Tag: Nutrition

Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic? Probably not.

A lot of organic supporters are up in arms about the recent Stanford study that found no nutritional benefit to organic foods. Stanford missed the point, they say—it’s not about what organic foods have in them, it’s what they don’t. After all, avoidance of pesticide residues is the #1 reason why people buy organic foods.

Yes, conventional foods have more synthetic pesticide residues than organic ones, on average. And yes, pesticides are dangerous chemicals. But does the science support paying significantly more for organic foods just to avoid synthetic pesticides? No.

A Pesticide Is A Pesticide

 

I’m not saying that pesticides, herbicides, and insect repellants aren’t toxic. I certainly wouldn’t recommend drinking cocktails laced with insect-repelling chemicals, for without a doubt, they can be bad for you. Pesticide exposure has been linked to all kinds of diseases and conditions, from neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to cancer. What we do know, though, is that natural isn’t synonymous with harmless. As a 2003 review of food safety concluded, “what should be made clear to consumers is that ‘organic’ does not equal ‘safe’.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is nothing safe about the chemicals used in organic agriculture. Period. This shouldn’t be that shocking – after all, a pesticide is a pesticide. “Virtually all chemicals can be shown to be dangerous at high doses,” explain scientists, “and this includes the thousands of natural chemicals that are consumed every day in food but most particularly in fruit and vegetables.”

There’s a reason we have an abundance of natural pesticides: plants and animals produce tens of thousands of chemicals to try and deter insects and herbivores from eating them. Most of these haven’t been tested for their toxic potential, as the Reduced Risk Program of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applies to synthetic pesticides only. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, we find they are just as bad as synthetic pesticides, sometimes worse. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks, including those used commonly in organic farming.

In head-to-head comparisons, natural pesticides don’t fare any better than synthetic ones. When I compared the organic chemicals copper sulfate and pyrethrum to the top synthetics, chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil, I found that not only were the organic ones more acutely toxic, studies have found that they are more chronically toxic as well, and have higher negative impacts on non-target species. My results match with other scientific comparisons. In their recommendations to Parliament in 1999, the Committee on European Communities noted that copper sulfate, in particular, was far more dangerous than the synthetic alternative. A review of their findings can be seen in the table on the right (from a recent review paper). Similarly, head to head comparisons have found that organic pesticides aren’t better for the environment, either.

Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as non-organic ones. No matter what anyone tells you, organic pesticides don’t just disappear. Rotenone is notorious for its lack of degradation, and copper sticks around for a long, long time. Studies have shown that copper sulfate, pyrethrins, and rotenone all can be detected on plants after harvest—for copper sulfate and rotenone, those levels exceeded safe limits. One study found such significant rotenone residues in olives and olive oil to warrant “serious doubts…about the safety and healthiness of oils extracted from drupes treated with rotenone.” Just like with certain synthetic pesticides, organic pesticide exposure has health implications—a study in Texas found that rotenone exposure correlated to a significantly higher risk of Parkinson’s disease. The increased risk due to Rotenone was five times higher than the risk posed by the synthetic alternative, chlorpyrifos. Similarly, the FDA has known for a while that chronic exposure to copper sulfate can lead to anemia and liver disease.

So why do we keep hearing that organic foods have fewer pesticide residues? Well, because they have lower levels of synthetic pesticide residues. Most of our data on pesticide residues in food comes from surveys like the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP). But the while the PDP has been looking at the residues of over 300 pesticides in foods for decades, rotenone and copper sulfate aren’t among the usual pesticides tested for—maybe, because for several organic pesticides, fast, reliable methods for detecting them were only developed recently. And, since there isn’t any public data on the use of organic pesticides in organic farming (like there is for conventional farms), we’re left guessing what levels of organic pesticides are on and in organic foods.

So, if you’re going to worry about pesticides, worry about all of them, organic and synthetic. But, really, should you worry at all?

You Are What You Eat? Maybe Not.

 

We know, quite assuredly, that conventionally produced foods do contain higher levels of synthetic chemicals. But do these residues matter?

While study after study can find pesticide residues on foods, they are almost always well below safety standards. Almost all pesticides detected on foods by the USDA and independent scientific studies are at levels below 1% of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) set by government regulators. This level isn’t random – the ADI is based on animal exposure studies in a wide variety of species. First, scientists give animals different amounts of pesticides on a daily basis throughout their lifetimes and monitor those animals for toxic effects. Through this, they determine the highest dose at which no effects can be found. The ADI is then typically set 100 times lower than that level. So a typical human exposure that is 1% of the ADI is equivalent to an exposure 10,000 times lower than levels that are safe in animal models.

Systematic reviews of dietary pesticide exposure all come to the same conclusion: that typical dietary exposure to pesticide residues in foods poses minimal risks to humans. As the book Health Benefits of Organic Food explains, “while there is some evidence that consuming organic produce will lead to lower exposure of pesticides compared to the consumption of conventional produce, there is no evidence of effect at contemporary concentrations.” Or, as a recent review states, “from a practical standpoint, the marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be insignificant.”

Reviews of the negative health effects of pesticides find that dangerous exposure levels don’t come from food. Instead, non-dietary routes make for the vast majority of toxin exposures, in particular the use of pesticides around the home and workplace. A review of the worldwide disease burden caused by chemicals found that 70% can be attributed to air pollution, with acute poisonings and occupational exposures coming in second and third. Similarly, studies have found that indoor air concentrations of pesticides, not the amount on foodstuffs, correlate strongly to the amount of residues found in pregnant women (and even still, there was no strong correlation between exposure and health effects). Similarly, other studies have found that exposures to toxic pyrethroids come primarily from the environment. Children on organic diets routeinely had pyrethroids in their systems, and the organic group actually had higher levels of several pyrethroid metabolites than the conventional one. In other words, you have more to fear from your home than from your food.

Your home probably contains more pesticides than you ever imagined. Plastics and paints often contain fungicides to prevent mold—fungi that, by the way, can kill you. Your walls, carpets and floors also contain pesticides. Cleaning products and disenfectants contains pesticides and fungicides so they can do their job. Ever used an exterminator to get rid of mice, termites, fleas or cockroaches? That stuff can linger for months. Step outside your house, and just about everything you touch has come in contact with a pesticide. Insecticides are used in processing, manufacturing, and packaging, not to mention that even grocery stores use pesticides to keep insects and rodents at bay. These chemicals are all around you, every day, fighting off the pests that destroy our buildings and our food. It’s not surprising that most pesticide exposures doesn’t come from your food.

That said, there are some studies that have found a link between diet and exposure to specific pesticides, particularly synthetic organophosphorus pesticides. Lu et al. found that switching children from a conventional food diet to an entirely organic one dropped the urinary levels of specific metabolites for malathion and chlorpyrifos to nondetectable levels in a matter of days. But, it’s important to note that even the levels they detected during the conventional diet are three orders of magnitude lower than the levels needed in animal experiments to cause neurodevelopmental or other adverse health effects.

While it might seem that decreasing exposure to pesticides in any way could only be good for you, toxicologists would differ. Contrary to what you might think, lower exposure isn’t necessarily better. It’s what’s known as hormesis, or a hormetic dose response curve. There is evidence that exposure to most chemicals at doses significantly below danger thresholds, even pesticides, is beneficial when compared to no exposure at all. Why? Perhaps because it kick starts our immune system. Or, perhaps, because pesticides activate beneficial biological pathways. For most chemicals, we simply don’t know. What we do know is that data collected from 5000 dose response measurements (abstracted from over 20,000 studies) found that low doses of many supposedly toxic chemicals, metals, pesticides and fungicides either reduced cancer rates below controls or increased longevity or growth in a variety of animals. So while high acute and chronic exposures are bad, the levels we see in food that are well below danger thresholds may even be good for us. This isn’t as surprising as you might think—just look at most pharmaceuticals. People take low doses of aspirin daily to improve their heart health, but at high chronic doses, it can cause anything from vomiting to seizures and even death. Similarly, a glass of red wine every day might be good for you. But ten glasses a day? Definitely not.

No Need To Fear

 

To date, there is no scientific evidence that eating an organic diet leads to better health.

What of all those studies I just mentioned linking pesticides to disorders? Well, exactly none of them looked at pesticides from dietary intake and health in people. Instead, they involve people with high occupational exposure (like farmers who spray pesticides) or household exposure (from gardening, etc). Judging the safety of dietary pesticide intake by high exposures is like judging the health impacts of red wine based on alcoholics. A systematic review of the literature found only three studies to date have looked at clinical outcomes of eating organic – and none found any difference between an organic and conventional diet. My question is: if organic foods are so much healthier, why aren’t there any studies that show people on an organic diet are healthier than people eating conventionally grown produce instead?

More to the point, if conventional pesticide residues on food (and not other, high exposure routes) are leading to rampant disease, we should be able to find evidence of the connection in longitudinal epidemiological studies—but we don’t. The epidemiological evidence for the danger of pesticide residues simply isn’t there.

If dietary exposure to pesticides was a significant factor in cancer rates, we would expect to see that people who eat more conventionally grown fruits and vegetable have higher rates of cancer. But instead, we see the opposite. People who eat more fruits and vegetables have significantly lower incidences of cancers, and those who eat the most are two times less likely to develop cancer than those who eat the least. While high doses of pesticides over time have been linked to cancer in lab animals and in vitro studies, “epidemiological studies do not support the idea that synthetic pesticide residues are important for human cancer.” Even the exposure to the persistent and villainized pesticide DDT has not been consistently linked to cancer. As a recent review of the literature summarized, “no hard evidence currently exists that toxic hazards such as pesticides have had a major impact on total cancer incidence and mortality, and this is especially true for diet-related exposures.”

The closest we have to studying the effects of diet on health are studies looking at farmers. However, farmers in general have high occupational pesticide exposures, and thus it’s impossible to tease out occupational versus dietary exposure. Even still, in this high-risk group, studies simply don’t find health differences between organic and conventional farmers. A UK study found that conventional farmers were just as healthy as organic ones, though the organic ones were happier. Similarly, while test-tube studies of high levels of pesticides are known to cause reproductive disorders, a comparison of sperm quality from organic and conventional farmers was unable to connect dietary intake of over 40 different pesticides to any kind of reproductive impairment. Instead, the two groups showed no statistical difference in their sperm quality.

In a review of the evidence for choosing organic food, Christine Williams said it simply: “There are virtually no studies of any size that have evaluated the effects of organic v. conventionally-grown foods.” Thus, she explains, “conclusions cannot be drawn regarding potentially beneficial or adverse nutritional consequences, to the consumer, of increased consumption of organic food.”

“There is currently no evidence to support or refute claims that organic food is safer and thus, healthier, than conventional food, or vice versa. Assertions of such kind are inappropriate and not justifed,” explain scientists. Neither organic nor conventional food is dangerous to eat, they say, and the constant attention to safety is unwarranted. Worse, it does more harm than good. The scientists chastise the media and industry alike for scaremongering tactics, saying that “the selective and partial presentation of evidence serves no useful purpose and does not promote public health. Rather, it raises fears about unsafe food.”

Furthermore, the focus on pesticides is misleading, as pesticide residues are the lowest food hazard when it comes to human health (as the figure from the paper on the right shows). They conclude that as far as the scientific evidence is concerned, “it seems that other factors, if any, rather than safety aspects speak in favor of organic food.”

If you don’t want to listen to those people or me, listen to the toxicologists, who study this stuff for a living. When probed about the risk that different toxins pose, over 85% rejected the notion that organic or “natural” products are safer than others. They felt that smoking, sun exposure and mercury were of much higher concern than pesticides. Over 90% agreed that the media does a terrible job of reporting the about toxic substances, mostly by overstating the risks. They slammed down hard on non-governmental organizations, too, for overstating risk.

What’s in a Name?

There’s good reason we can’t detect differences between organic and conventional diets: the labels don’t mean that much. Sure, organic farms have to follow a certain set of USDA guidelines, but farm to farm variability is huge for both conventional and organic practices. As a review of organic practices concluded: “variation within organic and conventional farming systems is likely as large as differences between the two systems.”

The false dichotomy between conventional and organic isn’t just misleading, it’s dangerous. Our constant attention to natural versus synthetic only causes fear and distrust, when in actuality, our food has never been safer. Eating less fruits and vegetables due to fear of pesticides or the high price of organics does far more harm to our health than any of the pesticide residues on our food.

Let me be clear about one thing: I’m all for reducing pesticide use. But we can’t forget that pesticides are used for a reason, too. We have been reaping the rewards of pesticide use for decades. Higher yields due to less crop destruction. Safer food because of reduced fungal and bacterial contamination. Lower prices as a result of increased supply and longer shelf life. Protection from pests that carry deadly diseases. Invasive species control, saving billions of dollars in damages—and the list goes on. Yes, we need to manage the way we use pesticides, scrutinize the chemicals involved and monitor their effects to ensure safety, and Big Ag (conventional and organic) needs to be kept in check. But without a doubt, our lives have been vastly improved by the chemicals we so quickly villainize.

If we want to achieve the balance between sustainability, production outputs, and health benefits, we have to stop focusing on brand names. Instead of emphasizing labels, we need to look at different farming practices and the chemicals involved and judge them independently of whether they fall under organic standards.

In the meantime, buy fresh, locally farmed produce, whether it’s organic or not; if you can talk to the farmers, you’ll know exactly what is and isn’t on your food. Wash it well, and you’ll get rid of most of whatever pesticides are on there, organic or synthetic. And eat lots and lots of fruits and vegetables—if there is anything that will improve your health, it’s that.

Before you say otherwise and get mad at me for mentioning it, rotenone is currently a USDA approved organic pesticide. It was temporarily banned, but reapproved in 2010. Before it was banned, it was the most commonly used organic pesticide, and now—well, without public data on pesticide use on organic farms, we have no idea how much it is being used today.

Food picture from FreeFoto.Com

The Very Real Scaremongering of Ari Levaux

Recently, food columnist Ari Levaux wrote what can only be described as a completely unscientific article in The Atlantic claiming that microRNAs (miRNAs) are a “very real danger of GMOs.” I won’t go point by point through the horrendous inaccuracies in his piece, as Emily Willingham has more than hacked them to bits. But I do want to make a short comment on this idea that miRNAs are dangerous, and thus something we should worry about when it comes to what we eat.

Every plant and animal out there produces miRNAs. We, for example, are thought to produce thousands. These teeny-tiny snippets of RNA serve regulatory roles in our cells, attaching to bits of messenger RNA and causing changes in expression of different proteins. They are far from evil: indeed, miRNAs are necessary for cells to function properly.

Can miRNAs we eat alter our gene expression? Well, yes. That was the incredible scientific discovery made by the Chinese research team that was recently published in Cell Research. But to make the leap from ‘miRNAs we eat can alter gene expression’ to ‘GMOs are dangerous’ requires unbelievable gaps in understanding about GMOs and miRNAs.

First off, there’s no reason to think that the DNA being introduced into GMOs is going to produce more/different miRNAs than it did in the original organism. Ari’s claim that “new DNA can have dangerous implications far beyond the products it codes for” simply isn’t true because miRNAs are coded for. These small RNA fragments aren’t random or accidental – they are explicitly detailed within the genome. So a stretch of DNA that didn’t code any miRNAs before isn’t going to suddenly code for a ton of them when it’s placed in a different genome. If we’re worried about potential miRNA effects, we can screen genes we are considering transferring and determine if there is any chance they produce miRNAs before we shuffle around which organism they are in. Indeed, GMOs are tested genetically, to ensure that the target gene has incorporated properly and that the organism is producing the desired protein, and not unexpected products. Genetic modification is a very precise process, and there is no reason to think it would cause a sudden burst of miRNAs.

But perhaps more fundamentally, miRNAs are found in all kinds of life, including every single species that we currently eat. There’s no logical reason that a new miRNA being produced by a GM plant is going to be more dangerous than the multitude of miRNAs we ingest when we eat the non-GM version.

In fact, the potential side effects of non-GM food is, very explicitly, what the Chinese research team showed: that of the millions of miRNAs we eat every day, at least a few make it from our stomachs into our blood, and that a specific one from ordinary rice can change the expression of genes in mice. So if miRNAs are dangerous – guess what? – you’re already ingesting them every time you eat. And, to get a little gross, let’s be clear: when we eat something, we don’t just ingest the miRNAs from the species we intentionally eat. Did you know, for example, that foods you eat are allowed to contain mold, hair, insect parts, and even rat poop? All of those bits of organisms which we inadvertently eat have DNA, and – you guessed it! – miRNAs, too. If miRNAs are so dangerous, we would never have been able to eat anything previously alive in the first place.

But we can eat other organisms, and we will continue to, because, simply put, miRNAs aren’t that dangerous.

Perhaps what ticks me off most, though, is that Ari’s scaremongering overshadows the very real and interesting implications of the science he failed to cover. The notion that miRNAs may drive some of the interaction between us and our food is incredibly new and totally cool. As the authors write, their research suggests that “miRNAs may represent a novel class of universal modulators that play an important role in mediating animal-plant interactions at the molecular level. Like vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients derived from food sources, plant miRNAs may serve as a novel functional component of food and make a critical contribution to maintaining and shaping animal body structure and function.”

What if some of the benefits of drinking wine aren’t from the antioxidants, but from the miRNAs present in grapes? What if we can produce beneficial miRNAs, and take them like we do vitamins? Or reduce the expression of harmful ones? Suddenly, we have been given a sneak peek at a whole new facet of nutrition science that we didn’t even know existed. The amazing implications of this research – not some ludicrous and tenuous connection to anti-GMO propaganda – should have been what The Atlantic highlighted. Instead, they made a fool of themselves by allowing Ari Levaux to expose just how poorly he understands genetics.

In the immortal words of Tom Petty: “I won’t back down”

USDA OrganicIn the responses to my article on organic myths, I have been called an industrial shill, liar, and an organic hater. People have questioned my motives, saying I am a bioengineer or paid by Monsanto*. They have called for my head, or at the very least, the retraction of my article.

In most of them, my arguments were inflated, twisted, or flat-out re-written. I don’t think GMOs “are the only way to feed the world.” I don’t think organics are “trying to take over.” So, screw the myths. This time around, I’m just going to focus on the facts.

Fact #1: Organic farming uses pesticides – and yes, organic pesticides are bad for you, too.

My main point in the first myth I brought up was simply to say that organic farms do use pesticides, contrary to what many people think. Since none of the people attacking my article can disagree with this fact (since it’s 100% true), they have instead warped my argument, saying I claim that organic farms are “seething hotbeds of toxic pesticide use” or that I believe all “naturally occurring pesticides pose the same risk as same as [sic] synthetic ones” when “the truth is, they’re [sic] don’t.”

I didn’t say either of those things. I did say that you can’t automatically assume a natural pesticide is safer, which was my point with rotenone. But Jason Mark claims it’s unfair to use rotenone as an example as it’s now banned in the US – fair enough (turns out the National Organic Program re-approved it in 2010 despite mounting evidence of its links to Parkinson’s. So my point stands). He then goes on to say that he chooses organic because he wants “to eat food that I know doesn’t involve the use of chemicals that harm ecosystems and have been linked to human health impacts.” Similarly, a response to my post on the Rodale Institute’s website says that the consumer can confidently state that they “buy organics because they don’t use the kinds of pesticides that create public and environmental health hazards, harm pollinators and other indicator species, make farmers and farmworkers sick, and/or persist for years in the environment accumulating up the food chain.”

Oh, really?

Let’s look at the details, shall we? The claim is that organic pesticides and fungicides are better to use because they’re less dangerous for us – and though he accuses me of ‘cherry-picking’, Jason only briefly talks about the health side effects of copper sulfate and conveniently doesn’t talk about the dangers of the most widely used organic fungicide: pyrethrum, though he delves deeply into the dangers of synthetics.

So let’s pit the most used organics against the most used conventional ones for a moment. In the USA, the top synthetic pesticide used is chlorpyrifos while the top fungicide is chlorothalonil. Yes, they are nasty chemicals, which in high doses are known to cause some serious health effects. But what about the organic alternatives? One way to compare is to look at their acute toxicity, often represented by an LD50 value. LD50, “lethal dose for 50%,” represents the dose at which 50% of a population will die from exposure.

In rats, the LD50 for copper sulfate is 30 milligrams per kilogram of body weight – which is a lot1. But copper sulfate has also been shown to have chronic effects at lower doses of exposure. In animals, chronic exposure has led to anemia, stunted growth, and degenerative diseases1,2,3. Furthermore, copper sulfate has been shown to disrupt reproduction and development, including inhibition of sperm development, loss of fertility, and lasting effects from in-utero exposure3,4. Copper sulfate is also mutagenic and carcinogenic4. And because copper is a trace element, it is strongly bioaccumulated, meaning consistent low doses can lead to toxic levels3,5. In people, increased exposure has been linked to liver disease and anemia3,6.

What about chlorpyrifos? The LD50 is 95 to 270 mg/kg – 2.5 to 10 times less toxic than copper sulfate1. As for its chronic effects, dogs fed chlorpyrifos at high doses daily did show increased liver weight and cholinesterase inhibition, meaning potential for neurological toxicity. But the effects went away immediately when feeding was stopped, and no long-term health effects were seen in either the dog or a similar rat study7,8. Furthermore, no evidence of mutagenicity was found in any of four tests reviewed by EPA9. It’s also not considered carcinogenic – rats and mice fed high doses for two years showed no increases in tumor growth9.

As with copper sulfate, those who work with pesticides for a living have experienced acute toxic exposure to chlorpyrifos. Studies have also linked fetal and chronic exposure to neurological complications and cancer risk, but these studies are hard to interpret, as they rely on a biomarker which may overestimate exposure by 10 to 20 fold10. Unlike copper sulfate, chlorpyrifos does not build up or persist in body tissues, and thus is not considered have significant bioaccumulation potential11. In humans, chlorpyrifos and its principal metabolites are eliminated rapidly following a single dose, within a day or so12.

What about those fungicides? The LD50 for pyrethrum in rats ranges from 200 mg/kg to around 2,000 mg/kg. Those that get a lethal dose suffer from tremors, convulsions, paralysis and respiratory failure before they finally die1. The LD50 for chlorothalonil? Well, it’s more than 10,000 mg/kg. That was the highest dose tested, but the rats still didn’t reach the 50% death rate target1. Rats fed a range of doses of chlorothalonil by the EPA over time showed no effects on physical appearance, behavior, or survival13. Yes, in some other high-dose feeding studies, chlorothalonil showed the potential to act as a mutagen or carcinogen14. But so has pyrethrum, with exposure leading to increases in tumors in the lungs, skin, liver, and thyroid of mice and rats15.

Ecologically, pyrethrum is extremely toxic to aquatic life and slightly toxic to bird species16. Chlorothalonil is toxic to fish as well, but it is non-toxic to birds17. Perhaps the kicker is that pyrethrum has been shown to be highly toxic to bees and wasps, which are keystone species necessary for the pollination of crops and other plants18. Chlorothalonil, on the other hand, isn’t.

Tell me, do you feel like the organic alternatives are totally safe? Sorry, but organic pesticides do make farmers sick. They do bioaccumulate. They do harm non-target species.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: organic alternatives are applied in higher concentrations and more frequently because they’re less effective at controlling the species they’re meant to kill.

While it’s true that some organic farms may not use any pesticides, those organic foodstuffs in your supermarket are almost guaranteed to have used them, and liberally. As Tom Laskawy notes, “copper and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers.” As with conventional fruits and vegetables, most of what you’re getting at the supermarket is factory farmed. And as Michael Pollan and Samuel Fromartz, among others, have pointed out: factory farming is factory farming, even if it’s organic.

My point is, a pesticide is a pesticide. If it kills things, it does so for a reason, and you probably don’t want to go around eating it. Do I want to chow down on food coated with chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil? Well, no, of course not. That’s why we screen for synthetic pesticide residues. However, we don’t screen for organic pesticide residues. Given what you just read, wouldn’t you want to know how much of those chemicals are ending up on your plate?

Of course, to be fair, the other most widely used organic pesticide is Bt toxin – which is, by just about any tests so far, non-toxic to people. That’s exactly why it was chosen for use in GMOs: because you can eat it all you want and it has no ill effects. But I’ll get into that more later.

Fact #2: Science has yet to support claims that organic foods are healthier.

In my second myth, I said that “science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.” I was attacked for this statement, with citations of studies that show increased nutritional quality in organic strawberries, tomatoes and milk. It’s true – you can find single, unrepeated studies which have found some nutritional improvements. But that’s not how science works. When scientists weigh in on a topic, they can’t just rely on single studies that support their view. Instead, they have to consider all the studies on a topic, and examine the results of each. That is exactly what a meta-analysis does.

I actually cited not one but two separate papers which summarize the studies to date on nutritional quality, one of which was a meta-analysis19,20. In both, the results were clear: any nutritional benefits are slim, variable, and not universal. In other words, overall, the science hasn’t supported any claims of unilateral nutritional benefits.

If you really want a more in depth look, check out Erin Prosser’s detailed explanation of the research. She concludes that the science is mixed at best, and even if organic foods are nutritionally superior, “it won’t be by much, meaning it may make no substantial difference in terms of your health.”

Fact #3…

Ok, my third myth got attacked on two fronts that are so separate, I feel the need to address them independently. So, instead of Fact #3, I have 3a and 3b.

Fact #3a: Certified organic farms don’t have yields that equal conventional ones.

Organic farming – and by organic farming, I mean farming that is officially organic through some certification process – has lower yields than conventional. At least, that’s what a 21-year study published by Science in 2002 found – that organic farming methods produced 80% what conventional farming methods did21. A 2008 review of the literature found organic yields were 50 – 75% of those of conventional farms22. An even more recent meta-analysis puts the value at 82%23. In fact, only one study to date has said that organic methods get average yields higher than that.

This is the paper by Badgley and colleagues which many claim shows organic farms produce just as well as conventional ones24. But that’s not what the paper says. The paper models whether or not organic farming can feed the world based on different yield percentages. The lowest yield they test for organic farming: 91%.

Where did the 91% figure come from? The authors averaged the yields from 293 studies they found looking at organic production. But the paper flat-out states that it considers a wide variety of agricultural systems in this analysis. The authors explicitly state that by organic, they are not “referring to any particular certi?cation criteria” and that they “include non-certi?ed organic examples.” They don’t just include a few – of their 293 ‘organic’ comparisons, 100 are not certified organic, including ones which likely used synthetic pesticides and GMOs25. The paper’s methods, math and modeling have been critiqued strongly by two separate sources 25,26.

Even still, I never, and still don’t, make any claim that sustainable agriculture can’t have the same yields as conventional farming. It definitely can. But you have to broaden the definition of “sustainable”, as Badgley et al. did, to include non-organic methods.

For example, a recent study found that alternative management strategies outperformed both conventional and organic methods. These strategies, like no-till methods, demonstrated greater production efficiencies than either conventional or organic, and even had greater average yields27.

Do yields matter? Yes, they do. While we can argue left and right about whether hunger and famine now are a matter of production or politics, when the planet reaches 9 billion people or so in 2050, production will matter. That’s not to say that lower-yielding methods can’t be used in areas of abundance, or where people can afford it. But to feed nine billion mouths, we are going to have to be careful and efficient in our use of land if we are to produce enough food without destroying what little habitat is left for the world’s other species.

Fact #3b: GMOs aren’t evil, and yes, they might even do some good for the world.

By far the most passionate responses to my post centered around the issue of GMOs. I would argue that the rumors about my stance on GMOs have been greatly exaggerated. After all, I never claimed that “organic agriculture can be redeemed if only its definition can be broadened to include GMOs,” or that “genetic modification is all benefit and no risk.”

Do I think GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritional value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use? Yes, yes I do. I’m not alone on this – the science supports me.

GM crops have been in fields and on the market for decades now, and studies are starting to weigh in on their benefits. A recent review of results of farmer surveys found that of 168 comparisons between GM adopters and non-adopters, 124 show positive results for the GM adopters, 32 indicate no difference and only 13 show negative yields – and that these increases were highest in developing countries28.

Most of the yield increases have come from the use of Bt crops. I specifically called out organic proponents on the hypocrisy of using Bt toxin liberally but not being willing to consider a GM Bt variety. As Jason Mark says, this means I claim that “there’s no distinction between spraying Bt and placing it directly into the plant” – but that’s not true at all. Of course there’s a difference. The GMO is the better solution. Studies have shown that spraying insecticides have a much stronger, negative effect on biodiversity than the use of transgenic crops29, which is particularly important when you consider that Bt crops have reduced pesticide use by 30% or more30. Furthermore, the pesticide use reduction wasn’t just in GM Bt fields – planting Bt varieties benefited non-GM growers, allowing them to reduce pesticide use and produce more crops31.

Bt crops not only increase yields and decrease pesticide use – they increase biodiversity. Three separate meta-analyses have confirmed that Bt crops benefit non-target species including bees and other insects29,32,33.

Have GM crops failed their debut? No, they haven’t. “There is now considerable evidence that transgenic crops are delivering significant economic benefits,” writes Clive James in a review of transgenic crops published in Current Science. His final sentence unequivocally states that “improved crop varieties are, and will continue to be the most cost effective, environmentally safe and sustainable way to ensure global food security in the future.” A 2010 review study found that “results from 12 countries indicate, with few exceptions, that GM crops have benefited farmers.” Similarly, a review examining 155 peer-reviewed articles determined that “by increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing the use of more environmentally friendly herbicides and facilitating the adoption of conservation tillage, GM crops have already contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability.”

That’s not to say all GM crops are stunning examples of the potential benefits of GMOs. Herbicide resistant crops are perfect examples of how GM technology can be used poorly. I don’t like Roundup Ready corn any more than my critics. How anyone could have thought that making a crop resistant to an herbicide (thus ensuring that we use MORE of this herbicide) was a good idea is beyond me. But I’ve been told not to judge organic pesticides by rotenone, so how is it fair to judge the future potential of all genetic engineering by Roundup Ready crops?

While Tom Laskawy says that in listing the potential benefits of GMOs, I have transgressed from “science to science fiction” and that most of the GM varieties I mentioned “don’t even exist in the lab”, every one of them is being or has been produced (hence the links) – including virus-resistant sweet potatoes, high-calcium carrots, high-antioxidant tomatoes, vaccine-producing fruits and vegetables, and allergen-free foods. He’s right that they don’t exist commercially, but how can they when all GMOs are universally demonized?

The real problem is that although GMO technology can be used to produce large social and ecological benefits, most GM crops developed to date have been designed to benefit Big Ag. This trend will only continue if the public keeps its negative attitude towards GMOs. I don’t like Monsanto any more than you do – so why let them control how GM technology is used? If there was more public pressure and desire for socially and ecologically beneficial GMOs, more scientists could get involved and use the technology better.

That’s what happened when the Rockefeller Foundation funded researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology’s Institute for Plant Sciences. The result was Golden Rice – a vitamin-A rich variety that the foundation had hoped to freely give to third world countries to help fight malnutrition34. The Swiss were working on a iron-rich variety, too, until widespread protesting of GMOs in Europe pressured the foundation into not renewing the institute’s funding.

Do I think all GMOs are perfect? Of course not. But should they be considered among the many different farming practices which may contribute to better farming in the future? Absolutely.

Fact #4: Farming practices of all types should be considered and weighed for their merits independent of labels.

The dichotomy between organic and conventional is misleading at best, and dangerous at worst. There is so much variation in each category that they are almost meaningless, except when it comes to our wallets.

I’m not pro factory farming. Nor am I pro organic. As Benton et al. write in their review of conventional, organic and alternative farming methods:

“rather than creating a misleading contrast by dividing farming systems into either organic/extensive and conventional/intensive there needs to be greater recognition that future farming has the potential to maintain yield whilst becoming “greener” by further optimizing inputs and practices to reduce environmental impacts”

Andy Revkin said it far better than me in his recent commentary on the destruction of GM wheat in Australia:

“It’s clear to me that genetics, intensified agriculture, organic farming, crop mixing, improved farmer training, precision fertilization and watering, improved food preservation and eating less wastefully and thoughtlessly will all play a role in coming decades — each in its place”

The central point of my mythbusting article, and of this one, is that the future of agriculture needs to examine all potential methods and determine if they are right for a given area. Landscapes are different – growing crops in Africa isn’t the same as growing crops in the Midwest, and if we universally apply the same methods globally, we are destined to fail both in terms of efficiency and sustainability. It is only through the breakdown of this arbitrary and variable distinction between methodologies and integration of a variety of practices that we will achieve our ultimate goal of a bright future both agriculturally and ecologically.

Links to the critiques of my first article:

*As for the attacks of my career and character, I can say without any hesitation that exactly 0% of my PhD funding comes from any kind of agribusiness. I study the population genetics and evolution of lionfish – you know, those frilly fish that are horribly invasive in the Atlantic. So no, Monsanto and bioengineering companies aren’t interested in what I do. If anyone really wants to know, my research funding and interests are freely disclosed and readily available on my website. And if anyone would like to contribute to said funding (bioengineering company or otherwise), there’s a nice contact form that you can use to get in touch with me. It’s a rough time to be studying science – I’ll take whatever funding I can get!

NOTE: I accidentally switched the uses of Copper Sulfate (actually an organic fungicide) with Pyrethrum (actually an organic insecticide). Oops! The points still stand, though – if you look at the information I provided, the organics are much more acutely and chronically toxic.

References:

  1. EXTOXNET: Extension Toxicology Network. A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/index.html
  2. Clayton, GD and FE Clayton, eds. 1981. Patty’s industrial hygiene and toxicology. Third edition. Vol. 2: Toxicology. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
  3. TOXNET. 1975-1986. National library of medicine’s toxicology data network. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). Public Health Service. National Institute of Health, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Bethesda, MD: NLM.
  4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1981- 1986. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances (RTECS). Cincinati, OH: NIOSH.
  5. Gangstad, EO. 1986. Freshwater vegetation management. Fresno, CA: Thomson Publications.
  6. New York State Department of Health. 1984. Chemical fact sheet: Copper sulfate. Bureau of Toxic Substances Management. Albany, NY.
  7. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. 1986. Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. Fifth edition. Cincinnati, OH: Publications Office, ACGIH.
  8. Hayes, WJ and ER Laws (ed.). 1990. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Vol. 3, Classes of Pesticides. Academic Press, Inc., NY.
  9. US Environmental Protection Agency. June, 1989. Registration Standard (Second Round Review) for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products Containing Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, Washington, DC.
  10. Eaton, DL et al. 2008. Review of the Toxicology of Chlorpyrifos With an Emphasis on Human Exposure and Neurodevelopment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2008 38:s2, 1-125
  11. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1986. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Amendments to 6 NYCRR Part 326 Relating to the restriction of the pesticides aldrin, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, dieldrin and heptachlor. Division of Lands and Forests. Bureau of Pesticides. Albany, NY.
  12. Nolan, RJ et al. 1984. Chlorpyrifos: Pharmacokinetics in human volunteers. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 73: 8-15.
  13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Chlorothalonil: Fact Sheet Number 36. September 30, 1984. Washington, DC.
  14. Sweet, D.V., ed. 1987. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances Microfiche January 1987. NIOSH, Washington, DC.
  15. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances . Carcinogenicity Peer Review of Pyrethrins . February 22, 1995. Washington, D C .
  16. Casida, J. E., ed. 1973. Pyrethrum, The Natural Insecticide. Academic Press, New York.
  17. Shelley LK, Balfry SK, Ross PS, Kennedy CJ. 2009. Immunotoxicological effects of a sub-chronic exposure to selected current-use pesticides in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol 92:95–103.
  18. Cox, C. 2002. Pyrethrins/Pyrethrum Insecticide Factsheet. Journal of Pesticide Reform 22(1) 14-20.
  19. Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269
  20. Rosen, J. (2010). A Review of the Nutrition Claims Made by Proponents of Organic Food Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9 (3), 270-277 DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00108.x
  21. Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming Science, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
  22. Kirchmann, H et al. 2008. Can Organic Crop Production Feed the World? ORGANIC CROP PRODUCTION – AMBITIONS AND LIMITATIONS. 39-72, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9316-6_3
  23. Mondelaers, K et al. 2009. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. British Food Journal, 111(10); 1098-1119. DOI: 10.1108/00070700910992925
  24. Badgley, C et al. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22, 86–108
  25. Avery, A. 2007. ‘Organic abundance’ report: fatally flawed. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22: 321-323
  27. Gelfand, I., S. S. Snapp, et al. 2010. Energy Efficiency of Conventional, Organic, and Alternative Cropping Systems for Food and Fuel at a Site in the US Midwest. Environmental Science & Technology 44(10): 4006-4011.
  28. Carpenter JE. Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nat Biotech 2010; 28:319-21
  29. Wolfenbarger LL, Naranjo SE, Lundgren JG, Bitzer RJ, Watrud LS, 2008 Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 3(5): e2118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118
  30. Naranjo, S. E. 2009. Impact of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use patterns. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Sciences, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4: No 11 (PDF)
  31. Hutchison, WD et al. 2010. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science. 330: 222-225.
  32. Duan, J.J. et al. 2008. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt crops on honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE 3, e1415.
  33. Marvier, M. et al. 2007. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316, 1475–1477
  34. Ye X et al. 2000. Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303-305

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

People believe a lot of things that we have little to no evidence for, like that vikings wore horned helmets or that you can see the Great Wall of China from space. One of the things I like to do on my blogs is bust commonly held myths that I think matter. For example, I get really annoyed when I hear someone say sharks don’t get cancer (I’ll save that rant for another day). From now onward, posts that attack conventionally believed untruths will fall under a series I’m going to call “Mythbusting 101.”

USDA OrganicTen years ago, Certified Organic didn’t exist in the United States. Yet in 2010, a mere eight years after USDA’s regulations officially went into effect, organic foods and beverages made $26.7 billion. In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped to about $52 billion worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for what they believe are the best foods available. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the planet from the evils of conventional agriculture – a complete win-win. And who wouldn’t buy organic, when it just sounds so good?

Here’s the thing: there are a lot of myths out there about organic foods, and a lot of propaganda supporting methods that are rarely understood. It’s like your mother used to say: just because everyone is jumping off a bridge doesn’t mean you should do it, too. Now, before I get yelled at too much, let me state unequivocally that I’m not saying organic farming is bad – far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are much better for the soil and environment. My goal in this post isn’t to bash organic farms, instead, it’s to bust the worst of the myths that surround them so that everyone can judge organic farming based on facts. In particular, there are four myths thrown around like they’re real that just drive me crazy.

Myth #1: Organic Farms Don’t Use Pesticides

When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why they buy organic food, 95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many people, believe that organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble, but that’s simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?

So was I, when I first learned this from a guy I was dating. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio. He was grumbling about how everyone praised the local organic farms for being so environmentally-conscientious, even though they sprayed their crops with pesticides all the time while his family farm got no credit for being pesticide-free (they’re not organic because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year). I didn’t believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn’t keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They’re organic by certification, but you’d never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

“They’re organic by the letter, not organic in spirit… if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were getting ripped off.”

What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks.2

Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“. However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone’s use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.

The point I’m driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldn’t want sprayed on your food.

Just last year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union’s safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it had yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foodstuffs produced in 2007 and tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels – and these are of pesticides that are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits8.

Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted ‘reduced-risk’ organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid’s predators9. Of course, some organic pesticides may fare better than these ones did in similar head-to-head tests, but studies like this one reveal that the assumption that natural is better for the environment could be very dangerous.

Even if the organic food you’re eating is from a farm which uses little to no pesticides at all, there is another problem: getting rid of pesticides doesn’t mean your food is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, and many have organic foods to blame. That’s because organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens. One study, for example, found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones10. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of non-organic anti-microbial agents as well, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.

In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. Some conventional farms use no pesticides. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever. To really know what you’re in for, it’s best if you know your source, and a great way to do that is to buy locally. Talk to the person behind the crop stand, and actually ask them what their methods are if you want to be sure of what you’re eating.

 

Myth #2: Organic Foods are Healthier

Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.

Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 11. These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, ?-carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity – none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).

“This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the ‘organic’ market,” said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings.12

Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, puts it even more strongly. “Any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money,” he writes in a comprehensive review of organic nutritional claims13.

Strong organic proponents also argue that organic food tastes better. In the same poll where 95% of UK organic consumers said they buy organic to avoid pesticides, over two-thirds of respondents said organic produce and meats taste better than non-organic ones. But when researchers had people put their mouths to the test, they found that people couldn’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests14, 18.

So, in short, organics are not better for us and we can’t tell the difference between them and non-organic foods. There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn’t one of them.

Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least the issue is not that cut and dry.

Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world15. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?

But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!).

Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.

Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20% or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?

The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

Myth #4: It’s all or none

The point of this piece isn’t to vilify organic farming; it’s merely to point out that it’s not as black and white as it looks. Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future. Until organic farming can produce crops on par in terms of volume with conventional methods, it cannot be considered a viable option for the majority of the world. Nutritionally speaking, organic food is more like a brand name or luxury item. It’s great if you can afford the higher price and want to have it, but it’s not a panacea. You would improve your nutritional intake far more by eating a larger volume of fruits and vegetables than by eating organic ones instead of conventionally produced ones.

What bothers me most, however, is that both sides of the organic debate spend millions in press and advertising to attack each other instead of looking for a resolution. Organic supporters tend to vilify new technologies, while conventional supporters insist that chemicals and massive production monocultures are the only way to go. This simply strikes me as absurd. Synthetic doesn’t necessarily mean bad for the environment. Just look at technological advances in creating biodegradable products; sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are both useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible, as crazy as that idea may sound.

I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally.

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest myth when it comes to organic farming is that you have to choose sides. Guess what? You don’t. You can appreciate the upsides of rotating crops and how GMOs might improve output and nutrition. You, the wise and intelligent consumer, don’t have to buy into either side’s propaganda and polarize to one end or another. You can, instead, be somewhere along the spectrum, and encourage both ends to listen up and work together to improve our global food resources and act sustainably.

 

See more on this, in response to critiques: In the immortal words of Tom Petty: “I won’t back down”

More Mythbusting 101:

Sharks will cure cancer

*** Oh, it turns out Rotenone got re-approved for organic use in 2010. See for yourself.

Regarding the use of GMOs: perhaps Andy Revkin from The New York Times says it better.

Based on the responses, I just want to make this clear: this is NOT a comprehensive comparison of organic and conventional agriculture, nor is it intended to be. That post would be miles long and far more complex. My overall belief is that there shouldn’t be a dichotomy in the first place – there are a variety of methods and practices that a farmer can use, each with its pros and cons. The main point here is that something “organic” isn’t intrinsically better than something that isn’t, and that you have to approach all kinds of agriculture critically to achieve optimum sustainability.

Ok, and while I’m adding in notes: stop citing Bedgley et al. 2007 as evidence that organic farming produces equal yields: this study has been shown to be flawed (see my comments in the follow up post to this article), and was strongly critiqued (e.g. this response article).

 

ResearchBlogging.orgReferences

  1. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, National Pesticide Use Database. Available from http://www.ncfap.org (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
  2. Gold, L., Slone, T., Stern, B., Manley, N., & Ames, B. (1992). Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities Science, 258 (5080), 261-265 DOI: 10.1126/science.1411524
  3. Rotenone: Resource Guide for Organic and Disease Management. Cornell University. Available at www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/11rotenone.php (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
  4. Caboni, P., Sherer, T., Zhang, N., Taylor, G., Na, H., Greenamyre, J., & Casida, J. (2004). Rotenone, Deguelin, Their Metabolites, and the Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease Chemical Research in Toxicology, 17 (11), 1540-1548 DOI: 10.1021/tx049867r
  5. EFSA 2009. Pesticides used in organic farming: some pass and some fail safety authorization. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
  6. Reasoned opinion of EFSA prepared by the Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) on the 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues. EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 305, 1-106
  7. Consumer Reports 1998. Organic produce. Consumer Reports 63(1), 12-18.
  8. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (2000). Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999. Available at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
  9. Bahlai, C., Xue, Y., McCreary, C., Schaafsma, A., & Hallett, R. (2010). Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans PLoS ONE, 5 (6) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011250
  10. Mukherjee A, Speh D, Dyck E, & Diez-Gonzalez F (2004). Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. Journal of food protection, 67 (5), 894-900 PMID: 15151224
  11. Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269
  12. EFSA 2009. Study finds no additional nutritional benefit in “organic” food. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed Jul 2011)
  13. Rosen, J. (2010). A Review of the Nutrition Claims Made by Proponents of Organic Food Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9 (3), 270-277 DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00108.x
  14. Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach Nutrition & Food Science, 32 (4), 153-157 DOI: 10.1108/00346650210436262
  15. Qaim, M. The Economic Effects of Genetically Modified Orphan

    Commodities: Projections for Sweetpotato in Kenya. Agricultural Economist Center for Development Research (ZEF), No. 13-1999. PDF

  16. Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming Science, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
  17. Fedoroff, N. (1999). Plants and population: Is there time? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96 (11), 5903-5907 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.5903
  18. Basker, D. (2009). Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7 (03) DOI: 10.1017/S0889189300004641