FDA

Organic Foods vs. Conventional Foods Part 2

Organic Foods vs. Conventional Foods Part 2
In part one we discussed the conclusions of a literature review comparing the health benefits of organic vs. non-organic food from a recent article that in the Archives of Internal Medicine(1) which has been referred to as the "Stanford Study" since it was done by Stanford Medical School faculty, staff and student's. The results are summarized as follows: (for greater detail, see part 1)
> Pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable limits
> Consumption of organic foods may reduce - but not eliminate exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
> No significant differences in health benefits between organic and conventional foods were found.

Media from around the world picked up the story and ran headlines proclaimed organic foods aren't healthier than conventional foods. This prompted a tsunami-like backlash with a flood of accusations against the paper, its authors, and their motives. The headlines and responses to them both misinterpreted of the actual study. In other words, organic foods DO have benefits and the authors were not out to get anybody.

The longest studies in this review were only 2 years. “Health benefits" were defined as nutrient levels in the foods analyzed from the 200+ studies that met the author’s criteria. Health benefits were not defined as long term pesticide accumulation. When they examined the pesticide exposure data that compared organic vs. non-organic, the difference was smaller than they expected. When chemicals were detected, most were within the safe range. This causes a knee jerk of negativity in many, but the study did not address – let alone validate – the accuracy of "allowable" amounts of pesticides. That is not the subject of this article either, but it does pose an interesting question: How many chronic, long term problems commonly addressed by nutritional intervention are caused by eating too many servings of non-organic produce for too many years?

I wondered which foods were the most affected by pesticides, and discovered the answers were in 77 pages of fine print on the massive United States Department of Agriculture web site. (2) I went through an alphabetical list that added up to 313 different chemicals which broke down into 7 basic categories: acaricides, bacteriacides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, plant activators and soil fumigants. Each chemical had a list of the produce that were tested for it, the number of samples studied, the number with detectable residues, the range of the amounts present and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tolerance level. I was dreading how long it would take to answer my question when I discovered the Environmental Working Group (EWG) had already had compiled a highest and lowest list (with trademarked catch phrases I will not use) from the USDA data (3). They recommended people purchase organic from all foods on the highest list which is in order. (See table 1) The most contaminated food was apples with 98% of tested samples showing residues from 48 different agrochemicals. Celery, in second place overall was 1st in chemical variety with 57. Each food in table 1 had detectable pesticides present in 90% of the samples tested. This does not mean these foods had agrochemical levels above what is considered safe. Of course, opponents will counter with the following question: "Would you rather eat an apple with safe levels agrochemicals or no agrochemicals?"

The EWG stated that people who cannot afford the higher cost of organic food may buy conventional varieties of food in table 2. For example, only 1% of the onions tested had detectable levels of agrochemicals.

TABLE 1
Produce Highest In Pesticides
Apples, Celery, Bell peppers, Peaches, Strawberries, Nectarines
Grapes, Spinach, Lettuce, Cucumbers, Blueberries, Potatoes,
Green beans, Kale and Collard greens

TABLE 2
Produce Lowest In Pesticides
Onions, Corn, Pineapples, Avocado, Cabbage, Sweet peas, Asparagus, Mangoes, Eggplant, Kiwi, Cantaloupe, Sweet potatoes, Grapefruit, Watermelon, Mushrooms

Regarding nutrient levels in organic vs. conventional I looked at the data from a table summarizing the number of studies that compared nutrient values between organic and non-organic foods (1). The nutrients that were compared were Beta Carotene, vitamin E (alpha tocopherol) and vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The minerals were calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and iron. The phytonutrients tested were quercetin, kaempherol, flavanols and phenols. The macronutrients tested were protein and fiber. Each nutrient was determined from different samples. A total of 35 types of fruits, vegetables and grains were analyzed with no more than 18 for any single nutrient. For example, the vitamin E comparisons came from analysis of cabbage, carrots, corn, olives, peaches, pears and plums while the flavanol comparisons used apples, grape leaves, strawberries, black currants and chicory. Each nutrient comparison also came from a different number of studies ranging from a high of 41 for vitamin C to a low of 5 for flavanols. Based on the studies they analyzed, organic did have a greater chance of having more nutrients than conventional produce although the margins were not statistically significant. It should also be noted that 2 macronutrients (protein and fiber) heavily favored conventional based on the study count but their differences did not reach statistical significance either. See table 3:
Table #3
Number of Number of Favor Favor No difference of studies comparisons organic non- organic reported

In one interview, a principal researcher explained their Meta analysis was not intended to address many of the other reasons people buy organic including lower agrochemical exposure to workers, the soil and groundwater or to reduce the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. (4) They also stated that the data was just as unexpected and surprising to them as it was to the public. (5) This showed me they weren't out to get anybody.
Finally, the Stanford Study does show that a higher percentage of organic food is chemical free. And the EWG, who recommended purchasing organic from anything in table 1, also stated “The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure."(3)

1.Crystal Smith-Spangler, Margaret L. Brandeau; Grace E. Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger et al. Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review Annals of Internal Medicine. 4 September 2012;157(5):348-366
2. Shipman, David R. Agricultural Marketing Service - US Department of Agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5098550 accessed 9-29-12.
3. EWG's 2012 Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/ accessed 10-3-12
4. Rogers, Heather. Stanford researcher readily acknowledges limitations of study on organic versus conventional food. Remapping Debate. 9-10-12 accessed 9-27-12
5. Neergaard, Lauran. Study questions how much better organic food is. Associated Press, 9-4-12.

916 E. Imperial Hwy.
Brea, CA. 92821
(714) 990-0824
Fax: (714) 990-1917
gdandersen@earthlink.net
www.andersenchiro.com