Organics: Are They Worth It? By Peter Jaret, EatingWell.com Find More Warning: Consuming organic foods could be hazardous to your health. That, I recently discovered, is the startling message being promoted by a nonprofit group that calls itself the Center for Consumer Freedom. A report featured on CCF's website warns that manure, which organic farmers use instead of synthetic chemicals to fertilize crops, could prove deadly. Sure manure's natural; but it's also a "luscious breeding ground for all kinds of nasty microbes," according to the report—including the dreaded bacteria E. coli. The natural pesticides used by organic farmers, the report even warns, may be more dangerous than synthetic chemicals. Where to Put Your Money in Organics: Most & Least Commonly Contaminated Produce The debate over "organic" versus "conventional" has always been contentious. Lately, it's turned almost surreal. In a kind of Alice in Wonderland world where nothing is quite what it seems, proponents say organic farming protects the environment. Critics insist it's so inefficient that most of the remaining forests would have to be felled to feed the planet organically. Organic advocates say pesticides can kill. Critics say organically grown plants have to produce their own natural defenses against insects, substances which could be many times more toxic than pesticides. Both sides accuse the other of fear-mongering—and then turn around and sow more fears. When I read that warning from CCF—a group funded in part by agricultural chemical companies and fast-food giants—I laughed in disbelief. Then I got angry. We shouldn't have to fret about every bite we eat. Yet maddeningly, that's exactly what has resulted as vested interests from global agribusiness to increasingly powerful organic trade associations have turned what should be an honest and open discussion into a frenzy of skewed information. Caught in the middle are those of us whose only vested interest is putting a healthy meal on the table for our families—who simply want to shield our children from toxins, and do our small part to protect the environment and perhaps support a local farmer. All we're asking, really, are a few simple questions. Is organic produce safer? Is it more nutritious? Is it friendlier to the environment than conventional agriculture? Is it worth spending more for organically grown food? A few months ago I decided to try to look for answers. I knew at the outset they weren't likely to be as easy as yes or no. The controversies run far too deep for that. Still, I set out in hopes of finding at least a small patch of common ground. What I discovered often surprised me. There are good reasons to buy organic—but also a few compelling ones to favor conventional. Is organic produce safer? Most people choose organic produce for one simple reason: to avoid consuming pesticides. Organic farmers are prohibited from using virtually all synthetic chemicals, either to kill weeds or pests or to fertilize plants. Conventional farmers in this country can use around 200 approved synthetic chemicals—fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides. No one disputes the fact that at least some of those chemicals end up on the fruits and vegetables we take home from the market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture regularly tests hundreds of samples of fresh and processed foods for pesticide residues and posts the results on its website (www.ams.usda.gov). The samples are gathered from a variety of markets around the country and represent a cross-section of what's available to consumers, including both organic and conventional produce. According to the latest results, which included 13,208 samples, 76 percent of fresh fruit and vegetables and 40 percent of processed fruits and vegetables had detectable residues. All of the milk tested, both organic and conventional, showed residues. Overall, about 30 percent of the samples were pesticide-free, 30 percent contained one pesticide and 40 percent had traces of more than one chemical. To be sure, the detected levels were very low in most samples, measured in a few parts per billion. According to the USDA, only 0.2 percent of the contaminated samples exceeded tolerance levels set by the federal government. (See "Where to Put Your Money," below.) Even organic produce isn't necessarily pesticide-free. Synthetic chemicals can drift over from nearby fields or leach into groundwater. All the same, organic produce is consistently lower in residues. In the USDA's samples, for instance, 76 percent of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables had detectable pesticide levels, compared to only 23 percent of organically grown produce. California does its own testing, independent of the USDA, I discovered. Its analysis found residues in 31 percent of conventionally grown samples and only 6.5 percent of organics. How dangerous are those residues likely to be? To find out, I put in a call to Chensheng Lu, a food scientist at Emory University. "Almost everybody has some pesticide in their body, which can be measured in urine samples," Lu told me. As it happens, while studying a group of preschool kids a few years ago, he and some colleagues found an exception to that rule: a child who had no detectable levels of a class of common pesticides called organophosphates. When the scientists followed up, they discovered that the parents served almost nothing but organic food at home. That unexpected finding inspired the research team to undertake an ingenious experiment. They followed 23 children who were eating mostly conventionally grown foods. For a period of five consecutive days they switched the children to organic foods—including organic fresh fruits, vegetables, juices, processed fruit or vegetables, pasta, dairy, cereal and even chips. The study concentrated on preschool kids because if pesticides on foods do pose a danger, young children are likely to be the most vulnerable. Because they are growing, they consume more food per pound of body weight than adults, which means higher exposure to pesticide residues. And since many modern pesticides are neurotoxins, designed to kill bugs by interfering with their nervous systems, even low levels could be potentially dangerous in children, whose brains are developing. The results were clear cut. "While the kids were on conventional diets, it was easy to measure the presence of organophosphate pesticides in their urine," Lu told me. "But within 24 hours after switching to organic diets, the metabolites for organophosphates fell to nondetectable levels. And as soon as the kids switched back to conventional diets, the levels rose again." If there was ever an emotionally compelling reason for choosing organic, this would seem to be it. But for scientists, one more crucial question needs to be resolved. Are the miniscule levels of pesticide residues found in our bodies enough to cause any harm? The more I asked that question, the more elusive a reliable answer seemed to be. "The exposure levels are so low they're not worth worrying about," Robert Hollingworth, a toxicologist and former director of Michigan State University's National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, told me. "I'd be more concerned about food additives than pesticide residues." As a measure of his confidence, he said, "I don't have any concerns about my grandchildren eating conventionally grown produce." Manfred Kroger, an expert in toxicology at Pennsylvania State University, agreed. "The levels of pesticide residue are insignificant. Not eating plenty of fruits and vegetables poses a far greater threat than any danger of chemicals in food." But Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist who studies links between pesticides and cancer risk at the National Cancer Institute, was more cautious. Of the 100 main pesticides used in agriculture, he told me, only two or three have been shown to cause cancer in animal studies—and then only when they are delivered at doses far higher than anyone eating conventionally grown fruits and vegetables could possibly be exposed to. Still, a few epidemiologic studies have found some evidence of an association between pesticide use and health problems in agricultural workers—lymphoma, prostate cancer and Parkinson's, for instance. Those findings amount to "hints and leads," according to Blair, not definitive evidence of risk. Still, he thinks it's reasonable to be cautious. "After all, these are chemicals that were designed to cause harm," he told me. "Let me put it this way. If you had a choice, you wouldn't add them to food at the table." Does that mean he chooses organic over conventional when he goes shopping? "Not religiously, I have to admit," he said. But then he added the crucial caveat. "Except when my grandchildren are visiting. Then I definitely do." Two grandfathers. Two experts. Two very different assessments of the risk. How can that be? The simple answer is that no one really knows because the data aren't there. Short-term exposure may not be hazardous at all. But what are the consequences of being chronically exposed to a little every day, month after month, year after year? "That's what we don't know," Lu told me, "and it's a very hard thing to find out, because it means studying one group of people for a very long time." For now he offered what seemed like the best guidance in the face of so much uncertainty. "Since we know these chemicals are neurotoxins, the less you're exposed to, it seems to me, the better." What about those natural toxins produced by organically grown plants? Is it possible, as the Center for Consumer Freedom warns, that they, too, could pose a risk? The researchers I talked to were skeptical. For starters, there's no evidence that organic crops are consistently higher in natural plant toxins than conventional. Organic farmers may not use synthetic pesticides, after all, but they do use a wide variety of natural strategies to ward off bad bugs; their plants don't have to defend themselves entirely on their own. What's more, at least some of the substances that plants use for defense, including antioxidants, are precisely the ones that have been associated with better health. As for microbes swarming in manure: It's true that manure can harbor disease-causing bacteria. But when food scientists at the University of Georgia compared 54 samples each of organic and conventional salad greens, the organically grown greens were actually a little less likely to be contaminated with E. coli than conventional. And the best way to avoid problems, the study showed, was simply to wash the greens, no matter how they're grown. Is organic more nutritious? For years, organic activists have insisted that foods grown organically are more nutritious. But that claim, I discovered, is more an article of faith than a scientific fact. Scientists have only recently begun to compare organic and conventional head to head, as it were. Leading that research is Alyson Mitchell, a crop scientist at the University of California, Davis. In 2003, she and her team compared food grown in two adjacent test farms—one organic, one conventional. Their findings showed that marionberries (a type of blackberry), strawberries and corn grown organically had consistently higher levels of antioxidants, including vitamin C. More recently, organically grown tomatoes were found to have more flavonoids, a class of plant-based compounds that are believed to protect against heart disease and possibly cancer. So naturally when I reached Mitchell in her office, I expected her to wax rhapsodic over the nutritional benefits of organically grown produce. But while she agreed that her findings were "provocative" and "exciting," she was also quick to say that it's far too early to know if every organic tomato or peach is likely to have a nutritional edge. Many variables affect the nutrient content of a pepper or a pear, she pointed out—soil quality, sunlight, rainfall, even which pests happen to invade a field. Specific food crops may also be more or less influenced by different farming methods. While the UC Davis studies have shown that organic tomatoes are generally higher in flavonoids, for example, bell peppers appear to be nutritionally identical whether grown organically or conventionally. And even where there is a nutritional advantage, it may not be enough to matter—at least in terms of public health. Let's say organic tomatoes are a little higher in flavonoids. In most markets they're also a lot higher in price. Given the price tags at my local market, for instance, I could eat twice as many conventional tomatoes, dollar for dollar, as organic ones. Having affordable conventionally grown tomatoes available means more people will be able to buy them, which in turn is likely to have a much bigger payoff than the little extra flavonoids an organic tomato might contain. Is organic friendlier to the environment? By choosing organic, I've always assumed I'm doing my small part to reduce the amount of pesticides percolating into the soil and flowing into streams and rivers. I'm not alone. Health may be the number one reason most people buy organic produce but environmental concerns run a close second, surveys show. To my surprise, several of the toxicologists I spoke to downplayed concerns about agricultural chemicals in the environment. "The experience with DDT taught us how disastrous toxins in the environment can be," the NCI's Blair explained. "But DDT was especially dangerous because it has a long half-life, which means it persists for a long time in the environment. Almost all of us, for that reason, have DDT in our bodies. In fact, the newer pesticides are much more toxic than DDT, but they have very short lives, measured in days instead of years. Any chemical that persists in the environment would never be allowed to be used these days." Some chemicals banned in the U.S. are still used in other countries—including even DDT (although for mosquito control, not agriculture). And in countries where government oversight is lax, overuse and misuse of pesticides may pose a risk both to the environment and to workers who have to handle these toxic chemicals. For that reason, choosing organic may be especially important when you're buying imported produce from places where environmental regulations may not be strictly enforced. Imported organic produce is required by the USDA to meet the same federal standards as organic produce grown in the U.S. Here at home, though, the real environmental advantage of organic is as basic as dirt. "Conventional farmers feed their plants. Organic farmers feed the soil," John Reganold, Regents professor of soil science at Washington State University, told me when I reached him by phone. Synthetic fertilizers may create rapid growth, but they don't replenish the soil nearly as much as organic fertilizers do. "Open any introductory textbook on soil and it will tell you that if you add organic material to soil, you'll have healthier soil," Reganold said. Because organic farming uses compost and other natural fertilizers, the soil typically teems with abundant microbial life, which helps nourish and sustain plants. "And that's good for the environment in many ways," Reganold said. "Organic farming results in less pollution of groundwater. By creating better soil, it increases water holding capacity, which reduces erosion. When you look at the research comparing organic and conventional farming systems, on every environmental measure, organic farming comes out ahead." For years, though, critics have argued that organic farming may be great for supplying the kitchens of high-end restaurants and well-to-do consumers, but it can't produce enough food, at low cost, to feed the world. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers, after all, allowed modern agriculture to keep pace with the world's rapidly growing population. If the world depended on organic methods, critics say, most of the world's remaining forests would have to be chopped down to create fields and pastureland. When I mentioned that criticism to Reganold, he leaped on it the way a gardener might snatch a particularly noxious weed. "That's a bogus issue," he told me. "At the moment, we're not asking organic farmers to feed the world. We're only saying that increasing the amount of acreage farmed organically would be a good thing." In truth, organic farming may not be as efficient, acre for acre, as conventional large- scale farming. A 2002 study by Paul Mäder and his colleagues at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland found that crop yields were about 20 percent lower in organic systems. But his study also found that, in some cases, organic farming methods used less than half the fertilizer and energy of conventional methods. Thus, organic farming methods may ultimately be more sustainable than chemical-intensive farming. "Most research in the past 30 years has been on conventional farming," Reganold pointed out. "The leading crop varieties have been chosen because they're suited to conventional farming. The organic movement is growing, and its yields are increasing as we learn more about the science of organic farming. Some of our own studies have shown that organic apple orchards in the Pacific Northwest can get the same yield as conventional orchards." Is conventional ever a better choice than organic? Imagine, for a moment, that your local market is offering both organic and conventionally grown apples. Both look delicious. And wonder of wonders, both are $1.99 a pound. Is there ever any reason to buy the conventional variety? I would have thought the answer was obvious—until I called Michelle Miller, who coordinates the Pesticide Use and Risk Reduction Project at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. "Have you ever eaten an heirloom variety of apple called an orange pippin?" she asked me. I hadn't, though the name alone made me want to. "They're my absolute favorite. They're delicious. And the problem here in Wisconsin is that they're almost impossible to grow economically without using at least some pesticides." When Miller was a kid, Wisconsin's apple orchards were going strong, producing a wide range of varieties, including local heirlooms. But as consumer demand for organic apples grew, local orchards began to struggle. "It's fairly easy to grow apples organically in the Pacific Northwest because of the climate. But in Wisconsin, with our summer heat and humidity, apples—including some heirloom varieties, like orange pippins—are susceptible to many more pests." If the good people of Wisconsin wanted to have locally grown apples available, she came to understand—and if they also wanted to support local family farms and preserve heirloom varieties that were in danger of disappearing—they might have to live with apples that contained some pesticide residues. Miller's mission, working with local farmers, is to make sure the residue levels are as low as possible. The approach, called integrated pest management, or IPM, tries to take full advantage of the effective methods of organic farming but also allows farmers the option of using some pesticides when necessary. "Farmers don't want to use toxic chemicals," Miller told me. "Everyone hears stories about farmers with cancer or Parkinson's disease, and even if you can't say synthetic pesticides are to blame, you worry. And synthetic pesticides are expensive. If farmers can cut down the number of sprays, they'll actually save money." Over the past two years, farmers in Miller's program have been able to reduce what she calls "pesticide risk"—a measure that takes into account both the amount of pesticides used and their particular toxicity—by 58 percent. Some farmers have cut their operating costs too. All of them can assure customers that their fruit is being grown locally with a minimal use of pesticides. Similar groups are promoting sustainable agriculture and pesticide reduction around the country. A group called Red Tomato is gaining ground in the Northeast. Another, Protected Harvest, focuses on reducing pesticide use on farms that grow peaches, potatoes, carrots, green beans, wine grapes and other crops. Some of these groups have created their own eco-labels, offering consumers choices that go beyond organic versus conventional. (For more information, check out eco-labels.org.) "Organic farming is a great thing," explained Scott Exo, who heads up Food Alliance, an Oregon-based group that has created its own alternative certification program for farmers committed to sustainable agricultural practices. "Organic farmers are making a huge contribution. But organic isn't everything. Organic certification is a series of prohibitions—a long list of chemicals that can't be used. Certified-organic farmers often use organically derived pesticides like sulfur. But in some regions, it's almost impossible to grow certain crops without synthetic pesticides." What's more, he pointed out, an organic label doesn't tell you whether the food was grown locally or flown halfway around the world. It doesn't tell you if workers on a farm are paid fairly or given decent living conditions. It doesn't tell you whether animals are treated humanely, or whether a farm or ranch is doing anything to protect wildlife habitat or conserve soil and water. To be sure, many small organic farmers do all those things. They've led the revolution in sustainable agriculture, after all. But even organic farmers worry that big players moving into the organic market may be living up to the letter of the regulations but betraying the spirit—thus diluting a more essential meaning of organic. As an example, a Wisconsin- based farm policy research group called the Cornucopia Institute reported in April that at least some organic milk sold by a major nationwide brand comes from industrial-style dairy farms with thousands of cows who are kept confined rather than being allowed to graze. Wal-Mart, meanwhile, recently announced that it will double its organic produce offerings—sparking new worries that the original notion of organic farming as small and local has been lost to big business. Most Food Alliance-certified farms, in contrast, aren't organic. The group bans 13 of the most toxic chemicals but allows the use of others if organic approaches aren't working. Certified farms also commit themselves to fair treatment of farmworkers, humane treatment of animals and stewardship of the land. More and more farms and ranches on the West Coast and in the Midwest are signing on, Exo told me. To find out why, I spoke to Connie and Doc Hatfield, founding members of the Food Alliance, who live outside of Bend, Oregon. The Hatfields are ranchers, not farmers. Their "Country Natural Beef" is sold in many markets that feature organic produce. The cattle are raised without growth hormones or antibiotics. They're free to roam the range. But they're not strictly organic. When I asked Doc Hatfield, a veterinarian by training, why not, he said, "We've got 14,000 acres of our own, but our cattle also range over land maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, and the BLM sometimes uses pesticides to clear weeds away from the roadside." For that reason, his cattle can't qualify as organic. But the Hatfields have come to believe that letting the animals roam over as much land as possible is more important to their health—and contentment—than restricting them to organic acreage. Connie Hatfield put it this way: "I could park a cow here in our living room and feed it only organic feed. That cow would be organic. But it wouldn't be very happy." What really matters? After talking with Exo and the Hatfields, I began to realize that the choice isn't nearly as simple as conventional versus organic. There are issues that go beyond those handy categories. And there are far more questions to weigh. Is it local? How far has it come to reach my table? Who grew it? How was it grown? In the case of milk or meat, were the animals treated humanely? I know, I know. Not many of us have the time or inclination to interrogate grocery managers about every basket of blueberries or brisket of beef. But in my conversations with farmers and ranchers and scientists, I began to understand that by learning just a little more about the food I'm putting on the table, I could use my food dollars to cast a small but meaningful vote not only for the health of my family but for the kind of world I want to preserve. I'm lucky to live in Sonoma County, California, where I can jump on my bike and, in five minutes, be riding through some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, a patchwork of dairylands, vineyards and small vegetable farms. Because I want to protect that open space and the economic vitality of local farming, I've begun to see that it's important to support locally produced foods—sometimes more important than being a stickler for organic. Agricultural diversity also matters. I discovered that firsthand when I saw and tasted heirloom tomatoes at the local farmers' market—Cherokee Purples, Green Zebras and Nebraska Weddings. Now I go out of my way to support small farmers who grow these heirloom varieties, even if they aren't certified organic. I've also come to understand that organic isn't always hands-down the best choice for the planet—a fact brought home to me the last time I went shopping for dinner. Our local market was featuring gorgeous organic red peppers. A quick glance at the label revealed that they'd been shipped halfway around the world—from greenhouses in Holland to California. Fresh from the garden they weren't. And whatever pesticides were spared in growing them were more than made up for by the petrochemicals used to get them here. I settled for some fresh locally grown green bells. Of course abundant local produce isn't available all-year-round in most places, as my sister in Minnesota is quick to remind me ("You Californians," she says, and I can almost see her rolling her eyes). Not everyone can choose between organic and conventional. But many places in the country do have bustling farmers' markets in the summer—and there's no better place to meet the people who are growing your food and preserving local agriculture. Some grow organically. Others may integrate organic and conventional techniques. Ask them and they'll tell you exactly how they farm—and why. Among the farmers I talked to was Kristie Knoll, whose small farm east of San Francisco supplies greens and other produce to Chez Panisse, the world-famous restaurant in Berkeley. Knoll also sells her produce at San Francisco's farmers' market on Saturdays, where I caught up with her on a drizzly morning. She offered me a sample of arugula and a bitter green I'd never tasted before, called puntarella. She also insisted that I try an arugula blossom—the small cream-colored flower that appears long after most arugula has been harvested. It was superb—sweet and peppery and beautiful to behold. Knoll's produce isn't certified organic. "When the feds got into organic, we got out," she told me, explaining that she didn't want some bureaucrat telling her how to farm. Even so, everything she and her husband produce is grown entirely without chemical pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. Their farm goes beyond organic in its commitment to sustainable agriculture. "Sometimes that means losing something to bugs," she said with a shrug, "but it's the risk you take." Risky or not, she loves her work. All morning she dashed around answering customers' questions, identifying unusual vegetables—puntarella, cardoons, broccoli rabe—and suggesting ways to prepare them, even passing out printed recipes. Before I said goodbye, I bought a generous bag full of arugula and a bunch of puntarella. Back in my own kitchen, I chopped the puntarella into thin ribbons and mixed it with olive oil, finely chopped green garlic and anchovies to create a savory spread—a traditional Italian recipe that Knoll had given me. Maybe it was knowing how the greens were raised. Maybe it was the fact that they'd been picked fresh that morning. Maybe it was simply the memory of Kristie Knoll's almost manic passion for everything she grows. Whatever the reason, it was absolutely delicious. Peter Jaret is a health and science writer and frequent EatingWell contributor. The last Special Report he wrote was "Heart of the Matter—Cholesterol and the heart-smart consumer: foods to eat, foods to avoid" (February/March 2006). Source: Environmental Working Group, foodnews.org