by Erica Taavola
I feel the breeze of air on my face as I walk through the sliding glass doors of my local Whole Foods. A colorful array of flowers, fruits, and vegetables await me, arranged in aesthetically pleasing displays that entice my senses and draw me into the store. As I make my way towards the produce, I am met with two arrangements of apples, one of them with an organic sign plastered across it. The words of praise towards organic rings in my ears as I try to decide between these two nearly identical looking pieces of fruit. Hesitantly, I grab the more expensive, organic brand, leaving behind the ripe, less pricey, and perfectly reasonable apples.
Organic foods can be found in almost any grocery store nowadays, claims of health, vitality, and prevention of serious disease being advertised to consumers. This poses a dilemma, as the decision between our bodies or our bank accounts seems to be a continuous source of confusion. With health scares on the rise, we want to do everything we can to take care of our wellbeing. But are organic foods truly the knights in shining armor we’ve been led to believe they are?
Humans have been harvesting and gathering food for thousands of years, with our favorite fruits and vegetables sourcing back to periods long before present day. With such an extensive history, it may seem unlikely that a berry or carrot poses a serious hazard to our health. However, the practices of modern agriculture have shifted our perspective on what healthy produce is. Higher standards have been introduced, and the term organic has now been circling throughout the market. This word was originally used by scientists when a molecule was comprised of carbon (Gillman 15). From this perspective, all fruits and vegetables could technically be labeled as such. However, the word organic is now being used to describe the way our food has been grown and produced. The separation between organic and non-organic groceries has now changed our shopping habits, as we’ve been led to believe that our once nutritionally dense products can still lead to disease.
The organic movement can be credited to a handful of people in the twentieth century. Sir Albert Howard, an English researcher and agricultural guide, spent much of his time studying the relationship between various farming methods and the outcome of crops. He discovered that the Chinese seemed to have the most positive results due to their practices of putting natural materials back into the ground, such as manure and compost. From here, he began studying the makeup of soil, forming the belief that we could solve problems naturally instead of partaking in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Howard wrote many books, including the 1940 publication, An Agricultural Testament (Gillman 18-19).
Sir Albert Howard was one of the first to use the term organic as it pertains to how our food is grown. His work was an inspiration to many and led to some other great achievements, such as the first “scientific” experiment conducted by Lady Eve Balfour, which compared organic and regular farming methods right next to each other. Other influences included J.I. Rodale, who wrote The Organic Frontin 1948, and Rachel Carson, who spread information about the hazards of pesticides in her book, Silent Spring(Gillman 20).
Although it was nearly 100 years ago that the quest for organic growing practices began, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) didn’t implement any official standards for organic farming until the 90’s and early 2000’s. The National Organic Program (NOP) exists within the USDA and is involved with making sure products abide by organic standards. According to the NOP, “Organic crops are raised without using most conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers. Animals raised on an organic operation must be fed organic feed and given access to the outdoors. They are given no antibiotics or growth hormones” (National Standards for Organic Food 20).
The NOP also has a policy on labeling products, making sure they are correct and have a certified USDA Organic sticker. Many various labels can be found within grocery aisles, such as 100 percent organic (only including organic ingredients), organic (95 percent organic), and made with organic ingredients (only about 70 percent organic). The last label cannot have a certified USDA organic sticker on the product but can list the specific ingredients that were made organically (National Standards for Organic Food 21).
Shopping for organic groceries has grown to be a convenient and pleasurable experience over the years. Products that could only be found in local farmers markets or small co-ops can now be found within the aisles of your favorite store. Whole Foods, one of the most popular natural food chains, has grown in numbers across the U.S., leading to healthy groceries that are just within reach. Many consumers, and even celebrities, have jumped on the organic bandwagon despite the products’ higher prices. Organic fruits and vegetables can cost about “10 to 30 percent” more than standard produce, and according to a USDA study, animal products, frozen produce, and processed foods can end up being “50 to 100 percent” more (Harrison 76).
The increased prices of organic food can be traced back to multiple sources. Being certified organic comes with some extra costs, partly due to a required yearly payment. More workers are also needed to make sure the farm is abiding by organic standards. Since certain pesticides aren’t sprayed on crops (such as herbicides for weeds), a lot of work is done by hand, requiring more employees, and therefore increasing labor costs. Organic supplies for farms cost much more than mainstream brands, including food for the animals and organic fertilizers (given that sometimes there isn’t enough manure and compost to put in the soil). Farmers also spend much more time caring for their animals since their growth rate is slowed from the lack of hormones given. When the products are finally ready to be shipped, costs end up being much higher due to smaller bundles being shipped from all over the world rather than from within the U.S (Collado).
Despite the higher prices, shoppers continue to purchase organic products due to the perceived health benefits they bring. A survey done by the Organic Consumers Association found that the three main reasons why consumers purchased organic foods were to avoid pesticides, consume the freshest products, and support their health and nutritional needs (Non-Organic Foods Are Coated with Pesticides 29). Pesticides are a top concern for most consumers who are in search of organic food, as information has circulated about the potential for developing various forms of cancer. However, debate still occurs within experts of the health, science, and food communities over the benefits of boycotting conventional brands and going organic.
In basic terms, pesticides are chemicals sprayed onto crops to prevent damage from various pests. There are over a dozen types of pesticides, the most common being insecticides (for insects), herbicides (for weeds), fungicides (for mold/mildew), and rodenticides (for rodents) (Types of Pesticides). Although helpful in controlling the potential destruction of our food supply, the safety of these chemicals has been put under questioning over the years. The Environmental Working Group, an organization dedicated to researching toxic chemicals, has analyzed countless of tests done for pesticide remnants on fruits and vegetables. They have discovered multiple chemicals that have cancer causing and hormone interfering effects, such as Iprodione, Azinphosmethyl, and Phosmet. In 2003, samples of spinach and potatoes were also found to be contaminated with DDT, a dangerous chemical that was banned in the U.S in 1972 due to destroying wildlife and being a possible cause for liver and breast cancer. Although DDT should be long gone from our environment, it takes many years to break down in the soil, therefore still increasing our chances of being exposed to this toxin (Non-Organic Foods Coated with Pesticides 30-33).
Pesticides have been found to have a detrimental effect on our youth as well. In 2011, a study was done to compare the effects of “prenatal pesticide exposure” on cognitive processes. The study was conducted in two urban environments as well as a farm community in a region of California. Mothers who had the highest levels of pesticides in their urine during pregnancy bore children with 7 IQ points less than those with lower levels of pesticides (Holzman). Another similar study was done comparing pregnant women who were exposed to higher levels of the insecticide chlorpyrifos versus those who were exposed to lower levels. The study used MRI imagery to view the brains of children ranging from 5-11 years old, finding that those whose mothers had higher pesticide toxicity had “significant structural changes” in the brain. Researchers discovered that “areas related to attention, language, reward systems, emotions, and control appear to be affected” (Fetal Exposure Alters Brain Structure).
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey highlighted a possible connection between ADHD and increased levels of the pesticide pyrethroids in the urine. The 2000-2001 study used children ranging from 8-15 years old. It was discovered that those who had higher levels of pyrethroids in their urine sample were more likely to develop the diagnosis of ADHD or exhibit behaviors associated with it (such as “hyperactive impulsivity”). Even though this study found correlations rather than causes, the findings should still be noted and further explored, given that pyrethroids are a common pesticide used in many household products (Wagner-Schuman et al. 142-151).
Although many studies have shown the potential hazards of pesticides, others have counteracted this evidence by highlighting the health threats of organic food. Some argue that organic fruits and vegetables are just as likely to be exposed to harmful pathogens due to the usage of naturally occurring fertilizers, such as manure. A study found that E. coli was contaminated on “10% of organic farm samples” compared to “2% of conventional ones.” Salmonella was also found on only organic food, although the numbers weren’t high. Even though regular farms do use manure as well, they incorporate various processes that kill the harmful bacteria that can make us ill (Wilcox).
A little-known fact is that pesticides certified organic are still used on organic farms. Organic pesticides are made from natural sources such as plants, but this still doesn’t guarantee their safety for consumers. Rotenone, a highly common pesticide used in the past, has been linked to neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s. Rotenone is also dangerous because it will “attack mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells” (Wilcox). Mitochondria is a vital component to our health, turning the food we eat, and thus nutrients, into the energy that our cells and bodies need to survive. Mitochondria also plays a role in preventing the uncontrollable growth of cells by promoting cell death, which helps protect against the development of various diseases (What Are Mitochondria?).
The Environmental Protection Agency sets limits on how much a person can be exposed to a toxin before experiencing significant health effects. Rotenone was found to be five times more harmful than the synthetic pesticide, Malathion. Other synthetic pesticides found to be less toxic than Rotenone were Glyphosate (Roundup), Captan, and Pyrimethanil (these toxicity levels were based on “milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day” that a person could be exposed to). Another common organic pesticide, pyrethrin (extracted from the chrysanthemum plant), has also been found to be more toxic than these synthetic pesticides (Moyer).
The decision of whether to buy organic fruits and vegetables largely depends on the risks a consumer is willing to take. Non-organic produce potentially has cancer causing and hormone interfering affects, due to the pesticides sprayed onto these crops. Exposure to pesticides during pregnancy or childhood also has the potential to affect cognitive development. However, organic produce still uses naturally occurring pesticides that are found to be just as toxic and potentially dangerous to health. Due to the usage of manure and other naturally occurring fertilizers, eating organic may also increase the risk of developing bacterial infections such as E. Coli and Salmonella.
Fruits and vegetables are an important staple in our diets and a given item on our grocery shopping lists. But for those who choose to consume animal products, the decision to make healthier choices can bring about uncertainty. Organic animal products can be twice as expensive as regular brands, and the labels themselves can be confusing, ranging from “cage free” to “grass fed.” To better understand the movement towards organic meats, we would have to learn the unfortunate background of conventional factory farms.
With motives to make money and push out as much product as possible, factory farms, otherwise known as “concentrated animal feeding operations,” have transformed into a place of abuse and mistreatment. Animals can be found crammed together in cages and fences, usually standing in their own filth that piles higher and higher. Instead of being allowed to graze all day in fields, unnatural diets are given, usually consisting of corn and remnants of other animals such as pigs, horses, and chickens. The combination of poor diet and unsanitary living conditions creates a lot of disease on these farms, so antibiotics are given to prevent the spread of infections between animals (Rau 15-17).
One of the concerns about antibiotics is the increased risk of humans developing antibiotic resistant bacteria in their bodies after consuming these meats. This is especially problematic, given that all animals on a factory farm will be fed antibiotics regardless of whether they are ill or not. MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a dangerous strain of Staph bacteria resistant to several types of antibiotics, has been identified on many farm animals, especially pigs. In 2005, Dutch scientists discovered that many people who had fallen ill with MRSA infections carried the specific strain of bacteria that was the same as those found on pig farms (the Netherlands has a huge pig industry). After these discoveries, antibiotics were restricted heavily. Other European countries have banned antibiotics completely, yet the United States has not followed suit, even though many pigs have tested positive for MRSA bacteria (Moyer).
The link between infected farm animals and our health remains unclear. Here in the U.S., scientists are limited in their ability to collect data on animals, due in part to a lack of access to most farms. In fact, farmers that are contracted by major meat companies are ordered to keep strangers away. Despite restrictions, a few studies have still been done, showing the potential detriments to our health when ingesting conventional meats. A 2012 study conducted by the FDA found that “84 percent of chicken, 82 percent of ground turkey, 69 percent of ground beef, and 44 percent of pork chops [sold in stores] were contaminated with intestinal E. coli. More than half of the bacteria in ground turkey were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics.” This poses a problem, not only because we could get very ill when eating undercooked meat, but also because E. coli can later lead to disease in the body. Studies have shown that E. coli can “colonize” in the digestive tract, not necessarily creating foodborne illness right away, but potentially leading to more serious infections and illnesses down the road (Moyer).
One of the other major components of factory farms that creates concern amongst consumers is the use of hormones to increase the production of milk and growth of the animals. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic hormone commonly given to dairy cows to increase milk production, has been put under a lot of questioning over the years. The main concern with rBGH is that it increases the production of another hormone called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1). Some studies have shown that IGF-1 can potentially lead to the growth of certain tumors, with links to breast, prostate, colon, and other cancers. Those who drink milk regularly have been found to have increased levels of IGF-1 in their blood (about 10% more). Although the percentage is small, this evidence shows that the hormones in our food can still impact our bodies. More research is needed to confirm the effects of rBGH and IGF-1, but the good news is that the demand for milk from cows treated with rBGH has decreased significantly over the years (Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone).
Pesticides, antibiotics, and growth hormones are all hot topics within the organic movement. Amongst these subjects also lies a discussion on genetically modified organisms, otherwise known as GMO’s. Commonly found on packaged USDA certified organic food, a non-GMO label notifies a consumer that the ingredients within the item has not been genetically altered.
The main purpose for genetically modifying a plant or organism is to increase a farmer’s chance for greater yield of their crops. Genetically altering the DNA of a seed could potentially lead to a plant needing less water, having more vitamin content, or being able to resist dying from commonly used pesticides and herbicides (Kollias). However, the safety of these practices has been put under scrutiny, as information has spread about the potential health effects of eating these unnatural foods.
Jeffrey Smith, a leading activist in the anti-GMO movement, has brought attention to multiple side effects of eating genetically modified food. He argues that the process of inserting altered DNA into a plant can increase the presence of allergens that are already existent. For example, soy crops have been found to carry an allergen called trypsin inhibitor, and when genetically modified soy is cooked, levels of this allergen have been found to be seven times higher than cooked non-GMO soy (Axe). After inspecting the safety of genetically modified crops in the early 2000’s, the National Academy of Sciences discovered that changing the genes of plants can potentially lead to unpredicted allergens and may alter the nutritious value of the food. It was recommended that the risks of genetically modified crops be evaluated more in depth, which is something that is an ongoing process (Benbrook and Landrigan 693-695).
Another significant finding with genetically modified food was the presence of damage to certain organs like the kidney and liver. A study was done on lab rats fed genetically modified soy and corn. The other group of rats were fed a non-GMO diet. It was found that the genetically modified diet caused mild damage to the liver after 30 days, with the effects increasing as time went on (after being fed 60 or 90 days). Damage to the kidneys were more noticeable even after a brief time on the diet. Sperm head and tail deformities were noted as well. Although the long-term health effects of a genetically modified diet remain unclear, the study sheds light on the possible changes that could happen when ingesting genetically modified food (Oraby et al. 265-275).
While the safety of GMO’s needs to be further explored, evidence shows they are not always dangerous. Many support the use of GMO’s since they have contributed to greater healthcare in our society. Genetically modified crops only represent a small portion of the GMO world, and a lot of bacteria and viruses used to research diseases and cures have been genetically altered. Genetically modified bacteria have contributed to safer insulin, human growth hormone injections for genetic disorders, drugs for cancer, and multiple other treatments for common diseases and ailments. When it comes to genetically modified food, arguments show that altering crops can lead to more edible produce (such as removing seeds from bananas), possibly improve taste, and be grown with higher nutrient levels to help communities in need (such as injecting rice with more vitamin A to fight blindness in malnourished children) (Kollias). Although the demand for non-GMO food has increased in recent years, scientists still reassure consumers that not everything made in a lab is bad.
With conflicting information on the benefits of going organic, it can be hard to know what to do next. Continuing to eat conventionally comes with risks, yet the elevated costs of organic food and inconclusive answers from major studies may prevent us from changing our ways. Rather than wait for guidance from experts and organizations, it appears that the decision to go organic boils down to the consumer. As a result of my research, the main concerns I have about conventionally grown food are pesticides, growth hormones, and antibiotics (until more studies are published on GMO’s my opinions remain neutral). Although eating a pesticide ridden strawberry won’t kill me, the potential long term carcinogenic effects are enough to make me wary of my ways. On the other hand, I believe that eating more fruits and vegetables, regardless of source, is enough to promote a healthy body. But until evidence points to my guaranteed safety, I would like to continue purchasing organic produce as my budget permits.
Regarding antibiotics and growth hormones, I believe enough evidence suggests the potential harm that long term consumption can bring (such as antibiotic resistant infections, increased chances for bacterial infections from undercooked meat, and elevated IGF-1 in the blood that could lead to tumor growth). The decision to support organic also boils down to my desire for more humane treatment of animals. I believe they should be raised in conditions that are clean, open, and in support of their nutritional needs. Until companies become more conscious and communicative about their production methods, I would like to support farms that are clearer in how their animals were grown and raised.
Amongst conflicting health information, I do believe in the promise that organic eating brings. Not only is it a movement towards healthy living, but also a movement towards transparency, integrity, and change in the community. Maria Rodale, grandchild of J.I Rodale, puts it best when sharing her opinions on the organic movement:“As consumers, we have more power than we think; we vote with our dollars. If we buy factory-farmed meat [for example], they will continue to produce it. Companies and the government count every purchase and make decisions based on those purchasing patterns” (Klein). It’s our job to dig deep, educate ourselves, ask questions, and make decisions based on our own personal beliefs, health, and lifestyle needs. So, the next time we are faced with the confusing choice of whether to buy or pass up that organic apple in the grocery store, we will be armed with the knowledge needed to make an empowered decision.
Works Cited
Axe, Dr. Josh. “GMO Side Effects with Jeffrey Smith.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube. 12 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.
Benbrook, Charles and Philip J. Landrigan. “GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health.” The New England Journal of Medicine 373.8 (2015): 693-695. Google Scholar. Web. 25 Mar. 2018.
Collado, Kristie. “7 Reasons Organic Food is So Expensive.” The Daily Meal.The Daily Meal. 6 March 2015. Web. 4 Nov. 2017.
“Fetal Exposure Alters Brain Structure.” Pesticide Action Network.Pesticide Action Network. 1 May 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2017.
Gillman, Jeff. The Truth About Organic Gardening. Portland: Timber Press, 2008. 15-20. Print.
Harrison, Christy. “Government Subsidies Could Lower the Cost of Organic Food.” Is Organic Food Better? Ed. Ronald D. Lankford, Jr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2011. 73-79. Print.
Holzman, David. “Organic Food Conclusions Don’t Tell the Whole Story.” Environmental Health Perspectives.Environmental Health Perspectives. N.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2017.
Klein, Laura. “Interview with Food Revolutionary Maria Rodale.” HuffingtonPost.HuffingtonPost. 8 Sep 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.
Kollias, Helen. “Are GMO’s Bad for Your Health?” Precision Nutrition. Precision Nutrition.N.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2017.
Moyer, Melinda Wenner. “How Drug Resistant Bacteria Travel from the Farm to Your Table” Scientific American. Scientific American. 1 Dec. 2016. Web. 3 Dec. 2017.
—. “Organic Shmorganic.” Slate. Slate. 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2017.
“National Standards for Organic Food.” Is Organic Food Better? Ed. Ronald D. Lankford, Jr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2011. 19-22. Print.
“Non-Organic Foods Are Coated with Pesticides.” Is Organic Food Better?Ed. Ronald D. Lankford, Jr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2011. 29-34. Print.
Oraby, Hanaa et al. “Biological Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically-Modified Based Diet.” Turkish Journal of Biology 39.2 (2015): 265-275. EBSCOhost. Web. 27 Mar. 2018.
Rau, Dana Meachen. Going Organic: A Healthy Guide to Making the Switch. North Mankato: Compass Point Books, 2012. Print.
“Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone.” American Cancer Society.American Cancer Society. 10 Sep. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2017.
“Types of Pesticides.” National Pesticide Information Center.National Pesticide Information Center. 2 Sep. 2016. Web. 1 Nov. 2017.
Wagner-Schuman, Melissa et al. “Association of Pyrethroid Pesticide Exposure with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Children” Environmental Health 14.1 (2015): 142-151. EBSCOhost. Web. 26 Mar. 2018.
“What Are Mitochondria?” Mitochondrial Biology Unit. Medical Research Center. 2015. Web. 26 Mar. 2018.
Wilcox, Christie. “Mythbusting 10: Organic Farming>Conventional Agriculture.” Scientific American. Scientific American. 18 July 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2017.