Cuisine Canada Scene

Organic Black Raspberries - better or not?

Yet another press uproar, yet another set of watercooler debates. The Food Standards Agency in the UK reopened the debate over whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. Their two full reports (First Report and Second Report) and accompanying article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggest that there is no difference when it comes to the nutritional content, and the health impact. And this has people talking.

After a thorough review of several hundred papers, extraction of relevant data, and comparison of conclusions, in general most nutrients were not different. For me, as a scientist looking at this paper, I am not surprised. But the average person is confused. Articles like the one in the New York Times questions the results. If some organic food has 53.7% more beta-carotene, how can it be deemed “the same”?

The Criteria
The Food Standards Agency had extremely stringent selection criteria for evaluation of the papers. Selection was based on various attributes which enhance the credibility of the study. More than  100 of the original 162 papers reviewed were rejected for not meeting the stringent criteria for the analytical methods.

As one could imagine, there are a myriad of ways to compare organic and conventional foods. Food basket surveys are quite common, because they are easy to execute. Just go shopping for comparable products, take them back to the lab, and analyze away. However there is no accounting for provenance, cultivar, and shelf life of the product. Too many unknown factors that can not be accounted.

The more thorough studies, using conventional and organic agricultural plots side by side to eliminate environmental effects (weather, soil, pests), were far fewer. These are the most credible studies, however because of the difficulty in execution, they were not common.

The Food Standards Agency study characterized a vast number of components within the compared foods. Of course, not every study included all the various components. Another layer of complexity to complicate the matter.

Did they miss the point of going organic?
None of the studies looked at what was not in the food — pesticide residues. Few studies looked at phytochemicals, such as antioxidants, or other compounds with possible health benefits beyond the vitamins and minerals.

The Food Standards Agency study also looked at the health benefits of eating a predominantly organic diet, as compared to a conventional diet. Again, a very sticky mess of variables to deal with. As to be expected, people who consume organic foods tend to have higher disposable income. They tend to be more health conscientious, and therefore more likely to have made other healthy lifestyle choices. It is extremely difficult to separate these variables from a determinants of health study.

In the end, the primary problem of the reviewers was actually finding relevant, and well executed studies which would provide useful data. The authors concluded there just had not been sufficient studies done to make a fair conclusion.

The challenges of analysis
Meta analyses and systematic reviews like these often seem to compare “apples to oranges”. It is so difficult to develop a statistical model that can authentically represent the multitude of data. Instead, potentially valid data is rejected rather than trying to squeeze it to fit a mathematical model. This analysis was meticulous, and extremely thorough, but I don’t think it will silence any debates over whether to eat organic food or conventional food.

Limited definition of healthy?
The greatest issue that this study raised in my mind was that the scientists concluded that the primary reason for choosing organic was for reasons of nutrition and health. I believe there are diverse reasons for choosing organic, environmental, social, economic, that were not addressed in this study. Science, in this case, must be joined to other disciplines in order to make a clearer judgment.

Your turn
You be the judge. There is no right answer whether to eat organic or not. The only answer is to keep informed, and keep working to improve all styles of agriculture for the betterment of our health, our society, our economy and our environment.

How did you feel when the findings hit the news? If you buy organic, will you continue to do so? Or do you think organics is just a gimmick?