One of the questions I’m most often asked by my clients is, “How important is it to buy organic produce? Should I only eat organic?”
Here’s an excerpt from an email I received on the subject:
“I’d love to buy 100% organic, but from the time I retired, I have found it increasingly difficult to meet expenses on pension only and my credit card debt is mounting. Hence I’d like to know if we really can rely on the EWG’s Clean & Dirty lists in light of the sloppy science criticism, so that people on low incomes can choose to buy some conventionally grown food to save money.
I’ve read or heard that non-organic citrus is probably okay, but it’s not in EWG’s Clean list. Broccoli is in the Clean list, but I’ve read or heard that the florets are sprayed directly. Then there’s the question of what differences there are between America and Australia.”
There’s no simple answer to the organic vs conventional produce question. Just some of the considerations that have to be taken into account are:
Affordability:
I sympathise with my correspondent’s dilemma. I’m fortunate enough to belong to a co-op which allows me to purchase organic produce and groceries at barely more than wholesale prices, which roughly equate to the retail price of conventionally grown food. But for people who don’t have access to a co-op, retail prices for organically grown food are generally at least double the price for conventional produce, and frequently the price differential is even higher for organic produce.
Fortunately, trailblazers like David Walsman, founder of My Organic School, are making it easier to join and start organic co-ops. If you don’t have a group of friends or family members to form a co-op with, check out My Organic School’s fantastic model for school-based co-ops.
Pesticide residues:
The lists that my email correspondent referred to, the ‘Dirty Dozen‘ and ‘Clean Fifteen‘ are issued annually by the US-based Environmental Working Group (EWG). They identify the most and least contaminated types of produce, to help consumers on a budget choose which conventionally grown items they can safely buy, and which to avoid.
However, the EWG’s methodology has been criticised, with a 2011 study finding that:
“(1) exposures to the most commonly detected pesticides on the twelve commodities pose negligible risks to consumers, (2) substitution of organic forms of the twelve commodities for conventional forms does not result in any appreciable reduction of consumer risks, and (3) the methodology used by the environmental advocacy group to rank commodities with respect to pesticide risks lacks scientific credibility.”
In addition, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) representative Lorraine Haase, in a 2016 article titled ‘Do Australians need to worry about a pesticide-laden “Dirty Dozen?“‘ argued that
“The clean 15 and dirty dozen aren’t relevant to us at all… In Australia, we use different herbicides and pesticides and we set very strict limits on residue limits, as well as the minimum time between spraying a crop and harvesting, to minimise any impact.”
Haase claimed that FSANZ performs an annual survey to monitor pesticide residues on fresh produce sold in Australia, and that
“A lot of the time, we find absolutely no trace of residue on the fruit and veg… And if we do find residue, which does happen, it’s always well below the maximum limits set, which include a significant margin for differences in body weight, amount eaten and so on.”
However, the latest data on pesticides published on FSANZ’s website are from the 23rd Australian Total Diet Study (ATDS) which was conducted in 2008 – far from the annual monitoring that Haase claimed was conducted by FSANZ. And the report found that
-
“Some agricultural and veterinary chemicals were detected that are not approved for use in Australia.
-
The level of some chemicals that are approved for use exceeded the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code).“
The same 2016 article also cited the Department of Agriculture and Water Services’ annual National Residue Study, which monitors chemical residues found on common products. What it doesn’t mention is that this study tests only four horticultural products – apples, pears, almonds and macadamia nuts – for chemical residues. What about the hundreds of other varieties of fruits, vegetables and tree nuts that are available in the Australian marketplace?
While most of the horticultural products were ‘clean’ for most chemicals, there were some worrying exceptions. For example, 12 out of 96 samples of almonds were found to have levels of 2,4-D above the maximum residue limit (MRL), but in fact this chemical is not permitted to be used on this crop, and “any detection is a contravention of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.”
2,4-D has been assessed by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Of 248 samples of apples, carbendazim and chlorothalonil – also not permitted for use on this crop in Australia – were found on 1 sample each; 3 samples had levels of iprodione that were above the MRL. 2 of 99 samples of pears were found to be above the MRL for imazalil and 1 for diphenylamine, while 1 had fenvalerate residues – again, a chemical which is not permitted for use on this crop.
A ‘glass half full’ view is that generally speaking, Australian horticultural products have low chemical residues. Those who tend to see the glass half empty, on the other hand, might express concern that a) out of the hundreds of varieties of fruits, vegetables and tree nuts that are available in the Australian marketplace, only four are tested annually, and b) the process of setting MRLs is fraught with the potential for conflicts of interest.
The World Health Organization acknowledges that some members of the scientific committee that sets MRLs also work for industry and/or “have been involved in activities of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)”, an organisation which has come under fire for deriving funding from, and supporting the activities of, the tobacco industry and agrifood multinationals including Monsanto, Nestle and Coca-Cola.
Sourcewatch describes ILSI as
“a ‘Two-level’ organisation which provides both legitimate scientific associations with members from government, universities and legitimate laboratories on the surface, but with a subterranean layer of corporate PR and science-corruption executives which provides their funders with global lobbying services.”
In fact, WHO banned ILSI direct involvement in its activities, and those of its related agencies, because of its
“failure to fully disclose [its] funding sources… advocacy of public health policy directions… that are counter to accepted nutrition policy (especially related to obesity, alcohol, caries and chronic disease causes and means of control); and a perception that many of [ILSI’s] developing country partners and recipients of funds are unaware of ILSI’s [industry] funding base.”
Yet WHO denies that there is any conflict of interest inherent in having ILSI-associated scientists on the committee that sets MRLs!
As a counterpoint to the FSANZ’s position, a 2016 study conducted by researchers from RMIT and Monash University found that just one week of eating mostly organic food reduced the urine levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites by nearly 90%. Interestingly,
“participants consumed significantly less animal protein during the organic phase compared to the conventional phase (- 36%)”
and also consumed more dairy products during the conventional phase and more grain, vegetable and fruit servings during the organic phase. It is possible that the differing consumption patterns of animal and plant foods during the conventional and organic phases may have affected intake, absorption and/or metabolism of the organophospate pesticides.
Heavy metals
A comprehensive Swedish review found higher levels of heavy metals, especially cadmium, in conventionally grown food products than in organically grown food. Inorganic fertilisers used in conventional agricultural systems commonly contain cadmium.
Nutrient levels
There have been contradictory findings on whether nutrient levels are higher in organically grown produce. The same Swedish review that found higher levels of toxic heavy metals in conventionally grown produce found that the levels of most nutrients were not higher in organically grown foods, with the exception of phenolic compounds such as flavonoids, tannins, stilbenes, curcuminoids, coumarins, lignans, quinones, which have wide-ranging and significant benefits for human health. Phenolic compounds increase when plants are subjected to attack by plant pathogens and pests.
Health of agricultural workers
Most of us don’t give a second thought to the impact of agricultural production systems on the people who actually grow our food. But with pioneering environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jnr currently pursuing the first of many thousands of lawsuits alleging that the herbicide glyphosphate (marketed as Roundup by agrichemical/food giant Monsanto) causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in gardeners, agricultural workers and farmers who are regularly exposed to it – and that Monsanto has known this for nearly 40 years but covered up evidence of the link – it’s high time we did.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel comfortable knowing that cheap supermarket food may come at the cost of the health of the people who grow it.
The bottom line
Taking all these considerations into account, my general advice to my clients is that if their budget is very tight, buy organic produce when it’s affordable, and otherwise stick to conventional produce. After all, we have mountains of evidence that a higher intake of fruit and vegetables protects against everything from cancer to cardiovascular disease to menopausal hot flushes… and virtually none of the participants in these studies were consuming all, mostly, or even some, organically grown produce.
However, buying organic when you can is an investment in your health, and the health of the people who toil every day to grow your food. Do check out My Organic School, which allows you to join or start an organic co-op in your local primary school, even if you don’t have children enrolled in the school.
Leave A Response