Evaluating the Benefits of Organic versus Conventional Foods
Purpose:
The purpose of this
report is to examine a controversial study on the benefits of organic food
versus conventional foods. There
is a common perception that organic food is healthier because it is grown or
produced without pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, or other additives. A recent study by Stanford doctors and
scientists challenges this idea that organic food is healthier than
conventional.
Discussion Questions:
1. What factors
should be considered in evaluating the benefits of organic food versus
nonorganic food? Only nutritional
value comparisons? What about the
environmental effects of conventional farming versus organic farming? Or the health risks from long term
exposure to pesticide residues?
2. Can there be safe levels of exposure to
pesticides or chemical additives, such as growth hormones in milk?
3. Is a food “healthy” just because it is
organic? Organic gummy bears? Organic chips?
4. Will this study
lead to less consumption and therefore less production of organic food?
Research Facts:
§ A recent Stanford study concludes that
nonorganic food is just as healthy and nutritious as organic food. Specifically, it examines numerous
existing studies and finds that the nutrient and vitamin values of conventional
food are generally the same as organic food. In other words, an organic strawberry has the same amount of
vitamin C as a conventional strawberry. See New York Times Article, http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=89ddd7165d02d7a155d3cfb81a5932ec&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T004&docId=A301499976&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0
§ The study also concludes that conventional
foods do not pose a higher health risk than organic foods, even though
conventional foods are thirty per cent more likely to contain harmful
additives, such as pesticide residues.
NBC Video Clip, http://www.nbc.com/news-sports/msnbc-video/2012/09/organic-food-no-more-nutritious/. The study claims that such pesticide levels are not harmful because
they are within the safe levels set by the government. See Reuters Health Medical News
Article, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=SCIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA301490750&userGroupName=san92165&jsid=dc45263043a62ca8b676cf027572ff70
§ These conclusions have generated significant
controversy because they suggest that people should not pay more for organic
foods because they are not healthier than conventional foods. Critics of the Stanford study claim
that it is flawed because: (1) it relies entirely on existing studies that have
only examined the short term health effects of eating nonorganic foods (these
studies simply analyze effects of exposure to pesticides, etc., over a period
ranging from 2 days to 2 years; cancer can takes years to develop); (2) it
ignores the harmful environmental effects of conventional farming, such as air
and water pollution from pesticide use; and (3) it disregards concern for
animal welfare of animals, such as chickens and cows, who are raised on
conventional farms. See New
York Times Article (cited above).
“Food” for Thought
§ The Stanford study questions the perception
that organic food is healthier than conventional food. However, its definition of healthy is
narrow and focuses mainly on comparing nutritional value between the two types
of food. It also doesn’t consider
health effects from long-term pesticide exposure.
§ In addition, from a broader perspective,
“healthy” can be expanded to mean what is beneficial for the environment as
well as for an individual’s health.
Ultimately, the health of all human beings is linked to the health of
the planet. In this sense, the
study does not answer the question whether organic food is healthier than
conventional food because it does not consider the environmental impacts of
conventional farming.
Resources used during Presentation:
No comments:
Post a Comment