 09/04/2009 11:20 AM

..it literally never occurred to me that potatoes grown organically might have more, say, vitamin c, than potatoes grown with pesticides. And i don't know anyone who thought that way. I buy them because 1) less pesticides on the food I eat 2) better for the land 3) better for the farmer out there in the field and 4) (sometimes) more thoughtfully tended and planted crops.

anonymous
Fred in nh 09/03/2009 19:24 PM

Your response shows the typical ignorance of the organic food lover. YOUR BODY DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN-MADE CHEMICALS AND NATURALLY OCCURRING CHEMICALS!!! They are the same.

Let me give you an example. H2O is a chemical. It is naturally occurring. It can also be made in a lab by combining hydrogen and oxygen. Get my drift? Don't believe me, believe the world's leading experts. They all think organic is stupid. Google Bruce Ames. Google Norman Borlaug. Organic is a.... More

anonymous
Patricia Shannon 09/05/2009 15:45 PM

Are you trying to be funny? Do you really think all chemicals are the same? Do you really think that ingesting the chemicals arsenic or plutonium is the same as ingesting the chemical water?

anonymous
christina martinez 09/02/2009 14:11 PM

Enter your comments heret
To Pathetic. The key word for fools is naturally. The body can handle naturally occurring carcinogens but to add man-made pesticides is adding fuel to the fire. The human body cannot handle the mutations that man-made pesticides produce, the same effects that these pesticides have on the bugs, bacteria, ect. occur in the human cell (s) and worst in children with immature immune systems. I think your brain cells are already affected. I'd rather pay a few.... More

anonymous
Fred in nh 09/01/2009 19:46 PM

The report wasn't trying to do anything but determine if organic was more nutritous. There was no alterior motive. The reason scientist aren't studying the effects of pesticides on human health is because Dr. Bruce Ames (you know, the guy who invented the test used to find out if a given chemical might be carcinogenic, and winner of the Amercian Science Award, and perrenial noble prize nominee) proved decades ago that the natrually occurring carcinogens in all plants vasty outweigh any.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 09/14/2009 18:24 PM

"In fact, Dr. Ames reckons that a single cup of organic coffee has more natural carcinogens than a years worth of pesticide residue."

You want to cite that study? Year's worth of pesticide on what? What kind of carcinogens? What other studies back this claim?

Foolishness...

Add your comment

Sign in with one of these accounts or just add your comment below.
Used only for emailed comments and will not be displayed with your post
Notify me with an email when other people comment on this article.
The posting of advertisement, profanity or personal attacks is prohibited.
Click here to review our Terms of Use