Meatless Monday Inspiration: Why A Stanford Study Probably Shouldn’t Dictate Your Diet
With all due respect to Stanford, and the exhaustive work that went into its recent review and analysis of hundreds of organic food studies, the conclusion drawn—that organic food is no more nutritious than its counterpart—offers a limited picture.
Since its release last week, there have been tweets, and Op Eds, and a lot of I-told-you-sos implying that supporters of organic have been taken for an (expensive) ride.
In his piece for the New York Times Roger Cohen cheered for the study saying that: “The organic ideology is an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.” Not to mince words or anything.
But putting aside rhetoric, let’s look at what the study did and didn’t prove. For more on that study—what it left out and how it might have been misleading, check out this piece over at Prevention.
The Study Determined That Organic Food Is No More Nutritionally Dense Than Non-Organic
It’s long been assumed that the healthier soil used to grow organic food would positively impact the nutritional density of the food itself. Not so, says Stanford. In the case of organic milk though, because cows graze longer, they did find higher levels of omega-3s.
The Study Did Not Look at How Pesticides Might Affect the Body
Needless to say, in these parts we believe pretty strongly that the less chemical-mystery crap we put on and in our bodies, the better. It’s not about pinpointing one culprit, one study, one pesticide that affects us negatively—though this type of evidence is mounting and important—it’s about an overall body burden that starts in the womb and steadily increases with each year. Organic food is one way to avoid more chemicals that we either know enough about to be worried, or too little about to feel safe.
The Study Did Not Look At How Hormones and Antibiotics Given to Animals Might Affect The Body
Our motto is: If you can avoid any hormones that aren’t your own, synthetic or otherwise, as well as the endocrine disruptors found in many pesticides—just do it. Science says that when it comes to these substances, lower levels can actually have a higher impact on the body.
The Study Did Not Look At How Pesticides Affect The Environment or Farm Workers
Which is to say, probably quite badly.
But at the end of the day, as with beauty products, everyone has to make their own educated decision around this stuff, and more information is never a bad thing—even if we might wish the results were otherwise. Of course, if you were eating organic food because you assumed it was more nutritionally dense, you might rethink the choice. But we choose organic—when we can—for a whole host of reasons.
Do you eat organic? What are your reasons, and are they affected by the Stanford study?
Art via the New York Times
The study (or actually, many things written in the wake of its release) is kind of annoying because it makes assumptions about why people eat organic that just aren’t true for everyone. I for one never believed that organic food was magically more full of vitamins and nutrients. It takes quite a selfish, people-centric view of the whole topic of organic food.
Whether or not organic food is more nutritious, it keeps even MORE pesticides from being dumped into soil, which is bad for the environment–our water sources and wildlife–and people. These pesticides poison the soil for generations. That study showed that even organic food has some traces of pesticide chemicals, and that’s because of water contamination from neighboring farms, or pesticides being used in the same area in the past. I’d like to poison myself less, and the earth too thank you very much.
I mostly buy organic when the price is reasonable, because food is something I (choose to/can afford to) care about. I believe that we should look at the science closely however, so that the organic movement doesn’t become an ideology. And no study is ever perfect, so a healthy dose of critical thinking is always needed. I think that it addresses an important issue though: the price of organic food. Vegetables are not like cosmetics; they are essential. If the choice comes down to reducing your vegetable intake to be able to afford organic, this study confirms that given comparable nutritional value that would likely NOT be a healthier choice.
Truthfully, I find this points to a bigger problem with our outlook when it comes to the environment and food. We tend to think that our individual consumer choices have a bigger impact than they really do. Yes, they help, but in my opinion it is the government’s job to make sure that farming practices are safe and sustainable. Government subsidies tend to skew the food system toward poor food choices for people with limited income.
There was an interesting piece reacting to Cohen’s rant in Grist:
http://grist.org/food/organic-food-still-more-than-an-elitist-lifestyle-choice/?postpost=v2
My favourite part: “Nothing says elite like scooping whole grains out of big plastic bulk bins and into plastic bags!” Hahaha, exactly.
Is the organic raison d’etre that they’re more nutritionally dense??? Is that what the pro-organic argument has been this whole time? Otherwise, why the I-told-you-so’s?? This study confuses me. I’ve NEVER thought that was the reason to eat organic and have ALWAYS thought it is instead about limiting pesticide, hormone and antibiotic intake.
“To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods” – how incredibly narrow is this study?! I was going to give Stanford credit in that, if they’re only studying nutritional density and not overall health-benefits, then their findings might be legit and any confusion/I-told-you-so’s would be caused by the interpretation of the study by individuals (ahem, Roger Cohen). Sadly, I see that is not the case and would expect more from such a prestigious educational institution. If they were only going to focus on nutritional density, why wouldn’t they, at the very LEAST, expand their research to look at how effectively that nutrition is absorbed and utilized when coupled with pesticides, hormones and antibiotics!? (lol, pret-ty sure I know why :P)
On the plus side, I think the general public might be taking it with a grain of salt.
I think nutrition is the LAST thing I think of when I think about buying organic. What concerns me more are the pesticides and hormones that conventional produce, meat and dairy are laden with. I feel like that Stanford study is like a big “no shit – and you missed the point” to those of us who try to support organic and local farming.When I pick up an organic apple and a conventional apple at the grocery store I don’t look at the organic one and think “My God, what a small, irregularly shaped and expensive apple – this must be good for me” I usually look at the conventional apple in alarm and think “What must they have done to this apple to make it so big and shiny and evenly colored and cheap?”
Scientific inquiry is an important way for us to understand our world. You have to ask good questions to get good answers. In my opinion, the question asked here was of minimal importance, and all the critical/interesting questions (as Alexandra emphasizes above) were not asked.
I buy organic (and local) whenever possible. At the farmer’s market, sometimes I buy from farms that are not certified but I trust them. Health is my primary reason for buying organic – I don’t want pesticide residues in food I eat directly, sticking around in the earth or in my water supply, or bombarding farm workers.
And let me say this elitist argument is such crap. It’s a ridiculous food industry that makes it cheaper to buy a fast food burger with ingredients from around the world, than to buy fresh produce at the farmer’s market, organic or not. And there are plenty of people working for food justice, encouraging urban gardening, etc. The poorest among us shouldn’t have to eat poisoned crap.
THANK YOU for saying all of this. I read through the Stanford study, and found it really informative. Okay, so organic produce is no more nutrient-dense than non-organic produce. Fine. But honestly, I eat so many nutrient-dense foods that I’m not all that concerned. What I -am- concerned about is how pesticides, chemicals, and hormones affect the body in a long-term capacity. The Stanford study totally missed that, and the media attention given to the study has confirmed what I’ve observed for a long time: the media doesn’t understand where many of us organic, all-natural, “hippie” types are coming from. I don’t know anybody who eats organically because of nutrient content. I know lots of people who eat organically because they don’t like mysterious chemical potions spreading through their bloodstream and infecting body function. But whatever. It’s basically the same thing, right?
I eat, breathe, and beautify naturally and organically, and do so for many reasons. The ones that come to mind are:
1) Organic food tastes better
2) Hormone/antibiotic-free animal product tastes better
3) GMO/chemically-treated/hormon-injected/medicated food product gives me massive migraines. I was a daily sufferer, and lost six years of my life to these migraines.
4) As custodians of this land, I believe that we’re doing it a BIG disservice by using all of these chemicals. So, I refuse to support that.
5) Um… natural beauty products SMELL BETTER.
6) I feel more grounded, more connected, and more beautiful (selfish reason, but totally a driving force).
7) Organic life is way more shiny!
8) There’s a fantastic and diverse grassroots community of us natural folks out there, and I love it!
I read the full article that he wrote and have to say I am mildly blue in the face. He truly seemed to miss all of the principle issues and focused on his own narcissistic viewpoint that was grasping for confirmation. I think he definitely needs better education in a ton of areas around this (I will not go into a long babble on all of the health related and humanitarian issues he glazed over)…I also think he may want to talk to a therapist regarding his overall take on life. Oy!
One of the problems with food, in general, is that you don’t know where the seeds came from. Seeds are hybridized, genetically altered, etc. There are very few products where OP seeds are even available. Some seeds are actually extinct. I read, a very long time ago, that one of the reasons women have so many menstral problems is that the Vitamin B-rich wheat that our great-grandparents ate is no longer available. It has been hybridized out of existence. So, in addition to the issue with organics, in general, you must consider the seed source.
I won’t go into Monsanto and their practices, but I will say that many farmers have been forced to destroy their own seeds because of Monsanto intellectual property issues. Frankenfoods start at the source: the seed.
This is well written, and you should consider submitting it as a letter to the editor to a major paper.
I think we all would agree that we buy organic because we don’t want the chemicals/pesticides/other garbage in our bodies…isn’t that why we wear clean make up now?? I personally was not surprised when this article came out, it seems with mainstream media half the facts are presented and people are just supposed to believe it because “if its on the internet it must be true”, just like how the FDA ruled that food dyes are safe to consume. I haven’t heard any i-told-you-so’s but I’m sure my smart ass answer would be come see me in 20 years and we can compare health then.
No one I know who eats organic does it for the nutrition. For myself, and on my understanding of the people around me, it is primarily for the lack of pesticide consumption, and secondarily for the environment. My mother and I started drinking organic milk after we saw a documentary about how hormones lead to overly large udders which lead to burst blood vessels and blood in our milk. We were inspired by disgust, not nutrition. My boyfriend and I primarily buy organic produce based on whether or not the skin is porous, or we will be eating the skin (less worried about an avocado than a tomato). I feel like this is a fairly common perspective. From what I have heard, this entire study was completely meaningless.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rebecca’s statement above: “You have to ask good questions to get good answers,” and I also prioritize local, sustainable, ethical, and natural (e.g. grass-fed beef) over the organic label.
I think the elitism issue bugs me. I’m informed but I never went to university, I live in a trailer, we are a single income family, most of our clothes come from value village (and not cause I think it’s a cool place to shop), our car is 20 years old and wouldn’t pass air care in British Columbia, my punctuation sucks, and I could probably come up with at least 10 more non-elite thing to say about myself but I buy organic for the same reasons as everyone else.
Oh! and did anyone else notice the other little tidbit that the study revealed? Apparently organic meat is less likely to be contaminated with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Now that definitely makes me want to run out and buy a conventionally produced pork chop.YUCK!
good point about seeds, @comagirl!
I think any of the NMDL commentors could have done a more complete and accurate study than Stanford Univ. Sorry Stanford,but this looks like a sponsored study with certain results expected. Bravo ladies. This is what organic and sustainable foods are all about.
I buy as much organic as possible. My main reason is for the purity; to avoid the pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones. I’ve never heard of any cases of food poisoning from organic food, but many people have become sick and have even died from non organic food. It’s also very important to me that the food I buy is ethically cultivated. Let’s just say that after I watched “Food Inc.” that I’ve been forever changed.
Super good comment comagirl. A part of growing organic fruits and vegetables is that they haven’t been genetically modified and so cannot be owned by a company. I come from a farming community and there was a case about 10 years ago where some of Monsanto’s round up resistant canola seed blew into and took root in a farmer’s field. This company sued the farmer and won because there was no license to grow their modified seed. If no one buys organic food eventually major companies will own the rights to all of our food. How terrifying is that? So for me, besides no pesticides and other perks, this is extremely important.
Thanks for posting this. Coincidentally, I recently “found” this article as part of an assignment. I am a Library Science student who was looking for articles about organic food in relation to health. My exercise was to find articles (actually citations or records in an academic database) to prove or disprove whether organic foods are “healthier.” After reading your blog post, I realize the initial question posed was a poor one. How should we define “healthier?” As you note, this study pertains to nutrient density, but does not address the myriad of other health considerations like pesticides, etc. that are used in non-organic foods. This will definitely be in my reflection for the assignment. So, as always, thanks for keeping us enlightened!
Vanity Fair did a lengthy piece about Monsanto several years ago. Among other things it discussed the same sort of thing Kat is referring to: their hassle of small farmers for “intellectual property reasons”. They keep everyone who retains their own seeds tied up in litigation and some are forced to burn their seeds. Think about seeds that have been altered to withstand Round-Up Ready pesticides and you’ve got it. I could write a book on Monsanto and all of the things they are quietly and not-so-quietly behind, but I’ll stop here.
Well, the article can be misleading. It says that organic food has no benefits and it’s just an ideology for people with too much money to spend. Let’s have another look.
Pesticides have an impact on our health. Some of them, believed to be safe just a few yers ago, now they are considered safe anymore. In France, the government has just added Parkinson in the least of work related illness for farmers: the continual use of some pesticides causes/increases the risk of getting Parkinson.
Then in western world, peoplespend an average of 10% of their budget on food. In developing countries (or just in the past) is 80%. A small increase of the amounts spent on food should not be so dramatic, in the end we spend already a lot on overpriced houses, outrageously high rents, and so on. Non organic food is often subsidizied and, should the subsidies stop, the price difference will not be so high. Supermarkets too playa big role, their profit margin are very high. But of course governmnts are not interested on people welfare, but on healthy bank balances of landlords, developers, big agricultural corporations, chemical industries and so on. Of course at our expenses.
Studies may go to hell, if you ask me!! :D
I do eat mostly organic and buy a lot of other organic things and since I’m going more and more vegan as well, well, it’s expensive but since we’re all connected and all one and so on, I’m happy to know that I contribute to respecting our environment. That’s about that simple. I do my best to buy as much local food as possible, sometimes it’s not organic but grown with as little chemicals as possible… As for any health benefits there might be to that kind of food, if looking only at minerals and vitamins, well, I’m not a scientist, so I don’t know. What i’ve often seen is that studies say this and then some other studies say that. All I know is that if I was to grow my own stuff, it’d be chemical free. It’s so logical to me, such an evidence that this is the way to go, that they can print as many studies as they like, this is how I’ll keep on going, as much as my budget allows me to do so!!
I cannot choose the air I breathe (I have to stay where I live at the moment: city), and buying a water filter would be too expensive for me at the moment but at least I can choose what I eat. I do it for my health as much as for the health of my community at large (humans, cats and bees and so on!), but also as an ethical, political act.
We cant depend on the govt to do things. They dont serve the people they get paid by corporations or they are too scared to go against them because they will get voted out. The lobbists have the power in the govt not the govt. Its up to the people to cåuse what we want and the little things do help but it is going to take changes in the system. The story of stuffs website is great talking about this. The hippies did it in the 70’s. It up to us to cåuse things at the state and local level. Having it that the govt should do something doesnt cåuse it. I eat organic because I am not getting chemical and pesticides. I cån tell a difference in flavor and how i feel. I have food allergies and I do believe that eating things with gmos and pesticides doesnt help me or anyone regarding healthy. Its a blessing because my husband & I eat healthy, I started a business that will help others that live with food allergies. I tell everyone about organic and the labeling of gmos becåuse its a big deal and I do have friends that disagree with me and were giving me a hard time about how i eat. I just tell them you know so its your choice. That s all we want labels so we can choose what to eat and its shows that 90% of america agrees with me. Its the same thing with everyone else. I also think that consumerism has really driven americans in the wrong direction more stuff doesnt make anyone happy. Its doing what you love, the experiences with people and experiences in life.