Picking a can of black beans is likely one of the most mundane grocery store tasks. Unless, of course, the choice is between organic and non-organic beans.
At a Manhattan
The added cost for organic beans seems like a small price to pay for a product that's supposedly better for you and the planet. Yet recent developments have called this trade-off into question, and that has once again put organics at the center of an ongoing debate about the American diet.
In Depth: Seven Things to Know About Organic Food
In 2008, consumers spent $23 billion on organic food. The market, which grew by 16% last year, is seen by many as an alternative to the practices of industrial agriculture; organic food is largely produced without pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. And though most organic food producers don't bill their products as more nutritious than conventionally grown food, the organic label tends to confer increased health benefits.
Yet according to a recent comprehensive review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there is no evidence to support the claim that organic food has higher quantities of vitamins and minerals. In addition to that finding--contested by many organic food advocates--the USDA announced this month that it would audit the National Organic Program, which develops standards and accredits organic certifiers. The decision came at the behest of industry members who say the integrity of the program had been compromised in recent years with less-than-uniform guidelines.
This news points to how it's become increasingly difficult to trust the claim that organics are healthier for you--and the confusion has a lot to do with the complicated evolution of scientific research.
The Nutrition Debate
The trouble with relying on just one well-designed study to prove a claim is that another equally competent study may contradict its findings.
That's why Dr. Alan Dangour, the lead author of the AJCN study and nutritionist for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, set out to compare the nutritional content of organic and conventional crops by conducting a systematic review of studies published in a 50-year time span. The study was funded by the U.K.'s Food Standards Agency, a government body that had no role in designing the study, collecting data, or analyzing and summarizing the results.
After eliminating sub-par studies, Dangour and his team analyzed the results of 55 papers and found no significant differences in eight of 11 nutrient categories, including vitamin C, potassium and zinc.
"We're not saying there's no difference," says Dangour. "We're saying there's no evidence of a difference."
His team hasn't ruled out the possibility that future studies could demonstrate a quantitative difference between organic and conventional crops. The best research, he says, will come from high-quality field trials that compare crops grown on the same land.
Critics have called Dangour's study narrow in scope and methodologically flawed, but a recent editorial in the Lancet deemed it a "massive undertaking" and added that consumers who buy organics shouldn't expect a nutritional benefit.
Charles Benbrook is one of those critics. As chief scientist for the Organic Center, an industry-funded organization that researches organic farming, Benbrook has conducted research showing that organic foods contain greater levels of antioxidants and phenolic compounds, micronutrients that scientists think may be beneficial in protecting cells from degeneration.
"I don't want to oversell what the science shows," says Benbrook, "but I think it's a mistake to send a message to the public that it's not important to increase daily intakes of these."
Dangour's study also found that organic food had a slightly higher level of phenolic compounds, but the 3% difference fell within the 6% margin of error. Yet, even if Dangour's results were more conclusive, it's unclear what scientists would do with that information. Benbrook admits that it's not fully understood how antioxidants and phenolic compounds interact, how much of these micronutrients the body requires and absorbs, and what health benefits they impart.
Dr. George Blackburn, the S. Daniel Abraham chair in Nutrition Medicine at Harvard Medical School, says added antioxidants and phenolic compounds do not have a protective benefit.
Guaranteeing Organic
Gary Hirshberg, CEO of the organic yogurt company Stonyfield Farms, believes higher levels of micronutrients translate into significant health benefits but does not market his products with that promise. (Stonyfield, which grossed $330 million last year, has contributed funds to the Organic Center).
If you liked this, read: |
Instead, Hirshberg focuses on the absence of hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which may have relative health benefits by limiting exposure to toxic chemicals and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
These are the paramount principles of organic food production, so it had concerned Hirshberg and other producers that the guidelines of the country's organic certification program have been loosely enforced. Some products--including baby food and grated cheese--have been labeled organic when they contain synthetic or stabilizing ingredients.
The National Organic Coalition, a group of farmers, advocates, environmentalists and industry leaders, lobbied for an external audit or the National Organic Program. (Stonyfield is not a member). The audit will review accrediting standards to ensure that certifiers are adhering to international guidelines.
Steve Etka, legislative coordinator for the coalition, characterizes questionable products labeled as organic as "blemishes" on an otherwise successful program.
Hirshberg welcomes the increased oversight, and says that research into the health benefits of organic food is linked to trusting the certification process.
"The broader point," he says, "is that organic is only as strong as the data and the enforcement."
