One debate about the value of organically grown fruits, vegetables, and grains is whether they offer a nutritional benefit. [This argument is separate and distinct from the issue of whether organic farming is more environmentally sound or economically viable. It is also separate from the argument over whether organic practices are a more humane or environmentally sound way to produce meat.] Advocates of organic produce and grains typically insinuate that there is a nutritional benefit to them, without actually ever demonstrating that there really is one. This particular seduction is common on the web, where writers often try to advance an agenda (the politics of organic versus conventional farming) by encouraging, for example, that readers consume “organic” berries or greens, rather than just telling people to eat more berries and greens. See, for example, this post on Yahoo health by a nutritionist from Johns Hopkins (Are Your Veggies Missing Nutrients on Yahoo! Health), who offers not a shred of scientific evidence for her recommendation that people opt for organic. (By the way, organic produce, while grown without pesticides, is often treated with fungicides.)
The worldwide market for organic produce and grains exceeds $40 billion annually, so this is not trivial. Organic foods tend to cost more than conventionally grown ones, because supply is lower than demand and, in some cases, production costs are higher. That brings us, then, to the question of “what value are organic produce and grains?” in a nation where two-thirds of adults are overweight (and half of those are obese), and most adults are sedentary.
Chronic diseases derive from a lack of fitness
The chief public health deficit in the US is a lack of fitness, which comes directly and completely from insufficient physical activity. The overweight/obesity crisis, which will soon lead us into a maelstrom of expensive, disabling chronic diseases, comes from the complex interaction of both physical inactivity and poor eating habits. The dietary deficit, however, is not that we don’t eat organic produce and grains, but that, compared with the 1970s, we now eat, on average, 400 more calories per day and we are less physically active (Blackburn, G, et al. Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of class III obesity. American J. of Clinical Nutrition, Jan. 2009; 91:1; 289S-292S). Much of this excess energy intake comes in the form of sweetened drinks, and highly processed, packaged foods that are frequently rich in fat (especially saturated fat) and low in essential nutrients.
Federal data show that in 2005, only 27% of American adults ate two or more servings of vegetables daily (the target is 50%) and 33% ate three or more servings of fruit daily (the target is 75%). As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is known to contribute to a healthy bodyweight and reduced risks of chronic diseases (Fruit and vegetable consumption among adults – United States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 16, 2007.) They don’t report that people under-consume organic fruits and vegetables. In fact, neither do major studies of healthy diets around world make any mention whatsoever of organic fruits, vegetables or grains. Rather, they report that people eating diets rich in fruits, vegetables, and grains have healthier body weights and suffer far fewer chronic diseases (see, for example, the EPIC-Norfolk, GISSI, or Lyon Heart studies, studies of the Mediterranean diet generally, the Framingham Heart Study, the long-running physician’s and nurse’s health studies, and the lifestyle recommendations of the American Heart Association).
The data matters
The organic advocacy hits another bump when you realize, simply by reading food labels, that organic foods do not offer specific and significant nutrient benefits. For example, I am right now looking at the labels for two varieties of orange juice: Trader Joe’s conventionally grown, not from concentrate (no pulp) and Trader Joe’s organic not from concentrate (no pulp). They are nearly identical. The organic has 10 more calories per 8 oz serving, but it actually has less potassium (410 mg vs 450), which is a necessary electrolyte. The organic juice reports no folate (a B vitamin), while the conventional provides 15% of your daily needs. The organic juice is 50% higher in cost; is there any reason to buy it? To further drive this point, consider the simple fact of longevity. A child born in 1900-1902 in the US had an anticipated lifespan of 49 years. A child born in 2004 can expect to live to about 78. Thus, in about 100 years, we increased lifespan by nearly 60%. This phenomenon coincides with an explosion in modern farming techniques that we now regard, sometimes with derision, as conventional, but which were critical to supply a growing population with safe, affordable food. Without conventional farming, there would be a lot fewer of us alive today.
In his excellent guide to nutrition, Eat, Drink and Be Healthy, Harvard Professor Walter Willett does not even have an entry for the word “organic” in the index. Respected sports nutritionist Nancy Clark does have an entry in her book, Sports Nutrition Guidebook (2008 ed.) addressing organic foods. She notes that there is no evidence supporting the notion that organic foods offer a nutritional benefit that has a demonstrated benefit for human health.
Back up your claims
As I learned in my days working in the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, the burden of proof rests with the people or organization making a claim. If the organics industry wants to persist in its not-so-subtle market battle for consumers’ food dollars through a campaign of health innuendo, then it should put its money where its mouth is. Let’s see organic advocates fund large-scale studies (including randomized, controlled, blinded dietary trials) which show that: (1) organic produce and grains consistently have significantly higher amounts of critical nutrients than conventionally grown products and, (2) this difference matters to human health by making a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in either the risk or severity of chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease. The reason this study has not been done is that organics purveyors know that they cannot make the case. Last summer, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reported on the published scientific evidence about the nutritional benefit of organic foods. They found that, in the 50 years from 1958 to 2008, they organics industry produced a meager 11 (eleven) studies, published worldwide in credible journals, claiming to show a nutritional benefit for organic goods. In fact, the “evidence” amounted to not even a hill of organic beans. (Comparison of the putative effects of organically and conventionally grown produced foodstuffs: a systematic review. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2009.)
When fitness or diet professionals advise clients to opt for organic foods on the presumption of an unproven nutritional benefit, they are complicit in a cruel charade. For the average person, the choice is not between an expensive organic apple and a cheap bag of chips. The choice is between the bag of chips and any apple. Thus, this is not a Hobson’s choice; there are viable alternatives to the unhealthy choices that Americans make today, and the vast majority of them are readily accessible and affordable for most people. Don’t’ kid yourself. If you are sedentary and eating that extra 400 hundred calories per day, your arteries will clog just as easily, your belly fat will grow just as quickly, with 400 unnecessary organic calories as with conventional ones. And your cardiac surgeon’s bill will be exactly the same.