There have been many reports postulating the health benefits of organic foods; we noted one recently (http://www.cropgen.org/article_130.html). Now there is a further spate, none of them, so far, any more reliable or convincing.

Protagonists of organic farming have been citing work carried out at the University of Michigan (ref. 1). The paper claimed that “organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply”. More specifically that “organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.”

While the authors assert that organic farming techniques could match or even exceed the yields given by modern methods, close examination of the study shows that a large proportion of these claims are not supported by the data. Thus, results have been double or even treble counted and some of the yield figures incorrectly allocated to the wrong sets of measurements. Moreover, potential global productivity was estimated by scaling up yields from cropland currently supplied with organic nutrients. At present, organic methods comprises only a minute fraction (some 0.3%) of total world agriculture, mainly in the richer countries where there are plenty of nutrients. If those practices were scaled up, nutrients would become ever more scarce and productivity would inevitably decline as land was rested to recover and soil fertility regenerated.

Agronomists throughout the world were doubtful about these claims even before the work was scrutinised by independent scientists. Organic farming techniques rely heavily on crop rotations, delayed planting, ploughing, organic manures and older pesticides (like copper sulphate) to provide crops with nutrients and for the control of weeds and disease. None of these is sufficient to offer crops the agronomic environment they need to fulfil their potential. That is why organic yields are invariably lower than those grown with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. If nutrients and pesticides are not used, the lower yields require more land to be cultivated to obtain the same amount of product. Not only does that destroy natural habitats, and threaten wildlife and fauna; it also means that, as the world population grows, as we hopefully provide enough food for everyone, and as people eat more and more meat which they will do once they can afford it, we would have to bring ever more land into cultivation to provide that food – until there were no forest left, no wilderness, just farmland.

In short, if we are to feed the ever-increasing world population, predicted to rise to 9 billion or more over the coming decades, we need to use every bit of innovative science we can lay our hands on. Combining tried and tested cultural techniques with newer ones must be the way forward.

Biotechnology is one of the many modern technologies frowned upon by lobbyists for organic food and farming. Supporters of those older farming practices believe that recent developments involving the use of pesticides, fertilisers and transgenic plant breeding threaten to damage our environment and potentially also our health. They hold those beliefs despite the fact that many of the crop varieties grown by organic farmers have been bred using a range of near-lethal mutagenic procedures with no requirement for testing either the safety or the environmental consequences of the products. We just don’t know what effects they may be having. But that does not seem to worry them one jot.

Just as this article was nearing completion, the Sunday Times published the latest set of claims in two articles with arresting headlines, one prominently on the front page (refs. 2, 3). In “the biggest study (yet) into organic food” a group at the University of Newcastle, they said, “has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives”. The new paper will “end years of debate” after showing that organic produce contained “as much as 40% more antioxidants” (cutting the risk of cancer and heart disease?) as well as high levels of “beneficial minerals” such as iron and zinc. There was a catch, however: so far it is all hearsay: “Findings from the £12m European Union-funded project…..will be peer reviewed and published over the next 12 months”! And “researchers did admit the study showed some (signifcant) variations” (ref.4). And, by the way: if there is more of this and more of that, there must also be less of something. Less of what – and does that matter?

To compound the story, a new report by scientists at Glasgow University’s veterinary school suggests that parents who buy organic milk for their children, believing it to be healthier, are wasting their money (ref. 5). Organic milk is no healthier than conventional methods and, claim the Glasgow scientists, contains fewer essential vitamins such as A and E which help fight cancer and boost the immune system: as much as 15% less in organic milk which nevertheless costs a third more.

Making matters worse, children who go organic for breakfast may be missing out on their vitamins: cereal is often their main source of daily intake. Since the 1940s, commercial cereal companies have been adding vitamins to many breakfast foods in order to replace nutrients removed during manufacturing. But the main appeal of organic cereals is that they are made with only “natural”, “organically” grown ingredients free of additives, including artificial preservatives and colours — and often, free also of vitamins (ref. 6).

So what is to be concluded about the whole organic saga? One could do worse than take a look at the recent in-depth study by Alex Avery (ref. 7). Or one might read the article in Cosmos Magazine (ref. 8), a comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers which judged there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier. That study concluded:

Popular or not, it’s clear that organic food is not necessarily healthier, nor more sustainable or better for the environment. With the Earth’s climate changing fast, and the human population heading for nine or 10 billion, we need solutions based on scientific evidence rather than faith and good intentions.

The boutique organic foods café is a great place to enjoy the romantic idyll of traditional farming and natural foods, but when it comes to the reality of feeding the world, one would have to agree with Roush: “If improving sustainability and reducing the environmental footprint is the goal, we need to be prepared to use the best tools we have.”

Sources:

1. C. Badgley, J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M.J. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vazquez, A. Samulon, I Perfecto (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food supply, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2):86–108.

2. Jon Ungoed-Thomas. Official: organic really is better. Sunday Times (28.10.07) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece)

3. Organic produce 'better for you'. BBC News (29.10.07) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7067100.stm)

4. Jon Ungoed-Thomas. Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food. Sunday Times (28.10.07) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753546.ece)

5. Organic milk ‘not healthier’, The Times (14.10.07) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2653473.ece)

6. The missing ingredients in organic cereals. New York Times (26.09.07) (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/the-missing-ingredients-in-organic-cereals)

7. Avery, A. (2006). The truth about organic foods. Henderson Communications, Chesterfield MO.

8. Elizabeth Finkel. Organic food exposed. Cosmos, issue 16 (August 2007) (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567). Note that the full 66-page paper does not appear to be available from the Cosmos website.

With his permission, this article has been expanded from a draft written by Jonathon Harrington

<<<back