Connect with Us:

The Power of Information

Facebook Page Twitter @enviroblog Youtube Channel Our RSS Feeds

At EWG,
our team of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers pores over government data, legal documents, scientific studies and our own laboratory tests to expose threats to your health and the environment, and to find solutions. Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know.

Privacy Policy
(Updated Sept. 19, 2011)
Terms & Conditions
Reprint Permission Information

Charity Navigator 4 Star

sign up
Optional Member Code

support ewg

People are flocking to organic, but the jury is still out on its benefit


Published March 8, 2006

When it comes to food quality in the United States, all apples are created equal. Or are they? A growing number of people are willing to pay a premium for food certified as organic -- produce generally barred from being grown with pesticides, synthetic materials or genetic modification, and livestock raised without antibiotics or growth hormones. But many scientists say it's unlikely organic food gives consumers any extra health benefit, and they're better off eating more fruits, vegetables and whole grains of any kind. That message of pursuing proven dietary benefits over speculative ones seems to be getting lost as fears about the traditional food-supply chain rattle consumers. Consumer Reports' February cover story on organic food, for example, does a noble job of addressing what the myriad agricultural and social-issue labels slapped on food products actually mean -- in the case of "organic" seafood and cosmetics the term means very little, for example, since standards don't yet exist. The labels "natural" and "all natural" are flimsy and don't equal organic, Consumer Reports said. But the magazine also aims to help consumers prioritize their organic-food dollars by setting up a hierarchy of foods deemed to be more or less affected by things such as pesticide residues and antibiotics, based on studies from advocacy groups such as the Environmental Working Group. The assumption is that organic food is somehow superior to conventionally grown food when it comes to long-term health, yet there are those who contend there is no solid evidence of that. "The science to date does not indicate a clear and substantial benefit from selecting organic as opposed to conventionally grown products," said Christine Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California at Davis, who said she doesn't receive funding from the food industry. It's true that organic foods have low levels of pesticide residues -- but so do conventionally grown foods, she said. "There is no indication that people in the United States are becoming ill from pesticide residues in conventional food." Even so, sales of organic foods and beverages have been on a tear since the late 1990s. Consumers snapped up an estimated $15.4 billion worth of them in 2004, up 19 percent from $12.8 billion in 2003, according to Packaged Facts, the publishing division of MarketResearch.com. The firm projects organic-foods sales will more than double to $32.3 billion in 2009. Much of the sales gain appears to be driven by the "worried well," an educated, mostly healthy group with ample disposable income. Organic products can cost 50 percent more than the regular kinds, and research suggests as many as two-thirds of consumers have made an organic-food purchase, according to Consumer Reports. And organic foods certainly have their defenders. "Organics started out decades ago as an environmentally sound production system," said Urvashi Rangan, senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports. "What's emerging lately are scientific studies that show there may be some health benefits to organic products." But those studies are generally small, preliminary and inconclusive, other experts say. Even Rangan conceded the data is far from overwhelming. For people concerned about potentially lowering their exposure to pesticide residues, Consumer Reports said it's worth routinely paying more for organic items such as apples, peaches, spinach, baby food, beef and milk. Unless you have deep pockets, the magazine recommends passing on organic items such as asparagus, broccoli, onions and sweet peas because it says they're lower in pesticide residues. The limited presence of pesticide residues in Americans' food isn't a big risk to human health and shouldn't guide buying decisions, said Fergus Clydesdale, head of the food science department at University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Pesticide residues on any food marketed in the United States have to fall within federal guidelines, he said. Consumers should wash produce well, whether organic or not, Clydesdale said, noting the focus should be on eating plenty of fruits, vegetables and whole grains of any kind. "If you have the money and you want to buy this and it gives you better peace of mind, then do it by all means," he said. "One could say there is the potential for less risk, but I haven't seen cause and effect for that risk." This story also appeared in: The South Florida Sun-Sentinel