Does "organic" mean better?

A few months ago my brother asked a very simple question that I didn't really have an answer for. This happens from time to time because, despite what my son thinks (and bless his little heart), I don't know everything. Apparently there was a rather heated discussion in which some were advocating the obvious health benefits of organic foods and the general idiocy of those who disagreed, while others disagreed and so exposed their own idiocy. At least that is how the organic proponents saw it.

As with most things, there are many ways to view a particular issue, and as with most things environmental, emotion is often more of a driving force than logic and data. This is fine in the sense that emotion is often what pushes people to act on their convictions, and without emotion the current environmental movement wouldn't be where it is today. It is tough to sit by and watch the world in which we live being completely messed up and not get emotional.

With that said, there are times when emotion gets the better of us and actions, even those done with good intentions, get us nowhere nearer our goals. Jumping on the organic foods bandwagon might be one of those times. It sure seems as though anything with the word "organic" in it would almost have to be better for both human consumption and the environment than the way food is currently produced, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Lets take a look at what the research can show us on the subject.

Are organic foods better for us?

The answer is an resounding "maybe". Current studies have shown that some organic foods can contain much higher quantities of of things like vitamin C and iron, which doesn't really affect most of the people who would be able to afford organic foods. Getting enough vitamin C from a typical diet has not traditionally been a problem for most people, and given the fact that it is water soluble and excess is just peed out at the end of the day, more doesn't mean better.

Due to the methods used for organic farming, there is definitely less of the bad stuff that can come with traditionally farmed foods, like pesticides and herbicides, but these are typically found in very low concentrations, if at all, in most regular foods.

There do appear to be more of what are called "secondary metabolites" in organically farmed foods. These are molecules produced by plants as a result of everyday plant operation like photosynthesis, growth, and avoiding getting eaten by bugs. Some of these secondary metabolites are thought to be useful in the prevention of cancer, but some have also been shown to cause cancer in high doses. So while plants do produce more of these molecules, most haven't been studied properly and to arbitrarily decide that these crops are healthier just because they make more secondary metabolites is a little premature. The possibility of better health is there, but further studies need to be conducted to be sure.

Are organics better for the environment?

Again, the answer is maybe, but this one is much more complicated. Organically farmed foods do not use any pesticides or herbicides, nor do they use any of the synthetic fertilizers, so one would think that this would be better. Additionally, they are much better at promoting biodiversity in the farmland which is great. However, there are many more things to consider before we give it the thumbs up on environmental friendliness.

With no chemicals used in the growth of these crops, farmers must find other ways to ensure adequate yields each year. Studies show that most organic crops can expect to produce less per year than conventional farms, and some studies have shown that under normal conditions organic farms produce as much as 20% less than typical crops.

Since there are no synthetic fertilizers used, a natural nitrogen source is required. Most organic farms require either crop rotation in which a legume (plant that contains nitrogen producing bacteria in the roots) is planted in the fields every few years, or manure is used for fertilizer. Crop rotation makes fields basically useless every few years which reduces yields even further. If manure is used as a fertilizer, cows are often used. On organic farms, no chemicals are allowed which means the cows aren't given growth hormone which means they don't get as big. This might seem like a good thing, and in some ways it is, but with smaller cows come smaller manure piles. So more cows are needed to produce the milk and manure for the farms. More cows means more methane released into the atmosphere which means faster global warming. Global warming leads to possible lower crop yields and starvation, which further complicates things because organic farms can't produce enough to feed people as it is.

Additionally, since most organic farming is done in Asia, Australia and Latin America, and most consumption of those foods happens in the US and Europe, there is the problem of the pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from the transport of these organic foods. Of course the same problem holds for traditional crops.

See? I told you it was complicated.

So what is the verdict?

Tough to say. Most people who are eating organic foods do it because they say it makes them feel better. They feel like they are getting healthier products when they buy and eat organic. If people are willing to pay the extra cash to pick up something that says "organic" on the label, who am I to say they shouldn't do it?

The evidence seems to suggest that there may be a marginal health benefit due to the reduced exposure to herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, but research shows that the risks associated with those things are low to begin with. Environmentally, it appears that there are problems with both types of farming. It does appear that organically grown foods could be better for the environment as long as farmers are aware that the environment consists of the entire planet, not just the local streams and grasslands. Limiting fertilizer runoff is an admirable thing, but not at the expense of increased greenhouse emissions. There must be a way to do both or we are simply exchanging one evil for another.

So, basically, do what floats your boat. Until there is more conclusive evidence to support the idea that organic is healthier or better for the planet, I'll continue to eat the cheaper, traditional version.

Also, remember the E. coli in the spinach thing? Organic spinach.

In case you are curious, I got most of my data from two places, a review article in Nature which has links to primary articles, and this article at the Mayo Clinic website.

Being a hominid is bad. Who knew?

I was out walking the dog with Ryan the other day in the glorious 50+ degree weather we are having. After finding out that, at preschool, he has been playing with his friends, learning about clouds, and that the toy cash register needs batteries, we started talking about Daisy, our dog.

“Daisy is a good girl,” he says, forgetting that she nipped him the other day and that at the time he asked if he could put her in the garbage.

“Yep. She is normally a good girl,” I reply.

“She is so cute.”

“Yep. Cute as a button,” I say. “Just like you.”

“I’m not like a dog, Dad.”

“Sure you are. You have 4 feet, right?”

“Nope. Two hands and 2 feet. Not four feet.”

“Well, you are both tetrapods, aren’t you?” I ask this trying to refresh his memory of earlier conversations.

“Oh. Yep. We’re both tetrapods. 1-2-3-4.”

“See? You are just like a dog.” Now I am just messing with him. “Soon you’ll be barking and eating your food out of a bowl.”

“I am not a dog!” he says, sort of laughing.

“Sure. You are not just LIKE a dog, you are a dog.”

“NO,” he yells, “You are a DOG!”

“I am not a dog,” I say, reaching down and tickling his belly, “you are!” This goes on, back and forth, for a while.

So I managed to take what was an enlightening conversation with my son in which I was learning about his time at preschool and his friends, and turn it into a “You’re a dog!”, “No, YOU ARE!” back and forth. Yep, I am a great dad.

This morning after Ryan woke up and had his breakfast, I started with the “You’re a dog” thing and he returned with “No, you’re a squirrel!”

What? That’s not the game. He apparently forgot the rules during the night.

“No, you are a dog!” I say, hoping to get it back on track.

“You’re a jellyfish!” Now he is really off track. Oh well. When in Rome…

“You are an elephant!”

“No. You are a rabbit,” he says, laughing.

“Well you’re a hominid!”

“No I’m not! Wait…what?” Now he is confused.

“I said, ‘you are a hominid’. And you are.”

“No! I’m not a hominid!” Now he has switched from joking to being pissed.

“Yeah, you really are. All humans are hominids.”

“Not a hominid!” He is adamant that he is not a hominid. This is sort of reminiscent of the “It’s NOT DIGITAL!” argument I had with him when he was 2. Poor kid. But, I can’t back down because it is true. He is a hominid, as are all humans.

Now Jen gets involved. “What are you telling the boy now?”

Crap. Now I am busted for messing with the kid. “Just that he is a hominid,” I say.

“What is a hominid?” she asks.

“You know… humans, Neanderthals, and other human ancestors. It really isn’t anything bad.”

“No, I don’t know, and neither does he. Quit messing with him.”

So I had to stop for that day.

Now whenever I tell him that he is a hominid, he gets angry. He even is projecting his feelings onto other people. This morning, I told him that not only was he a hominid, but so was Ethan. He got upset and said I shouldn’t say that because “Ethan feels strange about that”.

Apparently my son is a creationist. I’ll need to work on that.