Voting with your fork

An organic farm stand with wagonload of pumpkins in Carmel Valley, Calif. (Photos from Newscom)

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF version

Viewpoint

The debate over organic versus conventionally grown food will never end. The latest salvo comes from Dr. Alan Dangour, a public health nutritionist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, reported recently in The New York Times and many other newspapers and online sources.

Dangour’s review of published studies dating back to 1958 states that organically grown food is no more nutritious than conventionally grown food when it comes to the amount of certain important nutrients.

The simple truth is that many critics refute the structure of this review and not enough research has been done on the nutritional quality of our food. The obvious truth is that the debate over organic versus conventional food must be more comprehensive.

As an organic market gardener for over 20 years in the Kansas River valley north of Lawrence, my gardening philosophy is that the healthiest soils produce the most nutritious food and that local/regional food systems will lessen climate-changing carbon emissions, improve the health of the consumer, and increase economic development for the region by capturing more food dollars locally.

Different conclusions can be reached with the findings of Dangour’s review, which was funded by the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency (FSA). This review actually found that organic food tends to be more nutrient-dense than conventional food but that finding was downplayed. Of the 13 categories of nutrients considered, only three were statistically significant.

For conventional food, nitrogen was found to be higher. For organic food, phosphorus and titratable acids were found higher. What was not considered by the FSA review was total antioxidant content. The FSA review did not look at differences in pesticide residues between the two growing methods.

Most researchers agree that increasing yields over the last half-century has resulted in lower nutritional quality of our food. Recent experiments of planting modern and historical crops of wheat, corn and broccoli side by side have shown that the higher-yielding modern varieties generally have lower concentrations of nutrients. With corn, wheat and soybeans, substantial data show that the higher the yield the lower the protein and oil content. Few plant-breeding efforts currently underway in the United States have the goal of raising the nutrient content of major foods. Fast-growing high-yield plants do not absorb a comparable quantity of soil nutrients. As Brian Halweil writes in his September 2007 report “Still No Free Lunch,” “What we surely do not need are staple crops delivering more sugar and starch per serving, and lower levels of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants.”

The debate over organic versus conventional food merits a broader discussion. Kansans, for example, import 97 percent of the $525 million they spend annually on fruits and vegetables. The average head of broccoli travels 1,500 miles to your plate. Our food system now burns eight to 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce one calorie of food. Peak oil and climate change considerations will force American agriculture to change. There are many opportunities to do so. Kansas had 110,000 acres in produce in 1910 but only 6,600 in 2007. As the large confined animal-feeding operations came to Kansas since 1980, 90 percent of our community-based dairies (5,691 to 775) and hog farms (13,000 to 1,500) have gone extinct.

However, the consumer demand for local produce and natural, pasture-based meats is increasing dramatically. A rebuilding of the infrastructure to meet this demand for local foods will be required. Food system planning will be a necessity to produce and incorporate local foods into our supermarkets and institutions such as schools, hospitals and cafeterias. Sixty-two percent of all Americans are now either overweight or obese, exacting a great cost on the medical care system.

This food debate will never end because there is too much money involved in controlling our food supply. Ninety-five percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of all field corn is now genetically modified and there is no labeling requirement for any genetically modified processed food. The meatpacking industry is now controlled by four beef corporations and five poultry corporations. Waiting for the federal government to enforce any existing antitrust laws in the food industry is wishful thinking, given the food industry’s political clout in Washington.

The change to a more nutritious, local food system begins with a vote with your fork three times a day.

Paul D. Johnson is an organic market gardener, a family farm legislative advocate for several churches in Kansas, and a member of the Land Institute’s Prairie Writers Circle in Salina, Kan.

On the Web

To find farmers' markets, family farms and othe sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats and many other food items, go to www.localharvest.org.