“Wanna bite?” I asked my best friend on our early morning commute to history class.  I flashed the apple, my breakfast for the day, approvingly in his direction.  “Nah,” he said, “I just had peanut butter oatmeal.”  “You sure?  It’s really good and like organic or something.”  “Organic?  Semantically, isn’t all fruit organic?  There’s no robot fruit taking over our fruit stands, is there?”  “What?  Oh, no.  I think it’s grown cleaner and without pesticides and whatnot.  It’s supposed to be healthier, I think.”  We laughed about this idiosyncrasy, and added it to our ongoing tally of ambiguities in our language.  However, our limited knowledge of organic produce is not unique; instead, it is a representation of a pervasive misunderstanding of organic-labeled products, effectively a microcosm of America.  The fast growing enterprise of organic produce¹ has taken root in our culture of consumerism, where quality of life is measured not only by the quantity of an individual’s consumption, but also by the quality of those products.  Could America be on the verge of a paradigm shift, ready to replace their heretofore abiding predilection for Wal-Mart-stocked produce for Whole Foods-stock?  It certainly seems that we are in the beginnings of a “Whole Foods Craze,” as their ubiquity increases, we assume that the higher sticker price of organic food translates to a healthier product.  However, is this greater nutrition verified scientific fact or merely a fabrication of creative advertising and accepted as fact by America’s uninformed consumerism?  As with all products, there are pros and cons to organics, including: health impacts, cost and environmental concerns.  America should consider these factors as she makes the choice of what is for dinner.

Whatever the diehard organic enthusiasts—the ones with long hair and unshaven faces who drive VW buses—had in mind when they started the movement years ago wasn’t exactly recorded for posterity.  Since 1990, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has picked up the ball and defined what an organic product is,² and knowing this definition is a precondition for informed consideration.  So, before pros and cons are presented, the authority needs to be referenced.  The USDA regulates all food within the US and so sets the standards for organics.  It states: “organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones.  Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.”  The USDA strictly enforces labeling, and their official organic seal on a product means that it contains at least 95 percent organic materials—effectively organic.³  However, foods with as little as 70 percent organic ingredients can be advertised as organics.  If it contains less than that amount, it can state its organic ingredients but is denied privilege to claim organic.⁴  Therefore, it is important to check the labels; they are the key to unlocking the enigma of organics.

Part of the allure of organic products is their purported health benefits.  America has, as a part of her consumerist myopia, accepted without a second thought that foods grown without pesticides, antibiotics, or irradiation⁵ were inherently healthier.  However, overwhelming scientific evidence has not proved these claims.⁶  While pesticide residue might be lower for organic foods—conventional products are still well below EPA toxicity levels, even untraceable⁷—, there is not necessarily any benefit to eating organics in the long run.  The important thing John Reganold, professor of soil science at Washington State University, says is our exposure to these chemicals over the years to come: “Is it going to make a difference? I don’t know. But it’s something to think about, and we’re the guinea pigs.”⁸  Another advertised advantage of organic food is the total lack of pesticides, but even that might not be a benefit.  Conventional crops use chemical aids to stimulate growth by cleansing the crops of constraints—i.e. weeds and pests.  Carl Winter, director of the FoodSafe program and an extension food toxicologist at the University of California, Davis, explains that organic crops must generate their own natural toxins to keep these nuisances at bay, which are carcinogenic just like synthetics.⁹  These natural toxins might very well be even more harmful than synthetic pesticides.¹⁰  Either that, or organic farmers use pesticides produced by bacteria, pouring liters of it onto their crops instead of the minute amounts of synthetics—which, generally, contain the same natural elements, but diluted—used by conventional farmers.¹¹  Lately, studies have largely exonerated synthetic pesticides by showing lesser rates of cancer amongst farmers with prolonged exposure to the chemical than the general population.¹² Even the manure used as natural fertilizer on organic crops might bring a higher risk of E. coli contamination;¹³ the industry is governed by strict guidelines for the use of manure but organic foods, just like conventional, should be washed to insure cleanliness.¹⁴  So, it might not necessarily be safer, but it is more nutritious, right?  That is not necessarily true, either.  While higher levels of certain minerals, vitamins and antioxidants have been found in organic than conventional produce, the margin between the two is too small for any real benefit to be claimed.¹⁵  Organics are not necessarily better and there is too much variation from crop to crop to really claim any health benefit.¹⁶

Another motto plastered onto all the wall space Whole Foods can spare is that organic foods are good for the environment.  But, what is the environmental effect of organic foods?  Organic farmers subscribe to the school of “kinder treatment of animals, a commitment to sustainability and environmental health, fair trade and social equity,” but even non-organic farmers uphold these mores of contemporary society.¹⁷ So, how do organic farmers support these beliefs?  As far as treating animals kindly, if the anecdotes are to be believed—i.e., if they are representative and not sweeping generalizations, which at this point seems likely—then animals appear to be happier.¹⁸  Sustainability, however, does not have such overwhelming bovine material witnesses and might be an Achilles heel.  Norman Ernest Borlaug, Nobel Prize winner for creating the wheat variety that triggered the “Green Revolution,” says, “This shouldn’t even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material you have … you couldn’t feed more than four billion people.”¹⁹  Therefore, it is quite unclear how organic farmers are committed to sustainability; it would be impossible to sustain humanity because organics produce less per acre than conventional foods.²⁰  Environmental health, however, seems to be organics’ inalienable right—something that has not been disproved and is Whole Foods’ mantra.  Their methods of growing are obviously better than conventional farmers with a lack of pesticides, no-till methods and crop synchronization.²¹  Although this might not be exclusive for long as conventional growers, receiving pressure from the environmental movement, are increasingly using similar environmentally friendly methods. ²²  Also, consider the fossil fuels used to truck organics from their origin,²³ which might be far away and lead to a loss of the “farm fresh” taste²⁴ so promoted by Whole Foods.  In the fair trade and social equity department, Whole Foods, the veritable leader of the organic movement, is “socially responsible,” paying their employees a modest wage and providing benefits.  Moreover, the highest earner does not make more than 14 times the average wage.²⁵  It seems like they are promoting social equity and with all of the fair trade agreements these days, how could a company not encourage fair trade?  But keep in mind that supporting the local, small farmer might mean buying conventional; ²⁶ just check the origin labeling—if available—to ensure the closest product.  So for now it seems that organic food wins the medal for environment health, but with conventional farms on their heels, they will have to innovate to keep the edge that justifies the price hike.

 

Is organic food worth it; is natural really better?  The facts are clear: Science does not support any claims of added health benefits of eating organic food.  Notwithstanding this evidence, is it worth paying over 100% more?²⁷  The question now is one of personal conviction, either one of commitment to a healthy environment or fair treatment of animals.  Because those are the two things organics have on conventional.  Basically, if a happy heifer roaming in a bucolic pasture or large green—pardon the pun—farmland without any chemical aids is preferable, or if you drive a Prius, then organics will probably fit like a glove.  Whatever choice is made, one thing is certain: Do not sacrifice buying fruits and vegetables—which are proven to have added health benefits—now to wait to afford organics.²⁸

 

Works Cited

• Ayoob, Keith-Thomas. “Is Going Organic Really Better For You: More Natural, More Expensive Produce May Offer Little Additional Health Incentive.” ABC News. 7 July 2007. ABC. 2 Apr. 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=3353401&page=1.
• Cloud, John . “Eating Better Than Organic.” Time 2 Mar. 2007: 1-5. 2 Apr. 2008. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html.
• Finkel, Elizabeth. “Organic Food Exposed.” Cosmos Magazine 7 Sep. 2007. 2 Apr. 2008. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567.
• “Is Organic Food Better For You.” WebMD. 2004. WebMD. 2 Apr. 2008. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/organic-food-better?page=4.
• Jackson, Harry , Jr. “Is Green Better?” St. Louis-Post Dispatch 6 June 2007: H1. Lexis-Nexis Academic. LSU Middleton Library. 2 Apr. 2008.
• Maloney, Field. “Is Whole Foods Wholesome?: The Dark Secrets of the Organic-Food Movement.” Slate 17 Mar. 2006. 2 Apr. 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2138176.
• Tribolet, Beth. “Is Organic Food Really a Better Buy.” ABC News. Nov. 2006. ABC. 2 Apr. 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2674213&page=1.

¶