Political Food for Thought: Organic Food Takes a Hit
Related terms:
I am sure there are some true believers really hitting the ceiling today after the release of the meta-study published this month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition entitled "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: A Systematic Review". This journal is certainly not "in the pocket" of major agri-business interest nor is the institute which conducted the analysis: The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Here is the money quote: “On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.”
As close as I can tell, the NOP (National Organic Program) of USDA is funded to about six million dollars a year and is slated for some substantial increases (at least in percentage terms). Not a whole lot of people in the US favor organic over conventional since the image has largely been lower visual quality and higher prices. I am always skeptical of nutrition research at first read but it tends to add credibility when entities likely to favor something by political bent, reach opposite conclusions and publish them.
I scanned some of the more serious organic and food blogs and their reaction to the study is full acceptance. Most acknowledge they didn’t expect organic to be more nutritious but for a variety of personal reasons preferred it. Some of the reasons given were the hoped for collateral benefits to the earth (less chemicals, less energy, less consumerism), though many acknowledged that there is no guarantee of these and you need to examine carefully the individual producer prior to acceptance of a “brand”. That’s a lot of work. Others suggested preserving gardening techniques as a kind of legacy skill to pass on to their children so they didn’t come to believe that food originates at the supermarket.
The only argument that rung true to me is one that suggested that some organic methods restored flavor attributes that seem to get muted in conventional production. Having a tomato that actually tastes like the name is a rarity these days but they sure do uniformly fit into those little green, plastic sleeves.
Here is the money quote: “On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.”
As close as I can tell, the NOP (National Organic Program) of USDA is funded to about six million dollars a year and is slated for some substantial increases (at least in percentage terms). Not a whole lot of people in the US favor organic over conventional since the image has largely been lower visual quality and higher prices. I am always skeptical of nutrition research at first read but it tends to add credibility when entities likely to favor something by political bent, reach opposite conclusions and publish them.
I scanned some of the more serious organic and food blogs and their reaction to the study is full acceptance. Most acknowledge they didn’t expect organic to be more nutritious but for a variety of personal reasons preferred it. Some of the reasons given were the hoped for collateral benefits to the earth (less chemicals, less energy, less consumerism), though many acknowledged that there is no guarantee of these and you need to examine carefully the individual producer prior to acceptance of a “brand”. That’s a lot of work. Others suggested preserving gardening techniques as a kind of legacy skill to pass on to their children so they didn’t come to believe that food originates at the supermarket.
The only argument that rung true to me is one that suggested that some organic methods restored flavor attributes that seem to get muted in conventional production. Having a tomato that actually tastes like the name is a rarity these days but they sure do uniformly fit into those little green, plastic sleeves.
Stay Connected:
Dennis,
Thanks for unearthing this report. You can bet it will not show up the mainstream media. I have a question.
It occurs to me that the food industry needs a “celebrity spokesperson”, a high profile story teller, someone who has no direct benefit form being associated with the production agriculture and food processing. We need a voice that can combat all the b.s. out there with some hard facts about the world we live in and what it needs to be it 2050. Is there someone out there right now with this information?
Facts about world calorie demand in 2050, and the amount of land and space, not to mention the increased cost it would take to do it all “sustainably” vs. continue up the efficiency curve that farmers have been on for 100 years. Facts about food vs. fuel as it relates to not solving our energy problem. Facts about what is really going to take to feed the world and the sacrifices that animals and people may have to make to “Git R’ Done”: GMO grain, Sow Stalls, Fertilizer, Antibiotics, etc, etc,etc,…..
The UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization is the only thing I have found that has some clue about what will need to happen, but there is no concise report that I can find that summarizes the problem. Certainly the FAO is not going to champion the cause of industrial food production!!
Is there someone that has this information put together? And who can we present it to that will take up the cause, someone like a Ted Turner for the tree huggers.
Thanks
Rod,
You are certainly asking the right questions. My read of the stuff that FAO puts out is that they understand the coming problem and have (probably) some pretty good forecasts of the needs which will arise but the issue is both a technical solution and a political solution.
On the left globally, you ultimately see a push to reduce world population but this runs in the face of the evidence that the only thing really correlated with population growth slowing is rising per capita incomes (Russia is perhaps the biggest counter-example however). Most of the resource saving strategies by the left today seem likely to actually hasten resource depletion and demand lower per capita incomes. For instance, the focus on returning to regional supply chains (de-globalizaiton in favor of locally produced etc.) will increase resouce use per unit of output since it will thwart the realization of comparative advantage of nations. Comparative advantage suggests that the most efficient producers (technically and economically) should specialize and then trade with other regions. The global food panic of last year has convinced many nations to lean to ensuring self-sufficiency rather than relying on trade since rapidly sky-rocketing rice, wheat and corn prices lead to significant political instability in food-insecure nations.
Europe for instance is looking at dramatically increasing air travel costs with taxes to slow down travel growth and its use of fuel and impacts on global warming. This will lead to unemployment and thwart economic growth as a consequence.
Market economics could largely solve these problems but there is a significant, worldwide loss (or lessening) of faith in such solutions. The biggest problem in my view is corruption, which continually thwarts market exchange and the flexibiility of individuals to re-invent themselves in creative and productive ways (asset and human capital mobility). When class, political affiliation, family ties etc. trump education, innovation and freedom, entrenched poverty results, which then is falsely blamed on foreign exploitation and the like.
Finding the champion for market-based solutions is a real need...but like you, I say who? Here is a link to the last generation's champion. See related videos also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-o0kD9f6wo
Post new comment