September 7, 2012
Study: Organic Food No Healthier Than Conventional Food
Despite higher prices, organic foods haven’t proven to be any more nutritious than more conventional foods, according to a new study from Stanford University. The study also played down the greater risks of pesticides in conventional foods.
"There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the paper, in a university statement. The research was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
For the study, 237 published studies comparing organics to conventional foods were examined. Among the findings:
- No consistent differences were seen between organic and conventional produce in vitamin content, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce. Researchers also noted that few people have phosphorous deficiency.
- No difference in protein or fat content was found between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.
- Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional produce, although organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. Moreover, researchers found that the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits. Two studies showed children on organic diets had lower levels of pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but researchers indicated the significance of these findings in both cases is unclear.
Researchers, who received no outside funding, noted that taste preferences and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare are among other reasons to choose organic. The study’s goal was to help consumer’s make more informed decisions.
Not surprisingly, organic advocates are up in arms. Many say nutrition isn’t the reason people buy organic foods but taste and safety are the main drivers.
"This study confirms that choosing organic foods reduces consumers’ exposure to pesticide residues, and that the overuse of antibiotics in non-organic production leads to higher level of bacteria resistant to antibiotics in meat," Laura Batcha, EVP of the Organic Trade Association, told Bloomberg News. "Studies have increasingly shown the importance of minimizing young children’s exposure to even low levels of chemical pesticides."
Critics noted that the paper couldn’t delve into the long-term effects of pesticide exposure since none of the studies lasted longer than two years, with many lasting only a few days. The current limits for pesticides set for the EPA was also assumed to be correct. The examined studies also analyzed general "produce" or "meat" categories and didn’t offer head-to-head comparisons for specific food items.
- Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review – Anals of Internal Medicine
- Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds – Stanford School of Medicine
- Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce – New York Times
- Organic food adds no vitamins for extra cost, research finds – Bloomberg New/Washington Post
- ‘Organic’ a waste of money? Depends on your reason for buying it – Los Angeles Times
- Going organic could lead to a letdown, researchers find – Kansas City Star/Associated Press
- Organic no better than conventional? Baloney – Atlantic Magazine
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do you think many consumers buy organic foods for their nutritional value? Are reducing the risks of pesticides as well as taste enough to support organic’s price levels?
Poll
Consumers have a number of reasons for buying organic food and they are generally willing to pay a premium for those products. A larger number of consumers don’t care about organics and buy other products. It comes down to availability and price. This study might put a dent in organic sales, but it will be a small dent. More studies will have to be done, for longer periods of time. Until then, organic suppliers will tout their perceived benefits and consumers will be asked to spend more for their products. Some will, many won’t.
Since when are organic foods about nutrition? This is silly. Organic foods are about the food supply being adulterated by pesticides, chemicals, antibiotics and other schemes devised to increase producing efficiency without regard to how people are affected by ingesting toxic pollutants.
Dr.Bravata’s statement is clearly ridiculous. “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.” Doesn’t health include the ingestion of toxins that are so prevalent in agribusiness?
Asking about and analyzing the short-term nutritional benefits is absolutely asking the wrong question. Of course, vitamins and minerals are vitamins and minerals. I’m not sure if there’s a difference in absorption levels, but that’s not the big point.
The big question is “What is the long term impact of pesticides in our food supply?” And the other big question that this study also doesn’t address “What is the long term impact of genetically modified foods?”
I don’t buy all organic food by any stretch of the imagination…but there’s SOME reason food allergies have gone whacky (when I was a kid, there was no such animal as “peanut allergies”). And the problem with studies like these is they encourage and embolden pesticide manufacturers.
Is it enough to support organic’s price levels? When Whole Foods opens nearby (coming soon) I will indeed start buying my produce there. And I won’t eat GMO corn or soy anymore. “Organic” isn’t really enough. You have to work your way back to the seed stock.
What we have here is a study that has kicked off a trade association battle. Organic foods are not more nutritional and to me (and I am sure others) they really do not taste better. Many people I know that are organic claim “they are more nutritional.”
The organic food marketplace is a $30B+ turf that needs to be protected — in the eyes of the Organic Trade Association. Price levels, with no supporting health metrics, are too high and with the Stanford study the prices will seem even higher. Some organic shoppers will not care. Others will take a closer look at their food spend and “go normal” vs. Organic and feel fine (less food spend and equal health).
It will be interesting to see how retailers that carry large assortments of organics deal with this new reality.
Some people buy organic foods because the nutrition value is higher, some because of a lack of pesticides, and some to lower exposure to antibiotics. Depending how important each one of these criterion is and how many other studies are publicized, the sales of organic foods may decrease. I do not believe that the information reported here will cause a significant reduction in sales for those who are strongly committed to buying organic foods.
The market of supply and demand will support the price levels. If there was no demand for organics, then the prices would fall in line with the non-organics. Still there are a lot of people who believe in organics and are willing to pay extra. A lot of it is salesmanship, a lot is psychological. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that is either vulnerable or feel they are “educated” that will pay extra for organics. Our job as grocers is to give the consumer what they want and extract as much money from their pockets that we can in doing so.
Once more we play the silly game of Newtonian physics — that everything is defined by its parts. Is it taste? Is it pesticides? Is it DNA? Is it cost? Is it availability? For goodness sakes, it’s all of the above.
The points made so far stand on their own so I won’t reiterate. I especially laud Paula and Gene.
There is a level beyond mere organic and as it happens I’m currently playing in this arena. First, there is such a thing as organic pesticide. But more exciting is the work being done in frequency or subtle energy technology that changes water on a molecular level (NO chemical involvement) such that the fruit and vegetable is more substantive, higher nutritional quality and vastly superior in taste. Not only that, but so far were showing an increase of yield from about 25% to 40%. And on the grand scale of things the cost of this technology is negligible.
We’ve only begun to understand the tools nature has available to us. We need to wake up, realize we aren’t nearly as clever as we think we are, and realize that just maybe doing what is good and right is the best road to profitability.
What we all put in our mouth is part physiological and part psychological. I find this “study” disingenuous at best. Most, if not all organic buyers chose to buy from growers under the assumption that their practices yield a product with fewer chemicals and therefore, logically, you may assume less risk of harm to your long-term health.
Pay a premium with a future expectation of avoiding harm — all things being equal — with family history/DNA likely being a bigger factor than ingesting pesticides in your favorite apple or pear — is a no brainer. If you can afford it — do it.
I would assume that the grocery chains make a bigger profit margin on this section of the produce area even though on a profit per square foot basis it might not be that compelling. Nonetheless, offering organic prepared goods, canned goods as well as fruits/veggies makes the chain appear to be responsive to their customer base needs.
Organic foods might have slightly higher nutritional values than non-organic foods, which is great, but I believe consumers purchase organic foods based on the lack of pesticides and chemicals used. The reduction of the pesticide risk is able to continue supporting organic’s price levels, particularly for consumers that hold this to be highly important. And as the organic food category grows and becomes more mainstream, the price levels should start to come down.
As noted, the biggest reason for buying organic is more the environmental/pesticide issue…not that food has more nutrients.
Now a worthwhile study to help inform the public would be the extra margins retailers capture from the sale of organics.
One more point (and you know I rarely if ever post twice on a topic). I looked up the senior author on Google. While she has affiliations with Stanford, in fact she is the chief medical officer for Ventana – a company that helps employers “guide” its employees on health care costs. In other words, the company works for the insurance industry.
I challenge her objectivity.
There are many very scary reports and opinions putting the consumer at odds with common fertilizers and pesticides. When any observer reviews what materials are now illegal to manufacture and distribute, it follows that caution is a part of any consumer’s consumption habits. The fact that most labeling consists of unintelligible word content and many legally omitted participating products and or organisms is further cause for concern to the consumer.
The remedies are relatively simple, yet the cost and awareness burdens make these options a non option, unless of course they are imposed through legislation. These problems have been minimized by most of the organic growers, that is until their open honesty was somewhat compromised by larger companies wishing to cash in on this growing market.
I suppose as a group we could go back and forth on this topic forever. The one remaining constant is the vigilance needed by consumers regardless of intent or quality of information from suppliers. As for taste, I find that far too subjective for argument sake.
Organic in its current incarnation is a product of fear. Fear of the food chain, largely generated by media sensationalism of the risk (and yes, there are risks) associated with some early forms of chemical pesticide. There are other attributes associated with organic to be sure — things like local, small scale, friends and neighbors, wholesome. All attributes that are especially attractive to consumers in hard times like these. Call it the thinking man’s comfort food.
But many of these fears are no longer relevant or never were. We don’t hear about that though.
How many people know scientists have now determined that DDT, banned years ago, is not toxic and never was responsible for the death of a single bird — much less a human — in the quantities and applications of agriculture? (No, don’t go out and try to find some and drink it. That WILL kill you.)
And how about the saccharin flap of the eighties (I think)? Does anyone know scientists finally determined that it was of absolutely no harm to humans whatsoever as used? In fact, it might be a “safer’ sweetener than some we are using now.
I’m not suggesting that we ignore what we put in our bodies. But it is worth remembering that there is a reason we invented stuff to kill bugs in and on our food. And they weren’t all “just to make it easier to grow things.”
The organic genie is out of the bottle. And that’s a good thing insomuch as it causes us to think about where our food comes from, the carbon footprint we put down to grow and transport it, or the good folks down the road who would still like to just live a nice, simple life on the farm.
But the price premium for organic food is huge right now. More of that premium than most folks who don’t farm will understand is driven by the increased cost of organic farming. (Ian, I’d love to get in on your little secret!) But the bulk of the premium is hype — and that will go very soon.
1. Studies like the one cited from Stanford are continually being produced and the media can’t wait to make it the story of the day. Think of the conflicting reports over the benefits/threats from consumption of wine, chocolate, and caffeine over the past 3 years and you understand my point.
2. The organic food sellers have a business model that is truly faith-based, just not in the traditional way one would interpret the term. Some people will take it on faith that organic foods are really better for them and they rationalize the higher prices. Some associate consumption of organic foods with their lifestyle. Some people drink Red Bull and others shop at Whole Foods. Each says something about that person and their self-image.
3. The entire food industry would be in better position if they self — policed on labeling of nutritional information and standardized product quantities and packaging sizes. There is way too much for consumers to decipher when strolling the grocery aisles today.
4. Here’s a big wish — why can’t producers find a way to create better products and still be price competitive? Hybrid cars are on the lots, but they carry big premiums. Healthier foods aisles invite consumers to live better, but they know it is going to cost them extra for making that choice.
Are the core principles of the food industry in need of review?
Consumers have purchased organic food because they “believe” that it is less harmful and more nutritious than the alternative. These studies indicate that any benefits are negligible. However, the majority of the people who are dedicated to the “organic way” won’t take any research into consideration when making a purchasing decision. Pesticide levels and taste aren’t part of the equation for the “organic way” crowd. They’ve made up their mind that organic is better and it is worth more (even though there is no real definite definition of what organic actually is) than the other produce in the grocery store. They will pay more and think that they are smarter than everyone else even though they are not using any facts when making this decision. You can’t change their mind, so don’t worry about it!
The fact is that the “Organic” designation is basically a rip off in two areas: quality and value! Facts are facts, but arguments will continue to be made by the “organic way” crowd that anything labeled organic is of higher quality and a good value. This will not change.
As I see it, there are four potential reasons to choose organic foods: (1) superior nutrition and/or taste; (2) avoidance of pesticides, hormones, preservatives and other chemical residues; (3) avoidance of genetically-modified, or intensively mono-cultured crops; and (4) moral and ethical concerns, such as treatment of livestock, water/energy use, pollution, preservation of honeybees, etc.
The argument for the nutritive benefits of organic-ness comes down to splitting hairs, as others have suggested in this forum. I can detect no taste advantage from organic foods per se, although I would attest that locally grown and minimally transported vegetables and fruits are often superior, organic or not.
Avoiding artificial chemicals in food seems like a good idea on gut instinct. On the other hand we find conundrums between reasons 2, 3 and 4. What if gene-spliced rice can keep tons of pesticides out of the environment and/or save millions from starvation? Can we label it organic? Food for thought (or thought for food).
A vocal minority of consumers have declared with their purchase behaviors that they will willingly pay a premium to obtain organically-raised foods. Some are like hybrid car drivers — conspicuous in their ability to afford the choice. It’s no wonder that merchants and marketers are attracted to this higher-margin opportunity.
May I add a response to Bill Hanifin’s comment that “Are the core principles of the food industry in need of review?”
The food industry is doing exactly what it should…generating revenue, cutting costs, and generating profit. The food industry is no different than any other. They are in the business of making money, however they can. They are not in the business of providing either health or nutrition if those objectives infringe on profit and profit growth. Food is their product, just like cars and trucks are the product of the auto industry and cigarettes are products of the tobacco industry. Their product just happens to be food.
Many consumers believe that organic food is better for you, and can contribute to better health and well being because the pesticide exposure is significantly reduced and sustainable farming practices are usually employed.
Price points for many foods, particularly produce, dairy as well as other minimally processed foods are supported because potential for pesticide ingestion is greatly reduced in these important food groups. Many consumers are concerned about high levels of pesticides and environmental contaminants that enter the food supply. There has been a lot of serious reporting about the amounts of these chemicals in our water and food sources and the health effects of ingesting these substances over the long term.
Many shoppers know good nutrition requires a holistic approach to health, beyond reading the labels for calories and RDA comparisons.
David pretty much voiced my thoughts (except maybe his last 14 words). With regard to Paula’s (second) post, while I — and I would think everyone — share her concern with objectivity, I believe an insurance industry affiliated person is an excellent choice (at least in theory…I know nothing of the specifics of Dr. Bravata), interested, but not naturally predisposed to any particular position. Is the alternative — a person who has no interest in or knowledge of an issue — somehow better?
Personally, I need all the preservatives and bug-killing pesticides in me that I can get. I ain’t getting any younger, and I don’t need any critters latching on to me.
Why are so many people against pesticides, antibiotics etc? If ingesting them is not unhealthy, as the scientists say, what is to be avoided?
Sorry, Max, but Consumers do not “have a number of reasons for buying organic food.” They have a feeling or two, to be sure, but no facts (i.e., “reasons”). Clearly, recently-released studies such as Stanford’s prove them wrong.
Sorry, Gene, but there’s no proof that conventionally-grown produce is less healthy than “organic” produce because of the pesticides used to grow them. Remember the bogus Alar scandal? Dr. Bravata’s statement is not “clearly ridiculous” just because you feel that it’s so. Facts matter.
Sorry, Paula, but the DNA of the stuff we eat doesn’t influence our personal DNA. Genetically-modified foods are just that — food. As any alert fifth-grader knows, when food is introduced into our alimentary systems, it is subjected to a number of body acids and digestive processes that break it down for use in our bodies. Biology 101. And, where is the proof that pesticides, when used in prescribed quantities to reject crop destroyers, harm us physically? Rationality should trump irrationality, but unfortunately, feelings trump facts for a lot of us.
Sorry, Camille, but the nutrition value of organic foods is not “higher.” That’s just a feeling, not a fact.
Sorry, David, but these recent “disingenuous” studies regarding organics are real and vetted, and are the best we have (one from Stanford that spans four decades). I’m looking forward to your submission of a study or two to the contrary. Current studies are not disingenuous just because you say so.
Thanks, Ian, Ben, Bill, Ed, and Jamie for contributing some rationality to this discussion. Thanks for shining a light.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of “hair on fire” reaction from consumers (and respected writers) about “organic” and the lack thereof. In a word, “unreasonable” sums it up. “Reason” denotes a review of the facts, which clearly wither the arguments for “organic.” However, never underestimate the power of misplaced feelings (a paean to the election of our current administration). Please notice the use of the various versions of the word, “feeling,” in today’s comments and compare it to the various versions of “think” or “fact.”
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Consumers have a number of reasons for buying organic food and they are generally willing to pay a premium for those products. A larger number of consumers don’t care about organics and buy other products. It comes down to availability and price. This study might put a dent in organic sales, but it will be a small dent. More studies will have to be done, for longer periods of time. Until then, organic suppliers will tout their perceived benefits and consumers will be asked to spend more for their products. Some will, many won’t.
Since when are organic foods about nutrition? This is silly. Organic foods are about the food supply being adulterated by pesticides, chemicals, antibiotics and other schemes devised to increase producing efficiency without regard to how people are affected by ingesting toxic pollutants.
Dr.Bravata’s statement is clearly ridiculous. “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.” Doesn’t health include the ingestion of toxins that are so prevalent in agribusiness?
Asking about and analyzing the short-term nutritional benefits is absolutely asking the wrong question. Of course, vitamins and minerals are vitamins and minerals. I’m not sure if there’s a difference in absorption levels, but that’s not the big point.
The big question is “What is the long term impact of pesticides in our food supply?” And the other big question that this study also doesn’t address “What is the long term impact of genetically modified foods?”
I don’t buy all organic food by any stretch of the imagination…but there’s SOME reason food allergies have gone whacky (when I was a kid, there was no such animal as “peanut allergies”). And the problem with studies like these is they encourage and embolden pesticide manufacturers.
Is it enough to support organic’s price levels? When Whole Foods opens nearby (coming soon) I will indeed start buying my produce there. And I won’t eat GMO corn or soy anymore. “Organic” isn’t really enough. You have to work your way back to the seed stock.
What we have here is a study that has kicked off a trade association battle. Organic foods are not more nutritional and to me (and I am sure others) they really do not taste better. Many people I know that are organic claim “they are more nutritional.”
The organic food marketplace is a $30B+ turf that needs to be protected — in the eyes of the Organic Trade Association. Price levels, with no supporting health metrics, are too high and with the Stanford study the prices will seem even higher. Some organic shoppers will not care. Others will take a closer look at their food spend and “go normal” vs. Organic and feel fine (less food spend and equal health).
It will be interesting to see how retailers that carry large assortments of organics deal with this new reality.
Some people buy organic foods because the nutrition value is higher, some because of a lack of pesticides, and some to lower exposure to antibiotics. Depending how important each one of these criterion is and how many other studies are publicized, the sales of organic foods may decrease. I do not believe that the information reported here will cause a significant reduction in sales for those who are strongly committed to buying organic foods.
The market of supply and demand will support the price levels. If there was no demand for organics, then the prices would fall in line with the non-organics. Still there are a lot of people who believe in organics and are willing to pay extra. A lot of it is salesmanship, a lot is psychological. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that is either vulnerable or feel they are “educated” that will pay extra for organics. Our job as grocers is to give the consumer what they want and extract as much money from their pockets that we can in doing so.
Once more we play the silly game of Newtonian physics — that everything is defined by its parts. Is it taste? Is it pesticides? Is it DNA? Is it cost? Is it availability? For goodness sakes, it’s all of the above.
The points made so far stand on their own so I won’t reiterate. I especially laud Paula and Gene.
There is a level beyond mere organic and as it happens I’m currently playing in this arena. First, there is such a thing as organic pesticide. But more exciting is the work being done in frequency or subtle energy technology that changes water on a molecular level (NO chemical involvement) such that the fruit and vegetable is more substantive, higher nutritional quality and vastly superior in taste. Not only that, but so far were showing an increase of yield from about 25% to 40%. And on the grand scale of things the cost of this technology is negligible.
We’ve only begun to understand the tools nature has available to us. We need to wake up, realize we aren’t nearly as clever as we think we are, and realize that just maybe doing what is good and right is the best road to profitability.
What we all put in our mouth is part physiological and part psychological. I find this “study” disingenuous at best. Most, if not all organic buyers chose to buy from growers under the assumption that their practices yield a product with fewer chemicals and therefore, logically, you may assume less risk of harm to your long-term health.
Pay a premium with a future expectation of avoiding harm — all things being equal — with family history/DNA likely being a bigger factor than ingesting pesticides in your favorite apple or pear — is a no brainer. If you can afford it — do it.
I would assume that the grocery chains make a bigger profit margin on this section of the produce area even though on a profit per square foot basis it might not be that compelling. Nonetheless, offering organic prepared goods, canned goods as well as fruits/veggies makes the chain appear to be responsive to their customer base needs.
Organic foods might have slightly higher nutritional values than non-organic foods, which is great, but I believe consumers purchase organic foods based on the lack of pesticides and chemicals used. The reduction of the pesticide risk is able to continue supporting organic’s price levels, particularly for consumers that hold this to be highly important. And as the organic food category grows and becomes more mainstream, the price levels should start to come down.
As noted, the biggest reason for buying organic is more the environmental/pesticide issue…not that food has more nutrients.
Now a worthwhile study to help inform the public would be the extra margins retailers capture from the sale of organics.
One more point (and you know I rarely if ever post twice on a topic). I looked up the senior author on Google. While she has affiliations with Stanford, in fact she is the chief medical officer for Ventana – a company that helps employers “guide” its employees on health care costs. In other words, the company works for the insurance industry.
I challenge her objectivity.
There are many very scary reports and opinions putting the consumer at odds with common fertilizers and pesticides. When any observer reviews what materials are now illegal to manufacture and distribute, it follows that caution is a part of any consumer’s consumption habits. The fact that most labeling consists of unintelligible word content and many legally omitted participating products and or organisms is further cause for concern to the consumer.
The remedies are relatively simple, yet the cost and awareness burdens make these options a non option, unless of course they are imposed through legislation. These problems have been minimized by most of the organic growers, that is until their open honesty was somewhat compromised by larger companies wishing to cash in on this growing market.
I suppose as a group we could go back and forth on this topic forever. The one remaining constant is the vigilance needed by consumers regardless of intent or quality of information from suppliers. As for taste, I find that far too subjective for argument sake.
Organic in its current incarnation is a product of fear. Fear of the food chain, largely generated by media sensationalism of the risk (and yes, there are risks) associated with some early forms of chemical pesticide. There are other attributes associated with organic to be sure — things like local, small scale, friends and neighbors, wholesome. All attributes that are especially attractive to consumers in hard times like these. Call it the thinking man’s comfort food.
But many of these fears are no longer relevant or never were. We don’t hear about that though.
How many people know scientists have now determined that DDT, banned years ago, is not toxic and never was responsible for the death of a single bird — much less a human — in the quantities and applications of agriculture? (No, don’t go out and try to find some and drink it. That WILL kill you.)
And how about the saccharin flap of the eighties (I think)? Does anyone know scientists finally determined that it was of absolutely no harm to humans whatsoever as used? In fact, it might be a “safer’ sweetener than some we are using now.
I’m not suggesting that we ignore what we put in our bodies. But it is worth remembering that there is a reason we invented stuff to kill bugs in and on our food. And they weren’t all “just to make it easier to grow things.”
The organic genie is out of the bottle. And that’s a good thing insomuch as it causes us to think about where our food comes from, the carbon footprint we put down to grow and transport it, or the good folks down the road who would still like to just live a nice, simple life on the farm.
But the price premium for organic food is huge right now. More of that premium than most folks who don’t farm will understand is driven by the increased cost of organic farming. (Ian, I’d love to get in on your little secret!) But the bulk of the premium is hype — and that will go very soon.
1. Studies like the one cited from Stanford are continually being produced and the media can’t wait to make it the story of the day. Think of the conflicting reports over the benefits/threats from consumption of wine, chocolate, and caffeine over the past 3 years and you understand my point.
2. The organic food sellers have a business model that is truly faith-based, just not in the traditional way one would interpret the term. Some people will take it on faith that organic foods are really better for them and they rationalize the higher prices. Some associate consumption of organic foods with their lifestyle. Some people drink Red Bull and others shop at Whole Foods. Each says something about that person and their self-image.
3. The entire food industry would be in better position if they self — policed on labeling of nutritional information and standardized product quantities and packaging sizes. There is way too much for consumers to decipher when strolling the grocery aisles today.
4. Here’s a big wish — why can’t producers find a way to create better products and still be price competitive? Hybrid cars are on the lots, but they carry big premiums. Healthier foods aisles invite consumers to live better, but they know it is going to cost them extra for making that choice.
Are the core principles of the food industry in need of review?
Consumers have purchased organic food because they “believe” that it is less harmful and more nutritious than the alternative. These studies indicate that any benefits are negligible. However, the majority of the people who are dedicated to the “organic way” won’t take any research into consideration when making a purchasing decision. Pesticide levels and taste aren’t part of the equation for the “organic way” crowd. They’ve made up their mind that organic is better and it is worth more (even though there is no real definite definition of what organic actually is) than the other produce in the grocery store. They will pay more and think that they are smarter than everyone else even though they are not using any facts when making this decision. You can’t change their mind, so don’t worry about it!
The fact is that the “Organic” designation is basically a rip off in two areas: quality and value! Facts are facts, but arguments will continue to be made by the “organic way” crowd that anything labeled organic is of higher quality and a good value. This will not change.
As I see it, there are four potential reasons to choose organic foods: (1) superior nutrition and/or taste; (2) avoidance of pesticides, hormones, preservatives and other chemical residues; (3) avoidance of genetically-modified, or intensively mono-cultured crops; and (4) moral and ethical concerns, such as treatment of livestock, water/energy use, pollution, preservation of honeybees, etc.
The argument for the nutritive benefits of organic-ness comes down to splitting hairs, as others have suggested in this forum. I can detect no taste advantage from organic foods per se, although I would attest that locally grown and minimally transported vegetables and fruits are often superior, organic or not.
Avoiding artificial chemicals in food seems like a good idea on gut instinct. On the other hand we find conundrums between reasons 2, 3 and 4. What if gene-spliced rice can keep tons of pesticides out of the environment and/or save millions from starvation? Can we label it organic? Food for thought (or thought for food).
A vocal minority of consumers have declared with their purchase behaviors that they will willingly pay a premium to obtain organically-raised foods. Some are like hybrid car drivers — conspicuous in their ability to afford the choice. It’s no wonder that merchants and marketers are attracted to this higher-margin opportunity.
May I add a response to Bill Hanifin’s comment that “Are the core principles of the food industry in need of review?”
The food industry is doing exactly what it should…generating revenue, cutting costs, and generating profit. The food industry is no different than any other. They are in the business of making money, however they can. They are not in the business of providing either health or nutrition if those objectives infringe on profit and profit growth. Food is their product, just like cars and trucks are the product of the auto industry and cigarettes are products of the tobacco industry. Their product just happens to be food.
Many consumers believe that organic food is better for you, and can contribute to better health and well being because the pesticide exposure is significantly reduced and sustainable farming practices are usually employed.
Price points for many foods, particularly produce, dairy as well as other minimally processed foods are supported because potential for pesticide ingestion is greatly reduced in these important food groups. Many consumers are concerned about high levels of pesticides and environmental contaminants that enter the food supply. There has been a lot of serious reporting about the amounts of these chemicals in our water and food sources and the health effects of ingesting these substances over the long term.
Many shoppers know good nutrition requires a holistic approach to health, beyond reading the labels for calories and RDA comparisons.
David pretty much voiced my thoughts (except maybe his last 14 words). With regard to Paula’s (second) post, while I — and I would think everyone — share her concern with objectivity, I believe an insurance industry affiliated person is an excellent choice (at least in theory…I know nothing of the specifics of Dr. Bravata), interested, but not naturally predisposed to any particular position. Is the alternative — a person who has no interest in or knowledge of an issue — somehow better?
Personally, I need all the preservatives and bug-killing pesticides in me that I can get. I ain’t getting any younger, and I don’t need any critters latching on to me.
Why are so many people against pesticides, antibiotics etc? If ingesting them is not unhealthy, as the scientists say, what is to be avoided?
Sorry, Max, but Consumers do not “have a number of reasons for buying organic food.” They have a feeling or two, to be sure, but no facts (i.e., “reasons”). Clearly, recently-released studies such as Stanford’s prove them wrong.
Sorry, Gene, but there’s no proof that conventionally-grown produce is less healthy than “organic” produce because of the pesticides used to grow them. Remember the bogus Alar scandal? Dr. Bravata’s statement is not “clearly ridiculous” just because you feel that it’s so. Facts matter.
Sorry, Paula, but the DNA of the stuff we eat doesn’t influence our personal DNA. Genetically-modified foods are just that — food. As any alert fifth-grader knows, when food is introduced into our alimentary systems, it is subjected to a number of body acids and digestive processes that break it down for use in our bodies. Biology 101. And, where is the proof that pesticides, when used in prescribed quantities to reject crop destroyers, harm us physically? Rationality should trump irrationality, but unfortunately, feelings trump facts for a lot of us.
Sorry, Camille, but the nutrition value of organic foods is not “higher.” That’s just a feeling, not a fact.
Sorry, David, but these recent “disingenuous” studies regarding organics are real and vetted, and are the best we have (one from Stanford that spans four decades). I’m looking forward to your submission of a study or two to the contrary. Current studies are not disingenuous just because you say so.
Thanks, Ian, Ben, Bill, Ed, and Jamie for contributing some rationality to this discussion. Thanks for shining a light.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of “hair on fire” reaction from consumers (and respected writers) about “organic” and the lack thereof. In a word, “unreasonable” sums it up. “Reason” denotes a review of the facts, which clearly wither the arguments for “organic.” However, never underestimate the power of misplaced feelings (a paean to the election of our current administration). Please notice the use of the various versions of the word, “feeling,” in today’s comments and compare it to the various versions of “think” or “fact.”