The Health Forum

A place for open discussions – with no cover ups – about health issues

by Richard Seah

Are organic foods more nutritious than regular, non-organic foods? The answer to this question depends on where you look and who you choose to believe.

If you look to major government health authorities, be it the Singapore Health Promotion Board, the British Food Sciences Authority (FSA) or the US Department of Agriculture, you will find assertions that there is “no evidence” to suggest that organic foods are superior. If you turn to organisations that promote organic agriculture, such as the UK-based Soil Association, then you will find not just assertions, but plenty of evidence backed by scientific references.

Who to believe? Well you might think that organisations like the Soil Association cannot be trusted since they have vested interests. But do you seriously believe that government bodies do not have vested interests? That they can be trusted? Hmmmm…

This is where it helps to dig deeper into the background to understand what is going on.

——

For example, what does “no evidence” mean? Does it mean lots of scientists did lots of research and they could not find any evidence to support the claim that organic foods contain more nutrients?

No. No. No. It means that not many studies were conducted in the first place, for the simple reason that there is no money to be made from such research, unlike, say, research on new drugs. And so there is not a lot of funding to support scientific studies on the subject.

If you dig deeper, you will discover that “no evidence” could also mean that the existing evidence was rejected for one reason or another. A case in point was when the British FSA conducted reviews of past studies about organic foods and published a major report in August 2009, saying it found “no evidence” that organic foods are more nutritious.

In this case, the FSA researchers, pobably for their own convenience, rejected all the scientific papers that were not published in the English language. This automatically excluded about half of the available scientific evidence available in other European languages, not to mention possible evidence published in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and other Asian scientific journals.

One significant exclusion was a four-year, £12 million European Union study comparing organic versus non-organic foods. This was the biggest study of its kind ever carried out and its final report was released in April this year. Key findings were that organic produce have:

• have higher levels of a range of nutritionally desirable compounds such as antioxidants, vitamins and glycosinolates. Levels of Vitamin C were up to 90 percent higher in leafy vegetables and fruits. Levels of beneficial fatty acids, such as CLA and omega 3 were between 10 – 60 percent higher in organic milk and dairy products
• lower levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as mycotoxins, glycoalkaloids, cadmium and nickel.

——

“No evidence” could also mean that the evidence exists, but is not considered significant enough to highlight. For example, the FSA study itself found that organic foods have higher levels of various nutrients:

• Protein 12.7 percent
• Beta-carotene 53.6 percent
• Flavonoids 38.4 percent
• Copper 8.3 percent
• Magnesium 7.1 percent
• Phosphorous 6.0 percent
• Potassium 2.5 percent
• Sodium 8.7 percent
• Sulphur 10.5 percent
• Zinc 11.3 percent
• Phenolic compounds 13.2 percent

Despite these differences, the FSA researchers concluded that there was “no evidence”.

Likewise, the FSA study found that organic foods contain much lower pesticide residues compared with non-organic foods. But since the researchers adopt the position that pesticides are not harmful, they conclude that there is “no evidence” that organic foods are safer.

So you see, there is plenty of evidence to show that organic foods are superior. The purpose of this article is not to list out all the known scientific studies. You can find out more at, for example, the website of the Soil Association.

The aim of this article is to explain what statements like “no evidence” really mean.

——

Another point to note is that scientific evidence from too long ago also tends to get ignored. The protective value of organic foods was already very convincingly demonstrated about a hundred years ago.

At the turn of the last century, agricultural scientist Sir Albert Howard performed experiments in which he raised cattle on organic grass and then released them to mix of other cattle that were sick with food and mouth disease. His organic cattle mixed freely – and even rubbed noses – with the infected cattle. Yet none of them got infected.

——

Finally, do you need to wait for scientists to produce evidence? What if they do not conduct the research, just as, for example, they generally do not conduct research on the dangers of microwave cooking or mobile telephones. How long do you have to wait? Can you not find out for yourself?

With organic fruits and vegetables, at least, it is now possible to recognise their superior nutrition without having to conduct any scientific experiments. All you need to do is LOOK with your eyes.

In recent decades, numerous discoveries in nutritional science revolve around phytochemicals or “plant chemicals”. They are now known to protect against degenerative diseases, slow down aging, boost immunity and impart a whole range of other benefits.

The thing is this: Phytonutrients occur as plant pigments. It means that fruits and vegetables with rich colours contain more phytonutrients than those that are pale in colour.

Here, you can see major differences between organic and non-organic. For example, organic carrots tend to have a deeper, richer orange colour than non-organic carrots. Organic celery are dark green, non-organic celery are pale green. And so on. In many cases, the colour differences are obvious. Even with light or pale coloured vegetables, the difference is clear. Organic cauliflower, for example, is creamy light yellow, versus non-organic cauliflower which is almost bleached white.

With this new understanding, you no longer need scientists, or government health authorities, to tell you whether organic and non-organic foods have any difference. You can see and, if your senses are acute, also smell and taste the difference.

Try this simple exercise: Cut an organic carrot and a non-organic carrot on a chopping board. You can even HEAR the difference!