Organic food. Nutrient dense or marketing hype?
This September is Organic September, an awareness campaign spearheaded by the Soil Association (presumably inspired by Ronseal when they came round to naming it).
But what is organic? And how exactly does it affect what we eat?
Although the sector is booming, with last year’s Organic Market Report from the Soil Association revealing that the sector was worth almost £2bn in 2015 in the UK alone despite the amount of land being farmed organically declining, there’s a lot of confusion around what exactly it means - even amongst those buying organic.
A 2005 study showed that consumers associate organic products with a healthy diet, yet other organisations place the emphasis more on the supposed environmental benefits. Certainly, a lot of the confusion stems from the multitude of marketers and companies out there promoting organic. Although there is an EU-wide system for the regulation of organic farming, well-established national and private logos can be used on labelling as certification, meaning that there’s no single gold standard.
So what is organic?
As organic is really just a way of farming (both arable and pastoral), there’s no one easy definition. Broadly, organic farming entails the following:
- Fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizers
- No artificial colours & preservatives
- Higher standards of animal welfare
- No routine use of antibiotics (antibiotics are however, still permitted to treat sick animals)
- GM Free
- Emphasis on soil health via compost, manure and crop rotation.
According to the FSA who regulate food standards in the UK, all food sold as 'organic' must be produced according to European laws on organic production. And these are stringent laws - any food sold as 'organic' has to come from growers, processors and importers who are registered and approved by organic certification bodies, which are in turn registered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) or a similar control body elsewhere in the European Union. So it’ll certainly be interesting to see what British industry does with ‘organic’ once we’ve left the EU.
All that said, however, this doesn’t necessarily mean your food will be 100% organic. Manufacturers of organic food are permitted to use specific non-organic ingredients provided that organic ingredients make up at least 95% of the food.
Is there any research showing nutritional benefits?
Many cite greater nutrient density as one of the benefits of organic, but the body of research here is mixed. One of the more comprehensives studies to date, looked at 343 separate studies on organic fruit and vegetables in 2014, and found that levels of a range of antioxidants were significantly higher in organic crops – for some by as much as 69%. As you might expect, pesticide residues were also significantly lower in the organic crops.
Another 2014 research study published in the British Journal of Nutrition found that organic dairy (milk, butter, cheese and cream etc) contains over 50% more omega-3 fatty acids compared to non-organic.
However, it should be noted that there’s a great deal of debate amongst nutritional scientists as to the beneficial effects of omega-3’s found in plants and dairy foods. The type found in plant and dairy products is known as a short-chain fatty acid, and these aren’t generally considered to be as beneficial as the long-chain fatty acids (EPA’s and DPA’s) found mostly in oily fish. Moreover, the same study also found that levels of the essential minerals selenium and iodine were actually lower in organic dairy, so it was by no means a completely rosy picture.
When it comes to meat, a 2016 meta-analysis of 67 studies concluded that organic meat was higher in polyunsaturated fatty acids (the best type of fat), but were unable to examine whether antioxidant and micronutrient profiles were any different.
It all sounds great. Any downsides?
Afraid so. Scientific studies have produced differing results on the subject.
A long-term systematic review over 45 years of some 233 studies concluded in 2012 that published papers on the topic lack any strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. However, they did note that consumption of organic foods may still reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Moreover, just because a food is labelled ‘organic’ doesn’t necessarily make it very nutrient dense. A quick search of one of the Big 4 supermarket’s online shopping website this afternoon for ‘organic’, produced some 775 results, including some more processed high-fat, high-sugar foods like biscuits for example.
Ok, but isn’t it better for the environment and animal welfare?
While organic farming is designed to be low input where pesticides, fertilizers and energy are concerned, it’s more labour heavy than conventional production and requires equal amounts of fossil fuels according to the European Commission.
While reporting of organic farming’s benefits in some marketing material would have you believe that organic crops are fed only on a diet of water, soil, sunshine, and smiles, organic farmers still use pesticides, it’s just that these are ‘natural’. So if pesticides are your concern, your best bet is simply to give any fruit or veg you buy a good wash before eating or cooking with it.
Moreover, the productivity of organic agriculture tends to be lower than that of conventional farming. A 2014 USDA organic survey that looked at 371 crop/geography comparisons representing 80% of all US cropland, found that 84% of the organic crops they looked at had lower yields than their counterparts. This means less food is produced using the same amount of land as in conventional farming, usually around 10-20% less according to several global estimates. We should, however, bear in mind that organic farming is still developing, and future research may well come up with new and innovative ways to boost organic farming’s yield.
Most organic certifications will aim for high animal welfare standards; for example larger pen and cage sizes, extensive outdoor access for pigs and poultry, and access to grazing for cows. It is possible to buy foods with higher welfare standards that are non-organic foods through other certification bodies for example the RSPCA Assured scheme.
Some closing thoughts
When it comes to health benefits, there isn’t currently universal scientific agreement that organic products have any nutritional or health benefits over and above their non-organic counterparts. Nutrient levels in foods varies a great deal anyway depending on multiple factors, including freshness, storage conditions, soil conditions, crop variety, weather conditions, and how the animals are fed. So even if your organically grown veg have a high nutrient density when you buy them, boiling vegetables high in vitamin C for example will still affect the nutrient density when you get round to actually eating them.
Comparing the health status of populations that regularly eat organic to those that don’t is anyway a very tricky area to research. For a start, studies are often flawed by the number of additional factors at work here – such as the fact that those who buy organic may well be wealthier and therefore healthier than those who don’t (these are known as confounding factors).
Personally, I buy organic where I can for meat and dairy products more than I do for fruit and veg. And I don’t do this to be healthier, but because I want to know that my meat and milk have come from animals reared to a higher welfare standard.
So I guess the conclusion is that although it’s probably not worth bankrupting yourself by buying organic in order to be healthier, there are other benefits, and reasons for buying organic beyond the contentious nutritional ones. As with many things nutrition, in the end it really just comes down to personal choice.
References
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/organic-farming_en
https://www.soilassociation.org/