Drinking the Organic Kool-Aid

The Organic Paradox

I found the research article, "Organic Paradox," by Debra Van Kamp to be interesting because it's rare to read a piece of criticism about the organic food movement. I took issue with some of the assertions/conclusions however overall there was some good information in the article.

It begins with the premise,

Recent market research studies and consumer experiments...provide evidence that consumers have come to expect that organic foods deliver product-specific attributes beyond what organic standards guarantee. The goal of this paper is to analyze two common misconceptions about organic food; namely that organic food is 1) healthier and 2) safer than conventional food. These unsubstantiated claims are perpetuated and sometimes created by organic food companies and trade organizations.
--
Explicit or implicit claims that organic foods are healthier or safer are inherently misleading for two reasons. First, comprehensive and peer-reviewed analyses of the scientific literature have consistently concluded the there is insufficient empirical evidence to support any claim that organic foods are more or less nutritious, beneficial to health, or safe than conventional foods (Williams, 2002; Bourn and Prescott, 2002; Siderer et al., 2005; Dangour et al., 2009; Dangour et al., 2010; Magkos et al., 2006). Secondly, current U.S. federal organic regulations do not specify or guarantee that organic foods meet a more rigorous nutrition or safety standard than conventional foods. “Organic” is a process-claim that guarantees that the food has been produced, processed, and handled in accordance with specific federal regulations. It is not a product-claim, and therefore, makes no reference or guarantee of the attributes of the final product (Magkos et al., 2006; 7 CFR, pt. 205, 2011).

I am embarrassed to admit I have been enthusiastically drinking the organic Kool-Aid until recently, also blindly assuming and proclaiming that organic food is somehow automatically superior to conventional food. (Just a note, I'm not saying it's not, or can't be, but I'm saying it's not rational to assume it is.) This is because I rarely kept in mind the organic food content or preparation, which is more likely to be important for one's health than whether the food itself is organic, per say. To use an extreme example, there are people who might think to themselves, "Hmm, I should skip the conventional salad, and have this organic fried doughnut instead?" and choose the doughnut.

This could be because my (and many people's) relationship to food is in large part emotional and psychological in nature. Many people would claim to be interested in "eating better," yet this term does not mean anything as it is never clearly or rigorously defined. Therefore, there is no way to know what "eating better" means for any one person. For some people "eating better" means consuming chemical-laden diet food or dangerous weight-shedding supplements and/or prescription drugs. For others it means barely eating at all and exercising obsessively, whether one has a negative body-image induced eating disorder or whether one believes in life extension via caloric restriction. Then there is someone like myself who proclaims they are committed to "eating better" by focusing on natural, whole, mostly-local, organic, grass-fed, raw foods. So, who is really "eating better"?

Of course I have long believed I'm right, having found a "middle way" of sorts - no diet food, but no restriction. But there are serious flaws with my thinking which I believe stem from my blind love of the labels I mentioned above. Emotionally and psychologically I want to believe what I'm eating is good for me, whether it's broccoli or ice cream. So, while I might think ice cream is something I should eat minimal amounts of in general because large amounts of sugar make me feel like crap, if it's organic ice cream I admit tend to feel better about myself for eating it, even if the physiological effects are the same. This doesn't make sense. In other words, I give myself an excuse to eat stuff that makes me feel crappy because it tastes good; justified and supported by the fact it's organic.

According to Van Kamp, research confirms my erroneous thinking is echoed among consumers who are "into" organic foods:

Several market research studies and consumer behavior experiments have provided evidence that consumers wrongly believe that the organic label means food is healthier and safer. A 2005 study found that 81% of U.S. organic consumers choose organic food because of its nutritional content and stated, “Many consumers believe that organic and all-natural foods can serve as preventive medicine against health risks and help cure illnesses” (FMI, 2007). A peer-reviewed study by psychologists at the University of Michigan, titled “The ‘organic’ path to obesity”, reported that organic claims biased subjects’ perceptions of calorie content and healthfulness of indulgence foods (Schuldt and Schwarz, 2010). Subjects inferred that foods with an organic label had lower calorie content than those without an organic label. The study also showed that when evaluating the behavior of a person with a weight-loss goal, forgoing exercise after eating an organic dessert was deemed significantly more acceptable than after eating an identical conventional dessert. These examples illustrate the “health halo” that many consumers perceive with the organic label.

The Health Halo

The health halo. I love this term because it so accurately describes the aura about organic anything. Organic makeup, organic clothing, organic cotton balls, tissues, etc. Anything organic is somehow getting a free pass to healthfulness these days - whether or not there is any rational, scientifically-based reason for it! While perhaps it is true that minimally processed products made with highest safety standards in mind are healthier, the questions become: 1) How much healthier? 2) Is the cost worth the benefits? 3) Are currently available organic products even produced to such high standards? 4) Are consumers being duped by these seemingly saintly organic food companies?

I think it's important to realize that organic or conventional food can only be as healthy as the processing techniques used to make it into the final, edible good that a human consumes. That is to say, the healthiest choice of food is probably the freshest and most minimally processed (or at least processed according to what is scientifically proven to maximize and/or balance nutrient content with the human body's ability to assimilate it, no matter its origins. In other words, if you could choose between unprocessed, whole, properly soaked and cooked conventional grains* versus highly-processed, high heat, extrusion molded organic grain flake or puff cereal, there should be no doubt as to what is truly more healthful.

And the Cynic in Me Says...
The author makes some strong assumptions about individuals' inability to think for themselves as well as concludes the best remedy to some obvious misinformation problems is more strongly coordinated government efforts and regulations over the organic food industry. I think this would be a huge mistake, and would lead only to compounding some of the problems mentioned in her article. I have no confidence that the organic food industry is impervious to the seductive ability to buy advantageous legislation, thereby bypassing real scrutiny of their claims. Ugh. I don't have time to parse why this is wrong, but just know that's where I stand.


Oh, and this is a totally unsubstantiated stab in the dark, but I'm guessing there is probably a lot more room to profit off people's health fears via higher food prices by labeling something organic than there is if you are a conventional food producer, since when it costs $15 for a small bag of raw, sprouted, gluten-free, carob coated, sustainably harvested, fair trade organic cashew clusters, the assumption is, "Ooh, sprouting is such a time-consuming mysterious process, and this is probably made in small batches in some gluten-free CSA co-op farm house...with love..." No one bats an eyelash. (I'm one of those people, but can make fun of myself, can't I?)


*If you are unfamiliar with the concept of soaking grains before cooking and eating them, I invite you to delve into the cookbook, Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon and the work of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF). As a disclaimer, there are plenty of people who take issue with the teachings of the WAPF, so do your own homework and don't blindly take my (or anyone's) word for it when it comes to your health.


Photo by All Organic on Flickr