 |
The Beat-up on
Organics: debunking the myths
Download and print
by Dr Meriel Watts
As more and more consumers around the world
are turning their backs on GE foods and voting
for Organics with their wallets, the gene giants
have engaged their spin doctors in an all-out
attack. New Zealand has become caught up in the
corporate campaign against Organics with the
media dutifully printing the baseless
allegations, and even a Les Mills World of
Fitness ‘advertisement’ in a recent Waikato
community newspaper denouncing Organics.
There are a number of common allegations that
have reached almost mythical proportions: we
thought it was time to put the record straight on
some of them.
Myth 1: Organic food is no safer than
chemically produced food.
Wrong on four counts!
Fact 1: Organic food is healthier because
it does not contain the chemical residues that
are commonplace in ‘conventional’ food.
Pesticides
When persistent and systemic pesticides are
sprayed directly on to our food before it is
harvested (and sometimes afterwards), inevitably,
some of it turns up on our plates and in our
livers. The most recent survey of New Zealand
food (Cressy et al. 2000) found residues of 17
different pesticides that cause cancer, endocrine
disruption, liver or kidney damage, birth
defects, or damage to the nervous or immune
systems, in 59 per cent of the food tested (see
Soil & Health 1999,Vol 58, Nos 1 and 2). None of
these pesticides can be used on organic food.
Some pesticides are used in Organics, but while
conventional farmers have about 300 different
pesticide active ingredients in their arsenal,
BIO-GRO permits less than a dozen of these to be
used in organic systems, and then usually only in
a very restricted manner. None of the permitted
material are synthetic chemicals, but instead are
elemental compounds like copper sulphate, plant
extracts like neem, homoeopathic preparations,
and microbial agents like Bacillus thuringiensis.
Some of these substances are still of concern
(e.g. the effect of copper on the environment),
but generally they are simpler substances that
tend to degrade quicker, and are less likely to
remain as residues in food.
Organic food may still contain residues of
DDT, thanks to the legacy of chemical agriculture
in New Zealand, but responsible organic
certifiers like BIO-GRO have strict limits on the
level of contamination of DDT and other
persistent organochlorines, and these are
considerably less than those allowed in
conventional produce.
The long-term health effects of eating
cocktails of complex chemical pesticides with
every meal are largely unknown, but scientists
and medical experts are increasingly concerned
about the implications of continual exposure to
mixtures of pesticides in low doses. Some have
raised the possibility of the combinations of
residues in food causing Parkinson’s Disease (see
Soil & Health 2001, Vol 60, No 2). Other research
has implicated low dose mixtures of pesticides in
endocrine, immune and behavioural changes (Porter
et al. 1999) and in cancer (Lodovic et al. 1994).
The legally allowed levels of residues are based
on the effect of a single chemical and do not
take into account these cocktail effects. And
washing doesn’t necessarily help all that much:
the UK Soil Association reported that 50 to 93
per cent of residues remained on potatoes, apples
and broccoli after washing (Heaton 2001).
Veterinary drugs
Then there are the veterinary drugs – growth
hormones, antibiotics, worm drenches,
ectoparasiticides (sheep ‘dips’) – all of which
can find their way onto your dinner plate. There
is increasing global concern about the problem of
human disease resistance to antibiotics because
the routine feeding of these drugs to animals as
growth stimulants encourages the emergence of
resistant microbiological organisms that pass on
to humans via meat. Resistant strains of
Salmonella, Campylobacter, Enterocci and E. coli
have already been passed on from animals to
humans (Heaton 2001).
Additionally, antibiotic residues in meat and
milk could result in the development of
antibiotic resistance in bacteria that are
prevalent in humans, again reducing the
effectiveness of antibiotics used to treat human
diseases (Heaton 2001).
Nitrates
According to the UN Food & Agriculture
Organization (FAO 2000), organic food contains
lower levels of nitrates – often up to 50 per
cent lower (Heaton 2001). The higher levels in
chemically produced food result largely from the
use of inorganic forms of nitrogen fertiliser.
This is a complex issue. Nitrates are a natural
constituent of plants and are present in all
vegetables. At typical dietary levels they are
thought to have beneficial effects. However at
elevated levels, and under certain conditions,
they may be reduced to nitrites by certain
micro-organisms, and then converted to
nitrosamines that may in turn be precursors of
cancer. The conditions that favour this
transformation include the lower stomach acidity
of infants, and storage of vegetables under
conditions that permit the growth of the
micro-organisms that carry out this
transformation, e.g. leaving food at room
temperature after cooking, or after opening a jar
of baby food. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) helps to
prevent this transformation of nitrate to
nitrite, and it is another tick for Organics that
the lower nitrate levels are supported by a
higher vitamin C content (see below). Even the US
Department of Agriculture has urged prudence with
respect to nitrate levels in foods (Heaton 2001).
Industrial chemicals and pharmaceutical
drugs
Lastly in this area, biosolids compost (i.e.
compost made from sewerage sludge) contains a
large variety of industrial chemicals, heavy
metals and pharmaceutical drugs, many of which
might find their way into food grown using this
product. The UN FAO (2000) listed this as one of
the specific food quality issues with respect to
conventional agriculture. Biosolids compost is
permitted in chemical-based agriculture, but
banned from organic growing.
‘It has been demonstrated that organically
produced foods have lower levels of pesticide and
veterinary drug residues, and in many cases,
lower nitrate counts.’
UN Food and Agriculture Organization 2000
Fact 2: Organic food is healthier because
it does not contain the deliberately added
chemicals found in many conventional processed
foods.
Currently about 500 such additives are used,
some of which have been linked to allergic
reactions, urticaria, headaches, asthma, growth
retardation, hyperactivity in children, heart
disease and osteoporosis – food additives such as
preservatives, sweeteners, colourings (Heaton
2001). BIO-GRO standards permit only about 40
food additives and processing aids, and only
under strict conditions. They prohibit
hydrogenated fats which have been linked to heart
disease and cancer, and the phosphoric acid of
cola drinks that leaves bones brittle and porous
and prone to osteoporosis. They prohibit
aspartame which causes headaches, mood swings,
changes in vision, nausea, diarrhoea, sleep
disorders, memory loss, confusion, convulsions
and seizures. They prohibit monosodium glutamate,
which is linked to ‘Chinese Restaurant Syndrome’,
involving dizziness, headaches and perspiration,
and also to asthma attacks (Heaton 2001).
Fact 3: Organic cows do not get Mad Cow
Disease (BSE).
Although BSE is not an issue in New Zealand
yet, it may be one day, and certainly no one in
New Zealand can avoid being aware of this problem
in the UK. The food safety issue of course is the
suspected link between the human new-variant
Creutzfeld Jacob Disease and the eating of BSE
contaminated beef. The Soil Association reports
that after exhaustive searches of its own records
and those of other organic certifiers in the UK,
it has found ‘no recorded cases of BSE in any
animals born and reared organically’ (Heaton
2001). The few cases that have occurred in
organic herds have come from animals brought in
from a non-organic source.
Fact 4: Organic production systems are not
permitted to use GMOs.
The long term effects of eating genetically
engineered foods are still largely unknown but,
according to the Soil Association (Heaton 2001),
the British Society for Allergy, Environmental
and Nutritional Medicine has raised a number of
concerns about the effects of GE foods:
• allergies resulting because antigens may
appear unexpectedly in totally unrelated foods;
• levels of micronutrients different from the
originals;
• increased levels of pesticide residues in
food from pesticide-resistance plants (up to 30
per cent more herbicides are used on Roundup
Ready soy in the US);
• higher levels of natural insecticides such
as lectins that may have adverse effects on
health.
The unpredictability of genetic engineering is
a cause for serious concern about the safety of
GE food. It was not until 10 years after Monsanto
constructed its Roundup Ready soybeans that it
discovered two extra bacterial DNA inserts in the
seeds that it did not know were there (Palevitz
2000). To this day scientists still don’t know
how they got there, and while the US regulatory
agency says it doesn’t matter, the food is still
safe, some scientists are more cautious. (See
also article on p.8.)
‘As a result of the random location of the
inserted gene and absence of regulating factors,
unknown interactions can take place between
inserted genes and the rest of the plant genes,
causing unexpected outcomes.’
Heaton 2001
Myth 2: Organic food causes food poisoning.
Wrong on two counts!
Fact 1: Organic farming reduces the risk of
E. coli infection.
E. coli is a bacteria found living in both
humans and animals. Some strains of it are
particularly virulent and cause food poisoning,
especially o157:H7, with around 200 deaths per
year in the US and 40 in the UK (Heaton 2001).
The main source of E. coli poisoning in humans is
meat contaminated with cattle faeces during
slaughter. The most virulent strains of E. coli
have been found in the gut of grain fed animals;
hay fed animals have been found to contain less
than 1 per cent of the E. coli found in grain fed
animals (FAO 2000). In organic systems animals
are fed a high proportion of hay, silage and
grass; grain feeding is a feature of the highly
intensive industrialised agricultural model that
is shunned by Organics. Conflicting evidence
leaves a question mark over whether it is the
nature of the feed that causes the difference, or
the nature of the surrounding environment, with
the less intensive and less contaminated
environment of the organic system providing the
safeguard (Heaton 2001).
The second potential cause of E. coli
poisoning is the use of animal manure on organic
crops. But responsible organic standards, such as
BIO-GRO’s, have stringent guidelines for the use
of animal manures, requiring that they are
composted before use. Such guidelines do not
apply to the use of manure on conventional crops.
The myth that Organics cause E. coli poisoning
originated with Dennis Avery of the Hudson
Institute, a chemical industry funded PR machine.
Avery fundamentally misinterpreted the data of
food surveys, claiming that people who eat
organic or natural food are eight times more
likely to be attacked by o157:H7. He selectively
used data from one year out of 13, combining
organic food with non-organic unpasteurised food
such as apple juice in an attempt to prove that
Organics is bad for you.
|
|
A subsequent investigation established that
the E. coli contamination of some organic
lettuces occurred in a packing plant and was
caused by water from a neighbouring non-organic
dairy farm (Heaton 2001). This is the genesis of
that myth, and that’s about all the evidence that
its supporters can muster up. On the other hand,
the Soil Association says that it is not aware of
any case of E. coli poisoning arising from
certified organic production methods. Neither are
we. In the UK a recent survey of 3200 samples of
uncooked ready to eat organic vegetables detected
no Listeria, Salmonella, Campylobacter or E. coli
o157:H7 in any sample (PHLS 2001).
It can be concluded that organic farming
potentially reduces the risk of E. coli
infection.’ UN FAO 2000
Fact 2: There is no evidence that Organics
increases the risk of mycotoxin poisoning.
Mycotoxins are toxic by-products of certain
moulds that grow on some foods under some
conditions, and include the most well known one
aflatoxin. The myth has it that because chemical
fungicides are not permitted in Organics there is
a greater risk of mycotoxins. Organic growers
counter this with the view that the extensive use
of nitrogen by chemical-growers to speed up
growth results in thinner plant cell walls that
are more susceptible to fungal attack (Heaton
2001).
A review of the literature by the FAO failed
to find any evidence of a problem with Organics.
In fact they found evidence of lower levels of
mycotoxins in milk and concluded that, because of
the stock rearing practices of Organics, there is
reduced opportunity for mycotoxin contamination
of milk (FAO 2000). The Soil Association drew
attention to an extensive review of the
contamination of cereals, in which it was found
that:
• the use of fungicides can actually increase
mycotoxin levels;
• organically grown cereals are less prone to
mycotoxin contamination prior to harvest; and
• it is the inadequate post-harvest storage
that is most likely to cause mycotoxin
contamination for both conventional and organic
grains (Heaton 2001).
‘It cannot be concluded that organic
farming leads to an increased risk of mycotoxin
infection.’ UN FAO 2000
Myth 3: Organic food is no more nutritious
than conventional food.
Wrong on two counts!
Fact 1: Organic food tends to contain
higher levels of primary nutrients.
Organic food tends to contain higher levels of
vitamin C and minerals. That is the finding of
the review carried out by the UK Soil Association
(Heaton 2000). Of 27 valid comparisons of
minerals and vitamins, 14 showed significantly
higher levels in organic produce, and only one
showed higher levels in chemically-produced food.
Organic food has lower water content and hence
more concentrated nutrients: consumers are paying
for more water in non-organic produce than
organically grown produce.
Close to 100 papers claiming to compare the
nutritive qualities of organic and non-organic
produce have been written and reviewed in recent
years. Flaws are evident in the methodology of
many of them, meaning that the conclusions have
often been inconsistent. Critics of Organics have
seized upon this state of affairs to assert that
Organics does not improve nutritional quality of
food. So the Soil Association report set about
applying a set of strict criteria to ensure the
validity of the studies, in terms of both
agricultural and scientific analysis (e.g.
ensuring that those that claimed to be organic
really were, and that consistent parameters were
used). As a result they rejected 70 studies as
invalid, leaving only 27 valid studies.
Differences in study type, crops and nutrients
compared makes it possible to determine only
general trends – and those were for significantly
higher mineral and vitamin C in organic produce.
Some studies showed that organically grown
wheat can have lower crude protein concentration
than that produced using intensive nitrogen
fertilisation, but that the organic protein has
better nutritional value (Finesilver et al.
1989).
One study showed that organically reared
cattle had a lower ratio of saturated to
unsaturated fats, reducing risk of circulatory
and other diseases (Patushenko et al. 2000).
‘UK government reports show that from 1940
to 1991, the period of intensive chemical
farming, the fall in mineral and vitamin levels
in food ranged from 15 to 76 per cent.‘
Heaton 2001
Fact 2: Organic food tends to contain
higher levels of secondary nutrients.
This is an area that is not well researched as
yet. There are somewhere between 5000 and 10,000
secondary compounds in plants, commonly called
phytonutrients and including things like
flavenoids, carotenoids, and alkaloids. Some are
known to be harmful in high doses, some such as
solanin in potatoes are toxic in regularly
occurring amounts, and some help prevent or treat
human diseases. For example glucosinolates in
cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli are cancer
preventing; flavenoids in highly coloured fruits
and vegetables, soy, green tea and red wine are
anti-inflammatory, anti-allergenic,
anti-atherosclerotic, anti-mutagenic, collagen
stabilising, capillary protective, and discourage
the growth of tumours (Heaton 2001).
The benefits or toxicity of many of the
phytonutrients are unknown and it is unclear what
the best level of these is in the human diet.
Currently there are only a few valid studies
comparing the levels of phytonutrients in organic
and non-organically grown produce and these
indicate 10 to 50 per cent higher levels in
Organics. For example:
• higher levels of lycopene, a flavenoid, in
organic tomatoes;
• 27 per cent higher level of glycoalkaloids
in potatoes (these are toxic but also may protect
against salmonella infection);
• 18.6 per cent more flavenoids in organic
apples;
• 26 per cent higher level of reservatrol (an
antioxidant phenolic compound in the skin of red
grapes) in organic wine (Heaton 2001).
Fact 3: Organic food has been observed to
improve health.
The real test of whether food is healthy or
not lies in the health of the people or animals
eating it. A review of 14 feeding trials with
animals revealed significant improvements in
growth, early development, reproductive health
and recovery from illness by animals fed
organically produced feed (Fookes & Dalmeny 2001;
Heaton 2001).
Human studies are notably lacking, although ‘a
small body of observational and clinical evidence
supports the hypothesis that consumption of
organically produced food is beneficial to human
health’. (Heaton 2001).
One of the most interesting of these resulted
in a report published in Nature, in 1940,
recording the experiences at a New Zealand
boarding school that switched from fruit and
vegetables grown using chemicals to organically
grown produce. The study was carried out by Dr
Guy Chapman of the Physical and Mental Welfare
Society of NZ inc, at Mt Albert Grammar School,
and began in 1936. They found a lower incidence
of catarrhal conditions, a very marked decline in
colds and influenza, more rapid convalescence,
excellent health generally, fewer sports
injuries, a greater resilience to fractures and
sprains, clear and healthy skin, and improved
dental health (Daldy 1940). (See p.12.)
As a result of this experience, in 1940 Dr Guy
Chapman formed the Humic Compost Club, now known
as the Soil & Health Association of NZ Inc!
Myth 4: Organic food is unappealing.
Wrong!
Fact: Many top NZ chefs prefer to use
organic food.
The FAO (2000) reported studies showing
organically grown apples to be firmer and taste
better, tomatoes to be sweeter and carrots to
have more ‘carrot taste’, and organic wheat to
give better loaf browning of bread. Organic
produce seems to suffer less losses in storage
(carrots) and less deterioration during cooking
(potatoes).
The Soil Association reported that anecdotally
consumers feel that organic food tastes better,
43 per cent giving this as a reason for
purchasing it. Of six valid studies they
reviewed, five reported better taste qualities
for Organics (Heaton 2001).
And if that’s not enough, several animal
preference tests have showed a clear preference
by rabbits, rats, and hens for organic beetroot,
barley and potatoes! n
We would like to acknowledge the two excellent
reports by the UK Soil Association that formed
the basis of this article: ‘Organic Food and
Farming: Myth and Reality, 2001’; and ‘Organic
Farming, Food Quality and Human Health, 2001’.
These reports, which contain complete references
for the trials reviewed, can be obtained from the
Soil Association website: www.soilassociation.org
References:
Cressy P, Vannort R, Silvers K, Thomson B.
2000. 1997/98 New Zealand Total Diet Survey. Part
1: Pesticide Residues. Ministry of Health,
Wellington.
Daldy Y. 1940. ‘Food production without
artificial fertilisers’. Nature 145(3684) June 8,
pp.905-6.
[FAO] United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization. 2000. ‘Food Safety and Quality as
Affected by Organic Farming’. Agenda item 10.1,
Twenty Second FAO Regional Conference for Europe,
Porto, Portugal, 24-28 July 2000.
Finesilver T, Johns T, Hill, S. 1989.
‘Comparison of food quality of organically versus
conventionally grown plant foods’. McGill
University, Canada.
Fookes C, Dalmeny K. 2001. Organic Food and
Farming: Myth and Reality. The Soil Association
and Sustain, the Alliance for Better Food and
Farming. UK.
Heaton S. 2001. Organic Farming, Food Quality
and Human Health. Soil Association, Bristol, UK
Lodovic M, Aiolli S, Monserrat C, Dolara P,
Medica A, Di Simplicio P. 1994. ‘Effect of a
mixture of 15 commonly used pesticides on DNA
levels of 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and
xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes in rat liver’. J
Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 13(3):163-8.
Palevitz BA. 2000. ‘DNA Surprise: Monsanto
discovers extra sequences in its Roundup Ready
soybeans’. The Scientist 14[15]:20, Jul. 24,
2000.
Patushenko.V, Matthes HD, Hein T, Holzer Z.
2000. ‘Impact of cattle grazing on meat fatty
acid composition in relation to human nutrition’.
In: Alfooldi T, Lockeretz W, Niggit U, eds. IFOAM
2000 – The World Goes Organic – Proceedings of
the 13th International IFOAM Scientific
Conference.
[PHL] Public Health Laboratory Service 2001.
‘The Microbial Examination of Ready-to-Eat
Organics Vegetables from Retail Establishments’.
PHLS Environmental Surveillance Unit, London.
Porter WP, Jaeger JW, Carlson IH. 1999.
‘Endocrine, immune, and behavioral effects of
aldicarb (carbamate), atrazine (triazine) and
nitrate (fertilizer) mixtures at groundwater
concentrations’. Toxicol Ind Health
15(1-2):133-50. |
