News media has a tendency to portray certain aspects of agricultural production either positively or negatively. Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University co-authored a paper on “Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media – linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture,” just published in the British Food Journal.

Powell examined how organic food production is portrayed in the media. The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell’s students at the time. The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.

The authors concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative. Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is, noted the authors.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has repeatedly stated that the organic standard is a verification of production methods and not a food safety claim, says Powell. “Food safety was the least important in the media discussion of organic agriculture,” he says.”  The paper reported that 50% of food safety-themed statements in news articles were positive with respect to organic.

People have many choices on the type of foods they want to purchase based on many diverse production systems. USDA has measures in place to ensure that food produced from these various systems is safe to eat. There are challenges and benefits with any production system, and the media should be presenting a balanced view about this topic to readers.

Proponents of organic foods have touted many health, nutrition and safety benefits associated with the consumption of these foods.  However, credible science does not support the health, nutrition or safety claims made by the organic food industry (see Science Behind Reported Benefits of Organic Milk).  As might be expected, this has been vigorously disputed by advocates of organic food.  This is not a surprise given that deceptive use of marketing and health claims has been a core component of some campaigns to grow market share in the organic food sector.  Thus, some consumers are purchasing organic food on the belief that they are healthier than conventionally produced food.

An important reality is that the organic food system is one food production practice. If consumers elect to purchase this food, which is typically more expensive, so be it.  However, the marketing campaigns commonly used to market organic foods are to malign science and raise questions about nutrient content, health benefits and safety of conventionally produced food.  To date, these campaigns have not been based on sound science demonstrating that there are nutrition and health benefits associated with the consumption of organic foods that extend beyond those found in conventionally produced food.  In essence, there has been an element of “smoke and mirrors” used in these marketing efforts.

A recently published systematic review provides further evidence that there is no basis for the claims that consuming organic food is associated with any health benefits.  An extensive review of the scientific literature published in the July 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concludes that “evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from consumption of organically produced foodstuffs”; see: Nutrition-Related Health Effects of Organic Foods – A Systematic Review.

As some context, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) is viewed by many nutritional scientists as the foremost clinical nutrition journal in the World.  My point?  It is a highly reputable journal that publishes the very best science.

The authors of the AJCN paper reviewed a total of 98,727 papers that were published in the scientific literature, world-wide, to identify quality papers that were appropriate for analysis.  Only 12 papers met the “quality standards” for inclusion in the analysis.  Some could argue that this is a not a lot of data, however, rigorous standards were used to assess publication quality.  The paucity of data is surprising given the interest from the public about the question of whether there are health benefits associated with the consumption of organic food.  This also reaffirms the reality that the health claims made by some in the organic food sector are being made in a manner that is not based on sound science.

Biotech Crops Help Reduce Agriculture’s Pesticide Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PG Economics Research Summary (The UK)
December 7, 2009

In light of ongoing debates on global food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change, it is important to recognize the benefits biotechnology brings to world agricultural production.

According to several research summaries released by PG Economics in the UK, those impacts are significant.

Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year (see Table below).

The greenhouse gas emission reductions are derived from two principle sources: reduced fuel use from less-frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and reduced energy usage in soil cultivation from the use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems.

From 1996 to 2007, pesticide spraying was reduced by 359 million kg, which is equivalent to 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union.

The fuel savings associated with making fewer spray runs (relative to conventional crops) and the switch to conservation, reduced-till and no-till farming systems have resulted in permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions. In 2007, this amounted to about 1.144 billion kg (attributable to reduced fuel use of 416 million liters).

From 1996 to 2007, the cumulative permanent reduction from fuel use was estimated at 7.09 billion kg of carbon dioxide (arising from reduced fuel use of 2.578 billion liters).

The use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems has increased significantly with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops because the technology has improved growers’ ability to control competing weeds, which reduces reliance on soil cultivation and seed-bed preparation as means for getting good levels of weed control.

As a result, tractor fuel use for tillage has dropped, soil quality has been enhanced and levels of soil erosion have been cut. In turn, more carbon remains in the soil, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on savings arising from the rapid adoption of no-till and reduced-till farming systems in North and South America, an estimated extra 3.57 billion kg of soil carbon were sequestered in 2007 (equivalent to 13.103 billion kg of carbon dioxide that have not been released into the atmosphere).

Cumulatively, the amount of carbon sequestered is probably higher due to year-over-year benefits to soil quality. However, due to the lack of data on the crop area in continuous no-till systems, PG Economics said it is not possible to confidently estimate cumulative soil sequestration gains.

Herbicide-tolerant biotech soybeans have also facilitated the adoption of no-till production systems, which shorten the production cycle.

This advantage enables many farmers in South America to plant a crop of soybeans immediately after a wheat crop in the same growing season. This second crop, additional to traditional soybean production, added 67.5 million metric tons to soybean production in Argentina and Paraguay between 1996 and 2007.

For more information visit PG Economics.

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, PORTLAND, Ore., GOTHENBURG, Sweden, November 23, 2009 – Popular thinking about how to improve food systems for the better often misses the point, according to the results of a three-year global study of salmon production systems. Rather than pushing for organic or land-based production, or worrying about simple metrics such as “food miles,” the study finds that the world can achieve greater environmental benefits by focusing on improvements to key aspects of production and distribution.

For example, what farmed salmon are fed, how wild salmon are caught and the choice to buy frozen over fresh matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed when considering global scale environmental impacts such as climate change, ozone depletion, loss of critical habitat, and ocean acidification.

The study is the world’s first comprehensive global-scale look at a major food commodity from a full life cycle perspective, and the researchers examined everything — how salmon are caught in the wild, what they’re fed when farmed, how they’re transported, how they’re consumed, and how all of this contributes to both environmental degradation and socioeconomic benefits.

The researchers behind the study sought to understand how the world can develop truly sustainable food systems through the lens of understanding the complexities associated with wild and farmed salmon production, processing and distribution. They found that decision-making for food must learn to fully account for the life cycle socioeconomic and environmental costs of food production. How we weight the importance of such impacts is ultimately subjective and in the realm of policy and culture, but using a comprehensive approach provides a more nuanced process for informed decision-making. Even food has a lifecycle, and the world must learn to comprehend the full costs of it in order to design reliable, resilient food systems to feed a world population that’s forecast to grow to 9 billion in less than 40 years.

The researchers chose salmon as their focus as it exemplifies important characteristics of modern food systems, yet offers unique opportunities for comparison. It is available around the world at any time and in any location, regardless of season or local ecosystem, it is available in numerous product forms, and it is distributed using a variety of transport modes. Unlike many other food systems, however, it is available from both wild sources and a range of farmed production systems.

While it isn’t easy to balance people, profit and planet, the world must do much better. Food production, in aggregate, is the single largest source of environmental degradation globally. Impacts vary dramatically depending on what, where and how food is produced. For example, early results of the study found that growing salmon in land-based farms can increase total greenhouse gas emissions ten-fold over conventional farming depending on how and where the farming is conducted. Similarly, while organic farming of many crops offers benefits over conventional production, organic salmon production gives rise to impacts very similar to conventional farming due to the use of resource intensive fish meals and oils. Beyond the farm, it’s important to also consider the total impact of food preparation. Driving to the store alone and then cooking alone at home has a big environmental impact. Going out to dinner more, or just eating more frequently with friends and family at home, has huge benefit.

For concerned consumers, it’s important to think about how food was produced and transported — not just where it was produced — when making food choices.

Initial Findings from the Study (More Due with the Final Report in 2010):

• Fish should swim, not fly. Air-freighting salmon, and any food, results in substantial increases in environmental impacts. If more frozen food were consumed, more container ships would be used to ship food. Container ships are by far the most efficient and carbon-friendly way to transport food. Globally, the majority of salmon fillets are currently consumed fresh and never frozen. In fish-loving Japan, which gets much of its fish by air, switching to 75 percent frozen salmon would have more benefit than all of Europe eating locally farmed salmon.
• The choice to buy frozen matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed.
• A full life cycle assessment approach to research provides a more nuanced process for informed decision-making. Even food has a lifecycle, and we must comprehend the full impact to make meaningful improvements to food systems. Tradeoffs may be inevitable.
• Contrary to what is widely perceived, the vast majority of broad-scale resource use and environmental impacts (energy inputs, GHG emissions, etc) from conventional salmon farming result from the feeds used to produce them. What happens at or around a farm site may be important for local ecological reasons but contributes very little to global scale concerns such as global warming.
• Across the globe, what is used to feed salmon and the amounts of feeds used vary widely. As a result, impacts are very different. Norwegian salmon farming resulted in generally lower overall impacts while farmed salmon production in the UK resulted in the greatest impacts.
• Reducing the amount of animal-derived inputs to feeds (e.g. fish meals and oils along with livestock derived meals) in favor of plant-based feed inputs can markedly reduce environmental impacts.
• Growing organic salmon using fish meals and oils from very resource intensive fisheries results in impacts very similar to conventional farmed salmon production.
• If not planned carefully, technological fixes aimed at addressing local environmental challenges associated with conventional salmon farming can result in substantial increases in global-scale environmental impacts. In general, salmon fisheries result in relatively low global-scale environmental impacts. However, substantial differences exist between how salmon are caught. Catching salmon in large nets as they school together has one tenth the impact of catching them in small numbers using baited hooks and lures.

Across salmon production systems — and all food systems — the world is often swimming against the tide. Instead of working with nature, people work against it, chasing fish in the open ocean with big diesel engines or substituting energy demanding pumping and water treatment for free ecosystem services in salmon farming. We can and must do better than this and start to swim with the tide.

More information on this study and related publications is available at www.ecotrust.org/lca. The most recent published paper from the study can be seen in the journal Environmental Science & Technology: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9010114.

Because of my commitment to defend science, scientists, and technological innovation in agriculture, I encounter folks and groups on the “other side” who use all sorts of interesting — even bizarre, and dysfunctional — tactics to scare consumers about science, food safety, and the need for technological innovation in agriculture.

Their objective?

To get consumers to think something is unsafe about foods produced by biotechnology … that they are unhealthy or even dangerous. And, oh yeah, to promote a sense of urgency to “encourage” consumers to buy other versions of the same product sold with labels such as natural, farm-fresh, no added hormones, or organic, etc. The obvious intent is to infer that these foods are better for you!

The other objective is to get consumers to pay a whole lot more. Great marketing scheme! Especially, when there are no discernible differences in nutrient content or wholesomeness.

As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and other science-based information sources know, organic food production practices are NOT the answer to the question: How are we going to feed a growing world population?

I appreciate that farmers who wish to produce food using the organic standards have every right to do this. Likewise, consumers who wish to buy these products should be able to do so. This is the foundation of a democratic marketplace … if you produce something, and someone buys it, you have created the market.

However, the marketing approaches used to promote these products are a problem. I have written extensively in my Blogs about the deceptive and misleading attacks on safety of milk from cows treated with rbST; plants and plant-derived foodstuffs produced using the tools of genetic engineering; and other products produced using the tools of modern biotechnology (drugs, cloned animals, diagnostic tools, etc.).

A standard strategic response by the Luddites is to attack whatever I write about or present. Nothing new; this has been going on for a long time.

The attacks come in different ways. They write all sorts of letters, fill up their Web sites with trash, and spew out blogs. A keystone of their attacks is that facts (based on sound science) are not important. It is a lot easier to make it up than spend time finding facts to support their argument.

These authors often present what they call “science-based evidence,” “replicated research,” and the like to support their claims. The messages are very misleading. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that either the “research” does not exist or has been done in a such a biased and poor manner that nothing meaningful can be concluded from it — at least not to scientists working at reputable universities, nonprofits, and companies.

To make matters worse, many in the scientific community are missing the larger implications of all this: A large percentage of the public cannot, or do not, want to differentiate good science from bad. They just make decisions and move on.

Studies have consistently shown that the more consumers know about technology, the more they support it. A long-standing challenge has been how to deliver scientific education programs to the U.S. population in an exciting and informative manner that results in learning. It is an enormous challenge.

Especially, when it is easier to scare individuals than educate them.

An example of slander

The College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State recently put on some educational programs to present the facts about different production practices used in animal agriculture. A component of these programs was to compare different production and husbandry practices, including comparing organic versus conventional farming.

A long story made short: I received a letter from some groups expressing their outrage over these programs. Interestingly, they took great exception to the programs we “delivered” — however, we received the letter before the programs were even presented…the groups were responding to the press release!

I will share one excerpt from that letter to illustrate my point:

“…As a dairy scientist, I find Penn State’s treatment of organic dairy management unobjective, unscientific, unprofessional and deleterious to many livestock farmers in Pennsylvania who are making extra efforts to farm well. Replicated research shows that there are nutritional benefits in organic milk that are beneficial to human health…”

These two sentences illustrate how facts are repeatedly skewed by the opponents of biotechnology. In reality, the programs were nothing like the above blather about being “unprofessional and deleterious.”

At the same time, the inference here is that if you don’t farm using organic production practices, you are not farming well. This is absolute nonsense. Amazing! This author is actually a dairy farmer!

Further nonsense is the statement that “replicated” research shows nutritional benefits. There is no credible evidence in support of these assertions. This fallacy is well illustrated by a blog I posted on July 27, 2008 “Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority.”

The fact is there are countless farmers using conventional production practices, and biotechnology, who farm well and produce safe and wholesome food. And this food is compositionally the same as that labeled organic.

Most unfortunate of all is this: The ongoing smoke and mirrors debate and continuous fretting over the U.S. food system distracts all of us from confronting and solving far more serious and pressing issues.

IN Gulliver’s Travels, the King of Bobdingnag — the land of the giants — claimed that whoever could make two ears of corn grow where only one grew before was a greater patriot than all the politicians put together.

It’s sad to note then that nearly 300 years on from the publication of Swift’s satire, the politicians are still standing in the way of an agricultural technology that has the potential to do just that.

Despite food prices having risen by 50% in two years, the Government appears to have no strategy to reverse things. On the contrary, the direction of policy is all towards supporting the inefficient organic sector. Moreover, it shows no sign of dropping its opposition to new food technologies that offer the prospect, among other things, of higher yields from the same acreage.

It’s not hard to guess from which quarter in the current coalition the opposition to GM (genetically modified) food principally emanates. Earlier this month, Environment Minister John Gormley mused out loud that Ireland must keep open the option of declaring itself a GM-free zone. This despite the fact that the Food Safety Authority — the expert body — has been generally positive about GM-derived foods.

In delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price, not least in the Third World. Closer to home, incredibly, the programme for government not only stakes out an anti-GM position but declares itself in favour of biofuels which require land to be given over from food to fuel production.

Is it any wonder supermarket prices are skyrocketing? The politicians believe, of course, that they are reflecting public concerns. If the entire world was well-fed and food prices were static, stay-as-we-are might be an affordable luxury. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, don’t politicians have a responsibility to show leadership, to support the scientific and agricultural sectors as they explore ways to grow more, better food?

In a free society, shouldn’t the ultimate decisions lie with consumers who can make up their own minds? As long as the relevant experts are satisfied that GM food is safe — and they are — shouldn’t we be left to decide whether or not to purchase it?

Isn’t that the correct approach rather than engaging in a spurious, never-ending public debate that will inevitably be hijacked by the tiny number of green fundamentalists? ‘Safe’ is the last word the romantics would use to describe GM. Despite Americans having eaten it for years with no discernible side-effects, these so-called earth-lovers continue to raise claims that eating GM food can cause cancer and liver disease (and heart failure and brain damage and any other unpleasant health complication they can concoct on the basis of some kooky laboratory experiment, one suspects).

All credit to the self-styled defenders of our environment, though: they have managed to scare the life out of most of us. They are working with the grain: in the current zeitgeist anything processed or industrialised is potentially harmful, while anything that appears to be close to nature is pure and uncorrupted.

So, rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, the environmentalists reject it as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems.

Have they forgotten that Mother Nature supplies not only delicious things for us to eat, but also its fair share of toxic fungi, bacteria and viruses?

There is a clear paradox here. While we in the developed world enjoy prosperity and health as never before, when it comes to GM foods superstition, ignorance and fear appear to be triumphing over human reason. One suspects that if matters had been left to the likes of Greenpeace, we would all still be hunter-gatherers.

Superstition, of course, is as old as time. When Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species by means of natural selection, he violated the ancient notion that species are immutable and created by God in a hierarchy — with humans near the top, just below angels. The superstition about GM is similar: a sense that we are ‘playing God’ by moving genes around.

The further each generation is from the land and, thereby, a direct knowledge of crop production, the more susceptible to the scaremongering we become.

Many other innovations that are now commonplace in our lives were met with similar scepticism and opposition when first introduced. Some might be able to recall the horror stories about microwave ovens. Before that, pasteurisation and even technologies such as canning and freezing provoked alarm.

For all the frightening talk about ‘Frankenstein foods’, though, GM is simply a new tool for plant breeding, a development of what humans have been doing successfully for centuries: breeding wild grasses into wheat and barley, wolves into dogs and so on. In each case, human choice replaced biological chance. The difference is that now we have the ability to isolate the genes which carry specific traits: the randomness has been taken out of the equation. Throughout history there have been those who embraced this kind of change and those who clung to the old ways because they felt at least the risks were known. And since feeding ourselves was the primary occupation of mankind for most of our history, changes in food production have tended to be accepted only very slowly. Modern intensive agriculture has a bad press. The need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world’s topsoil and one-third of its forests.

BUT organic farming is scarcely the answer: it requires even more land to be devoted to agriculture. This is the dirty little secret the disillusioned financiers who give up the rat-race to sell organic jam, the New Age religionists and the middle-class hypochondriacs don’t want you to know. Their response is to turn their fire on new technologies to make agriculture more efficient so more land can be left wild — or to call for us all to eat less and breed less.

This hostility to GM makes no sense. Already, GM crops have been designed which are insect-resistant or have a herbicide resistance so they need less spraying. Another benefit is that agricultural land doesn’t require such extensive tilling, which allows more organic matter to accumulate in the soil.

This is just the beginning. The future holds promise for new GM crop varieties with increased tolerance of drought, heat and cold; with improved disease resistance or nutritional value, or as production systems for pharmaceutical compounds (such as edible vaccines for the developing world) and renewable industrial compounds (such as biodegradable plastics). These ideas might be unfamiliar, but that is no reason to reject them out of hand.

The discussion of food illustrates a broader need to remind ourselves just how much modern society has achieved in changing the lives of people for the better through the application of science, industry and reason. Perhaps then we will all be better able to see the ideas of the anti-GM brigade for the manure they really are.

Dr. Rosen analyzed a pro-organic report by Charles Benbrook and colleagues at the Organic Trade Association’s Organic Center and found the data had been selectively chosen and presented to “prove” the desired point. Dr. Rosen’s report, Claims of Organic Food’s Nutritional Superiority: A Critical Review, was published by ACSH.

In the original pro-organic paper, Benbrook and colleagues had stated that organic produce is 25% “more nutritious” than that produced by conventional agricultural practices. But when Dr. Rosen actually recalculated some of their data, correcting several inaccuracies, he concluded that the conventional products were actually 2% more nutritious than the organic varieties:

•The Benbrook paper had claimed that organically grown vegetables had much more quercetrin (a precursor of the antioxidant quercetin) than conventional varieties. But the organic vegetables studied had been sprayed with an organic pesticide that greatly increases plants’ production of quercetrin — so of course they beat the conventional plants on that measure.

•Dr. Rosen also points out that the organic proponents included data of dubious validity in their review. They used data from articles that were not peer-reviewed, and in one case included nutrient content from an analysis of whole kiwi fruits — both the inedible skin and the edible pulp, though this is not what the consumer would eat.

Dr. Rosen’s analysis demonstrates how organic proponents have, once again, used misleading and inappropriately-evaluated data to support their agenda.

For more information please contact Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President, or Dr. Ruth Kava, Director of Nutrition, at ACSH (212-362-7044).

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

· Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.

· Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.

· Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

I. Executive Summary

Organic milk and dairy foods advocates have been very aggressive in their advertising, promotion and sales using statements and “facts” that lack scientific validity. Some of this information is true within a given context, while much is false and/or misleading. Science does not support the health, nutrition, or safety claims made by the organic industry. Actually, toxin levels have been shown to be higher in organic foods due to ineffective pesticide treatment of organic grain crops. In the one area where there exists a potential nutritional advantage of organic milk, such as increased levels of CLA, omega-3 fatty acids, and other antioxidants, access to fresh, high quality pasture is the key, not whether the production system is organic or conventional.

II. Introduction

The present consumer environment is one of growing mistrust of science and technology, rejection of advanced technology, and a favoring of “more natural” alternatives. This is most apparent in the realm of food and nutrition (2). Where it is not very apparent is in the area of health care, including GMO-produced insulin, surgical advances, etc. So why this dichotomy? The simple answer is promotion, advertising, and advocacy on the part of alternative food producers vs. conventionally-produced foods. The most aggressive alternative food production system is ORGANIC.

Consumers are motivated by perceived benefits such as better health / better treatment of animals, better nutritional value, better taste, environmentally friendly production methods, and “it’s the right thing to do” (2). Organic milk currently represents 3.4% of all fluid milk sales (19), and demand will continue to grow at a 25% annual rate (8).

After the organic food standards became effective in October of 2002, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman clarified that organic certification (by his agency) expressed a production philosophy and that organic labeling did not imply a superior, safer, or healthier product than food not labeled as organic (24). In spite of this, organic advocates continue to promote organic foods while disparaging conventionally-produced foods. The Organic Valley website (15) states, “The use antibiotics, synthetic hormones, and genetically modified organisms to intensify production in today’s conventional agricultural practices gives rise to serious health questions.” The website continues, “Organic foods are known (and appreciated) for their superior taste and quality. For individuals and families seeking high nutritional value and reduced risk of exposure to toxins associated with factory farming practices, organic offers peace of mind.”

The Organic Valley website (15) goes on to list the 7 reasons why kids should drink organic milk:
1. produced without antibiotics
2. produced without synthetic hormones
3. produced without harmful pesticides
4. high in CLA (conjugated linoleic acid)
5. excellent source of calcium
6. organic milk is wholesome
7. it’s the right thing to do.

Such statements by advocacy groups fall into 4 categories – true, true but misleading, totally misleading at best, or false and misleading. The “science” quoted by certain advocacy groups is selective at best and misinterpreted at worst. Scientific experts take exception to this. Dr. William Lockeretz from the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, speaking to the 5th International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Conference on Trade in Organic Production stated, “From my reading of the scientific literature, a claim cannot be made that there is a clear, consistent nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods.” Dr. Norman Borlaug, a 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, stated in Reason Magazine in April of 2000, “There’s absolutely no research that shows organic foods provide better nutrition” (2). So, what is the unbiased science behind this apparent organic vs. conventional debate, or, as Paul Harvey would say, “Now, the rest of the story.”

III. Defining “Organic”

USDA introduced the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. The program was fully implemented in October of 2002 with a 5-year sunset (October 21, 2007). The original parameters included no use of antibiotics, synthetic hormones, or “unapproved” synthetic pesticides; “access” to pasture; product labeling; etc. It is important to understand that if a food product is certified “organic”, this describes the process by which the food product was supposed to be produced and processed; it does not describe the product itself (2). The most controversial of these parameters is the “access to pasture” due to it’s vague meaning and it’s apparent abuse. Organic purist believe that to promote and advertise certain nutritional benefits that are present only from significant pasture feed intake, there needs to be specifications for access to pasture. Proposed 2007 revisions to the OFPA would mandate: animals older than 6 months must pasture, animals must be on pasture for at least 120 days or growing season, a farm plan must be in place, and greater than 30% of dry matter intake must be from pasture.

Program oversight has also been an issue raised by the organic purists, unhappy with some of the practices of the larger farms and processors. The USDA has come under fire in the past for not taking action on complaints of OFPA violations. Two audits of its organic program, performed by the American National Standards Institute in 2004 and by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General in 2005, were highly critical of how USDA has handled complaints of potential violations of organic standards. The 2005 reports states that ‘in fiscal year 2003, the eight complaints referred to the national organic program for a decision have not been resolved.’

There remain issues with international consistency of organic standards, especially from countries exporting organic products and ingredients to the U.S. For example, EU organic standards allow limited use of antibiotics (20). Critics claim China’s fledgling organic industry is plagued by lax standards, inadequate oversight, exploitation of workers, and practices such as using human waste to fertilize fields, which isn’t the kind of “organic” the USDA and most consumers support (6).

IV. Composition

Potential attributes of organic and conventional milk are most easily compared by analyzing the gross composition. AgSource (1) provided the author with blind data for such a comparison. Table 1. illustrates the composition data from 130 midwest dairy farms, showing a major difference in rolling herds averages (RHA), slight but insignificant differences in fat and protein content of organic vs. conventional raw milk, and a somewhat significant difference in somatic cell counts (SCC).

Table 1. Gross compositional comparison of conventional vs. organic raw milk (n=130).

Table 2. takes a different look at the data, comparing RHA composition data, which provides a more enlightened view of the true situation. Production system does not seem to be the issue; size of farm is the more telling with significant differences across the board between small, middle-sized, and large farms.

Table 2. Gross compositional comparison of organic and conventional raw milk across rolling herd averages (n=130).

V. Quality and Sensory Attributes

There is very little science which examines true quality and/or sensory attributes of conventional vs. organic milk and dairy products. Zhao, et al. (27) reported organically and conventional grown vegetables did not show significant differences in consumer liking or consumer-perceived sensory quality. The only exception was in tomatoes where the conventionally produced tomato was rated as having significantly stronger flavor than the organically produced tomato. Comparisons of fluid milk quality is difficult due to processing differences. 80% of organic milk is ultra-high temperature pasteurized vs. high-temperature-short-time for conventional fluid milk. Non-scientific comparisons have been made, such as the following example. Jed Davis, Director of Marketing for Cabot Cheese, stated, “There’s a real opportunity in that there’s organic cheese out there but … if you did a taste test against our traditional product, (it) would win out in the case of most people’s taste buds” (26).

VI. Safety

Microbiological safety comparisons have not been conducted on organic vs. conventional milk and/or dairy products. A 2004 study (14) comparing microbiological safety of organic and conventional produce [476 organic samples / 129 conventional samples] found that no samples contained Escherichia coli O157:H7, 2 samples (organic lettuce and organic green peppers) contained Salmonella, and E coli was detected in 9.7% of organic samples and 1.6% of conventional samples. Some research suggests the widespread use of animal manure, when composted improperly, result in a higher occurrence of pathogens than conventional farming (24, 25).

A Norwegian study (13) concluded there was no marked difference in milk somatic cell counts between organic and conventional herds. This agrees with the AgSource data (1) presented earlier in this paper. The bottom line is that milk is safe, whether conventional or organic. All milk must comply with very stringent safety standards. In fact, milk and dairy products are among the most highly regulated and safest foods on the store shelf.

VII. Antimicrobial Resistance

Much has been stated concerning the increased antimicrobial resistance of conventionally-produced food products. The science paints a different picture. Ray, et al. (16) administered a survey of antimicrobial use (antibiotics, etc.) by dairy farms. Over 90% of organic farms (n=26) reported no antimicrobial treatment of dairy cows. The majority of conventional dairy owners (n=69) reported antibiotic use for treatment of various gastrointestinal, respiratory, and mammary infections in the herd. In addition, 49% of conventional farms reported use of medicated milk replacer whereas only 1 organic farm (3%) reported use of medicated milk replacer. The most commonly reported antimicrobial agents used within the previous 60 days on conventional dairy farms were penicillin, cephalosporins, and tetracyclines. Although resistance by Salmonella isolates (n=1,243) to these antimicrobial agents was observed among a high percentage of dairy herds, it is interesting to note that no significant difference in resistance to these individual antimicrobial agents was observed between organic and conventional dairy farms in the study.

This lack of difference in antimicrobial resistance of microbial isolates between conventional and organic dairy farms is further supported by others studies conducted domestically and internationally. Sato, et al. (18) saw no evidence that restriction of antibiotic use on dairy farms in Wisconsin was associated with prevalence of resistance to the antimicrobials tested – ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, erythromycin, and tetracycline. A Danish study (4) reported no difference in prevalence of penicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus or in the proportion of Staph aureus resistant to penicillin between conventional and old organic herds, or before and after converting to organic farming. Roesch, et al. in Switzerland (17) found clear differences in the percentage of antibiotic resistance were mainly bacterial species related, but did not differ significantly between isolates from cows kept on organic (n=60) and conventional (n=60) farms, except for Streptococcus uberis, which exhibited significantly more single resistance when isolated from cows kept on organic farms (6/10 isolates) than on conventional farms (0/5 isolates).

VIII. Mycotoxins

Claims of lower levels of toxins in organic milk vs. conventional milk appear to also be unfounded. Two European studies indicate higher levels of aflatoxin M1 in organic milk and cheese compared with conventional products. Ghidini, et al. (11) observed that aflatoxin M1 contamination in some, but not all, samples (n=156) of organic milk (35 ug/l) was significantly higher than those of conventional milk (21 ug/l). Vallone, et al. (22) research results showed the presence of aflatoxin M1 in organic cheese samples frequently, but at low levels (<0.25 mg/kg cheese). This occurrence has been hypothesized to be due to ineffective pesticide treatment of organic grain crops.

IX. Pesticides

The exposure of organic crops to synthetic pesticides is, indeed, less than that of conventional crops, but product results are somewhat variable and often mis-interpreted. USDA results from the Pesticide Data Program show no significant differences in pesticide levels between conventional and organic milk. Of the 739 milk samples tested, 100% contained low level pesticide residue, all below actionable levels. A similar survey in Italy concluded that organic and conventional samples of milk do not show relevant differences for organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and heavy metals. It must be pointed out that regulatory surveys worldwide do not test for organic pesticides – including non-synthetic and approved synthetic.

In a review conducted by Cal-Davis and IFT (24), it was reported that research has shown that organic foods contain less pesticide residue than conventional food, but “the marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be insignificant.” It is important to consider the risks, if any, currently posed by pesticide residues in foods before determining the incremental health benefits from consuming organic products. Results on pesticide residues in organic vs. conventional milk and dairy products is mixed at best, and shows no clear advantage for consuming organic milk.

X. Nutrients

Nutrition, health, and wellness is currently the major food marketing push. This, of course, includes highly nutritious milk and dairy foods, whether organic or conventional. In an extensive study of published results from 1926 to 1994, which included cereals, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, wine, beer, milk, and other dairy products, Woese, et al. (25) concluded that no major differences in nutrient levels were observed between the different production methods. Other studies (24) indicate organic production methods result in higher nutrient levels, but the same mechanisms that can produce potential benefits, like polyphenolic compounds, may also generate higher levels of toxins such as glycoalkaloids in potatoes and tomatoes.

In a UK study, Ellis (9, 10) found that milk with a higher level of omega-3 fatty acid content could be presented as a valuable contribution to a balanced diet to consumers, but it is important to emphasize that both organic and conventional milk are excellent sources of conjugated lenoleic acid (CLA), regardless of the production system, as well as other vitamins and minerals. Reported data is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean % of each group type of fatty acid averaged over 12 months sampling each milk type (organic vs. conventional) (10).

Organic milk has a higher proportion of polyunsaturated to monunsaturated fatty acids and of n-3 fatty acids than conventional milk. There was no difference between organic and conventional milk with respect to the proportion of CLA or vaccenic acid. A number of factors other than farming systems were identified which affected milk fatty acid content including month of the year, herd average milk yield, breed type, use of total mixed rations, and access to fresh grazing. Season, herd yield, and access to fresh pasture were also important factors in determining the milk content of vitamins A, E, and beta-carotene. Increased milk yield was associated with decreased vitamin E and beta-carotene content. Farming system was less important, except in the case of vitamin A, for which there was a slightly lower concentration in organic farm-gate milk (9). Access to fresh, high quality pasture seems to be the most significant variable in the nutrition equation, regardless of organic or conventional production systems.

The story is exactly the same for levels of antioxidants in milk such as flavenoids, etc. and other valuable compounds. Research by Bani and Sandrucci (3) concluded that pasture plays the pivotal role under organic systems. Grazing can increase the CLA content of milk, however, this largely depends on pasture botanical composition, altitude, and stage of maturity, regardless of whether the production practice is organic or conventional. Even Organic Valley agrees with this assessment in their scientifically-slanted study conclusion that milk from pasture-raised organic cows has been shown to have significantly higher levels of vitamin E, omega-3 fatty acids, beta-carotene, and other antioxidants than milk from conventional cows raised in confinement.

Grazing is the key. The problem is that the majority of organic fluid milk on the market is from cows on pasture an average of 60 partial days and pasture grasses make up <5% of their dry weight feed intake.

XI. Environment

Scientific studies on the environmental impact of organic vs. conventional farming systems is all over the board. Inherently, one would think organic farming would be better for the environment. Some researchers have taken a different view. A Dutch study by Boer (5) on life cycle assessment evaluated the environmental impact of organic vs. conventional milk production. He concluded global warming potential of milk production was 48-65% due to emission of methane. Organic milk production inherently increased methane emission.

XII. Conclusions

Collins (7) concludes that, when evaluating the health claims, research does not support a health advantage of organic over conventional milk for any segment of the population. With regard to chemical, nutritional, technological, or organoleptic quality traits of organic and conventional milk, Bani and Sandrucci (3) reported no significant difference between the two dairy systems has been observed when compared under similar technical and environmental conditions.

Winter (24) observed that, while many studies demonstrate qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that one food systems is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition. Pesticide residues, naturally-occurring toxins, nitrates, and polyphenolic compounds exert their health benefits or risks on a dose-response basis, and data do not exist to ascertain whether the differences in the levels of such chemicals between organic foods and conventional foods are of biological significance.

Science must focus on the facts at hand which have been generated by well designed and conducted research studies. It becomes the only truth in a marketing environment of consumer confusion and misconceptions, as well as false and misleading promotion and advertising. The key to success for dairy is to be truthful to the consumers. We should be saying, “Buy our products; they’re great; you’ll love them; and they’re good for you”, instead of “Buy our products because they won’t kill you and your children, and our farming methods won’t trash the planet like those other guys” (2)!

XIII. References

1. AgSource. 2007. Unpublished testing data analyis.

2. Avery, A. 2006. The Truth About Organic Foods. Henderson Communications LLC, Chesterfield, MO.

3. Bani, P and A S Sandrucci. 2003. Yield and quality of milk produced according to the organic standards. Scienza e Tecnica Lattiero Casearia 54(4):267-286.

4. Bennedsgaard, T W, et al. 2006. Resistance to penicillin of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cows with high somatic cell counts in organic and conventional dairy herds in Denmark. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48:24.

5. Boer, I J M de. 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science 80(1/2):69-77.

6. Brady, D. 2006. Online extra: Why the stink over China’s organic food? BusinessWeek Online October 16.

7. Collins, K. 2007. Organic milk: What you get for the money. Health MSN Website.

8. Das, A. 2007. Organic milk seen flooding the market. National Milk Producers Federation Dairy Industry News Alert, May 14.

9. Ellis, K. 2006. Studies of the composition of milk produced on organic and conventional dairy farms. Organic Studies Centre Technical Bulletin Issue 8.

10. Ellis, K A, et al. 2006. Comparing the fatty acid composition of organic and conventional milk. J Dairy Sci. 89:1938-1950.

11. Ghidini, S, et al. 2005. Comparison of contaminant and residue levels in organic and conventional milk and meat products from Northern Italy. Food Additives and Contaminants 22(1):9-14.

12. Gogoi, P. 2007. How organic are Wal-Mart ‘organics’? BusinessWeek, January 19.

13. Hardeng, F and V L Edge. 2001. Mastitis, ketosis and milk fever in 31 organic and 93 conventional Norwegian dairy herds. J Dairy Science 84:2673-2679.

14. Mukherjee, A, et al. 2004. Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and E coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. J Food Prot 67:894-900.

15. Organic Valley Website. http://organicvalley.coop.

16. Ray, K A, et al. 2006. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella from organic and conventional dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 89:2038-2050.

17. Roesch, M, et al. 2006. Comparison of antibiotic resistance of udder pathogens in dairy cows kept on organic and conventional farms. J Dairy Sci. 89:989-997.

18. Sato, K, et al. 2004. Comparison of prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter sp. isolates from organic and conventional dairy herds in Wisconsin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70:1442-1447.

19. Sieman, G. 2006. Organic Valley presentation.

20. Stewart, K L. 2007. Is the organic milk glass half full or half empty? NutraUSAIngredients.com, January 30.

21. USDA. 2006. Pesticide Data Program – Annual summary calendar year 2004. February.

22. Vallone, L, et al. 2006. Aflatoxins in organic milk and dairy products. Veterinary Research Communications 30(Suppl 1):369-370.

23. Winter, C K. 1999. Pesticides and human health: the influence of pesticides on levels of naturally-occurring plant and fungal toxins. Pesticides: Managing risks and minimizing benefits. American Chemical Society symposium series 734, Am Chem Soc 165-173.

24. Winter, C K and S F Davis. 2006. Scientific status summary – Organic foods. J Food Sci 71(9):R117-R124.

25. Woese, K, et al. 1997. A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods – results of a review of the relevant literature. J Sci Food Agric 74:281-293.

26. Wright, L. 2007. Cabot to relaunch organic Cheddar. National Milk Producers Federation Dairy Industry News Alert, April 13.

27. Zhao, X, et al. 2007. Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables. J Food Sci 72(2):587-591.

The Denver Post
July 29, 2007 Sunday

I don’t like to buy organic food products, and avoid them at all cost. It is a principled decision reached through careful consideration of effects of organic production practices on animal welfare and the environment. I buy regular food, rather than organic, for the benefit of my family.

I care deeply about food being plentiful, affordable and safe. I grew up on a dairy farm, where my chores included caring for the calves and scrubbing the milking facilities. As a teenager, I was active in Future Farmers of America, and after college I took a job in Washington, D.C., on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee staff.

But America no longer has an agrarian economy, and now it is rare for people to have firsthand experience with agricultural production and regulation. This makes the general public highly susceptible to rumors and myths about food, and vulnerable to misleading marketing tactics designed not to improve the safety of the food supply, but to increase retail profits. Companies marketing organic products, and your local grocery chain, want you to think organic food is safer and healthier, because their profit margins are vastly higher on organic foods.

The USDA Organic label does not mean that there is any difference between organic and regular food products. Organic farms simply employ different methods of food production. For example, organic dairy farms are not permitted to administer antibiotics to their sick or injured cows, and do not give them milk-stimulating hormone supplements (also known as rbGH or rBST). The end product is exactly the same – all milk, regular and organic, is completely antibiotic-free, and all milk, regular and organic, has the same trace amounts of rbGH (since rbGH is a protein naturally present in all cows, including organic herds). Try as they may, proponents of organic foods have not been able to produce evidence that the food produced by conventional farms is anything but safe.

Do organic production practices benefit animals? Dr. Chuck Guard, professor of veterinary medicine at Cornell University, told me that it pains him that many technological advancements in animal medicine are prohibited for use on organic farms. He described how organic farms don’t use drugs to control parasites, worms, infections and illness in their herds. “Drugs take away pain and suffering,” he said. “Proponents of organic food production have thrown away these medical tools, and the result is unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals.”

In order for milk and meat to qualify as USDA Organic, the animals must never be given antibiotics when they are sick or injured. On organic farms, animals with treatable illnesses such as infections and pneumonia are left to suffer, or given ineffective homeopathic treatments, in the hope that they will eventually get better on their own. If recovery without medication seems unlikely, a dairy cow with a simple respiratory infection will be slaughtered for its meat, or sold to a traditional farm where she can get the medicine she needs. I don’t buy organic milk because this system is cruel to animals, and I know that every load of regular milk is tested for antibiotics to ensure that it is antibiotic-free.

Organic milk certainly is not fresher than regular milk. Regular milk is pasteurized and has a shelf life of about 20 days. Organic milk is ultrapasteurized, a process that is more forgiving of poor quality milk, and that increases the shelf life of milk to about 90 days. Some of the Horizon organic milk boxes I’ve seen at Costco have expiration dates in 2008! There is a powerful incentive for retailers to put the ultrapasteurized organic milk on the shelf just before the expiration date, so consumers will think the organic milk is as fresh as the regular milk. After all, consumers are paying twice as much for the organic product.

Do organic production practices benefit the environment? In many cases, they do the opposite. Recently, Starbucks proudly informed their customers that they would no longer be buying milk from farms that use rbGH, the supplemental hormone administered to cows to increase milk production (even though the extra hormones stay in the cow, and the resulting milk is the same). The problem with this policy is that Starbucks will now be buying milk from farms that are far less efficient at making milk. Without the use of the latest technology for making milk, many more cows must be milked to produce the same number of café lattes for Starbucks’ customers. More cows being milked means more cows to feed, and therefore more land must be cultivated with fossil-fuel-burning tractors. More cows means many more tons of manure produced, and more methane, a greenhouse gas, released into the atmosphere.

I see Starbucks’ policy as environmentally irresponsible. When a farmer gives a cow a shot of rbGH, the only environmental cost is the disposal of the small plastic container it came in. But the environmental benefits of using this technology are enormous.

Attention all shoppers: Safeway is adopting the same misdirected policy as Starbucks, judging from the prominent labeling of milk at my local Safeway store: “Milk from cows not treated with rBST.” When I’m feeling particularly green, I drive past Safeway and shop at another grocery store in protest.

Consumers assume that organic crops are environmentally friendly. However, organic production methods are far less efficient than the modern methods used by conventional farmers, so organic farmers must consume more natural and man-made resources (such as land and fuel) to produce their crops.

Cornell Professor Guard told me about neighboring wheat farms he observed during a visit to Alberta, Canada: one organic and one conventional. The organic farm consumes six times as much diesel fuel per bushel of wheat produced.

Socially conscious consumers have a right to know that “organic” doesn’t mean what it did 20 years ago. According to the Oct. 16, 2006, cover story in Business Week, when you eat Stonyfield Farms yogurt, you are often consuming dried organic milk flown all the way from New Zealand and reconstituted here in the U.S. The apple puree used to sweeten the yogurt sometimes comes from Turkey, and the strawberries from China. Importation of organic products raises troubling questions about food safety, labor standards, and the fossil fuels burned in the transportation of these foods.

Does buying organic really benefit your family? Remember, there is no real difference in the food itself. At my local Safeway store, organic milk is 85 percent more expensive, eggs 138 percent higher, yogurt 50 percent, chicken thighs 80 percent, and broccoli 20 percent. If the only organic product you buy for your family is milk, then you are spending an extra $200 on milk each year. If you buy 5-10 other organic products each week, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, yogurt and meat, then you could easily approach $1,000 in extra food costs per year. Families would receive a more direct health benefit from spending that money on a gym membership, a treadmill, or new bikes.

When I share this information with friends who buy organic, I get one of two responses: they either stop buying it, or they continue to buy organic based on a strong gut feeling that food grown without the assistance of man-made technology has to be healthier.

I don’t push it, but I wonder: Why do people apply that logic to agricultural products, but not to every other product we use in our daily lives? There are either no chemicals, or the minutest trace of chemicals in some of our foods. But other everyday products are full of chemical ingredients. Read the label on your artificial sweetener, antiperspirant, sun lotion, toothpaste, household cleaning products, soda, shampoo, and disposable diapers, for example. The medicines we administer to our children when they are sick are man-made substances. Chemicals aren’t just used to make these products; they are still in these products in significant amounts. It just doesn’t make sense to focus fear of technology on milk and fresh produce.

I say, bypass the expensive organic products in the grocery store. Buy the regular milk, meat and fresh produce. It is the right choice for the family, animal welfare and the environment.