Organic Food vs Non Organic Food: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Let’s begin this very simply. You should always eat organic foods. Why? Because, unlike non-organic foods, organic foods are not produced using harmful chemicals.

But why are these chemicals harmful, and in what way? Well, for example, the pesticides and fungicides which are sprayed heavily upon our crops are specifically designed to kill living organisms. Really then, they should not be used on our previously pristine lands, they should not be in contact with our foods, and they should definitely not be fed to our unknowing children. If you are not yet convinced that you should just stop right now and change your diet, then please read on. (Although, before you continue, take a moment to ask yourself why the guy spraying our crops would need all of that protection?)

What is Organic Food?

According to thefreedictionary.com, the word ‘organic’ means:

1. Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin.
2. Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals.
3. Simple, healthful, and close to nature.

By definition then, organic is a more natural method of cultivating and processing agricultural products. Indeed, there are strict guidelines in place to ensure the integrity of organic produce and any perspective supplier must undergo a stringent and ongoing series of inspections before their produce can be certified organic. These include full searches of facilities, fields, and data records, as well as intermittent soil sampling, water testing, and many other tests as demanded by each participating country. In the United States, for example, organic production must always be free from all synthetic chemicals that are not on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. This includes synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics and food additives. Furthermore, a certified organic product must also have been produced without genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge. Conversely, this of course means that a non-organic product may actually contain traces of all of these things.

The Short History of Non-Organic Agriculture

While there are a vast variety of standards when it comes to the government and control of organic farming, all of the processes have one important thing in common – organic crops must be cultivated without the use of synthetic chemicals. This is actually how it always used to be, right up until the industrial ‘advancements’ of the mid-1940s. This, is farming in its most traditional and natural form, and from a time when our food tasted exactly as mother nature intended it to. The good old days as many a grandparent might say. The thing is, that during those early days of industrial farming, the main priority for farmers wasn’t to produce good quality food, it was simply to meet the needs of the ever growing population. It was this need which tempted many farmers to turn to developments from within the synthetic/agrochemical industry. Although in fairness to them, they were yet to witness the effects of the new agrochemicals.

Fast forward to the 1960s …

Now those same farmers are starting to notice the effects of synthetic farming. These include excessive soil erosion, unnecessary deaths to the local wildlife and insect community, and extensive amounts of pollution as found in local rivers and rivers. But, you see, by this point it was too late for most farmers to go back to the older methods. They were, after all, slower than the newer methods, and a lot of farmers now had extended loans, or exuberant mortgages to pay. Reduction of their productive capacity was just not an option for them. Besides, it wasn’t as if people were being affected or anything, right? There were just a few (for ‘few’ read thousands of) animals dying here and there.

And thereafter …

Well, the disturbing effects of synthetic farming became even more apparent in the following decades, and soon they were being more closely felt by the human population. In fact, the closer you were to a farm or to a farm worker, the more likely you were to have a damaged nervous system, to develop instabilities in your immune system, to contract a new breed of cancer, and/or to give birth to a baby with defects. And don’t think that just because I’m writing in the past tense and using the word ‘were’ that those effects were an issue but are not any more. Believe me, they are still a great concern to an even greater many.

The Current Opinion of Science

For one thing, science, and more specifically scientific tests tell us that amongst the farming community in particular threats for certain illnesses and diseases, including leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, soft tissue sarcoma, and certain forms of cancer, including skin, brain, and prostate are much higher than the norm. These are the findings of a research project started in 1993 by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies were joined in 2000 by the The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and together they have tested the effects of agro-chemicals on nearly 90,000 farm and nursery workers.

Added to this are the findings of more research which was undertaken in 1993, this time by the National Academy of Sciences. They issued a report in which they claimed that, because of their physiological immaturity, their diet, and exercise habits, our children are particularly at risk from the toxic effects of pesticides. They further claimed that government standards which should be protecting them were not nearly stringent enough, and that the pesticide residue found on our foods was at much too high a level to be considered safe for their consumption.

Admittedly, however, and even in the face of such strong evidence, there are still some scientists who would argue that the residue which remains on our food is of no harm to us at all. Furthermore they would argue that there are many naturally occurring toxins, which are potentially more damaging than the pesticide residue. They might also go on to tell you about many studies which have demonstrated that consumption of all phytochemical-rich produce, whether organically farmed or not, will actually help to protect you from many illnesses and diseases, including those various cancers. Indeed, even some scientists who don’t agree with the use of pesticides might still agree that it is better to eat fruit and vegetables that have been farmed using non-organic methods than to not eat them at all.

But that, of course, would be their advice for today. If today was the 1960s then their advice might well be different, and then, no doubt, again during the decades in-between. Who knows then what might be their advice in future decades, or indeed the results of their own tests when carried out over a much longer period of time?

The Immediate Future of Organic Food

Organic farming is, in all senses, experiencing a growth spurt once more and, since it was hailed as a potential niche market, the organic industry is fast becoming a lucrative business sector. Even the largest companies are currently invested in ongoing organic ventures, and this means that at present the market demand for organic body care essentials, textiles, cleaning agents, and food for both human and animal consumption is also rising significantly.

And yet while the demand for organic products continues to grow, their consumption is still nowhere near as widespread as that of non-organically produced products. This ensures, as with all things that are a little harder to come by, that prices remain higher in comparison. Let us hope then that the current cultural trend for organics is also a long lasting one. And if it is, then our farmers and our leaders, be they in fashion, business, or government, will continue to offer their full weight and support and maybe one day the organic industry will hold the market share.

Just Good Enough vs Far, Far Better

Even if, so far, you still think that non-organic food is probably safe enough and probably good enough then perhaps you’ll at least concede that organic food is still far, far better. Better as such that consuming organic produce is definitely still the best way to limit our unnecessary exposure to toxic chemicals – you can actually reduce your chemical exposure by 90% if you ‘go organic’. Better as such that eating organic produce is definitely still the best way to taste our food as nature intended it to be. Better as such that the world’s top chefs are already going out of their way to source the most organic and natural produce that they can possibly find. But also, better as such for its superior nutritional content. You see, not only is your organic produce more natural, and not only does your organic produce taste like the mythical food that your grandparents used to tell you about, but it’s also proven to be far, far better for you. And that’s true whether you consider non-organic food to be good enough or not.

During his famous 12 year study (1960-1972), Professor Werner Schuphan noted this nutritional superiority that organic produce has over non-organic produce. And, among other things, he found:

1. Almost universally organic produce has a far higher mineral and trace mineral content than non-organic produce. The only exception to this being sodium.
2. Organic produce contains far more iron, potassium, magnesium, and calcium than conventional crops (other studies of this type have shown that organic foods have 2 to 10 times the mineral content of conventional foods).
3. Organic crops had a dry weight (after dehydration) of 69-96% more than conventional crops – which demonstrates a much higher food-value content.
4. Organic produce was far higher in vitamins than non-organic. For example, he found that organic spinach contained 64-78% more vitamin C and organic savoy cabbage contained 76-91% more vitamin C than their non-organic counterparts.

Much later, in 1993, Bob Smith, a laboratory analyst who worked extensively with trace minerals, began his own experiments. For two years he visited stores in Chicago and purchased 4 to 15 samples of both organic and non-organic produce. He brought these samples back to his laboratory and tested them for trace elements. His conclusions were as follows: