“Organic Foods Not Healthier Than Conventional?” Let’s take a look at this, shall we?

The blogosphere exploded with this report.  I remember when my own brother emailed the article to me.  And then my co-worker mentioned it.  And then a client.  And then more family members, and more friends.

The amazing thing about the internet is the speed at which we can share information.  The other amazing thing is the speed at which we can share bad headlines–misleading headlines.

After watching a documentary about the Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News empire, and the control of media and information (the documentary is called “Out-Foxed” and can be found not Netflix), I started to wonder about this recent news release.  I’d only read the article once–skimmed it, really, because I knew the headline was vapid and misleading.  What I noted was that the “scientists” were from Stanford.

Ok, fine.  Stanford.  We’ve heard of that.  Academia is usually pretty reliable.  Government-sponsored studies, on the other hand, are not.

I wanted to know who was the first to report on the matter, and who owned/operated the source.  No dice (at least at first).  So then I browsed the dozen or so parrot articles from various blogs and news sites.  They all said nearly the same thing: that “Scientists claim that organic isn’t healthier.”

The original headline from the Stanford Health Policy site states “Stanford study shows little evidence of health benefits from organic foods.”  The original paper, found in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is called “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review.

This is quite a different statement than other headlines which read “Stanford: Organic food not healthier than conventional products.” or “Organic food is no healthier than conventional food.

Needless to say, the public ran wild with this headline, and I want to set the record straight.

“Healthy” is an ambiguous term.  The paper determined, according to the studies referenced, that organic produce was not significantly more “nutritious” than conventional.

Here’s the abstract:

Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).

Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.

Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The senior author of the paper, Dena Bravata, stated, “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.”

Interesting conclusion, considering that “there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years,” according to original press release.

So why on earth would the senior author, our revered scientist, make such a blanket statement?

Unclear.  Bad presentation, frankly.

Health isn’t something that can be determined over the course of a couple of years.  Health is the reflection of a lifetime of behavior, and what you eat certainly will impact your chances of developing cancer, heart disease, and autoimmune disorders.  The published paper states that indeed pesticide residues are higher in conventional produce, and pesticides do kill people.  Sure, only in high enough concentrations, states our “trustworthy” FDA, which is responsible for determining allowable pesticide levels and other chemical levels for our food, which I would posit were set after intense lobbying efforts from chemical companies.

The unfortunate reality of our food system is simply a reflection of our environment in the past 100 years.  ”Better living through chemistry” is a manta that might be causing more harm than good.  In The 100 Year Lie: How Food And Medicine Are Destroying Your Health, Randall Fitzgerald describes a horrifying and bleak picture of our world: one 100-year inadvertent experiment on human health. Never have we subjected ourselves to such high levels of synthetic chemicals.

“…according to the FDA, we each use nine personal-care products daily, containing about 126 chemical ingredients.” –Randall Fitzgerald.

If you combine all the chemicals from your carpets, your car, your plastic-wrapped, GMO, pedticide/fungicide sprayed food, your body products, your tap water, your swimming pools, your industrial waste, and the like…

…well, that’s a lot of toxic hits your body has to take.

There is no scientific study in the world–and there never will be–that can possibly calculate the possible deleterious synergies of these chemicals.  The only thing we can do is wait and see if it withstands the test of time–of multiple generations.  Heck, infertility is on the rise!  We’ll see if it can.

But I’m not going to be the guinea pig.

If I can control the amount of toxicity that ends up in my body, even a little bit, I’m going to try.  And the foremost thing to consider is what you put directly into your mouth: your food, because it ends up as you.  So even if organic produce is only 30% less likely to contain any pesticide residues, that’s good enough reason for me to eat it.

The rationale that conventional isn’t “that much worse” than organic is fine if you are starving and have to eat something.  But we spend far too little on our food as it is, and far too much on our ailing health.  It’s akin to the feeling of, “I’m already fat, so one extra pound gained won’t really show that much.”  A pound of fat is a pound of fat (fat stores toxicity, by the way).  Pesticides do not belong in your body, even if they’re a vessel for nutrition.

Getting back on topic… that there are no longitudinal studies in the published literature.  It is a terrible mistake to think that we can make a long-term bet on short-term bases.  Again, I am waiting for the test of time.  And that’s a heck of a long time to wait.

Health is affected by a myriad of environmental (and mental/emotional) conditions.  We know unequivocally that organic food production stems from better environmental stewardship.  The negative externalities of conventional food production are so numerous that I cannot begin to elaborate on them here.  The externalities have, arguably, a far greater effect on our health in the long term than on the actual mastication of the foods themselves!

I’d love to be able to download the studies referenced–download them straight to my brain and look at the how the foods were sourced and analyzed.  Because if there’s one thing that most commentators will fail to understand about organic food is this: organic, while certified, is not always created equal.

There’s Big Organic, and there’s little organic, and they are not the same.  Big Organic, in an effort to grab up market share, has done everything in its power to systematize production, just like conventional.  The more systematization, the more homogeneity in samples.  My prediction for Big Organic is that market pressure will continue to errode standards so that the product is, indeed, only marginally better than conventional.  That’s what profit margin is all about.

Little organic, on the other hand, has a tough battle ahead.  Organic vs. conventional is an unfair fight.  It’s a battle of biology vs. chemistry.  Chemistry is easier to control.  Science loves control.

The organic community isn’t the least bit shaken by this announcement.  Science has its limitations.  Again, the limits here are the amount of published data on the subject.

Anyone who eats, grows, and lives organic food knows the intrinsic value of organic that cannot be in any measure eclipsed by the verbal misrepresentation of limited scientific data.

How To Handle Produce: A Guide To Washing, Chopping, & Storing Your Nutrition

From the moment they are picked, fruits and vegetables begin to lose nutrition, and they will continue to do so as you handle, transport, process, and store them. The article describes the impact of day-to-day food handling, and explains how to get the most nutrition out of your purchases.

Washing:

We’re always told to wash our fruits and vegetables, and with good reason, considering the number of chemicals with which most conventional produce is cultivated. Washing vegetables, however, is often a waste of time and merely wastes nutritive elements on the exterior the produce.

The skin of fruit is typically the richest in vitamins and minerals, many times richer than the interior (for example, there are ten times more antioxidants in the skin of an apple than in the flesh). The leaves of vegetables, and often the roots, are also richer in nutrition.

If you purchase organic fruits and vegetables, you need not be overly concerned about washing them. Of course, no one likes the taste of dirt (though you might get a dose of Vitamin B12), and a quick rinse won’t hurt in attempting to eliminate potential pesticide residues and other pollutants (if you suspect your produce was grown near roads or conventional fields), but soaking (like berries, or washed and cut potatoes), scrubbing, or other zealous forms of washing are not necccessary.

Don’t wash your organic produce unless it’s truly neccessary; wash them just enough to lift visible dirt or other forms of life.

Cutting, shredding, and mixing:

Cutting produce with a knife is a great was to accelerate the loss of nutrients. A knife cuts a large number of cellular membranes, exposing cells to the air. Tearing produce, on the other hand, is a better way to preserve nutrition, as the produce is opened without tearing as many cellular membranes.

If you don’t believe me, take an apple. Cut it down the middle and lay the halves on the table. Take another apple and tear it down the middle with your hands. Leave for fifteen minutes or more. The apple cut by the knife will have oxidized faster.

Of course, knives are indispensible in the kitchen. No one is going to tear an onion for a salad. But, whenever possible, such as with broccoli, tear your produce, letting the natural structure of it guide you.

Shredding multiplies the surface area of produce 100 to 200 fold, allowing for rapid oxidation and loss of nutrients. We love carrots, beets, cabbage, radishes and other vegetables shredded, but know that preparing vegetables in this way destroys them rapidly. Make salads fresh, and add vinegar or lemon juice to it to slow the rate of oxidation, and to preserve Vitamin C (losses will be roughly cut in half).

Blending, like shredding, accelerates the destruction of vitamins. But, if the product ends up being liquid, the losses are reduced, as the product is somewhat self-insultating, and there is less surface area exposed to air. If not eaten immediately, keep the product in the fridge.

To ensure a maximum of vitamins and minerals from your produce, don’t shred them too fine, shred them at the last moment, be sure to add lemon juice or vinager, and never buy vegetables pre-cut or shredded.

Where & How To Store Your Produce:

Just as fresh fruits and vegetables have become more widely available—in supermarkets and farmer’s markets alike—we have seen a paradoxical increase in the consumption of conserved produce, from canned beans and corn, to frozen spinach, to jams, to tinned tomatoes. As people work longer hours and pile on superfluous “responsibilities,” they lose the time to shop for fresh food, let alone properly prepare it.

Against the invasion of processed food, thanks to the “agro-industrial complex” (sounds as frightening as the “military industrial complex”) we should ask ourselves the following questions:

-should we eat the vegetables from the supermarket, impoverished of vitamins given their long transport times and shelf lives; or should we eat foods that have been canned or frozen?

-if we choose conserved foods, which type of conservation should we favor?

The food industry might respond that losses in vitamines are fewer in well-conserved or immediately frozen foods than those in fresh foods that have traveled thousands of miles and sat in supermarkets for days. This isn’t exactly wrong, but what they fail remember is that a conserved product will continue to lose vitamines over the course of time.

As a general rule, avoid as much as possible any food item that went through some kind of factory.

If your produce isn’t coming from your own garden, you should do everything possible to procure it from farmers’ markets (most vegatbles and delicate fruits sold in these markets are picked within 36 hours of being sold), with a preference (if not an insistence) for organic; you should store your fresh purchases for as little time as possible in the refrigerator (meaning, you should eat them with immediacy), as we tend to abuse this priviledge, thinking things will remain fresh as long as they are cold—a total fallacy.

Storing Food At Room Temperature:

Certain fruits and vegetables conserve better at room temperature, or often in a cellar, rather than in the refrigerator. This is the case for the majority of acidic fruits and vegetables (agrumes?, tomatoes), alliacees? (garlic, onions, shallots), potirons doux?, and potatoes. Tomatoes picked before their ripeness must absolutely be stored at room temperature.

In The Fridge:

We’ve always been told—at least in America—never to leave foods on the counter for more than four hours, lest bacteria begin reproduce. But the fridge cannot guarantee against baceria. Certain types of bacteria will continue to proliferate at 4 degrees C, especially if your fridge is not cleaned regularly, and if you have the tendency to leave foods to age for long periods of time.

Even when in the fridge, vitamins will dissappear progressively. Losses vary from one type of food to the next. Vitamin C is by far the most fragile of vitamins and will begin to disappear rapidly. Vitamin C of raw vegetables stored in the fridge, for example, can easily lose up to a quarter of their Vitamin C over just two days. Cooked vegetables (such as leftovers from dinner, which have already sustained losses), can lose around 50% of their remaining Vitamin C in just one day.1 Hence, when you buy your fresh vegetables, keep them in the fridge (with the exception of the aforementioned) and eat them as soon as possible.

In The Cellar or Cool Pantry:

There are two main aguments for eating foods that have been canned or frozen: first, we simply don’t have sufficient time to prepare fresh foods; second, there is a paucity of local vegetables in the winter. I am reluctant to validate the first argument (people should make time), but can conceed the point.

The second argument, however, doesn’t hold much water. People with gardens who know how to utilize all of their resources know that they can have at their disposal numerous vegetables throughout the winter.

Some of these nutrient-rich (green) vegetables can remain in the ground (leeks, Brussels sprouts, winter greens, etc.) while others store very well in the cellar or in a cool pantry (away from central heating, which has a remarkable ability to make foods go off rapidly; think of your bread that went mouldy instead of stale). Potatoes and all root vegetables (suchs as carrots and beets) all store well for an entire season in a cool environment, and though they will sustain losses in Vitamin C over time, other vitamins will conserve well.

In The Freezer:

Freezing your produce is a great way to have them for later, such as in the winter. It’s easy to do, and it does a pretty good job of conserving color and flavor (unlike canning, which ranks lowest in appearance, taste, and nutrition).

What many people don’t know is that vegetables that have been blanched (immersed in boiling water for 1-2 minutes) actually keep better in the freezer than those that have not been. Blanching destroys the living enzymes in foods, thus inhibiting them from breaking down nutrients in the foods over time. For example, after six months, blanched Brussels sprouts can contain nearly all of their Vitamin C (with the exception of losses through blanching), whereas raw Brussels sprouts can lose up to half.

Despite the convenience of froozen foods—the ability to have any kind of food during any season—I do not advocate abusing the advantage. Seasonal foods confer certain appropriate properties, to which the body will be instinctively drawn, provided it knows how to listen (do not retard your body’s ability to discern its needs with the toxic inputs of refined, de-natured foods). It is better to keep your body in sync with the rhythm of the envinroment, and to eat what the seasons provide. This, in effect, will stimulate great satisfaction and gratitude for the foods you do eat, as you await their seasonal arrivals.

Jams, Jellies, Marmelades:

In my book, it’s junk food. Anything that is 50% added sugar is junk food and fundamentally poisonous and wearing to the body’s organs. Family tradition or not, there is little to gain from confitures besides a delightful dessert (under no circumstances should these be breakfast foods).

The cooking process, often exceedingly long, destroys the majority of vitamines sensitive to heat. The added sugar, typically refined, confers nothing of nutritional value. If one were to use less-refined sugars, these would typically only obscure the flavors of the fruits.

Do I renounce these preserves entirely? No. As I said, they are a dessert, and a pleasant one. People are encouraged to make their preserves with as little at 15% added sugar. This much sugar will allow for adequate conservation, will be less exciting to the pancreas, and should (hopefully) limit of addictive behaviors with sugar.

Dehydration:

Throughout history, fruits were dried in the sun. Dried fruits, with honey, were the principle source of sugar (the fine, white powder we know today simply didn’t exist—ADD LINK). In a number of desserts, dried fruits can be used as a sweetener.

The destruction of vitamins through the dehydration of fruits is variable. Acidic fruits lose less nutrition than others. Not all dried fruits were dried equally. That is to say, most of the dried fruits found in supermarkts were dried rapidly at high temperatures (and furthermore, rolled in sugar); this detroys nutrition and enzymes.

You can dry your own fruits at home in the sun (if you feel so inclined), with an electric dehydrator, a solar dehydrator, or even in your oven at a temperature lower than 118 degrees (if possible). By not exceeding 118 degrees, you will not run the risk of destroying your vitamins and enzymes, but losses will occur, as with any form of processing.

Fermentation:

The principle is thus: bacteria, naturally present on the surface of foods, transforms a part of a food’s sugar into lactic acid, which provokes a process of acidification. As long as the pH level of a food is around 4, harmful bacteria will not be able to proliferate, and the food will conserve well for a long time.

What is remarkable about lactofermentation are the many improvements it confers to foods: it pre-digests fiber; allows for easier amino acid assimilation; helps to tranform difficult starches (ones responsible for gas) into simple sugars; suppresses nutrition inhibitors in certain foods; and regenerates good intestinal flora.

Lactofermentaion also increases vitamin and enzyme conent. The Vitamin C level of lactofermented cabbage, for example, after a period of fluctuation, stabilizes at around 100% of its original value; one can see a thirty-fold increase in Vitamin B12, suggesting that vegans can indeed meet their B12 requirements.2

In Summary:

  • Insist on buying freshly-picked, organic produce at least twice a week (don’t let your produce sit in the fridge all week).

  • A quick rinse to lift dirt is all you need.

  • Prepare your vegetables just before eating them (rather than hours or days beforehand) and don’t hesitate to add vinegar or lemon juice to prevent oxidation.

  • Know that most of your vegetables should go into the fridge, and they do lose nutrition over a few days.

  • Root vegetables belong in the cellar/cool pantry.

  • Freezing (blanched) vegetables and fruits conserves nutrition well.

  • Canning is lowest on the list.

  • Confitures are a nutritional disgrace, but enjoy them as a dessert.

  • Lactofermentation is an extremely worthwhile investment of time, and a preferred method of conservation.

1Aubert, Claude. L’art de Cuisiner Sain, Terre Vivant, Mens, France, 2011.

2Clergeaud, C. & Clergeaud L., À la découverte des aliments fermentés, Dangles Editions, France, 2005.

Whole Foods Market & Friends Encourage Co-Existence of Organic & GM

Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as “natural.” — Ronnie Cummings, The Organic Consumer’s Association

I’m devastated to hear it, but not in the least bit surprised.  For several years, I have had the convenience of either living near, or working near the well-known giant in organic, “natural”, and to some extent artisan foods giant, “Whole Paycheck.”

And yes, while Whole Foods is pricey, consumers didn’t shy away from the booming organic and natural movement.  Our willingness to pay such a higher percentage of our income on these foods demonstrates consumer values.

It also demonstrates consumer ignorance.

Don’t be misled by labels, and don’t be misled by advertising.  Images on cartons of milk showing happy, grass-fed cows are still far from illustrating the truth.  Just because something costs more doesn’t make it better.

To understand the aforementioned quote–to know how such a deception is still possible, and legal–see “What you’re REALLY eating (part 3): don’t be misguided by food labels.”

Why post the quote at all?  It came from “The Organic Elite Surrenders To Monsanto,” by Ronnie Cummings, which describes how Whole Foods and other major names are simply tired of dealing with their cranky, demanding consumer base.  Because $9 billion of their sales is represented by the non-organic, GM-containing products, it is easier to continue raking in profits by sweeping the issue under the rug.

Most consumers, believe it or not (my readership is not representative of “most consumers,”) cannot sufficiently qualify a difference between natural and organic.  The industry will rely on this ignorance to perpetuate sales after the wake of outrage from more conscious consumers.

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed “natural” foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a “natural” supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). –OCA

Thanks to people like me (in my nascent health-and-environment-conscious stages also couldn’t tell you the difference between natural and organic, and due to a lack of funds, felt warm and fuzzy with my “natural” purchases all the same) a problem seeded itself in ignorance, then grew mightily in the organic-natural grocery boom.

…well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and “natural” purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.  —OCA

While organic took profits away from conventional, “conventional natural” took profits back.

How much progress have we made, really?

Know your labelsKnow what you’re buying.

The Egg Recall: Fear, Fear, Fear!

The Organic Consumer’s Association published a wonderful article about our recent egg recall, spurred by a wide scale Salmonella outbreak, “A Recent Article on the Egg Recall That Completely Misses the Pount,” by Honor Schauland.

I leave the message to Ms. Schauland. Do click the link.

For a brief synopsis…

A recent article from US News and World Report says something to the effect that eating Organic eggs can be riskier than convetional eggs, and goes on to list half a dozen uber scary and risky things to be avoided in food handling and preparation.  Some studies (conducted by the USDA) suggest that organic food production isn’t controlled well enough to guarantee against danger.

Scary!  We have to control everything, all the time!  Of course organic isn’t controlled!  It operated against the principles of control.  It diversifies the food system.  It strengthens it.  If one batch of eggs has salonella, it won’t end up in a nation-wide recall of eggs, or threaten even remotely as many people.  That is the point.

Instead, the report issued sounds like little more than conventional food production propaganda.

My thanks to Ms. Schauland for her candor.

Organic: A Philosophy Of Wholeness

“Organic stands for many things–a philosophy of wholeness, the science of integration, a rallying cry for keeping nature humming as the interdependent web of life.  Organic is also highly pragmatic–a real solution to society’s ills.  It’s a sensible farm politic and helps mitigate health-care woes–you eat better, you are better.”  –Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farms

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers