Research Paper - Winnie Ngo

Winnie Ngo

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>