Is Organic Food Healthier and Safer?

According to a clinical report by the Committee of Nutrition, Council on Environmental Health and Academy of American Pediatrics –

current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet.”

The organic food industry is worth about 65 billion dollars in the US, 10 billion in Canada and growing. The demand for organic food has increased dramatically as “health experts” claim its superior nutritional value, safety and environmental impact. The claims have driven up demand, prices and profits. While it does cost about 8% more to produce organic foods due to the National Organic Programs (NOP) criteria for certification, it is also around 30% more profitable.

When clients ask me which foods to choose for health and safety purposes I want to be able to give them a nuanced answer. The sheer volume of hyperbolic statements from wellness gurus on organic food and pesticides had me seeing red flags so I wanted to dive into the literature to try and get a look at the reality.

This is a lengthy dive into the research. For a summary scroll to the end.

As with most content found social media, we tend to see black and white statements. This kind of information appeals to our brains. It feels easier to navigate the world when we can put things into easily defined boxes like “traditionally farmed foods are full of pesticides“, “pesticides are toxic” or “Organic food is healthier.” But there are a few problems with these claims, one being that the criteria set for certification by the National Organic Program do not include oversight into nutrition quality nor do they regulate the pesticides and fungicides allowed for use. They use the perception that anything natural is safe without testing the health and environmental impact of the chemicals they use. The other major problem is that the studies we have do not show significant improvements in nutritional value. Studies have been done testing individual foods, testing health markers in humans with individual food substitutions as well as with whole diet substitutions. To be clear, it’s still not black and white. While I think the following overview of the research should help you understand the current science you will see that its complex and ongoing.

A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine reviewed 223 studies looking at whether foods grown on organic farms were safer with regards to human health and provided more nutritional value than foods from traditional farming. Surprisingly, the only slight advantage organic foods had was phosphorous content and higher amounts of omega 3 in milk and poultry. A far cry from the grand claims we often hear on social media and marketing from Big Organic. I’m just joking, I don’t really call it Big Organic but it is a massive industry that needs to be held accountable, just like any other. As far as safety goes, the authors stated an absolute risk difference of pesticide residue at approximately 30%. This being the difference of 38% risk of non organic foods and 7% risk of organic foods.

One of the major critics of the above meta analysis was Dr. Charles Benbrook an agricultural economist working out of Washington State University. His detailed critique was published by the same publication of the study and is available to read here. His main beef seems to be with the calculation of risk with pesticide residue. He states that “Pesticide dietary risk is a function of many factors, including the number of residues, their levels, and pesticide toxicity,”  He then goes on to claim higher risks when looking at certain fruits as well as higher general risk when calculating for relative risk. Relative risk is, for most cases very confusing and not a great way in communicating data to the public. Benbrook’s preference in its utility is curious and though I don’t want to jump to any conclusions it makes me weary of the intent of the message. He has deep financial ties to pro organic organizations which does not necessarily mean malicious engineering of data but it is dubious.

When looking at herbicide and pesticide toxicity you need to remember that residue presence is not a signal of risk. We have technology that allows for detection at minuscule levels – levels that are much much lower than what has been deemed unsafe. Similarly, number of residues, are not an issue in themselves but can be if the levels are of a high enough magnitude. With regards to the meta analysis, pesticide residues were found to be below the regulated limits in the vast majority of the research. This should be a big takeaway.

Detecting residues is not a problem if regulations are in place to minimize use (they are), to remove all or most of the residue (they are) and to keep monitoring the health safety of each compound (they are). I’ll get a bit more into pesticides and herbicides a little later but for now let’s look a bit more into the nutrition differences of organic and non organic foods.

Another review study called Agroecosystem Management and Nutrition Quality Management: the Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables suggested slightly higher values of vitamin C and other “defense related secondary metabolites.” These include phenolics, carotenoids, terpenes and alkaloids. The authors suggest that these metabolites may play important roles in immune function and so the average 12% reduction found in conventionally farmed foods may be significant. They weirdly go on to try and estimate the added life expectancy for humans if they eat organic foods with the increased secondary metabolites, estimating a gain of 17 days for women and 25 for men. This is silly nonsense, you can not make calculations of this sort without any kind of control data and boat loads more science on the mechanistic factors of secondary metabolites on longevity..and even then it would be worthless.

As with the first study mentioned, similar claims have been made about problematic methodology of this meta-analysis and so the conclusions have to be taken lightly. Nevertheless, I think it is important to include all the relevant data and make our food choices with the evidence and its limitations. A 12% increase in some nutrient qualities for organic produce is statistically significant but also not very impressive. When making food choices that may require major budget increases I think it may be worthwhile to focus on the other number – that you can still get at least 90% of the majority of nutrients, if not more, from non organic foods.

There is not a ton of data out there but when you comb through individual studies, you see not only that the differences in nutrient quantity (between organic and non organic) is generally low but that it swings in both directions. The use of fertilizers, genetic modification and herbicide and pesticide use have allowed for nutrient increase in certain foods in certain areas. This is very important tostabilize yields and sustain food availability for some communities.

But some individual studies, such as this one show that organic farming, while reducing the size of the tomatoes may drastically increase levels of vitamin C and phenolic compounds. It is theorized that certain fertilizers help stabilize yield and fruit size but drop some nutrient values, something called an environmental dilution effect.

What makes studying nutrient quality and quantity difficult is that you have to take into consideration soil quality, climate, yield size, farming practices and the use of organic pesticides – which is left out of almost every study.

You can’t simply compare organic foods from the Uk to conventionally farmed foods in Canada – the variables will not match up closely enough to make any real conclusions. So you need to compare samples from neighbouring farms, where cross contamination of organic and non organic pesticides may taint the samples. Another factor often overlooked is genetic dilution – a gene based degradation of nutrient density within certain hybrids of vegetables and fruits. Some types of broccoli have been found to increase in dry weight but yield fewer nutrients. So in seeking greater yield, there may be a ceiling at which nutrient density suffers. In this case hybrid type needs to be taken into consideration when looking at nutrient differences.

One theory suggests that organic farming practices induce a stress component to the plant, signalling for more of the “protective” compounds to be created. I find this idea very interesting but I would be curious if this effect is thwarted by organic pesticides like Neem oil, acetic acid, boric acid, potassium bicarbonate and pyrethrins (amongst others).

I found one more study review focusing more on health outcomes – A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health?. Let’s take a look at some of the results. All the individual studies mentioned below can be found in the above link.

Some of the studies in this review compared single food/drink substitutions- so one group would eat organic tomatoes while another group would eat non organic tomatoes and then they would check for differences in nutrient levels. No differences were found in blood or urine levels. In other studies looking at single food substitutions they looked at DNA damage and antioxidant capacity between the organic and non organic groups – no differences were found there either.

Several studies in this review looked at whole diet substitution either in children or adults. The duration varied from 4-5 days (children) to 3 weeks (adults). 4 of these studies ,measured pesticide metabolite excretion during the different treatment diets. All of the studies noticed a substantial reduction in pesticide excretion during the organic food phase of the trial. This means that once the participants were put on the organic food phase the researches noted little to no pesticide excretion (for the pesticides they were looking for), Some of these studies have made waves on social media platforms as of late and I understand why. It is alarming to see that after just a few days on organic foods, children are peeing out much less pesticide metabolites. The problem with making hasty conclusions about this is that the amounts of pesticide metabolites found in the urine samples do not speak to toxicity levels. Detection of pesticides also existed in the organic food phases and yet his doesn’t mean that organic foods are toxic it just means that these highly effective devices can detect tiny amounts of metabolites. The other missed conclusion is that this shows just how effective our bodies are at getting rid of barely traceable levels of these compounds. This is the nuance missing from the fear laden narrative on social media and mass media platforms. Again, no organic pesticides were tested in these studies.

The adult studies looked at flavonoid and carotenoid excretion levels, antioxidant capacity, changes in body composition, lipids and other biomarkers. No major differences were found between the feeding phases. Quercetin and kaempferol levels were slightly higher in the organic feeding phase but the authors suggested that food variety differences may have accounted for this.

Several observational studies were also reviewed. These studies looked at health variables such as sperm quality, fertility, cancer incidence and changes in nutritional biomarkers.

One Danish study comparing the sperm health between organic farmers and non organic farmers showed a lower rate of morphologically normal sperm in non organic farmers but no difference in 14 other sperm health parameters. Farmers are known to have much higher exposure levels to pesticides. Farmers and pesticide production employees tend to be the ones who do suffer from toxicity issues. While I would take note of the above study I think it is most valuable in speaking for tighter regulations for farmers.

The Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study looked at dietary pesticide exposure with women using assisted reproductive technology.They found a significant correlation between higher pesticide intake scores and lower birth probability as well as lower live birth rates, Due to many confounding factors this study is considered to be too flawed to be conclusive. The recent increase in fertility issues does warrant more study in this area. Even flawed, if women who are predisposed to fertility issues are possibly more sensitive to very low pesticide levels than we should keep looking into it.

The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study showed a reduced risk of pre-eclampsia with a higher organic vegetable intake. No association was found with organic fruits or dairy. The data came from a food frequency questionnaire which is not a very accurate measure. Many other prenatal health studies have relied on food or behaviour questionnaires and have later been deemed inconclusive. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to take note and continue studying this.

In one study looking at glyphosate and AMPA levels in lactating women, no levels of these chemicals were found in breast milk from either organic or non organic cohorts.

The KOALA birth cohort study looked at organic food consumption in pregnancy and early childhood. A mild association was found between organic dairy intake and lowered risk of eczema but there was no correlation with any other food types or overall organic food consumption. This cohort study also has some serious limitations due to confounding factors, namely that other dietary measures were adopted on top of organic foods, including added fermented foods, high plant food intake etc.

The Million Women Study out of the UK looked at cancer rates and organic food intake with a 9 year follow up. No reduction in cancer occurrence was found with an organic diet other than a small reduction in Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. A similar finding came out of a 4.5 year French study looking at 69,000 people where high organic food intake was negatively associated to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma risk as well as a slightly reduced risk in postmenopausal breast cancer. The Million Woman study found no association with post menopausal breast cancer. Observational studies are not ideal to make any grand conclusions from but I do think repeated findings suggest that a closer look into the negative correlation of organic vegetable intake and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma is warranted,

You might feel like this is a mixed bag of evidence for organic foods being healthier and I would agree with that. I do think that there are some important factors to take into consideration when making your food choices. One major confounding factor for many health studies concerning organic food intake is healthy user bias. In general, people who choose organic foods tend to do other things that benefit health outcomes. They exercise more, they have a more varied diet, they choose leaner meats, more plants, etc. They also tend to come from more comfortable economic situations. These variables are very hard to control for and make any conclusions difficult to stand by.

As mentioned earlier, pesticide studies ignore two things- that pesticides are still found in non organic foods (though at lower levels) and that none of these studies consider organic pesticides. Organic pesticides, due to their less effective nature are used at much higher quantities and are far less regulated. These compounds, though labeled “organic” are still toxic at high amounts. Studies need to be done looking at residue levels of these compounds as well and see if they are associated with health concerns . In addition, the health gurus trying to extrapolate conclusions from studies looking at pesticide residue need to take into consideration just how low the amounts are.

If you read my piece on Aspartame health risks then you will have heard me speak about these two important facts of chemistry – the dose is what makes the poison and everything natural is a chemical. We think of formaldehyde as a toxic chemical, indeed it can be. And yet we all produce 1.5 ounces of formaldehyde in our bodies each and every day. Not only that but bananas, pears, grapes and apples all have relatively high amounts of formaldehyde in them and when we eat them, we break them down and metabolize it directly. The carnivore cult isn’t safe either as meat, poultry and fish all contain this ‘toxic chemical’.

I understand the reflex to assume that organic is always better. I also understand the cognitive dissonance when trying to figure out if pesticides are safe. You may think you intuitively feel inclined to choose organic, that your gut is telling you what is true. I also get that. But what I think is probably also happening is that a narrative has been built around a 65 billion dollar industry. For over 35 years the organic farming industry has been ramping up its stake in your mind, trying to work on the appeal to nature fallacy. People who study intuition suggest that it is still based on learned behaviour patterns. That much of our brain processing happens subconsciously and that intuition is built over time through advertising, snippets of conversation we aren’t paying attention to and other cues. This is why sometimes we need to break our algorithms to see if we are missing some key information, I don’t necessarily agree with supporters of traditional farming that there seems to be no risk. I think the science so far points towards low risk and low nutritional benefit. I think theres a tendency towards too much bravado when saying things are definite. There isn’t that much data to rely on.

From the evidence cited above I would bet that there are some mild benefits to eating organic foods. But by no means is there solid evidence for a significant difference. For the vast majority of us, making the choice for organic fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy means a sizeable increase in budget. For my clients this may make the difference towards omitting certain fruits or vegetables entirely and this is the reason I spent dozens of hours combing these studies. By no means is the science finished, it never is. As we learn more my understanding may change but for now it appears that the benefits of eating any type of whole food outweighs the slight advantage organic foods may have. My advice is to buy organic if you can and want to. Look for frozen organic foods as a cheaper alternative and buy non organic for the rest. Or if you can’t afford it, don’t worry about it. You will get the vast majority of the nutrients found in organic produce and the health risks are low to none. You will have a much bigger impact on health and longevity by focusing on a balanced diet, exercising enough and managing your sleep and stress.

SUMMARY

• The Committee of Nutrition, Council on Environmental Health and Academy of American Pediatrics have concluded no meaningful deficit or gain in nutritional value or health benefit or disease when eating an organic diet.
• The organic food industry is worth 69 billion dollars in the US and climbing.
• A meta analysis of 223 studies showed trivial nutritional benefits in produce and a slight improvement of Omega 3 in organic in milk and poultry.
• The same study suggested a 30% absolute risk difference with regards to exposure to pesticide residue. 38% risk with non organic and a 7% risk with organic foods. This is an exposure risk to”detectable levels’ not toxic levels.
• Critics of this meta analysis suggest poor methodology and problems with the statistical analysis of risk. Some critics point to another meta analysis as a better source.
• This other meta analysis suggests that some organic foods contain more vitamin C and a 12% increase of defence related secondary metabolites. Critics suggest similar issues with the methodology in this study.
• Some non organic foods contain slightly more nutrients and some organic foods have more. Comparing the two has proven difficult as you need to control for variables such as climate, soil health, fertilizers, environmental dilution and genetic dilution.
• Studies looking at single food substitution from organic to non organic or vice versa have shown no difference in nutrient levels through blood and urine samples.
• SImilar studies looking at antioxidant capacity and DNA damage also showed no difference.
• Research on whole diet substitution had some interesting results. Children fed organic foods for 4-5 days showed a substantial decrease in pesticide metabolite excretion. This makes sense with the above meta analysis assessment of increased pesticide exposure risk.
• Importantly, the metabolite excretion does not speak to toxic levels of pesticides, only to detection and efficient excretion – even at minute levels.
• Adult research on whole diet substitution showed higher blood or urine levels of Quercetin and Kaempferol in the organic feeding phase. Unfortunately food varieties were not adequately controlled for and could account for the differences.
• An anomaly in 1 out of 15 sperm health parameters was found in a study looking at organic vs non organic farmers.
• A study looking at women with fertility issues showed lower rates of live births and clinical pregnancy probability with women who scored higher on dietary intake of fruits and vegetables considered high pesticide residue foods. No pesticide metabolites were tested for, the data was collected through a questionnaire after the outcomes of the assisted reproductive treatment.
• Organic vegetable intake was associated with a lowered risk of pre-eclampsia in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Methodological issue make these conclusions iffy.
• Two large studies looking at organic food intake and cancer incidence showed lower risk for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma with people who ate more organic. No other reduction in cancer occurrence was found. One of the studies showed a negative correlation with organic diet and post menopausal breast cancer but the bigger study did not.
• Healthy user bias is a major confounding factor for large studies on the health benefits of organic foods. People who tend to eat organic foods also tend to eat a more balanced diet, exercise and prioritize other health measures.
• Studies looking at pesticide residue exposure need to clearly communicate that the vast majority of levels these studies look at are much lower than the regulated risk levels.
• We need studies looking at the risk of organic pesticides as well. They tend to be less effective and so are used in much higher quantities. Just because something is labelled organic does not mean it is safe at all exposure levels.
• The evidence is a mixed bag but predominantly points to non organic foods being safe and healthy.
• The science will continue to roll out, looking at nutrient quality and quantities as well as more specific possible mechanisms of harm with low level exposure to pesticides. This is great. Science is a self correcting methodology and our best bet in understanding the complexity of this issue.
• In the meantime, making food choices when on a budget should be easier than it is these days. lMany people look to health personalities online and are overwhelmed by the hyperbole surrounding organic foods and pesticide use. Knowing that you can get the vast majority of your nutrients from cheaper, traditionally farmed foods should be a relief. This is good news! Yet the gurus will deny and try and sell you their unregulated supplements.
• You should feel at ease buying organic when you want, if you can but otherwise just stick to what is affordable and available.

If you would like to set up a consultation for help with a nutrition program, my contact information is here. I would love to help and you can rest assured I will bring as much nuance as I can to the table. I strongly believe that sitting too firmly in one diet camp is unnecessarily limiting.