A Rebuttal to the BBC's "Organic 'Has No Health Benefits"

This ludicrously titled article from the BBC is based on a report that was put together by the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicine (LSHTM), and is unfortunately indicative of a stagnant social mindset regarding natural foods and growing methods in our overly commodified, genetically modified modern world. It is important to note immediately that the title of the article in itself is utterly incorrect; dangerous to public health and well being; and a misinterpretation of the findings of the LSHTM report. Although the research itself has its drawbacks, which I will address later on in this piece, nowhere does it claim that there are NO health benefits associated with eating organic. If scientists were to indeed make such a bold statement according to their research, I would be extremely interested in finding out how they went about producing such a result. As a matter of fact, the study's findings literally reported that there are "no significant differences in nutrients and other nutritional substances" between food that was produced organically, and "conventional" food. But this does not include other health effects and certain benefits that come from partaking in an organic diet.

The first consideration on hand is the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides in non-organic agricultural practices, and the effects that these chemicals have on our health: both directly (from their application onto our food products), and indirectly (from their inevitable infiltration of our land, air, and water supplies). It seems silly to mention, but let us not forget that pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides are compounds which are designed to kill, and are therefore extremely dangerous to all of us- not just the bugs and the plants and the 'shrooms. Such dangerous mixes are not allowed if a farm or growing project is to be given an organic distinction, and organic food is therefor absent of them. It has been reported that certain pesticides are related to both a prevalence of cancer in children as well as a deficiency in male sexual organ development, two public health issues that I'm sure we do NOT mean to mess around with. And of course there are the unspoken dangers associated with land erosion and the appearance of pesticides in our drinking water supply.

Then there is the question of genetically modified foods, which are not allowed in organic growing methods. Many reports have claimed that GM products are related to heightened sensitivity to certain allergens. The more serious health effects of the vegetable clone army are not well understood (likely because a great many of the studies are secretive and funded by Monsanto), however there have been many reports of health defects in animals who are fed a diet of genetically modified foods; including stunted growth, increased death rates, reproductive failures, infant mortality, and sterility. Are these really conditions that we are willing to gamble with in the game of mass-production? Personally, the benefit of choosing organic food is obvious in this case.

Organically grown produce IS healthier for you, on a number of levels. Besides the scientific evidence supporting the superior quality of organic food, it is important to consider the larger picture, and the context within which our food is produced. In order to holistically assess the public health consequences of agricultural methods, we must connect the dots between human health and the health of the environments within which we are existing. In non-organic farming practices, nitrogen fertiliser manufacturing alone produces seven tons of greenhouse gases, uses a ton of oil and a hundred gallons of water, all for just ONE ton of fertilizer. That fertilizer is then likely to be transported to water systems via land erosion and poor waste management systems, a movement which often pollutes drinking supplies and eradicates underwater oxygen supplies, resulting in the chilling effect of aquatic dead zones, where no organisms may survive. Also, in terms of animal products, it is important to note that organic farms generally produce meat and dairy products from animals raised in humane conditions, allowing for a more harmonious method of sowing as well as reaping, instead of the latter exclusively. Not only does this pacify the consciences of both farmers and consumers in terms of animal cruelty, it also alleviates the health risks that are associated with the hormones and antibiotics which are force-fed to animals in a factory farm setting, then ingested by human consumers. In non-organic animal products, such unnatural injections are not given to animals. They are happier and healthier, and ultimately so will we be.

In terms of nutritional content, the final verdict has not been made on whether or not organic food is richer than conventional food. There are many factors; including soil quality, rain and sunlight abundance, and packaging/transportation; which may affect the nutrient levels within a given food. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest the opposite of LSHTM's report claims. In fact, out of 1230 published comparisons between organic and conventional food, 56% claimed that organic was more nutritious, whereas only 7% claimed no difference. The LSHTM's study must be among this small 7 percentage, yet the BBC chose to highlight only this one study and exaggerate it completely.

So what does the study itself encompass? It is massive- there is no doubt about that. The 200 page report is a summary of over 50 years worth of data, collected by a team of doctors, thorough researchers and public health experts. The problem is that within the study there is no direct testing of any one piece of food. Every piece of data has been collected from literature compiled on nutrient content as early as the 1950s. While I am not one to undermine the importance of published scientific works, I am also not so easily convinced of the accuracy of information that is so indirect. I am more encouraged by hands-on scientific testing, such as this one, which proves without a doubt the nutritional superiority of organic tomatoes.

I am obviously not swayed by the BBC's bogus assertion that organic food is not healthy. But what worries me is that when I first read this article today, it was the #1 most read article on the global news website. This internationally renowned source of information reaches millions of people daily, and therefor is responsible for reporting the news fairly and accurately. Those at the BBC, as well as at other major news corporations, have an unspoken authority over people's thoughts and opinions, and putting forth a claim such as "organic has 'no health benefits" is completely irresponsible due to its potential public health implications. I hope that this article was read across the world with a grain of salt, and that we can continue to move forward towards becoming a society which values the health and vitality of our communities, and does not compromise either in the name of convenience or profit. I hope we can continue to think and decide for ourselves when it comes to how we feed our minds and our bodies, and not be swayed by the subjective news media when it comes to matters of such acute personal significance.

So, here's to a healthful life!

peace.