MrRippedZilla
Retired
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,706
- Reaction score
- 3,522
- Points
- 153
Let's see if this generates some critical thinking since the answer is not as obvious as most would make it out to be...
Defining what is & isn't organic
The technical definition of organic is simply any carbon-based substance. That's it.
The organic food industry has trivialized "organic" to refer to super nutritious, super safe, awesomeness. Of course they won't mention the part about "inefficiently produced without the benefit of modern technology" but I digress. It's a carbon-based substance and nothing else that screams marketing bullshit.
Digging into the data
Most of the scientific literature has found no overall advantage attached to consuming organic rather than conventional foods.
The very few who do favor organic tend to argue that its more environmentally friendly & sustainable for the long term (debatable). The problem we have with this literature is that it almost always involves pro-organic bias authors heavily involved with the Institute of Organic Agriculture, the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research, etc. This doesn't automatically mean we should ignore these papers, just something to take into consideration when looking at literature as a whole and understanding why these pro-organic reviews are the exception, rather than the rule.
In contrast, the vast majority of the literature concludes that we simply don't have enough evidence to answer the question of whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional. In other words, we don't know.
One of the main reasons for this lack of clarity is due to the differing impact that organic & conventional foods have depending on the food source itself. A few examples:
- We know that conventional green veggies contain less vit C and higher nitrate (more on this later).
- Organic green veggies & potatoes have a higher ascorbic acid profile.
- Organic strawberries tend to have an overall more favorable nutritious profile.
- And yet, conventional spinach has a better antioxidant profile...
- With no difference in antioxidant content between conventional vs organic watercress or rocket.
- Organically fed animals seem to be able to reproduce at a better rate but this doesn't transfer to humans (your kids won't become super awesome due to organic food).
So we can see that there is a difference between organic vs conventional food but these differences do not translate to a universal health advantage for either side.
The other reason for this lack of clarity is due to insufficient clinical, controlled, human trials. Even within the small number of well controlled trials, it's difficult to come up with a general conclusion due to methodological differences such not taking into account the effect of different food sources (greens vs meats, etc) within the same organic/conventional group.
This leads me to believe that the differences in essential micro-nutrients is negligible and not worth factoring in when it comes to deciding what to buy. Being healthy is about consuming a varied, well balanced diet with the organic/conventional side of the equation being close to irrelevant.
Digging deeper: 2 beast reviews
Magkos (ref 4) is one of the leading researchers in this field and he & his colleagues issued a beast of a review paper back in 2006 concluding that the claims of organic food being more nutritious & safer are, at best, weakly supported and, at worst, plain false. A few key points from the paper (I suspect no one will bother reading it all due to its length):
- Organic fruit & veg do contain less chemical residues BUT this seems insignificant when we consider that actual levels of contamination in both types of food are WAY below acceptable limits.
- Leafy, root & tuber veggies have less nitrate but its still unclear whether this difference in nitrate levels (still in normal ranges) actually constitutes any sort of benefit to human health. For example, we have data suggesting a PROTECTIVE effect against pathogenic microorganisms so the risks of no nitrate must also be considered.
- No differences found in environmental contaminants (heavy metals, etc) between organic & conventional foods.
- For other food hazards like biological pesticides, endogenous plant toxins, etc, the evidence is limited with no conclusions being drawn.
The take home point is that the generalization of organic = safer is an incorrect one.
Another beast review was issued by the Institute Food Technologists (IFT) (ref 5) and I highly recommend it for anyone wishing to read through the data themselves rather than relying on my interpretation of it all (its an easier, shorter, review to read through vs the Magkos paper). For the rest of you, here are some highlights:
- Organic fruit & veg contain less pesticide residues but also more naturally occurring toxins due to pest pressure insects, diseases and so on.
- Some, not all, studies suggest increased microbiological hazards from organic foods due to prohibition of antimicrobial use.
- Many studies demonstrate qualitative differences between organic & conventional foods but neither system appears to be superior to the other when it comes to overall safety/nutrient composition.
- Pesticide residues, natural toxins, etc exert their heath effects (good & bad) on a dose-dependent basis. Data doesn't exist to show the biological impact of different levels of theses chemicals between organic & conventional foods.
- Organic animals, in some cases, have the potential to possess higher rates of bacterial contamination since organic production prohibits antibiotic use.
Again, we have mixed picture that doesn't really indicate an advantage to either side as far as nutrition & safety profiles are concerned.
Conclusion
Hopefully everyone can see that organic & conventional foods both involve trade-offs with the net effect being...a draw(?).
The key point I want to emphasize is that organic food shouldn't be seen as a necessity or better from a safety/nutrient composition perspective.
If you enjoy the taste more and can afford it, then it's all good. If you can't, then it comes down to focusing on meeting your macro needs with a balanced, varied diet with the impact of organic vs conventional food sources on your bodycomp & health goals being minimal (if any at all)
References
1) Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?
2) Fruit and soil quality of organic and conventional strawberry agroecosystems
3) Antioxidant assays - consistent findings from FRAP and ORAC reveal a negative impact of organic cultivation on antioxidant potential in spinach but not watercress or rocket leaves
4) Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature
Defining what is & isn't organic
The technical definition of organic is simply any carbon-based substance. That's it.
The organic food industry has trivialized "organic" to refer to super nutritious, super safe, awesomeness. Of course they won't mention the part about "inefficiently produced without the benefit of modern technology" but I digress. It's a carbon-based substance and nothing else that screams marketing bullshit.
Digging into the data
Most of the scientific literature has found no overall advantage attached to consuming organic rather than conventional foods.
The very few who do favor organic tend to argue that its more environmentally friendly & sustainable for the long term (debatable). The problem we have with this literature is that it almost always involves pro-organic bias authors heavily involved with the Institute of Organic Agriculture, the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research, etc. This doesn't automatically mean we should ignore these papers, just something to take into consideration when looking at literature as a whole and understanding why these pro-organic reviews are the exception, rather than the rule.
In contrast, the vast majority of the literature concludes that we simply don't have enough evidence to answer the question of whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional. In other words, we don't know.
One of the main reasons for this lack of clarity is due to the differing impact that organic & conventional foods have depending on the food source itself. A few examples:
- We know that conventional green veggies contain less vit C and higher nitrate (more on this later).
- Organic green veggies & potatoes have a higher ascorbic acid profile.
- Organic strawberries tend to have an overall more favorable nutritious profile.
- And yet, conventional spinach has a better antioxidant profile...
- With no difference in antioxidant content between conventional vs organic watercress or rocket.
- Organically fed animals seem to be able to reproduce at a better rate but this doesn't transfer to humans (your kids won't become super awesome due to organic food).
So we can see that there is a difference between organic vs conventional food but these differences do not translate to a universal health advantage for either side.
The other reason for this lack of clarity is due to insufficient clinical, controlled, human trials. Even within the small number of well controlled trials, it's difficult to come up with a general conclusion due to methodological differences such not taking into account the effect of different food sources (greens vs meats, etc) within the same organic/conventional group.
This leads me to believe that the differences in essential micro-nutrients is negligible and not worth factoring in when it comes to deciding what to buy. Being healthy is about consuming a varied, well balanced diet with the organic/conventional side of the equation being close to irrelevant.
Digging deeper: 2 beast reviews
Magkos (ref 4) is one of the leading researchers in this field and he & his colleagues issued a beast of a review paper back in 2006 concluding that the claims of organic food being more nutritious & safer are, at best, weakly supported and, at worst, plain false. A few key points from the paper (I suspect no one will bother reading it all due to its length):
- Organic fruit & veg do contain less chemical residues BUT this seems insignificant when we consider that actual levels of contamination in both types of food are WAY below acceptable limits.
- Leafy, root & tuber veggies have less nitrate but its still unclear whether this difference in nitrate levels (still in normal ranges) actually constitutes any sort of benefit to human health. For example, we have data suggesting a PROTECTIVE effect against pathogenic microorganisms so the risks of no nitrate must also be considered.
- No differences found in environmental contaminants (heavy metals, etc) between organic & conventional foods.
- For other food hazards like biological pesticides, endogenous plant toxins, etc, the evidence is limited with no conclusions being drawn.
The take home point is that the generalization of organic = safer is an incorrect one.
Another beast review was issued by the Institute Food Technologists (IFT) (ref 5) and I highly recommend it for anyone wishing to read through the data themselves rather than relying on my interpretation of it all (its an easier, shorter, review to read through vs the Magkos paper). For the rest of you, here are some highlights:
- Organic fruit & veg contain less pesticide residues but also more naturally occurring toxins due to pest pressure insects, diseases and so on.
- Some, not all, studies suggest increased microbiological hazards from organic foods due to prohibition of antimicrobial use.
- Many studies demonstrate qualitative differences between organic & conventional foods but neither system appears to be superior to the other when it comes to overall safety/nutrient composition.
- Pesticide residues, natural toxins, etc exert their heath effects (good & bad) on a dose-dependent basis. Data doesn't exist to show the biological impact of different levels of theses chemicals between organic & conventional foods.
- Organic animals, in some cases, have the potential to possess higher rates of bacterial contamination since organic production prohibits antibiotic use.
Again, we have mixed picture that doesn't really indicate an advantage to either side as far as nutrition & safety profiles are concerned.
Conclusion
Hopefully everyone can see that organic & conventional foods both involve trade-offs with the net effect being...a draw(?).
The key point I want to emphasize is that organic food shouldn't be seen as a necessity or better from a safety/nutrient composition perspective.
If you enjoy the taste more and can afford it, then it's all good. If you can't, then it comes down to focusing on meeting your macro needs with a balanced, varied diet with the impact of organic vs conventional food sources on your bodycomp & health goals being minimal (if any at all)
References
1) Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?
2) Fruit and soil quality of organic and conventional strawberry agroecosystems
3) Antioxidant assays - consistent findings from FRAP and ORAC reveal a negative impact of organic cultivation on antioxidant potential in spinach but not watercress or rocket leaves
4) Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature
