Dirtbag Gourmet: The ‘Truth’ About Organic Food


The way headlines broke after a recent Stanford study comparing organic food to food grown on conventional farms, you’d think organic had been shot and left for dead.

The New York Times, for example, announced that “Stanford scientists cast doubt on advantages of organic meat and produce.” Maybe the doubt was inferred from the study’s lukewarm synopsis: 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.

But wait a minute: Organic food has never been seriously touted as more nutritious or vitamin-rich than conventional food. Nor is it the cure for HIV, a recipe for immortality, or the preferred diet of unicorns.

Organic has always been defined by what it isn’t, and the first rule of organic food is that it’s free of things like pesticide and antibiotic residues, as well as synthetic hormones. The study confirms what organic supporters have long said was the simple truth: Organic food is less adulterated by things you don’t want to eat.

The organic watchdog group Cornucupia Institute called the Stanford study “biased” in a September 12 press release, which also raised questions about the study’s funding. Several of the authors are fellows and affiliates of Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which has received funding from big-ag companies, including Cargill.

The study synthesized the results of 237 previously conducted studies that had compared nutrient and pesticide residue levels in organic and conventional food. Although pesticide-residue levels in conventionally grown food, as compared with the EPA’s allowable levels, mostly complied with the law, Cornucopia complained that the larger study failed to discuss any of the specific dangers posed by pesticides. For example, a 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics found that children with organophosphate pesticides in their systems were more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Another organophosphate pesticide, chlorpyrifos, also poses a risk to the brains of children, especially via prenatal exposure. A residential roach-killer, chlorpyrifos was banned for home use by the EPA in 2001, but the chemical is still permitted for agricultural use on fruit trees and vegetables and is known by its Dow trade name Lorsban. According to the EPA, 10 million pounds of it is applied annually in the United States.

Recently, chlorpyrifos was found to stunt development more in males than it did in females. A study conducted in New York City and published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology found that while the IQ scores of both boys and girls were lower following exposure, the brains of boys were especially affected. Chlorpyrifos is just one of more than 1,400 pesticides regulated by the EPA.

Given our slowly evolving scientific understanding of pesticide chemicals and the glacial pace of political change, the Stanford study results support the idea that eating organic food reduces our exposure to things that we may someday realize are bad for us, as well as things that we already know are bad, such as chicken and pork contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Of course, to many in the sustainable-food movement, factory-farmed organic — what you sometimes get at Whole Foods — remains an imperfect compromise. As a wise farmer once told me, “Most big-organic food is still grown by exploited brown people on massive monocultures, just without chemicals.”

The Stanford report concluded with the kind of self-contradictory statement that embodies the general confusion the study has generated: The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

In other words, organic isn’t any better, but it might be somewhat less worse. If the Stanford team’s idea of health includes adding pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria to my system, then I’d hate to meet its criteria for sick.

Environmental coverage made possible in part by support from Patagonia. For information on Patagonia and its environmental efforts, visit www.patagonia.com. In affiliation with High Country News. Crop dusting photo by Shutterstock

{ 10 comments…read them below or write one }

  • Adam

    “Organic food has never been seriously touted as more nutritious or vitamin-rich than conventional food.” Maybe you should check out some old articles published in magazines and such in the 90′s, organic was touted as such, depends on what you consider a ‘serious claim’

  • Wayne Turner

    “Organic food has never been seriously touted as more nutritious or vitamin-rich than conventional food.” Define “seriously touted”. There were lots of magazine articles saying so years ago and even NOW you can find lots of mainstream websites that are pro-organic that still make that claim. And ask people on the street if they think it is more healthy than non-organic; many will (wrongly) think that it is.

    Please stick to adventure. That’s why I come here.

  • Glen Ferguson

    Accusing the professors of biased research is a serious claim. I would wager that the researchers have absolutely no idea who funds whatever institutes they are part of and could really care less if they did.

    “In other words, organic isn’t any better, but it might be somewhat less worse. If the Stanford team’s idea of health includes adding pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria to my system, then I’d hate to meet its criteria for sick.”

    You have misunderstood the study. It says that there is no evidence that the difference is pesticides levels between organic and conventional food actually makes a difference in a person’s health. Not that the difference isn’t important but that there is no evidence it’s important. That’s all they could say from the data.

  • Brice

    If produce has even a chance of creating a chronic (or acute) condition, it’s not healthy, in my opinion. It’s like taking a vitamin pill which might turn out to give you the flu later on. I don’t buy organic foods exclusively, but who knows what risk I am taking by skimping.

  • Aaron

    Good piece. Sums it up nicely. Thanks for posting here.

    You can nitpick the details all you want, but there’s simply no question that organic food is better—for us, our children, and for the health of the larger ecosystems that support us.

  • Austin

    I get it, you guys are all for the environment and to stop the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and anything we don’t want to eat. Where’s the study on how much fuel is burned trucking organic food from remote farming and growing locations to major population centers. If you’re really concerned about the environment and future shouldn’t the fight be about “Buy Local to protect our resources” and less about “My food is more nutritious than yours”? I’d much rather spend an extra buck or two at a local farmers market – regardless of the fact if he used pesticides than buy anything in a chain store, even Whole Foods.

  • Ryan

    “If produce has even a chance of creating a chronic (or acute) condition, it’s not healthy, in my opinion.”

    E coli outbreaks can happen at least as easily on organic produce as regular produce.

    “there’s simply no question that organic food is better—for us, our children, and for the health of the larger ecosystems that support us.”

    Show me the data. This study just demonstrated that organic and standard produce are nutritionally equivalent. If we are talking science, bring the science. Otherwise lets all just stick to adventure.

  • Tom

    “Of course, to many in the sustainable-food movement, factory-farmed organic …. remains an imperfect compromise. ……”Most big-organic food is still grown by exploited brown people on massive monocultures, just without chemicals.”

    A guilt zinger, just what I needed to feel bad about avoiding chemicals. “Imperfect compromise” indeed. That’s about the dumbest correlation I’ve ever heard.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>