When strolling the shelves and aisles of grocery stores, you’ll come across the “Organic” label on the packaging of some food items. Some of us spend a great deal of money to get these foods, believing that they are healthier than other traditional foods, according to what companies promote, but is this belief really true?
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines organic food as fresh food produced by organic farming methods, which is farming that does not rely on synthetic chemicals, such as man-made pesticides and fertilizers, and that does not involve the use of genetic modification techniques. Organic foods include fresh produce, meat and dairy products.
In the United States, the production of USDA-certified organic foods must meet a very specific set of standards, including minimal use of chemicals, regulated feeding and care of livestock, and avoidance of genetic engineering. In America, these standards apply to any agricultural product that bears an “organic” label, whether it’s fruits, vegetables, dairy products, eggs, poultry, meat, fish, rice, grains, and even some natural textiles.
A multi-billion dollar industry
Since the late 20th century, the organic food market has grown exponentially, creating a multi-billion dollar industry based on systems for the production, processing and distribution of organic products. In this regard, data issued by the US Department of Agriculture indicate that annual spending on organic food and beverages rose from about $1 billion to $28 billion over twenty years, from the mid-1990s to 2015. Although the cost of organic foods is three times higher than that of conventional More and more people are paying for what they believe to be the best food available.
Despite the popularity of this industry and the popularity of many in it, organic foods are still a subject of discussion and controversy. For their part, supporters say that organic foods are often fresher than their traditional counterparts, and that they are devoid of chemicals that have been associated with multiple health problems, in addition to being more friendly. It is environmentally friendly and supports biodiversity, since it avoids the use of chemical additives such as pesticides that kill beneficial pollinators, including bees responsible for honey production.
Unrealized benefits
But on the other hand, there are common misunderstandings related to this issue, for example, some people believe that organic farming produces foods that are more healthy than their conventional counterpart, but research and experiments have not been able to find any evidence that organic foods are more healthy in any way. Shapes.
For example, an independent research project in the United Kingdom systematically reviewed 162 articles on the comparison between organic and non-organic crops, published between 1958 and 2008. These articles contained a total of 3558 comparisons of the content of nutrients and other substances in organic foods and conventionally produced foods.
Surprisingly, the review found no evidence at all of any differences in the content of more than 15 different nutrients, including vitamin C, carotene, and calcium. The findings of this review, published in 2008 and updated in 2010, stated: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, it is clear that there is a lack of evidence on the nutritional quality and positive health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foods.
Other studies confirmed that the differences in the levels of nutrients and pollutants between organic and non-organic foods are negligible, with the exception of phosphorous, as phosphorus levels were much higher in organic products than in conventional products, but the researchers stress here that this difference may not be health-important and does not promote Nutritional quality. On the other hand, the risks of contamination with pesticide residues and other contaminants were lower among organic products compared to conventional products, but the differences in the risks of exceeding the maximum permissible level of these contaminants were small. For example, the risk of contracting E.coli did not differ between organic and conventional products. Studies have also shown that bacterial contamination of retail chicken is equally common in both organic and non-organic products.
Most important of all, perhaps, products that bear the phrase “organic” may not contain completely natural ingredients as companies market. For example, in the United States of America, products bearing the label “made of organic ingredients” may contain less than 70%. of organic content. Here you should know that the bag of corn chips marked with the word “organic” is made from organic corn and non-organic oils, and despite that, the product remains classified on the organic food lists because the processed part of it still meets government standards.
Waste of money?!
In light of this, we may not be exaggerating if we say that spending more money in order to consume organic products is nothing more than a ploy to waste money. This fact was found by a 2012 Stanford University study based on the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of studies comparing organic and conventional foods. Researchers found no strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives. If you are an adult and you make a decision based solely on your health, you should know here that there is not much difference between organic and conventional foods, says Dina Pravata, lead researcher of the study.
In the course of her work, Pravata uncovered what she described as a confusing array of studies, including some that weren’t very rigorous, and that appear mainly in advertising and trade publications.
In this context, a report published by Scientific American tells us that the propaganda aspects of organic foods may be completely false, or at least as unreal as some might think. The report shows that there are many myths about organic foods, and many ways Supportive advertising that is rarely understood properly. One such myth is that organic farms do not use pesticides. Here, the Soil Association, a UK body, explains that when it asked consumers why they buy organic food, 95% said the main reason was to avoid pesticides.
These and other consumers believe that organic farming involves the use of few or no pesticides. The report indicates that this is not true. Organic farming, like other forms of farming, uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent pests and fungi from destroying their crops. In the United States of America, for example, the 100% organic label guarantees that the USDA specifications are met, which include that the product has been grown with fertilizers free of synthetic ingredients or wastewater, but that does not necessarily mean that there are no pesticides or herbicides in it. The production process.
The report confirms that there are more than 20 chemicals commonly used in the cultivation and processing of organic crops that have been approved by US organic standards, not to mention that organic pesticides are used more intensively than synthetic pesticides due to their lower levels of effectiveness. In fact, what makes organic farming different from conventional farming is not that pesticides are used less or not, but the difference lies in the origin and composition of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are derived from natural sources and are minimally processed before they are used. This differs from the pesticides used in conventional agriculture, which are usually completely synthetic.
For years, perhaps decades, it has been assumed that pesticides that occur naturally in certain plants are somehow better for us and the environment than man-made pesticides. However, after conducting more research on the toxicity of these pesticides, it became clear that this assumption is not correct, as it was found that many natural pesticides pose health risks that are not insignificant. For example: Rotenone was widely used in the United States, and because it is of natural origin, and is found naturally in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered safe and organic. However, research has shown that rotenone is very dangerous because it kills pests by attacking mitochondria, the energy centers of all living cells. Research has found that exposure to rotenone causes Parkinson’s disease-like symptoms in mice, and has the potential to kill many types of organisms, including humans. Based on these results, the pesticide rotenone was already discontinued in the United States as of 2005.
Should I buy organic food?
The bottom line, then, is that the most reliable reports and studies tell us that organic and conventional foods are evenly matched in nutritional value, since there is insufficient evidence to suggest that one method of cultivation makes the food more beneficial than the other.
So what about the environmental aspects? Many supporters of organic foods have criticized the aforementioned Stanford study, which did not find any nutritional benefit for organic foods, and they say that it is not a matter of what organic foods contain, but rather what they do not contain, explaining that avoiding pesticide residues is the first reason why people buy for organic foods. Perhaps this is partially true, but there are two observations that cannot be ignored. The first is that all food in the market does not exceed harmful levels of pesticide residues (whether it is organic or not), and the second is that the price difference (which is usually multiples) cannot be justified with these The subtle differences make organic food and products much more of a hype than a healthy lifestyle or a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle.
Leave feedback about this