Is organic food really better for you?
“The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods”
“Shocking” headlines from the September, 2012 study on organic food, courtesy of Stanford University. First, let’s “follow the money”, then break it down. Then let’s try and get collectively “un-confused” about this study.
Unfortunately, we need to un-tangle ourselves from the latest diversionary little trap the food industry has thrown into our collective paths…..AGAIN, for crying out loud!
Keeping up with the stream of misinformation from the industrial-agriculture creators of modern food is like following the work of a big, evil clown. This evil clown is intimidating and dangerous, but is actually weak.
It continually throws diversions, canards or red herrings at us to create confusion. We, the public must then sort through this illegitimate nonsense in our search for the truth. In the interest of brevity, herein are some highlights which tend to expose the realities of this, and unfortunately many other studies so conveniently shoved into our collective view almost daily.
Not surprisingly, many have pointed out some glaring errors, both in understanding the important and complex differences between organic and conventional foods and in the researchers’ flawed choice of research methods.
“Following the money”, this has prompted organic advocates to look closely at financial ties between Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which supports the researchers, and the chemical and agribusiness industries. “The Cornucopia Institute” represents one such advocate. Here are a few highlights of said issues with this study:
“So we were not one bit surprised to find that the agribusiness giant Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural business enterprise, and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have deep ties to agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations like Monsanto, have donated millions to Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, where some of the scientists who published this study are affiliates and fellows.”
Stanford researchers had touted their independence by stating they had not received outside financial support for their study, but failed to delineate the close ties between their internal funding sources and industrialized agriculture and biotechnology interests.
Examples of said flaws or omissions in this study include:
The Stanford study also omitted any acknowledgement of potential cancer risks from exposure to agricultural chemicals on conventional foods.
This seems especially reprehensible to the scientists at Cornucopia in light of the 2009 President’s Cancer Panel report, which states: “Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e., approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”
“Many of the genetically modified crops ubiquitous in our food supply have been engineered to make toxins part of the plant’s DNA, so that every bite of genetically engineered food means a bite of the pesticide that has been inserted into the plant’s DNA, and cannot be washed off.
The credibility of the Stanford study was doomed from the moment that the scientists decided not to even consider such central differences between conventional and organic.”
“In 2011, scientists at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada published results of a study showing that toxins that have been genetically engineered into plants are not broken down in the body, as the biotech industry had claimed, but are in fact absorbed into the bloodstream of people who consume genetically engineered foods.
Alarmingly, the researchers even found the genetically engineered toxins in the blood of fetuses of pregnant women enrolled in the study.”
Published studies have pointed to other health risks from eating genetically engineered food, including damage to the liver, kidney, heart, adrenal glands and spleen. (The Cornucopia Institute)
The information above is scary enough, but there is worse inherent deception in this study, especially in regard to animal foods. First, it’s important to ask: what the hell IS “organic” anyway? Let’s take a look at the actual origin of the word:
In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of “the farm as organism,” to describe a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming (Wikipedia)
Now, the USDA and many other organizations have tried to stipulate, define, and monopolize both the meaning and legal use of the word “organic”.
Regardless of those meanings, I am certain that Lord Northbourne himself or anyone with a scintilla of common sense would agree that “organic-Nirvana” would be represented by any plant or animal existing entirely in its unfettered, natural ecological state. Farming with respect to, and as close as possible to this perfect organic state then, would produce food that is as close to truly “organic” as possible.
Here is wherein the deception creeps. Remember, the conclusion of this study is that there is no strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.
But THAT conclusion depends entirely on what definition of “organic” is used.
When the true, original and common sense definition of “organic” is used, the conclusion of this study is turned on its head. The findings are mostly just the opposite, especially regarding animal foods.
Here’s why:
“It’s important to remember that grass-fed is not the same as organic. Natural food stores often sell organic beef and dairy products that are hormone- and antibiotic- free. While these products come from animals who most likely were fed less grain than the industry norm, they typically still spent their last months (or in the case of dairy cows) virtually their whole lives in feedlots where they were fed grain.” (Johnrobbins.info)
“Grassfed beef not only is lower in overall fat and in saturated fat, but it has the added advantage of providing more omega-3 fats. These crucial healthy fats are most plentiful in flaxseeds and fish, and are also found in walnuts, soybeans and in meat from animals that have grazed on omega-3 rich grass.” (Johnrobbins.info)
“In addition to being higher in healthy omega-3s, meat from pastured cattle is also up to four times higher in vitamin E than meat from feedlot cattle, and much higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a nutrient associated with lower cancer risk.” (Johnrobbins.info)
Further, from our friends in the wonderfully enlightening world of evolutionary science, here are some additional proven insights comparing our real “organic” food vs. the “much less than pure” – industrial or “big organic” food.
Note: First of all, this study involves HUMAN consumption of these foods. Now, based on the zoological definition of what defines the human “organic” diet – milk and related dairy foods have about as much right to be on the human dietary list as kerosene or sawdust.
Thus, regarding human consumption, the term “organic milk” is rather an oxymoron. Just as cows do not eat corn, humans are not meant to consume milk from other animals. Evolution is the highest guide here for all things organic.
So, evolution and any animal’s organic diet are quite inextricably linked. Enough said. Back to cows and other livestock consuming grains, whether organic or not:
“Marbled” meat results from excessive triacylglycerol (fat) accumulation in muscle. Animals in the wild, pasture fed or free range rarely exhibit this trait. 99% of all beef consumed in the USA is now produced from grain fed, feed lot cattle. Such meat has a much higher proportion of N-6 fatty acids to N-3 and a much higher SFA (saturated fatty acids) content.
All of these modern meat characteristics represent a very recent component to human diets”.
(Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century Loren Cordain, Boyd Eaton)
Beneficial, health-promoting fats are MUFA’s (monounsaturated fatty acids) and some PUFA’s (polyunsaturated fatty acids). Most SFA’s (saturated fatty acids) and trans-fatty acids are detrimental when consumed in excessive quantities since they elevate the blood level of total and LDL cholesterol.
The six major sources of SFA’s in the USA diet are fatty meats, baked goods, cheese, milk, margarine and butter.
Further, the dietary balance of n-6 and n-3 is integral in preventing the risk of chronic disease. N-3 PUFA’s may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease via reductions in ventricular arrhythmias, blood clotting, serum triacylglycerols, growth of athero-sclerotic plaques and blood pressure.
(Implications of Plio-Pleistocene Hominin Diets for Modern Humans, Loren Cordain, et al.)
Okay, BUT the USDA Organic livestock and poultry production standards are as follows:
Meat animals and poultry must be fed 100 percent USDA Organic grain and/or forage diets. The standards will allow certain vitamin and mineral supplements.
(University of Florida EDIS)
Alright…then that would mean animals qualified as “organic” may be fed “ORGANIC CORN”! For the negative health consequences of doing that, just re-read the references above. Feeding a cow corn – a grain that the animal is not biologically designed to eat – is like feeding a Boston cream pies to a lion.
It does not matter that the Boston cream pies were made from only “organic” ingredients. Stating then, that the lion is following a healthy “organic” diet would be totally incorrect. That would of course, represent absolute, unassailable absurdity…it would also result in a very sick, and then a very dead lion. As obvious as this “lion” example is, it is the same ridiculous standard of “organic” that this study uses.
Clearly, “their” organic and “our” organic are NOT THE SAME!
So, let me get this straight. This study is telling us that the over-priced, low grade, watered down, pseudo-organic foods we are sold at over-priced organic grocery stores are really NOT that different than conventionally produced foods. Gee…thanks for the news! (very sarcastically).
Okay, this is NOT new information for folks who already know that the word “organic” has been hijacked, bastardized, raped and pimped-out by the same gigantic $%#holes who make most of our processed foods. This began as soon as there was enough “money in it” for said gigantic corporate Ass$%#s to suddenly get very interested and involved.
This amounted to the theft of the term “organic” and it’s pure, hard earned reputation and imagery. These corporate giants effectively stole all of the hard work and honest efforts of the real purveyors of honestly produced “organic” foods.
That would be many of our struggling small farmers. Adding insult to injury, many of these small farmers are no longer allowed to legally call their food “organic” because of new and bizarre certification requirements, the creation of which was influenced by “big organic” producers.
These glaring and dangerous differences in how we define “organic” may be the one, inadvertent but useful bit of information from this study. For this reason and many others, if you come across one of these fine small farmers, thank them! No…hug them!
Then find out where you can buy their food. It’s the real thing. Unless you are raising chickens in your back yard and have a large garden, these farmers are the last barrier remaining between us and any real semblance of the word “organic” pertaining to our food.
The funny thing about this study is that is unwittingly exposes the pseudo, crappy, watered down “big organic” versions of organic foods for what they are – overpriced, mediocre food masquerading as the real thing.
Yet, in doing so, this study acts in the same capacity as a “suicide bomber” to try and discredit all the true, honest “real organic” guys – the small, independent farmers. It takes them down with it. That’s why these studies can represent such confusing and misleading information to the public.
It’s no different than saying, “look, Porsches are really crappy cars after all. Wow, who knew? But then you look closer and discover that the “Porsche” used in this particular study is actually a rusted, beaten up 1977 Pinto station wagon with a fake “Porsche” logo glued onto its hood.
One quickly realizes that this is clearly NOT a real Porsche. The gaping error in the study is exposed. Thus, the reputation of this fine sports car remains unscathed and intact.
Yet, this only happens if you are able to look and see that the crappy, rusted “Pinto” is not actually a real Porsche!
Regarding our food, it is easy to see the same pattern over and over again. The truth and our good health are always represented by one side – true organic farming and evolutionary science.
Misleading bullshit, obesity and illness are on the other side – agro-industrial food. The bad side has lots of motivation and lots of resources – billions and billions of dollars worth of both.
Yet, as new studies are scrutinized for bias and the truth is revealed, we arrive at an inescapable conclusion:
They think we (the public) are really stupid.
It is also more than apparent that these malevolent producers of modern food, via their influence over our government, educational institutions and the media, feel entitled to take our money in exchange for their crappy, industrial food – “organic” or otherwise.
You get to the point where you would like to see all the powerful people who run these corporations (collectively, the annoying clown metaphor described earlier) rounded up and force-fed all of their own low grade industrial food (organic or not) via a funnel affixed to their mouths.
They would suffer this for a few years until fat, sick and dying in a hospital bed (where they have put many of us). We could then pull up a chair and sit beside them in the hospital room, shaking our heads in disappointment, refusing to offer any comfort.
Perhaps only then would they finally stop trying to confuse us, demanding our money and damaging our health.