advertisement

the 'dirty dozen' versus the 'clean fifteen': is organic food really better?

the major advantage of organic food has nothing to do with nutrition. in fact, organic farming practices help with extreme weather fluctuations and also have lower greenhouse gas emissions.

is organic food more healthy for you?
organic food being tastier and more nutritious are common myths. getty
every spring, when the environmental working group (ewg) posts the latest “dirty dozen” list — produce with the highest pesticide residue — many people wonder, ‘should i eat organic?’ after all, the group says, quoting a study from harvard, eating chemical-drenched fruits and vegetables not only offsets their beneficial effects, but the chemicals can be harmful to our health.
for example, some peppers imported to the u.s., says the group, contain enough contaminants — some of them banned in the european union — to harm the nervous system. (canadian peppers grown in hothouses are virtually pesticide-free.) and the pesticide dacthal, banned in europe in 2009, is most frequently found on collards, mustard greens and kale and has been classified by the u.s. environmental protection agency as a possible carcinogen.
the ewg also found that 90 per cent of strawberries, apples, cherries, spinach, nectarines, and grapes tested positive for two or more pesticides. hot peppers and bell peppers had 101 and kale a whopping 103 detected pesticides. knowing that, who wouldn’t run screaming from the produce aisle?

the environmental working group’s business is “selling alarm”

joe schwarcz, the director of mcgill university’s office for science and society, wouldn’t.
story continues below

advertisement

“the trouble with the environmental working group is that their business is selling alarm,” he says. “that’s how they make their money, by subscriptions to their information, by basically getting publicity. what gets you publicity is the nasty stuff. [also] they’re funded by the organic industry.”
in fact, croplife canada, which represents canadian manufacturers, developers and distributors of pest control, points out that the group does not take into account the actual pesticide residue left on the food or the potential exposure risk. they use the example: “a child could eat 181 servings of strawberries in one day without any negative effect from pesticide residues … even at the highest allowable residue.” it goes on to note that 99.9 per cent of fresh produce in canada, local or imported, test well below the limits set by health canada — in fact, 89.3 per cent of canadian-grown produce have no detectable pesticide residue.
“the main problem with the ewg is that they do not look at numbers,” says schwarcz. “you can take substances — pesticides or anything else — feed it to a rodent in huge amounts, trigger some kind of disease, and then report on it. [but] the doses those rats were exposed to are far greater than any human would ever be exposed to.”
powered by
canadian society for exercise physiology
story continues below

advertisement

the ewg itself acknowledges the importance of eating lots of fruits and vegetables, organic or not. it even posts a “clean fifteen” list of produce with little to no pesticide residue.

the many myths of organic food

a popular myth is that organic farmers do not use pesticides. they do, but they’re derived from natural sources, such as vinegar, soaps or sulfurs. what they can’t use are synthetic pesticides, according to organic alberta, including the herbicide glyphosate (trade name round-up), which some studies have linked to an increased risk of cancer.
keith currie, vice-president of the canadian federation of agriculture, and an eighth-generation dairy and cash crop farmer in simcoe, ontario, says it’s not necessarily the chemical, but how the chemical is used.
“part of my operation is certified organic and i have access to a product, copper sulphate, which is one of the most toxic substances in the world, yet it’s approved for organic farming,” he says. “but when you use it the right way, it’s not toxic.”
another myth is that organic produce tastes better than conventionally grown.
“there is a difference in taste [determined by the] degree of ripeness and how soon you eat it after picking,” says schwarcz. “organic produce at your local market may taste better, [but] buying anything at your local market may taste better because it’s fresher.”
story continues below

advertisement

yet another myth is that organic produce is more nutritious.
“the nutritional properties of the crops are not determined by whether it’s grown organically or conventionally,” says schwarz. “it’s determined by many factors, including the nature of the seed, the local climate, and wheat control techniques.”
so if we shouldn’t worry about eating conventional produce, and it tastes just as good as organic, and it’s just as nutritious, why do some experts maintain organic is better? because of how it’s grown, says tia loftsgard, executive director, canada organic trade association.
“there is strong evidence that organic farming practices mitigate extreme weather fluctuations better as organic systems capture and store more carbon (co2) in the soil (carbon sequestration),” says loftsgard, adding that organic farms have lower greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions. “soil health is a key aspect of organic production, which incorporates four guiding principles: minimize disturbance; maximize biodiversity; keep soil covered; and maintain living roots.”
organic farmers further reduce their carbon footprint by using legume green manures, crop rotation, rotational grazing, integrating mixed crops, and non-mined, non-synthetic pesticides and non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, she adds.
story continues below

advertisement

protecting organic farms from the chemicals next door

organic farmers work hard to earn and maintain their certification, but they can often play a losing game if synthetic chemicals from the conventional farm next door drift across on wind and rain. health canada, however, does monitor all pesticide residue, including from organic farms. if the contamination is greater than the maximum allowable, it’s investigated to find the source of the contamination.
loftsgard says genetically engineered organisms (gmos) are also a big concern to organic farmers.
“once the dna and/or prohibited ge (genetically engineered) products are mixed with the genetics of an organic plant, the damage cannot be undone,” she says. “there have been escape events in canada already so there is clear evidence of the damage that can occur to the organic sector if more ge products are unknowingly introduced to the farming landscape. some escape events occurred with gmos approved by our government (canola and flax), and others with experimental unapproved gm plants and animals (wheat and pigs).”
she also says canada’s organic sector, along with conventional farmer groups and consumers, are fighting health canada and agriculture and agrifood canada for abandoning “safety assessments and transparency for new gene-edited foods, which will have dire consequences not only to the organic sector’s ability to farm organically, but also to consumers’ right to know what they are eating …”
story continues below

advertisement

schwarcz, however, is confounded by the objection to gmos. “if anyone should be supporting [the practice] it should be the organic farmer,” he says. “if you genetically engineer a plant, be it corn or soy, so that it can produce its own pesticide — the bacillus thuringiensis bacterium, which produces a toxin that wards off insects — that is the most environmentally friendly way to cut down on pesticide use.”
schwarcz also says the claim of not knowing the outcome of a genetically modified crop is not true. “the science of genetic modification is very sophisticated and exactly what happens is extremely well known,” he says. “this technology has been used for 40 years, so if there was something [harmful] it would have already surfaced.”
the bottom line, according to schwarcz, is that there are some advantages to organic farming but he maintains the comparatively low yields are not enough to feed the 10 billion people that will soon populate the planet. and, he concedes: “we probably have been using too many pesticides but i think that’s changing. there’s more and more science in terms of what farmers know about the best way to use agri-chemicals, [including] more is not always better.”
story continues below

advertisement

 
robin roberts is a vancouver-based writer.
thank you for your support. if you liked this story, please send it to a friend. every share counts.

comments

postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. we ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. we have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. visit our community guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.