As you wander through the shelves and aisles of grocery stores and food commodities, you will see the "organic" label on the packaging of some food commodities. Some of us spend a lot of money to get these foods, believing that they are healthier than other traditional foods as promoted by companies, but is this belief really true?
Encyclopedia Britannica defines organic food as fresh food produced by organic farming methods, which is agriculture that does not rely on synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and man-made fertilizers, and that does not involve the use of genetic modification techniques. Organic foods include fresh produce, meat and dairy products. (1)
In the United States, the production of USDA-approved organic foods must meet a very specific set of criteria, including minimal chemical use, structured feeding and care for livestock, and avoiding genetic engineering. In America, these standards apply to any agricultural product labeled "organic," whether that product is fruit, vegetables, dairy, eggs, poultry, meat, fish, rice, grains, and even some natural textiles. (2) (3)
Billion-dollar blockbuster industry
Some people believe that organic farming produces healthier foods than its traditional counterpart, but research and experiments have not been able to find any evidence. (Shutterstock)
Since the late twentieth century, the organic food market has grown exponentially, and a multi-billion dollar industry has emerged, based on systems for the production, processing and distribution of organic products. (1) Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that annual spending on organic food and beverages rose from about $28 billion to $2015 billion in 4 years, from the mid-5s to <>. Although organic foods cost up to three times their conventional foods, the number of people paying for what they think is the best food available is growing. (<>)، (<>)
For their part, proponents say that organic foods are often fresher than their traditional counterparts, and are free of chemicals that have been associated with multiple health problems, in addition to being more environmentally friendly and supporting biodiversity, since they avoid the use of chemical additives such as pesticides that kill beneficial pollinators, including bees responsible for honey production.
Inaccurate benefits
Studies have confirmed that differences in nutrient levels and pollutants between organic and non-organic foods are negligible, with the exception of phosphorus (Shutterstock)
For example, some people believe that organic farming produces healthier foods than their traditional counterparts, but research and experiments have not been able to find any evidence that organic foods are healthier in any way.
For example, an independent research project in the United Kingdom systematically reviewed 162 articles comparing organic and non-organic crops, published between 1958 and 2008. These articles contained a total of 3558 comparisons of nutrient content and other substances in organic foods and conventionally produced foods.
Surprisingly, the review found no evidence whatsoever of any differences in the content of more than 15 different nutrients, including vitamin C, carotene, and calcium. The results of this review, published in 2008 and updated in 2010, stated: "From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, it is clear that there is a lack of evidence on nutritional quality and positive health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foods." (6)
Other studies have confirmed that differences in nutrient levels and pollutants between organic and non-organic foods are negligible, with the exception of phosphorus, as phosphorus levels were significantly higher in organic products than in conventional products, but the researchers emphasize here that this difference may not be important from a health point of view and does not enhance nutritional quality. On the other hand, the risk of contamination with pesticide residues and other pollutants was lower among organic products compared to conventional products, but the differences in the risk of exceeding the maximum allowable limit of these pollutants were small. For example, the risk of E. coli did not differ between organic and conventional products. (7) Studies have also shown that bacterial contamination of retail chickens is equally common in organic and inorganic products. (8)
Sometimes you find that products labeled "organic" may not contain entirely natural ingredients as companies market. (Shutterstock)
Most importantly, perhaps products labeled "organic" may not contain entirely natural ingredients as companies market, for example, in the United States, products labeled "Made with Organic Ingredients" can contain less than 70% organic content. Here you should know that a bag of cornflakes labeled "organic" is made from organic corn and inorganic oils, however, the product remains classified as organic because the processed portion of it still meets government standards. (5)
Waste of money?!
In light of this, it is probably no exaggeration to say that spending more money to consume organic products is a ploy to waste money. That's the conclusion of a 2012 Stanford University study based on the most comprehensive meta-analysis yet of studies comparing organic and traditional foods, in which researchers found no strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives. Dina Pravata, lead author of the study, said: "If you're an adult and you're making a decision based solely on your health, you should know here that there's not much difference between organic and conventional foods. (9)
During her work, Pravata revealed what she described as a "confusing set of studies," including some that were not very rigorous, and that appear mainly in advertising and commercial publications.
A report in Scientific American tells us that the advertising aspects of organic foods may be completely false or at least not as true as some might think. One of these myths is that organic farms do not use pesticides. Here, the Soil Association, a UK body, explains that when it asked consumers why they bought organic food, 95% said the main reason was to avoid pesticides.
What makes organic farming different from conventional farming is not the reduction or lack of pesticide use, but the difference lies in the origin and composition of the pesticides used. (Shutterstock)
These consumers and others believe that organic farming involves using little or no pesticides. Organic farming, like other forms of farming, uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent pests and fungi from destroying their crops. (4) In the United States, for example, the "100% Organic" label ensures that the USDA definition is met, which includes that the product has been planted with fertilizers free of synthetic ingredients or wastewater, but that does not necessarily mean that there are no pesticides or herbicides in the production process. (5)
The report confirms that there are more than 20 chemicals commonly used in the cultivation and processing of organic crops that have been approved by the US organic standards, in addition to the fact that organic pesticides are used more intensively than synthetic pesticides due to their low levels of effectiveness. In fact, what makes organic farming different from conventional farming is not the reduction or non-use of pesticides, but the difference lies in the origin and composition of the pesticides used, as organic pesticides are derived from natural sources and treated slightly before they are used. This is different from the pesticides used in conventional agriculture, which are usually completely synthetic.
For many years and perhaps decades, the assumption has been put forward that pesticides that form naturally in certain plants are somehow better for us and the environment than man-made pesticides. But after further research into the toxicity of these pesticides, it turns out that this assumption is not true, as it was found that many natural pesticides pose no small health risks. For example, Rotenone was widely used in the United States, and because it is of natural origin and found naturally in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered safe and organic. However, research has shown that rotenone is extremely dangerous because it kills pests by attacking mitochondria, the energy centers of all living cells. (4) Research has found that exposure to rutinone caused Parkinson's-like symptoms in mice and has the ability to kill many species of organisms, including humans. Based on these findings, the use of rutenone as a pest discontinued in the United States as of 2005. (10)
Should I buy organic food?
(Shutterstock)
The bottom line, then, is that the most reliable reports and studies tell us that organic and conventional foods are equally identical in nutritional value, as there is not enough evidence to suggest that one method of cultivation makes food more beneficial than others.
So what about environmental aspects? Many proponents of organic foods have criticized the aforementioned Stanford study, which found no nutritional benefit for organic foods, saying that it is not about what organic foods contain, but what they do not contain, explaining that avoiding pesticide residues is the number one reason people buy organic foods. This may be partly true but there are two observations that cannot be ignored: the first is that all food on the market does not exceed harmful percentages of pesticide residues (organic or not), and the second is that the price difference (which is usually exponential) cannot be justified with these negligible nuances, making food and organic products much more of a propaganda wave than a healthier lifestyle or a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle.
____________________________________
Sources: