Much is being made in the press of the fall in sales of organic food. The headlines are asking if the ‘fad’ is over. Many critics of organic farming have always dubbed it as ‘niche’ marketing or an expensive food fad for the well off. Many farming groups have been quick to say organics won’t last and that it is just passing food fashion.
A lot of our wonderful popular press also latched on to this and have questioned whether it is worth paying a premium for something with unproven benefits. Other critics have jumped on this bandwagon and say that organic food is just a con and stated that organic food is no better than any other.
The press now talk about organic farming in terms of the environmental effects. This is good to an extent but it then means that organic food can be lumped into the same category as other environmental causes and its supporters dismissed as a load of doom and gloom merchants.
Let’s get this straight once and for all, there ARE benefits in eating organic food and it IS good for the environment. Make no mistake one of the primary reasons for eating organic is to avoid pesticides residues. Whenever systemic pesticides are used on food crops there will be residues in the harvest. Systemic means that the plant takes the pesticide into the tissue and no amount of scrubbing or peeling can remove it. Each time you eat pesticide treated plant tissue you consume a minute amount of pesticide. The government and agrochemical companies will tell you that it is all perfectly safe. They have devised figures for the safe levels of all pesticides approved for use on food. What they have NOT done is work out how composite pesticide residues affect people. Routine checks show that the so called ’safe’ levels are exceeded and that a number of items show composite pesticide residues
Research at the University of Rochester shows that combinations of pesticides residues can have a profound effect.
“Scientists have shown that the combination of two widely used agricultural pesticides-but neither one alone-creates in mice the exact pattern of brain damage that doctors see in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The research offers the most compelling evidence yet that everyday environmental factors may play a role in the development of the disease.
The latest findings of the team led by Deborah Cory-Slechta, Ph.D., professor of environmental medicine and dean for research at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, appear in the Dec. 15, 2001 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.”
This is from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
Pesticides and cancer
“1. Women with breast cancer are five to nine times more likely to have pesticide residues in their blood than those who do not.18 Previous studies have shown that those with occupational exposure to pesticides have higher rates of cancer.19 - 21 The apparent link between hormone dependent cancers, such as those of the breast and prostate, may be via endocrine disrupting chemicals [compounds that artificially affect the hormone system] such as 2,4D and Atrazine (both herbicides, now banned or about to be banned). The Royal Society [the UK's main scientific organisation] recommends that human exposure to EDCs (especially during pregnancy) should be minimised on grounds of prudence.63
18) Charlier G et al (2003) Breast cancer and serum organochlorine residues, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60 (5), p. 348 - 351
19) Schreinemachers DM (2000) Cancer mortality in four Northern wheat producing states, Environmental Health Perspectives, 108 (9), p. 873 - 881.
20) Alavanja MCR et al (2003) Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risks in the agricultural health study cohort, American Journal of Epidemeology, 157 (9), p. 800 - 814.
21) Ohio G. (1999) Endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogenicity Gan To Kagaku Ryoho, 26 (3), p. 263-8. (Japanese)
63) The Royal Society (2000) Endocrine disrupting chemicals, June 2000 http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ files/statfiles/document-111.pdf”
And
“2. In a study of children aged 2 -4 living in Seattle, concentrations of pesticide residues up to six times higher were found in children eating conventionally farmed fruit and vegetables compared with those eating organic food.23 Whilst the presence of pesticide residues in children eating conventional food has been confirmed, the full effect of such pesticides are unknown.
After pressure from NGOs [non-governmental organisations] such as the Soil Association, the PSD has begun testing for multiple pesticide residues in its samples because evidence suggests that when acting in combination, harmful effects of pesticide residues may be increased. The Government has recognised that “Ignoring the cocktail effects during risk assessment will lead to significant under-estimations of risk”.12
12) www.foodstandards.gov.uk/ science/ouradvisors/toxicity/COTwg/wigramp/ Stakeholder
23) Curl CL , RA Fenske and K Elgethun (2003) Organophosphorus pesticide exposure of urban and suburban pre-school children with organic and conventional diets, Environmental Health Perspectives, 111 (3) p. 377 - 382.
Now I know what the opponents of organic food will say, they will argue that there are pesticides approved for use in organic farming. That is true but there very few indeed; they are made from plants rather than artificial chemicals and they are not systemic. The other major factor to consider is that they are only used as an absolute last resort and then only with the approval of the certifying body. Another big difference is that any residues on the surface of the produce can be washed off. (It is best to always wash produce before using it whether it is delivered in a plastic bag or with soil still attached!)
Is organic food more nutritious?
Research at the University of Aberdeen says that it is. In a press release the University says;
“The University of Aberdeen announced today that early results of a new research project confirm that organic milk is a good alternative source of omega 3.The research, which compared the omega 3 content of organic and conventional milk shows that organic milk can contain up to 71% more omega 3 than non-organic milk and has a better ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 than conventional milk.”
Although critics might dismiss this as insignificant lack of omega 3 has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease. There has been a lot of publicity about the chronic lack of omega 3 in the modern diet and the big imbalance between the levels of omega 3 and omega 6. It seems that the answer to increase omega 3 in milk is simple, graze cows on conventional mixed species pasture and stop using intensive production methods.
Others agree that organic food is more nutritious;
“Organic food IS more nutritious, especially if fresh, and eating it is vital to good health; let those who claim otherwise try to prove their case! I still see articles in reputable magazines stating that there is no nutritional difference between organic produce and regular supermarket food. I’ve even repeatedly received this erroneous information from Agricultural Extension offices and Professors of Agriculture at “reputable” State Universities…although one Professor, probably safely tenured, told me in hushed tones that “of course, most of our funding comes from chemical companies.”[Robert (Bob) F. Heltman. The article from which the above extract was taken was first published in the November 1997 edition of the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients.]
So, the question we all have to ask is do we readily accept paying a premium for food that has no pesticide residues and is more nutritious or do we save money and buy the cheapest possible? I know what my answer is!