1

Cristian Rios
English 1302.060
Ms. Ryan
November 19, 2014
Organic Produce is Loaded with Vitamyths
There has been a lot of talk over the past decade about the numerous health benefits of
organically grown produce. Dieticians and nutritionists claim that higher levels of vitamins,
antioxidants, and cancer battling agents are more prevalent in organic produce. These claims
have consumers on a global scale flocking to stores like Whole Foods; often times paying three
times the price of conventionally grown produce. Are the benefits really what the consumer is
paying for though? The health benefits of organic produce are sketchy at best and have been
debunked by some reputable research. The fact of the matter is that consumers can still receive
relatively the same amount of nutrients from conventionally grown produce as organically grown
and also save money doing it.
The market for organic produce has become a multi-billion dollar organization. Organic
produce costs considerably more than conventionally grown produce. A study was conducted by
a group of college students at Colby College to gauge the differences in price between organic
and conventional produce. The group reviewed seven different types of produce and all seven
showed a difference of at least 40% higher in costs for organic produce. Of these seven, three
showed over a 90% difference in cost, with carrots showing a 96% difference in cost,
romaine lettuce showing a 99% difference in cost, and red peppers showing an appalling
113% difference in cost (Pillsbury, 2014, www.mofga.org). Common belief is that consumers
are paying more for nutritional benefit. Sadly, this is not the real reason that organic produce is
more costly. In his article The Myth of Organic Agriculture, noted molecular biologist Henry
I. Miller (2013) talks about how the term organic is not truly designated to the definition of

Organic Produce

health, but rather the practices used to produce organic produce. Organic produce requires
more land, labor, and water consumption than its conventional counterpart (Miller, 2013,
www.project-syndicate.org). It would appear that the consumer is actually paying for the
facetiousness of agriculturalists that go out of their way to make farming more difficult, more
costly, and more time consuming.
The nutritional value of produce will differ from farm to farm and also from year to
year so there is no way to properly determine if the nutritional value of organic produce is
greater than conventionally grown. In order for a farm to be certified organic, it must first meet
the soil requirements of their countrys national guidelines. Some countries require soil to be
treated for three years before farming, others five years, and some as long as ten years before
reaching full maturity rich soils. Both the United States and the European Union set only the bare
minimum standard for organic certification. The amount of nutrients produced depends largely
on the length of time that a farm has been growing organic and also the location of said farms.
Because of this, different farms will produce different levels of nutritional value. The reason for
this is because a number of different things affect the quality of the nutrients before they ever
reach the marketplace. From climate, to neighboring farms, and possible contamination, all of
these affect the nutrient levels. Weather conditions affect crops differently from year to year; (,)
and either increase or decrease the nutritional value of the produce. Logically, this means that
organic produce is also affected by these weather changes. The numerous processes used in the
practice of organic farming do not change this fact. A study by the University of California was
conducted over a 3 year period to gauge the nutritional value of organic tomatoes. It was found
that the tomatoes showed different levels of nutrient content from year to year regardless of
their methods (Crinnion, 2010, p. 5, 9). In order to claim nutritional superiority in organic

Organic Produce

produce, one would need concrete evidence, and the data is too inconclusive to cement such a
claim down.
One myth commonly associated with the health benefits of organic produce is that there
are no chemicals used to produce them. In 2007, the USDA released a list of all substances both
allowed and not allowed on organic plots. This list consists of over 30 different chemical
varieties still used on organic plots today. The produce will still pass as organic so long as the
chemicals are organic. There are(,) however, some synthetic chemicals that are allowed to be
used so long as they do not contaminate the produce, soil, or the water supply (USDA, 2007,
www.ams.usda.gov). In the article by Henry Miller (2013), he reviewed a study by
biochemist Bruce Ames and found that just over 50 of the natural pesticides used in
organic farming have been tested for carcinogenic properties and just over half were found
to contain them (Miller, 2013, www.project-syndicate.org). One such carcinogenic chemical
that has since been banned from use in organic plots is called Rotenone. The chemical actually
attacked mitochondria cells which are used by the entire central nervous system. Different
studies conducted on rats with Rotenone showed disastrous effects on pregnant female mice
resulting in fetal fatalities and many of the mother rats eventually died of poisoning as well.
The rats that did survive birth had bone deformities. In the male rats, the insecticide was found
to cause tumors (Rotenone, 1993, p. 1, 3, 14, http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/). Even if the plots
that grow the organic produce use no chemicals at all, there is still a chance of chemical residue.
According to a journal published by the Annals of Internal Medicine, [d]etectable
pesticide residue can be found in 7% of all organic produce (Smith-Sprangler, et al., 2012,
p. 354), so pesticide consumption is always going to be a strong possibility.

Organic Produce

Up until now, the research has indicated that the nutritional percentages of organic
produce are always different. Also, that the use of pesticides actually is practiced in organic
agriculture. So the question still begs to be asked, what exactly are the health benefits? Concrete
evidence of the health benefits of organic produce has yet to surface. The Annals of Internal
Medicine conducted a thorough review of all forms of organic food for a study. For the purposes
of this paper, only those pertaining to organic produce will be used. Their review consisted of
over 150 studies of organic and conventional produce. In terms of nutritional value, their study
found that only 2 nutrients were of greater value in organic produce, which were phosphorus and
total phenols. Also worth noting, is the fact that their review claims removal of just one
study, makes the findings of phenols statistically insignificant making the study almost
irrelevant. What? This is confusing. Aside from the lack of evidence to support the nutritional
value of organic produce, there have also been no studies to support that a diet of organic foods
is healthier. Such a study would take years to conduct and also be incredibly expensive to
produce, which is why no such study has been done. Rather than scientifically being able to
support claims that organic produce is healthier for individuals, evidence is actually contrary.
The Annals of Internal Medicine clearly state, [w]e did not find significant differences in
the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products (SmithSpangler, et al., 2012, p. 353, 357, 358), so it can be argued that there can no longer be a debate
regarding the superiority of organic produce.
It is a shame that billions There arent billions of Americansonly millions. of
Americans are so passionate about a cause that has only misled them. The lie that is organic
produce will continue to live on so long as consumers remain ignorant to the facts. The facts are,
that regardless of the methods used in producing organic crops, the vitamins of those fruits and

Organic Produce

vegetables are in no way more abundant or more potent in nutritional value than those produced
through conventional agriculture. Not only are is conventional produce equally as healthy as
organics, but they are it is more affordable and more easily obtainable as well.

References
Crinnion W. (2010) Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of
pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Alternative
Medicine Review, 15(1), 4-12. Retrieved from Academic Search
Complete, Ipswich,

MA.

Accessed September 26, 2014

https://easydb.angelo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohos.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=a9h &AN=50734051&site=eds-live
Extension Toxicology Network (1993). Rotenone: p. 1, 3, 14
Retrieved from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/rotenoneext.html
Miller H. (2013) The Myth of Organic Culture. Project Syndicate, Retrieved from:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/henry-i--miller-exposes-the-disappointingtruth-about-organic-agriculture
Pillsbury, M. W., (2014). Organic versus non-organic; Store versus farmers' market,
Retrieved from
http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Fall2011/PriceDiffere
nces/tabid/1966/Default.aspx
Smith-Spangler, C., et al.,(2012). Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional
alternatives? Annals of Internal Medicine, 5(157), 348-366.

Organic Produce

USDA, (2007). The national list of allowed and prohibited substances, Retrieved from
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682

Great job!

94