Organic farming relies on natural ways to maintain soil productivity.

On the heels of my writing about the Environmental Working Group’s analysis of the most pesticide-riddled foods, this little news bulletin crossed my computer monitor:  “Organics no healthier than other foods.”

Talk about timing, huh?

Of course, many of us are used to this dog and pony show by now, but it’s really unfortunate that the organic deniers are still out there, doing all they can to deride the sustainability of our soil and our long term health.

Before I start defending, yet again, the organic industry, here’s the latest “study” to debunk the health benefits of organic vegetables.

It comes out of Britain, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to be specific.  In their analysis of over 150 different studies, they claim to have found no statistically significant differences in the nutrient levels of organic foods and conventionally produced foods.  Whether they were vegetables, fruits, dairy or meat products, nutrients like vitamin C, iron and calcium were all the same.

Most people who buy organic produce know that it’s better for them both nutritionally and taste-wise. They’re not going to dignify some study’s findings by not buying organic produce.

However, there are a number of people out there who are right on the edge, unsure of whether it’s worth the extra money to buy organic.  It’s these people I wish to speak to.

So is it worth it?  Three words:  Yes, yes and yes.

One of the main reasons why it’s worth it is the sustainability factor of our soils.  Pesticide is poison; no study will say otherwise.

Farmers find pesticide useful because it kills stubborn insects and garden pests, while at the same time helping their fruits and vegetables to grow quicker and larger.

Sounds great, right?

Well, no, actually.  Because there’s a trade off.

While garden pests will stay away, the toxic concoction has to go somewhere.  And the stuff that isn’t consumed by us when we bite into an apple (one of the more pesticide-laden fruits) poisoning soils, (making it less fertile), flows into river waters (harming wildlife), and reduces the number of species that help plants germinate and produce fruits and vegetables.

Speaking of species, bees are crucial to crops’ survival and rate of production.  Yet bees are in short supply on conventionally grown farm lands.  In fact, according to Molly Conisbee of the Soil Association, organic farmlands have 50 percent more species, like bees, than conventional farmlands that use pesticides.

So by buying organic, you’re guaranteeing a better environment and greater crop yield for the future.

As far as nutrition goes, there’s no question organic is better than conventional – I don’t care what the British study says.  And the reason I don’t care is because the study was extremely subjective in its analysis.

For example, the researchers said there wasn’t any real difference in vitamin C, iron and calcium.  OK.  But what about other nutrients, like beta-carotene and the number of flavonoids?

Surprise!  There was a difference – and the organic produce had higher levels!

Further, as noted by Paula Crossfield at The Huffington Post, there is a difference in vitamin C content among organically grown and conventionally grown produce.  And according to the 2008 study commissioned by The Organic Center, organic produce had 25 percent more vitamin C than the conventionally grown produce in the Organic Center’s analysis.

If all that weren’t enough, going back to the Soil Association’s analysis, not only does organic produce have more of what you want, it has less of what you don’t want, like cadmium and nickel.  These two chemical compounds are typically found on industrial sites, cadmium being a carcinogen.

Studies abound, and virtually anybody can find a study that either supports or negates an issue.  But in the argument over organic versus conventional produce, it boils down to common sense:  Is something produced naturally more likely to be healthier, or is something that’s loaded with pesticides and artificial growth hormones more likely to be healthier?

I know which one I’m choosing for my health.  How about you?

Sources:
blogs.usatoday.com
huffingtonpost.com
telegraph.co.uk

Basket of organic apples.

For several years now, the British Nutrition Foundation has doggedly held by the notion that organic produce is no more nutritious than conventional produce.  They hold that the only real reason one ought to pony up the extra two to three bucks for a head of lettuce or a peck of peppers is to preserve farmers’ soil from which vegetables derive, as organic farmers don’t use artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

That, in and of itself, is a reason to go organic.  But there’s an increasing amount of evidence that suggests organic produce is indeed more nutritious than conventional produce.  And it’s not just studies drummed up from several years ago.  These are very recent studies, one of which was done on the f’apple’ous apple.

According to German researchers who published their findings in the most recent issuing of the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, organically-grown apples produce 15 percent more antioxidants than conventionally-grown apples.  They discovered this after a three-year observational study that literally started from the ground up:  comparing how apples produced conventionally to those produced organically measured up in terms of how much polyphenols they produced by harvest time (polyphenols are a type of antioxidant found primarily in the skin of fruits that have loads of anti-cancer properties, not to mention anti-aging properties).  Their results indicated that those grown organically – the golden delicious variety, between 2005 and 2006 – yielded 15 percent more antioxidant capacity than the conventional crop.

A finding like this flies in the face of some scientists who argue that not only do organic foods have no nutritional benefit over conventional produce, but that conventional produce is more nutritious than organic produce, as a Rutgers University scientist asserts!!

He’s entitled to his opinion, but I’m curious if he – unlike the British Nutrition Foundation – is willing to modify his assertion after this study.  Or how about the University of California-Davis study on tomatoes, which found that organically-grown tomatoes had approximately 100 percent more quercetin than conventionally-grown tom-toms (quercetin is a chemical compound known for it’s anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties).  Or how about the finding published in a 2007 issuing of the Nutrition Bulletin, which found “strong and consistent” evidence of more vitamin C found in organically-grown potatoes than conventionally grown spuds.

The great thing about science is that it’s always improving; what wasn’t known at one point becomes known, due to advancements in technology and methodology.  The not-so-great thing about science – or should I say scientists? – are those who are too pigheaded to believe that they could be, in fact, wrong about something.

Eventually, some will change their tune. In the meantime, don’t stop humming this unchained melody:   Organic foods are not only better for the earth, but they’re better for you nutritionally – whether they’re kiwis or apples, tomatoes or potatoes (I’ll talk about the kiwi study in a future article).

Sources:
Foodnavigator.com
Foodnavigator.com
Foodnavigator.com