Mid Michigan Child Care Food Program

Organic vs. Non-Organic

 

The organic sector of the food industry has grown 15% from 2004 to 2007. Nearly two-thirds of American shoppers bought at least one organic product in the year 2007. Organic food sales in the United States hit $13.8 billion in 2005, up from $11.9 billion in 2004 and a mere $3.6 billion in 1997. There are many reasons why consumers choose to purchase organic products. They believe organic foods:

• are more nutritious

• have no pesticides on them

• have no antibiotics or hormones used in their production  

• are better for the environment

• will save the family farm

​

MORE NUTRITIOUS

The 2002 USDA Secretary Dan Gilkman announced at the unveiling of the Organic Stamp "Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment about nutrition or quality. Organic is how it is produced. Just because something is labeled as organic does not mean it is superior, safer, or more healthy than conventional foods. All foods in this country must meet the same high standards of safety regardless of their classification."

​

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the nutrient content of organic vs. conventional foods over the last century. The most complete review was published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture in 1997. It examined 150 research studies over the last 75 years, including the good, the bad, and the untrustworthy.

​

The results:

• Cereals: 30 studies were reviewed and no clear difference was determined between organic and conventional products.

• Potatoes: 22 studies were reviewed and no clear difference was determined between organic and conventional products.

• Vegetables: 70 studies were reviewed and no clear difference was determined between organic and conventional products.

• Fruits, Nuts, Seeds and Oils: 12 studies were reviewed and there was no major difference between the sections. One study, however, found higher levels of fungal toxins in organic nut products. (Fungal toxins will be discussed later in this training).

• Bread: 6 studies were reviewed and no clear difference was determined between organic and conventional products.

• Milk and Dairy Products: 9 studies were reviewed and no clear difference was determined between organic and conventional products.

• Meat and Meat Products: 5 studies were reviewed and there was not enough data to make a meaningful assessment.

• Eggs: 1 study reviewed and it was determined that free-range hens had slightly lower protein content, but slightly higher carotenoid content. Carotenoids are pigments that act as antioxidants, so they may help prevent cancer. Research using antioxidant supplements has indicated no cancer protective effect, but this may not be true for antioxidants consumed as part of the food itself.

​

The conclusion of the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture's study is that there is no clear or consistent difference in the nutritional value between organic and conventional foods. There is no evidence whatsoever that a diet high in or exclusively of organic foods is any healthier for you than a diet of conventional foods. There is plenty of evidence, however, that a diverse diet, high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fish is healthy.

​

PESTICIDES

"While synthetic pesticides are prohibited in organic farming, some 'natural' pesticides may still be used, and they are not necessarily less worrisome just because they're natural." - Ned Goth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumers Report)

​

A pesticide is defined as "any preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests." USDA has created a National List of approved and banned substances for organic farming. A copy of this list can be obtained from www.ams.usda.gov. Any natural substance on the list is approved. Any synthetic substance not on the list is banned. There are synthetic substances that are allowed under the USDA National Organic Program. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that 20 pounds of pesticides are used per person per year in the United States. At least 50 of these pesticides are classified as carcinogenic. A carcinogen is any substance or agent that tends to produce cancer.

​

Organic farming is NOT pesticide free! Many natural pesticides approved as organic are heavily refined, processed and toxic substances. The major pesticides approved for organic farming are:

​

• Horticulture Oils are insecticides derived from highly refined crude petroleum oil. A few are derived from plant oils.

  • Horticulture oils work primarily by suffocating insects physically, although they can also disrupt insect feeding behaviors and insect metabolism chemically.

  • Horticulture oils are used widely in both organic and non-organic farming.

• Sulfur is a contact poison used mainly as a fungicide (kills fungi), but also as an insecticide (kills insects) and rodenticide (deters rodents).

  • Sulfur has a relatively low toxicity to humans, birds, fish and bees but is applied heavily.

  • Because of its heavy application rates, sulfur is believed to represent a greater environmental risk than many synthetic fungicides.

• Copper Compounds are used as fungicides and bactericides (kills bacteria).

  • Copper sulfate, one of the more widely used copper-based pesticides, is caustic and classified as Highly Toxic by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).

  • When copper sulfate was given to lab animals it caused reproductive effects, birth defects, mutagenic effects and cancer causing effects.

• Pyrethrums are a group of chemical nerve toxins produced in the flower of African chrysanthemums.

  • Pyrethrum is toxic to aquatic life and was classified as a Restricted Use Pesticide by the EPA.

  • In 1999, the EPA reclassified pyrethrum as a "likely human carcinogenic" after rodent testing showed that it caused tumors in rats.

• Rotenone is a toxic plant extract obtained from the crushed roots of several tropic plant species.

  • Rotenone is one of the most effective fish killers known.

  • It can cause long term kidney and liver damage and is a suspected carcinogen.

  • It causes birth defects and kills fetuses.

• Bacillus Thuringiensis is commonly referred to, as Bt. It is a soil bacterium that produces a protein toxic to caterpillars.

  • Mammals, birds, and fish do not have the cellular receptors for the toxin, making them immune to the effects.

  • While Bt is considered safe for consumers, farm workers spraying Bt solutions have reported respiratory problems, and BT bacteria has caused fatal lung infections in mice.

• Spinosad is a new class of biological pesticides that the National Organics Standards Board approved in 2002.

  • Dow AgriScience, part of the Dow Chemical Corporation, developed Spinosad. It is obtained from a natural fermentation bacteria found in soils.

  • Spinosda has less than 5% the toxicity of aspirin.

  • Because of its safety and specificity, spinosad has been rapidly adopted by both non-organic and organic farmers for use on a wide array of fruit and vegetable crops.

• Neem Extract is a botanical insecticide/fungicide obtained primarily from the seeds of the neem tree.

  • Little is known about the ways in which neem extract works to kill insects and fungi, although its toxicity to mammals appears to be relatively low.

• Sabadilla is an alkaloid (similar to nicotine and cocaine) obtained from seeds of the South American lily.

  • Sabadilla is the least toxic of the botanical insecticides.

  • It is used as a broad-spectrum contact and stomach poison.

​

Organic farmers claim to use a combination of techniques to avoid having to "resort" to using pesticides, such as: planting resistant crops, using bio-control organisms (which means releasing insects that are natural predators of another type of insect), rotating crops, and keeping crops healthy. All farmers use these techniques in varying degrees and combinations. These techniques are only partially effective in preventing pests and/or disease outbreaks. The biggest difference in pest management between organic and non-organic farmers is that organic farmers generally accept higher amounts of crop damage and loss before resorting to using pesticides. They can do this because consumers pay a higher price for products.

​

Organic farmers may spray ten times more pesticides than non-organic farmers. Why? Many of the organic approved pesticides break down quickly in the environment so they need to be sprayed more often. Organic pesticides are generally less effective than synthetic pesticides so they are sprayed at higher concentrations as well. Organic pesticides pose exactly the same sort of environmental and health risks as do non-organic pesticides and often pose more risks than synthetics. The difference between organic and synthetic pesticides is not their toxicity to pests, people or the environment, but rather their origin.

​

The Consumers Union (CU) and the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) have analyzed extensive government testing data of pesticide residue on fresh fruits and vegetables. The data was from more than 26,000 samples of conventional produce but there is only government data on 194 samples of organic fruits and vegetables. The results were that 1/4 of organic fruits and vegetables were found to contain measurable residues of synthetic pesticides. The CU and OMRI published in the Journal of Food Additives and Contaminates, "none of the choices available to consumers (organic, non-organic, or no-detectable trace) is completely free of pesticide residue." Recent USDA testing found synthetic pesticide residues on half of organic peaches, broccoli, and celery it tested. 1/3 of organic cantaloupe and lettuce had synthetic pesticide residue. And nearly 10% of organic produce that was examined contained higher levels of synthetic pesticides than the average found on non-organic foods; USDA and CU only tested for synthetic pesticides not the organic pesticides that are more likely to be used on organic farms.

​

ANTIBIOTICS & HORMONES IN MILK

The following is the bottom line statistic from recent testing by USDA: Conventional milk in the United States is 100% free from artificial hormones and 99.999% free of antibiotics.

​

- National Milk Drug Residue Base: Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report. 2006. Food and Drug Administration for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

​

Consumers pay 50 to 100% more for organic milk thinking they are buying protection from exposure to contaminates, when the milk is identical. Milk, eggs, and soy products all naturally contain hormones or hormone-like substances. Soy and other plant products contain estrogen chemicals at levels often higher than the natural levels of estrogen in meat, milk, and eggs.

​

The only hormones allowed for use in dairy cows is a biotech "nature-identical" copy of the cows natural growth hormone, called bGH. The biotech version "recombinant," called rbGH, is used roughly in 1/3 of the US dairy cows. rbGH extends peak milk production and results in 15 to 20% higher total milk yields. rbGH does not increase the size of a cow's udder or cause swollen, over-full udders. Dairy farmers do not add hormones to the milk itself and cows milk is not full of chemical contaminates.

​

rbGH is injected into the cow's muscle, not the udder. It does not alter the levels of natural hormones in milk or add any "artificial hormones" to the milk. The milk remains indistinguishable because the biotech hormone is essentially identical to the cows own natural bGH. The FDA would not have approved the use of rbGH if it wasn't safe and did not result in wholesome milk. Meat from dairy cows given rbGH is also safe for consumption. Because rbGH is a protein, it has no effect on cows or people if it is eaten. Our digestive system breaks it down as food like all other protein.

​

Because rbGH is made in bacteria (which is a living biological system) using the DNA blueprint from cows, it is 95% identical to the cows own natural bGH protein and acts just like the natural hormone. The exact process is used to make replacement human insulin.

​

There is a triple plus layer of purity verification protecting consumers from antibiotics in milk. First there are FDA withdraw periods meaning that no milk is allowed to be sold within a certain time frame of the cow being administered antibiotics. Two, every single delivery of milk to the bottling and processing plant in the US is tested for antibiotics. Three, processors often test milk in their storage tanks as well because a mistake there could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost profits, and four, milk leaving the bottling plant gets randomly tested as well.

​

In 2005, 0.3% of all milk processed in the US tested by private and government agencies tested positive for antibiotic traces and were discarded or safely blended into livestock feed. One out of every 3,000 pounds of milk has traces of antibiotics and because this milk has never entered the food chain the likelihood of purchasing milk with antibiotics is far less than one in 3,000. Scientists contracted by the FDA compiled and analyzed its milk testing data stating that the US milk supply is more than 99.999% free of antibiotic residue. There simply isn't a food sold that is assured of being more pure.

​

HORMONES IN MEAT PRODUCTS

There is no artificial or supplemental hormones allowed or sold for use in pigs and poultry. So right away we can say that 75% of the total US meat supply is 100% free of "artificial hormones". Beef makes up 25% of all meat consumed in the US. About 2% of all beef has detectable traces of synthetic hormones. Six hormones are allowed for use in US and Canadian beef production. Three of the six are natural; estradiol, progesterone and testosterone. They are produced naturally in all humans (including children) throughout our lifetime at considerably higher levels than found in beef from hormone treated cattle.

​

Three of the hormones approved are synthetic and mimic the activity of natural hormones: Melegestrol (MGA) mimics progesterone, Trenbolone acetate (TBA) mimics testosterone, and Zeranol mimics estradiol. They are allowed because they are safe, improve beef quality and improve growth rates and feed conversion efficiency (5 to 15% more meat from the same amount of feed). Thirty years ago steer had 2 inches of back fat and the meat was heavily marbled with fat. Consumers have become more concerned with heart health and beef producers responded by using leaner breading stock and supplemental hormones. Natural hormones are lost during castration, replacing those with supplements resulted in leaner beef.

​

In 1956, the FDA approved supplemental hormones for use in beef production. FDA regulates that hormones be administered through time-release implants placed under the skin of the animal's ear at about six months of age. Each implant contains a specific legally authorized dose of hormones. The implant ensures that hormones are released very slowly so the concentration of the hormone in the animal remains relatively consistent and low. Because the ear is discarded at slaughter the implant does not enter the food chain. According to USDA, a person would need to eat over 13 pounds of beef from an implanted steer in order to equal the amount of estradiol found in one egg! One glass of milk contains about 9 times as much estradiol as a half-pound of beef from an implanted steer. A half-pound of potatoes has 245ng of estrogen equivalent to 1.3ng for a 1/4 pound of untreated beef and 1.9ng from beef treated with an implant.

​

The use of these hormones is so safe the World Health Organization and UN's Food and Agriculture Organization expert committees didn't even establish a Maximum Residue Limit for it because they concluded that residues occurring from proper use were so low they are unlikely to pose any health hazards. The FDA made the same decision. A pound of beef raised using estradiol contains approximately 15,000 times less of this hormone than the amount produced daily by the average man and 9 million times less than the amount produced by a pregnant woman.

​

In 2004, Melegestrol (MGA) was found in 20 samples out of 238 tested at levels less than 0.1 millionths of a gram. In 2003 USDA found MGA in 7 out of 187 fat samples tested at just over 5 millionths of a gram, well below the FDA's maximum residue limit of 25 millionths of a gram. For comparisons sake, prepubertal boys produce an estimated 150 millionths of a gram per day of progesterone, 150 times more than the contaminated beef. No matter who or how many groups have examined this issue, no realistic health threats have been found from the use of hormones, natural or synthetic, in beef production.

 

ANTIBIOTICS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

There are humane animal treatment laws that prohibit withholding of antibiotics from farm animals if they are needed to treat a life threatening disease. Every animal has to deal with microbial diseases and infections. Organic farmers either do not administer antibiotics to sick animals and allow them to die or treat the animals and section them off to be sold as non-organic. It is common practice that organic farmers have a non-organic section so they have someplace to send the animals that require treatment. Humans use antibiotics when they get a bacterial infection at doses hundreds of thousands of times higher than levels of antibiotic residue found in meat samples. In reality antibiotic residues are found in less than 2% of the US meat supply and less than 0.1% has antibiotic residues above the FDA limit.

​

​