email this
Many of us choose to eat organic foods whenever we get the chance. In the process, we contribute to an industry that now exceeds $30 billion annually in the US alone. That figure accounts for 4 percent of all retail food sales!
So what does “organic” mean when it comes to our food? A plant or animal food is considered organic if it is grown without synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, hormones, or the routine use of antibiotics. It also must be processed without irradiation or chemical additives and cannot have been genetically modified.
Are Organic Foods Worth It?
Eating organic comes at a high cost: Organic foods can be twice as expensive as conventional equivalents. Does it make any sense to spend all that money? A recent report in the Annals of Internal Medicine attempted to answer this question. After examining hundreds of previous investigations into organic foods, the researchers found:
- No difference between organic and conventional foods in almost every level of vitamin and nutrient
- No difference in allergic outcomes (such as skin rashes or asthma) between people who eat organic foods and those who eat conventional products
- No difference in bacterial contamination, although the bacteria in conventionally processed foods were more often resistant to multiple antibiotics
- When children switched from conventional foods to organic foods, their levels of pesticides declined, although even prior to the switch their levels were below the safety levels established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
What This New Information Means
Not surprisingly, these findings created a furor. People who have always believed the organic food industry was a scam found vindication in this report, whereas those who favored organic foods focused on the lower level of pesticides, stressing that the EPA still lacks sufficient data to predict the long-term health consequences of any level of pesticides in the body.
But the lowered incidence of resistant bacteria is probably the most important finding that supports eating organic. This is almost certainly a result of the overuse of antibiotics in the food industry, and it poses a direct threat to the future use of antibiotics. Due to the rise in the incidence of diseases caused by bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics, we no longer have the means to treat illnesses previously treated with ease with common antibiotics. Most researchers agree that the cause of this epidemic of resistant bacteria is the indiscriminate use of antibiotics by the food industry.
The Real Reason to Eat Organic
So although this study didn’t find benefit in organic food consumption in terms of overall nutrition, it also didn’t evaluate the long-term health consequences. The real reason to eat organic foods is that they are simply better for the planet and humankind. The excessive and ill-advised use of antibiotics and other chemicals is prescription for future medical and ecological catastrophes. Whatever the personal health benefits may or may not be, we would be wise to think globally every time we shop for food and sit down to eat. And–let’s face it–organic food tastes better!
Thank you for your post. I find the mainstream media’s reporting on this study very frustrating because it almost never accounts for the fact that farm workers and people living in close proximity to industrial farms suffer very serious health effects from contact with pesticides such as asthma and cancer. I appreciate the end of your post where you encourage readers to think globally. The question shouldn’t be whether organic is healthier for the individual. The question should be whether organic is healthier for the whole system, of which we are all a part. And as for price – we can either pay now or pay later. I think the increased costs for healthcare and environmental clean up will be greater in the long run.
Well Written Malcolm! I agree 100%, eat organic if you can afford it because it’s better for the animals/ environment/ planet and we don’t have long term data. Thanks for an outstanding post!
It is most refreshing to find an article about healthy foods as provided by my practitioner of health and I hope to find its rarity less and less common. That organic foods aren’t found to be more nutritious than their inorganic counterparts should come as no surprise but as to the question of an organic food being healthier: There can be no health”y” debate. Taken alone, the presence of pesticides in any volume, be it considered an acceptable level by the EPA (an organization with close ties to the industry of food and agriculture and the economies it represents), is unhealthy and problematic. If 4% of food retail sales are said to be organic then the Goliath 96% producers of inorganic food sales has an undeniable and competitive advantage of public discourse to promote articles challenging the healthiness of up and coming alternatives. Frankly, I find the rarity of organic alternatives to be abysmal. These opinions framed by an owner and operator of a licensed pesticide operator who knows all too well the risks associated with pesticide handling and use. Thank you, Dr. Thayer, for your article.
I would like a specific reference to the study so that I can read it myself. I am currently a graduate student in health promotion and would like the specific volume and page number (and perhaps a copy of the study in one of your offices.). Thanks
It was nice to see the post but one caveat to the argument in favor of sustainability. The note doesn’t point out that organic farms are less productive than conventional farms so it takes a larger amount of land to produce the same amount of food. I think Dr. Thaler points out that there is no definitive health reason to support organic and it is one based on choice, rightfully so. But the data is no definitive that organic is better for the planet, since over population and farm productivity are factors that greatly weigh in on this debate.