Organic Food - Study Warms Up Debate, But Test Methods Are Lousy

In an era when agendas for science papers are studied as closely as the papers themselves, this study is a skeptic's firing range, on both sides. Organic food is hot, if you'll excuse the pun. The thinking, however, isn't so hot.

Big Food has poured a lot of money into agricultural additives of all kinds. There's a point to make, and organic food is making a meal of the conventional products. That's making some of the claims and data pretty hard to digest.

(Is there a rehab facility for overdoing metaphors?)

Copenhagen University has produced a study (See Aditi Chengappa's DJ piece) finding that there's no difference in the nutritional levels of organic and commercially grown food. There were three test methods involved.

Being a qualified horticulturalist, I have a few views on these methods, but this is the story of the tests, according to Science Daily:

The study looked at the following crops - carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes - staple ingredients that can be found in most families' shopping list.

The first cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on soil which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no pesticides except for one organically approved product on kale only.

The second method involved applying a low input of nutrients using animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed by regulation.
Finally, the third method comprised a combination of a high input of nutrients through mineral fertilisers and pesticides as legally allowed.

The crops were grown on the same or similar soil on adjacent fields at the same time and so experienced the same weather conditions. All were harvested and treated at the same time. In the case of the organically grown vegetables, all were grown on established organic soil.

After harvest, results showed that there were no differences in the levels of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown using the three different methods.

Uh-huh. So test one was on poor nutrients, test two low nutrients, and test three high nutrients. This is dirt farming, by the way, so that really matters. Soil quality is a fundamental part of any study.

That's interesting, because of the findings.
Produce from the organically and conventionally grown crops were then fed to animals over a two year period and intake and excretion of various minerals and trace elements were measured. Once again, the results showed there was no difference in retention of the elements regardless of how the crops were grown.

Dr Bügel says: ‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.'

Not wishing to sound petty, but these ain't organic farming methods, nohow.

Let's start with the basics:

A carrot is a carrot. Kale is brassica, peas are legumes, apples are grafts, and potatoes are root vegetables.

Biologically, they require totally different cultivation methods, as any five year old, with or without a PhD, usually understands. Their nutrient requirements are entirely different. None of them grows in the same NPK (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium) mix.

The first test was low nutrition, meaning basically whatever the plants could find from an unspecified soil chemistry, the nature of which is vital to understanding the state of the plants.

The second test is based, apparently, on a half way house of nutrients. That could mean quite literally anything.

The third test is the whole soap opera of nutrients. In theory, you should get healthy plants, but with such a diversified group, requiring quite different treatments, it's hard to see why, if they all got the same things.

The mere fact that any group of disparate plants survived a planting like this is impressive, but the quality of the plants is unlikely to be impressive, even as animal food.

Cometh what looks very much like spin:

Dr Bügel says: ‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.'

Dr Alan Baylis, honorary secretary of SCI's Bioresources Group, adds: ‘Modern crop protection chemicals to control weeds, pests and diseases are extensively tested and stringently regulated, and once in the soil, mineral nutrients from natural or artificial fertilisers are chemically identical. Organic crops are often lower yielding and eating them is a lifestyle choice for those who can afford it.'

Note "Those who can afford it". That's a sop to the many people who are wondering why organic food, which doesn't use all the expensive bells and whistles of commercial crops, costs so much more. It's a wedge statement, designed to remind people of that debate, and reactivate it.

(Matter of fact I see no reason why organics should be so expensive, with fewer overheads.)

According to the piece, these crops weren't grown organically, in the sense of proper nutrition of the plants. If they were, it's not specified. Organic farming starts with provision of rich humus, with appropriate nutrition, pH, and other little details.

Back at the basics:

There's some logic that seems to have escaped somebody. A carrot is still a carrot, grown organically or otherwise. Carrots are inclined to behave like carrots, for some reason, and absorb nutrients like carrots. A half starved carrot is unlikely to be a star performer as food.

There are holes all through this piece, but the big gaping ones are:

The fact that the study couldn't find a difference between nutritional levels of three different methods of plant cultivation, even when those levels were very low and very high. Testing problem?

The methodologies exclude normal organic practices, even the very basic ones.

There's no indication of what those nutrition levels were, exact ratios of nutrients, etc.

To properly assess nutritional values of anything, why not just go ask an organic farmer for a carrot or two, and run some tests on them? Too difficult?

What's wrong with direct comparison with commercial organic products?

The issues of pesticides are glossed over. Ingesting hormone or neuro-toxic materials like anticholinesterase isn't implied in the study.

The big issue regarding pesticides is that the levels of testing and regulation are far from being accepted. Many people, including me, won't touch some of those chemicals, because we know what they can do. One of the reasons for that is that some of them have almost exactly the same molecular structure as weapons grade nerve agents.

They may prevent a plague of insects, but they could also cause a plague of coroners.

The Society of Chemical Industry, which conducted this study, is a registered charity.

I would suggest that they consider the alternate methods of testing I've suggested, and be a bit less charitable to lousy research methodologies.

SOURCE: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258400