English
110
18
May
Difference between Organic and
Conventional Food
Recently organic food has been
increasingly popular among consumers in different parts of the world. Organic
food has grown rapidly over the past couple of years, in which from 1997 to
2010 the sales of organic food had grown from 3.6 to 26.7 million dollars
(Smith-Spangler 348). Because of the increasing popularity of organic food it
raises the question: Why is organic food so popular? The three main reasons to
this question are that organic food is healthier, safer, and tastier than
conventional food. For these reasons, some customers of organic products are
even willing to pay double the price of conventional food in order to obtain
the superior quality (Smith-Spangler 348). Of course organic food great in its
own ways, but it is not always better.
What exactly is organic food? Organic
food is basically the labeling of produce, meat, and dairy product that are
created with the absence of synthetic or unnatural chemicals. For organically
grown food, farmers avoid using synthetic pesticides, insecticides, herbicides,
and much more to better the harvest. As for organic meat and dairy products,
the livestock’s are fed with organic food and are given the freedom to roam
open fields in order to obtain fresh air, sunlight, and allow movement
(Smith-Spangler 348). Organic food also should not be processed
with irradiation and chemicals. Basically, the food grown from organic
cultivation methods uses natural soil fertilizers, manual removal of unwanted
herbs and weeds, and allows the crops to grow naturally without chemicals. Because
of the more intensive labor required to produce organic food, the cost of
organic products is generally higher than conventional products.
Most people believe that organic food is
healthier because of its higher concentration of nutrients compared to
conventional food. Despite this popular belief, studies that have had a
difficult time proving whether or not that organic food is more nutritious. Looking
at multiple studies the results can be conflicting; some studies suggests that
organic food contains the higher nutrient content, others show the opposite
where conventional food has the higher nutrient content, while others show no
difference.
According to Magkos, studies on protein
concentration have found that organic vegetables (359-60) and cereal crops
(362) such as spinach, beetroots, carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, rye and
corn have a slightly lower amount of crude protein and free amino acids, but
higher amount of essential amino acids are found in organic crops. The higher
amount of crude protein reflects the higher amount of nitrogen available to the
crops during the growing process. Among the studies, it has been founded that
organically grown corn had a higher concentration of lysine, methionine,
histidine, and threonine while having lower concentration of isoleucine, and
phenylalanine (Magkos, Arvaniti, & Zampelas 362). As for fruits, studies show no difference in
protein concentration between organic and conventional (Magkos, Arvaniti, &
Zampelas 361). Among the limited amount of studies done on milk and meats
products, no significant evidences show the difference in protein content
between organic and conventional as well (Magkos, Arvaniti, & Zampelas 363).
Based on the studies that Magkos,
Arvaniti, and Zampelas have analyzed, a wide range of vitamin and minerals such
as vitamin A, vitamin B1 and B2, vitamin C, calcium, iron, potassium, manganese
and more have been observed in multiple studies; most of them show that there
are no clear significant differences between the two. Many studies have shown
that organic carrots can have lower or higher amount of vitamin A content than
conventional carrots. Spinach and other vegetables examined had lower vitamin C
content when there was lower amount nitrogen available (360-361). In one study,
organic tomatoes had higher amount of calcium, zinc, and copper; however the
organic lettuce failed to produce similar results (Kelly and Bateman 741). For
carbohydrates some studies have reported higher amount of micronutrients in
organic while others saw no difference (362). As for fruits, there are no
significant differences in vitamins and minerals between organic and
conventional (Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas 361; Smith-Sprangler 353). There
are very little studies that observe organic meat and milk products; however,
within the limited amount studies, no clear differences have been shown between
organic and conventional. Studies have suggested that organic milk and chicken
have a higher level of ω-3 fatty acids (Smith-Sprangler 353-54). In a study
done by Kelly and Bateman, results showed that conventional food had higher
amount of nitrate and lower amount of sulphate compared to organic food (740). Although
majority of the studies show that there are no significant differences, there
is a trend that does slightly lean toward organic food for the higher nutrient
and mineral content.
Looking further into nutrients in foods,
researchers examine the amount of dry matter in produce. Dry matter is
basically the remaining content of the food after all of the liquid or moisture
have been removed; nutrients for plants are often expressed through dry matter.
Studies observing dry matter in vegetables
grown above ground such as spinach, lettuce, chard, and cabbage have higher dry
matter among organic than conventional; however, according to Magkos, Arvaniti,
and Zampelas, it is still not clear for produces that grow under ground (e.g.
potatoes, carrots, leeks and turnips) (360-361). A study by Gilsenan found that
conventional potatoes had lower amounts of dry matter, which may have been
reduced by the rate nitrogen fertilization (476). Since many fruits lack the ability to utilize
and absorb nitrogen, many studies show no difference in dry matter between
organic and conventional fruits (Magkos, Arvaniti, & Zampelas, 361).
Studies have shown that one could
differentiate organic from conventional produce by looking at the nitrate (NO3)
content. Many factors such as soil type, land-use, and agricultural practices
can influence the amount of nitrogen (N) in the soil, but most conventional
food is grown from soils that are mixed with nitrogen fertilizers.
Microorganisms in the soil break down chemicals such as ammonium (NH4) to form
nitrite (NO2) in order to create nitrate that is absorbable by plants (Gilsenan
479). According to Lima’s study, conventional food contains 25% more nitrate
than organic food. Based on studies done on animals, nitrate alone in small
amounts are non-toxic to the body; however, bacteria in the upper
gastrointestinal tract can break down the nitrate into nitrite, which is
considered carcinogenetic or cancerous. The studies found that animals that
were exposed to nitrite had developed variety of cancers in the stomach, colon,
bladder, lymphatic and hematopoietic systems (191). No clinical studies have
found the effects of nitrite on people due to the various factors in economic
status, daily activities, and others that could influences the outcome.
When it comes down to chemicals, organic
food doesn’t always mean pesticides or chemical free. Farmers are only
obligated to utilize fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals that are
natural and not man made. According to Hom, half of the chemicals that are being
used are carcinogenetic for both synthetic and natural chemicals (Hom, “The
Organic Label”). Though this may be the case based on Smith-Spangler’s article
and the PDP’s (Pesticide Data Program) test results presented in Baker’s
article, it is safe to say that organic food does have lower amount of
pesticides than conventional food. Smith-Spangler’s article states that 7% of
organic food and 38% of conventional produces had pesticides residues detected
(354) while Baker’s article states that 23% of organic and 73% of conventional
crops had at least one or more pesticide residues (431-32). It is clear that
conventional food have higher levels of pesticides in which organic food had
30% to 50% less contamination than conventional. Looking further into the data
of contaminated conventional produces, according the PDP, 82% or fruits, 65% of
vegetables, and over 90% of selected foods such as celery, apples, peaches, and
strawberries had one more pesticides residues (Baker 431). There has been a trend that shows the increase in the
amount of pesticides detected in both convention and organic produces. In 1989
the percent of pesticides in organic samples detected was 3.6%, in 1998 the
percentage was 12.8%. For conventional samples in 1989 it was 22.4%, but in
1998 it was 41.1% (Baker 433-34).
Chemicals used for pesticides and
fertilizers are not the only concern for human consumptions. Bacterial
contaminations are also factors that affect the quality of our food in which it
can cause one to become sick. Studies observing the difference in the amount of
bacterial contamination found no significant difference between organic and
conventional. About 7% of organic sample and 6% of conventional produce had prevalence
for E. coli contamination (Smith-Spangler 354). Four out of five studies found
that organic food had a 5% greater chance to be contaminated. Studies found
that 67% of organic and 64% conventional chicken meat had campylobacter
(Smith-Spangler 354-55). Pork, which is commonly contaminated with E. coli,
salmonella, and listeria monocytogenes, had 65% of organic and 49% of
conventional samples contaminated with listeria monocytogenes (Smith Spangler
355). On the other hand, conventional meat had a higher risk of bacteria that
are resistant to 3 or more antibiotics. These numbers are generally close to
each other providing insignificant evidence that one is more contaminated than
the other.
Compared to other studies that do a
direct comparison between organic and conventional food, few studies have observed
the clinical effects on animals and especially human. Some positive effects of
organic food that have been documented from studies done on animals under an
organic diet and one of those effects was 10 to 17% greater weight gain. Other studies have found that rats on
organic diet had a lower the cases of diseases and the mortality rate was at 9%
compared to that of rats under conventional diet, which was 17% (Magkos,
Arvaniti, and Zampelas 363). Studies done on rabbits show that the
organic diet allowed the rabbits to have better fertility, lower mortality
rate, and greater milk production; however, this is not always the case. While
results on Dutch rabbits show that the organic diet is better, the New Zealand
white rabbits were better with the conventional diet (Magkos, Arvaniti, and
Zampelas 363-64). In a different study, researchers observed that hens had
“better laying performance,” heavier eggs, and began producing eggs at an earlier
age. The eggs also had a longer shelf life compared to eggs laid by hens given
conventional food (Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas 364).
Within
the few studies on the effects of organic food, some studies have reported no
connection between organic or conventional diet of the mother with the
development of eczema, wheezing, or other atopic outcomes in children; however,
children who consumed an organic dominant diet had a lower risk of eczema than
those who consumed a conventional dominant diet (Smith-Spangler 350). In
addition, children with the organic diet had lower levels of pesticides in
their urine; through the measure of amount pesticides within urine it does not
determine the health effects of pesticides on the human body. Studies on
non-pregnant adults that looked at the immune system, urine carotenoids, level of
cholesterol, antioxidant activity, semen quality and other attributes in the
body showed no difference (Smith-Spangler 350). Currently, there are no
long-term studies to compare the difference between these two types of diet on
the human body.
Most consumers claim that organic foods
have a better taste and texture compared to conventional. Despite the popular
belief of organic food’s superior taste and texture, most studies fail to prove
so. Nunes-Damaceno has done a study comparing the overall quality of kiwis
through physical, chemical, and sensory analysis. While comparing the kiwi
fruits cultivated from both organic and conventional methods, the physical and
chemical analysis found that the conventional kiwis were heavier, slightly
bigger. They also had higher amount of fructose and glucose, which are a form
of sugar, and lower amount of oxalic, quinic, citric and pH (293-95). After the
physical and chemical analysis, Nunes-Damaceno moved on to the sensory analysis
where she had a panel of eight women and four men, ranging between ages 35 to 60,
to taste and observe the kiwis. During the sensory analysis the participants
rated the conventional kiwis sweeter, juicier, less flavorful, less acidic, and
less colorful. The participants also saw more stains, more internal bruising,
less external bruising, and less color uniformity (294). In the end the participants chose the
kiwi they preferred and the results were 43.8% for conventional, 26.8% for
organic, and 29.4% for IFS-grown kiwis (Nunes-Damaceno 297). In a similar study
on potatoes, the results showed that 59% preferred to conventional while 41%
preferred the organic (Gilsenan 480). Lastly in another study, researchers had
participants try a variety of food such as apples, tomatoes, onions and other
produces to judge on a variety of feature that include texture, color, aroma,
and taste. The result of this study was that the participants had a difficult
time to distinguish the foods between organic and conventional (Tobin, Moane,
and Larkin 158-61).
Organic food comes with the benefit of
the reduced amount of pesticides and nitrate concentration that could be
harmful to the body, but it is not completely better than conventional food.
Though organic food may seem more nutritious to many people, studies still
haven’t found enough evidence to prove that be true. Overall, studies show that
organic crops had higher nutrients 40.9% of the time while conventional crops
had higher nutrients 13.0% of the time; however, 46.1% of the time found no
difference (Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas 365). These conflicting results
disprove the idea that organic food is more nutritious. As for taste, it is
clear that organic food isn’t quite as great as what most people tend to
believe. Studies suggest the superior taste that people find in organic food is
through the placebo effect in which the brain tastes what it believes. In
conclusion, it is best to weigh the options given between cost, taste, and
quality of organic and conventional foods rather than blindly believe that one
is completely better than the other. When buying organic food, it is always
good idea to confirm whom and where did the produce come from, because it may
not be truly worth the price that is given.
Work
Cited
Baker, B. P., et al. "Pesticide
Residues In Conventional, Integrated Pest Management (IPM)-
Grown And Organic
Foods: Insights From Three US Data Sets." Food Additives &
Contaminants 19.5 (2002): 427-446. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10
May 2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6600960&site=ehost-live>.
Gilsenan, Clare, Róisín M. Burke, and
Catherine Barry-Ryan. "A Study Of The Physicochemical
And Sensory Properties Of Organic And
Conventional Potatoes ( Solanum Tuberosum) Before And After
Baking." International Journal Of Food Science &
Technology 45.3 (2010): 475-481. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10
May 2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48008915&site=ehost-live>.
Hom, Louis. "Pestcides
in Organic Farming." Pestcides in Organic Farming. N.p., 1995. Web.
10 May
2015.
<http://www.37c.org/lhom/food/organic.html>.
Kelly, Simon D., and Alison
S. Bateman. "Comparison Of Mineral Concentrations In
Commercially Grown Organic
And Conventional Crops – Tomatoes (Lycopersicon Esculentum) And Lettuces
(Lactuca Sativa)." Food Chemistry 119.2 (2010): 738-745. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 10 May 2015.<
http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44831407&site=ehost-live>.
Lima, G.P.P., et al. "Organic And
Conventional Fertilisation Procedures On The Nitrate,
Antioxidants And
Pesticide Content In Parts Of Vegetables." Food Additives &
Contaminants: Part B: Surveillance Communications 5.3 (2012):
188-193. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 May
2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=78192104&site=ehost-live>.
Magkos, Faidon, Fotini
Arvaniti, and Antonis Zampelas. "Organic Food: Nutritious Food Or
Food For Thought? A Review
Of The Evidence." International Journal Of Food Sciences &
Nutrition 54.5 (2003): 357. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 May
2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10466138&site=ehost-live>.
Nunes-Damaceno, M., et al.
"A Comparison Of Kiwi Fruit From Conventional, Integrated And
Organic Production
Systems." LWT - Food Science & Technology 54.1 (2013): 291-297.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 May 2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=88988582&site=ehost-live>.
Smith-Spangler, Crystal, et
al. "Are Organic Foods Safer Or Healthier Than Conventional
Alternatives?." Annals
Of Internal Medicine 157.5 (2012): 348-366. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 10 May 2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79682947&site=ehost-live>.
Tobin, Rachel, Siobhan Moane, and Tracey
Larkin. "Sensory Evaluation Of Organic And
Conventional Fruits
And Vegetables Available To Irish Consumers." International Journal
Of Food Science & Technology 48.1 (2013): 157-162. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 10 May
2015.<http://ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=84386913&site=ehost-live>
I read your paper, because I was interested in this topic and it didn't disappoint. We all know that organic food is better and this paper answers why.
ReplyDeleteYou used a lot of factual information and studies, which is great, that is what I was looking for. The only thing, I feel like it's a little bit dry, because of the concentration of those facts.
Nevertheless, good writing and that's what's important.
Have an awesome summer, Winnie!:)