Biotechnology
& Development
Monitor

Organic Myths: The Retreat From Science

In the United Kingdom, demand for organic food is growing at over 40 per cent a year. This demand amounted to nearly US$ 1.6 billion in 1999, with a third of the population buying organic food. However, organic food is not healthier. Although there is disagreement in the literature, scientific analysis of organic food, such as by food scientist Dennis Avery (1999), shows similar levels of useful nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, as conventional produce.

The most enduring myth about food is probably that organic food is devoid of carcinogenic compounds because it is grown without synthetic chemicals. Plants have natural toxins to protect themselves. These natural pesticides, like those produced synthetically, can cause tumors in experimental rats at very high doses. But the media do not generally report on natural carcinogens.

Toxicologists such as Ames & gold (1999) attest that everyday foodstuffs like orange juice, nutmeg and coffee have far higher levels of natural toxins than synthetic pesticides. The combination of both is insignificant in health terms. Our bodies are adept at dealing with all toxins, regardless of origin. Nearly all pesticides we ingest are natural. Hence, it is considered folly by many toxicologists to worry about synthetic pesticides as a cause of cancer.

Furthermore, death caused by either natural or synthetic pesticides residues in food has never been proven. Deaths from pesticides are tragically almost all suicides, or are caused by high-dose occupational exposures. Activists grab hold of problems caused by high-dose exposures and proclaim problems at low doses as well. But this is again manifest folly. Even natural and essential substances like Vitamin A can kill at high doses.

Although most organic food poses no greater threat, some can be very dangerous because of the way it is grown. Organic farming often uses manure to grow fruit and vegetables. Manure is a natural habitat for bacteria like Escherichia coli O 157 and salmonella.

Even if this food is cleaned properly, the bacteria can infect the tissue of the plant, making the risk of contracting these nasty diseases far higher. A study by Avery shows that in 1996 Americans consuming organic or natural products ran an eight times greater risk of contracting the potentially deadly E. coli. Although Avery's analysis is for only a single year and involved only two major outbreaks, it is a substantial risk elevation. If such incidents were caused by any other form of food production, this would have led to an investigation by green pressure groups, with demands for a moratorium on this production method. Is it not time indeed to investigate the potential risk of food produced organically?

As for organic food and the environment, it is fair to assume that because fewer synthetic chemicals are used to produce organic food, it is more benign to the environment. However, it would be less destructive ion Europe where overproduction is common. It is not surprising that European Union (EU) Ministers seek to alleviate the symptoms of a bad system by promoting low-yeld organic production. What is more worrying is that the green lobbyists, who see organic growth and GM boycott in Europe as a success, will lobby for the rest of the world to follow suit. For developing countries that would be a disaster. The desirability of using inefficient organic production methods, when these countries can barely feed their populations, is a mirage.

However, the problems of organic farming will be discounted by European consumers who, according to surveys, think that farmers should be subsidized for growing food organically. If consumers were better informed by governments and the media of the negligible risk of bacterial infection from organic food, then perhaps these consumers would think again. But many Europeans governments, already distrusted on food issues, probably do not want a new reason for concern and may do little.