I have enjoyed a virtually exclusive organic diet for the past 30 years. But I was deeply unsettled by a September 4 New York Times article and a similar Associated Press story casting doubt on the value of an organic diet.
In terms of the extra cost and value of eating organically, I have always subscribed to the adage “pay now or pay later.” While my personal experience does not provide much in terms of a scientifically legitimate sample size, in the last 30 years, after suffering from pesticide poisoning prompted my shift to an organic diet, I have exceeded my insurance deductible only once, due to an orthopedic injury. And my doctor keeps telling me how remarkable it is that I, at age 57, have no chronic health problems and take no pharmaceuticals.
Unfortunately, the analysis done by Stanford University physicians profiled in the articles noted above did not look “outside the box,” as many organic farming and food advocates do.
They discounted many of the studies, including by the USDA, that show our conventional food supply’s nutritional content has dropped precipitously over the last 50 years. This has been attributed to the declining health of our farms’ soil, and healthy soil leads to healthy food. Organic farming’s core value is building soil fertility.
Furthermore, there are many externalities that impart risk on us as individuals and as a society, which the physicians failed to look at. For example, eating organic food protects us all from exposure to agrichemicals contaminating our water and air.
Additionally, genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have become ubiquitous in processed food, with an estimated 80 percent to 90 percent contaminated with genes patented by Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations. The use of GMOs is prohibited in organics.
Interestingly, there have been virtually no long-term studies on human health impacts of ingesting GMOs, although many laboratory animal and livestock studies have led to disturbing conclusions. The best way to operate using the “precautionary principle,” as European regulators mandate, is to eat a certified organic diet.
Current research now indicates that some of Monsanto’s genes are passing through the placenta into human fetuses and into the bloodstreams of adults and children. Organics is a way to prevent your children from becoming human lab rats testing genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or myriad other novel life forms.
Stanford researchers, cited in the recent press accounts, dismissed statistically significant differences between agrichemical (pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, etc.) contamination in conventional and organic food.
The researchers might trust the FDA to set “safe” levels of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in the food we serve our families, but many parents have decided to set a lower threshold — as close to zero as possible. Even the doctors at Stanford confirm demonstrably lower levels of pesticide contamination in organic food.
In supporting this cautious approach, there is a growing body of scientific literature that suggests it’s not just the gross level of toxic contamination that pesticides present but rather minute amounts of these toxins can act as endocrine disruptors, or mimickers, sometimes triggering catastrophic and lifelong abnormalities in fetuses and developing children.
Is it worth experimenting with the health of future generations when we know that there is a demonstrated safe alternative — organic food?
To illustrate the difference, researchers at the University of Washington published a paper in Environmental Health Perspectives that documented a tremendous drop in organophosphate pesticide contamination in the urine of children after just three days on an organic diet. This is hard science that did sway the Stanford investigation’s conclusion.
Scientists have also recognized that we must take into consideration the disproportionate quantities of food that children consume relative to their body weight, especially of certain fruits and vegetables that have been found to be highly contaminated with synthetic chemicals. Furthermore, their study failed to look at the cumulative effects of contamination in many different food items in one’s diet. Again, children, for developmental reasons, are especially at risk.
Both the New York Times and AP stories did touch on a number of advantages, such as lower levels of contamination from antibiotic-resistant pathogens. But that was also dismissed by stating that these could be “killed during cooking.” However, we know that inadequate cooking does take place, and cross-contamination can easily occur in residential kitchens. So again, I pose the question, how many potentially lethal, antibiotic-resistant organisms do you want to bring into your home?
Although there is conflicting science on whether organic food is truly nutritionally superior, there is no doubt that in terms of many parameters, organic food is demonstrably safer.
I will stick with a diet that concentrates on fresh, local, more flavorful food that’s produced without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and GMOs. And I for one think I’m getting a good value for my own health, while at the same time supporting good environmental stewardship and economic justice for family farmers.
Mark A. Kastel is the senior farm policy analyst for the Cornucopia Institute.
The author of this editorial sounds no different than climate change denialists — just ignore the facts you don’t like, right? The contaminants in conventionally grown food may be higher, but as the studies show, it is still well beyond that safe threshold. Not to mention that things we clean our clothes and counters with contain much much higher levels of those contaminants. There is much more to worry about in those regards.
And further, I think it is wrong to suggest that organic food is automatically the natural and healthier option. Walk down any organic/natural aisle and you’ll see the same processed products on those shelves too. Difference is that the organic cheese crackers have things like forest leaves and woodland creatures on the packages so the consumer can feel better about themselves. It’s just silly.
The best point not made is that you have a choice, even in Wal-mart, to take off the shelf what you want.
Global warming alarmist are a much bigger danger to society. They do crazy things like waste $500 million tax payer dollars(90% of which come from rich people) on corrupt solar panel companies that go bankrupt, and subsidize wind power projects that will never cover more than 10% of the consumption. Not to mention, lose $50,000 of rich peoples tax dollars on each chevy volt produced. Since we brought up GM(Obama is the CEO), don’t forget they shipped more jobs to China than anybody. More than half the bailout money got applied to China.
Excellent article. Hardly the same as climate change denialists.. Contamination levels that are very low don’t necessarily mean harmless and safe. Long term exposure to minute levels of toxic pesticides HAS NOT BEEN TESTED FOR LONG TERM EFFECTS in adults, children, developing fetuses. The testing simply hasn’t been done, because the US rejects the “precautionary principal” and has embraced making the VICTIM prove they have been hurt. That is how the tobacco industry avoided responsibility for a poisonous product and the health effects for years and years… Pseudo-science and plain, out right LIES protected the tobacco industry. Rather than a manufacturer proving safety of their product, the least able to bear the cost and burden of proving they were hurt or sickened by a product, the victim, must provide proof they were harmed… A completely backward way of doing things.
The introduction of foreign proteins in foods from GMO products has tracked very closely with the rise in cancers, food allergies and other emergent health problems in the US population. THAT in itself doesn’t by any means PROVE causality but it ought to make people stop and think.
The REALLY disgusting thing about it is… how do US sellers of GMO products sell to countries all over the world that reject GMO products… by carefully providing those consumers with a CHOICE. Not so for the citizens of the US… They are fed foods contaminated with foreign proteins, and pesticides deemed safe with a minimum of testing… and if you get sick… good luck to you… It is a YOYO policy… You’re on your own…
Yes, it is similar to climate change denialists. Just because a toxicity level is, let’s say, double, doesn’t mean it’s even close to the limit. The median lethal dose of water is 90ml/kg. Having something with 2ml/kg is hardly massively healthier than something with 1ml/kg. Just for an example. And as was already pointed out, what we wash our clothes and clean our counters with are immensely more toxic that what goes onto the fields.
My point is just that you don’t get to cherry pick and then selectively share the science that you like. If you’re not going to use the bulk of it, don’t use it at all. It’s not fair to ignore science and then throw your arms in the air and say, well it could be really bad, so we should avoid it! The science doesn’t say it’s really bad though.
And my point, wolfndeer, is that the SCIENCE hasn’t been done… Exposure to trace amounts of toxic substances have not been proven safe after long term exposure. The current “safe” levels of a particular substance is irrelevant… if the long term exposure to trace amounts has NEVER been evaluated because US policy is to NOT follow a precautionary principle but to force a victim to prove harm, the current designation of “safe” is pretty much meaningless. I say this as a chemist. It is in fact meaningless in lots of cases because even current levels deemed safe are designated so with very little testing at all, some with no testing. They are considered reasonable equivalents to already on the market substances and avoid rigorous testing.
Perfectly healthy new borns have been tested for toxic substances in the blood and tissue and have been found to be laced with hundreds of substances… If we don’t know what long term exposure to trace amounts of these substances does to people over decades, we really can’t say much of anything about safety… If cancer rates and other health rates track closely with the introduction of some of these technologies in our food supply, that ought to raise a big red flag that something might be very wrong with our thinking…
Climate scientists have pretty good data to point to, denialists don’t. The fellow above suggests a lack of data in long term exposure to toxic substances, with a need for more testing because what we are seeing in what data is available is very frightening to some of us.
You’re not pointing to anything. You’re pointing to the absence of information. Further, you’re ignoring the fact that organic farmers use pesticides as well and that the produce has trace amounts of the same toxins found on non-organic produce. That was in this new study.
Please cite the Stanford article. Which organophosphates were found and at what levels? Were the foods washed? The phosphates must be metabolized and/or excreted very quickly if there was a “tremendous drop” after only three days. Data please.
Also, not all (or even any) pesticides are endocrine disruptors. Detailed toxicity data exists for pesticides. The demonstrated bad actors have been removed from the market.
Define highly contaminated.
Unclear on which foods have higher antibiotic resistant pathogens.