The above study was founded on the premise that in spite of the growing consumer demand for organic foods, accurate information regarding the nutritional quality of organic foods is lacking.  The study sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.  To accomplish this task, study researchers identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products) and deemed 55 of these studies to be of satisfactory quality for actual analysis.  Here are the main results of the study:

1.  Conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity, and no evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed.

2.  Analysis of the more limited database on livestock products found no evidence of a difference in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products.

In light of the above results, the conclusion of the study reads as follows:  On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.  The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

The point of this post?  As an epidemiologist and a researcher myself, I am greatly intrigued by the results of this study, and feel that it is necessary to comment on it constructively.  Researchers in this study sought to compare the nutrient content between conventionally and organically grown foods, and essentially concluded that there was no evidence of meaningful nutrient differences between the two; Further, if small differences did exist, they would be because of differences in production methods. 

The point I would like to make here is this:  Production methods are precisely the point of departure, and the key difference between conventionally and organically grown foods, and they do matter.  While I applaud the researchers for doing a nutrient quality comparison between conventionally and organically grown foods, it is important to point out that there are several other endpoints that are relevant to health – which were not part of this study.  And, they do indeed relate to production methods.  Here are just a few of the many questions that still remain unanswered:

1.  Did conventional foods and livestock products have higher amounts of antibiotic, hormone, or pesticide residues?

2.  Did foods produced by conventional methods involve the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s)?

3.  Was there a perceptible difference in taste quality between conventionally and organically grown foods? 

While the nutrient quality of foods is of great importance, I believe that there are numerous other “confounding” variables that are perhaps equally, if not more relevant, to our long-term health.  The reality is that the cumulative effects of the regular consumption of foods that may have measurable amounts of antibiotics, hormones, or pesticide residues are largely unknown, and there is sufficient epidemiologic evidence to reasonably conclude that the effects of these agents may be deleterious to our long-term health.  Further, many conventional methods of food production utilize GMO’s – the long term effects of which are also unknown.  Thus, prudence demands that we consider the comparison of these critically important factors as well in future studies.  

One of the key principles in the study of Epidemiology is always to remain acutely aware of what we have “left out” in a study.  The study under discussion successfully met its stated objective of nutrient comparison between organic and conventional foods.  However, if we are to use this study’s conclusion as a guideline to long-term health, we must keep in mind the variables that were either: 1) clearly outside of the purview of this particular study, and/or 2) still remain to be examined in future studies.

I wouldn’t consider an occasional (or regular) splurge on organic tomatoes or peaches a waste yet!  Notwithstanding some of the important reasons outlined above, the generally accepted superior freshness, taste, and flavor of locally and often sustainably produced organic foods are sufficient reasons for us to enjoy them still.

Resources: 

AJCN Study Abstract

Here – in a nutshell – is the summary of a problem that is unlike one that has ever been faced previously by mankind in history:  Starting in the Winter of 2006, millions of bees vanished without a trace from their hives across the United States and Europe, and are still continuing to do so.  The disappearance of the  honey bees - who are the  indispensable pollinators of fruits and vegetables – has left billions of dollars of crops at risk and has threatened our food supply in a manner that has never been experienced before.  Given the unprecedented nature of the  problem, and the agricultural nightmare that looms ahead with the loss of the vast majority of fruits and vegetables, scientists are now scrambling to understand the causes behind the disappearance of the honey bees - both in the West, as well as in many other parts of the globe.

One of the main causes that has been identified as being responsible for the disappearance of the honey bees is referred to as CCD or Colony Collapse Disorder.  It has been confirmed that a virus known as IAPV has been found in all CCD hives.  The origin of this virus is in Israel; thus, it remains to be understood how this particular virus made it to the U.S. hives.  Other possible causes of the disappearance of the bees are under study as well.  These include understanding whether the mass relocation/transportation of bees in the service of Industrialized agriculture, high crop yield, and efficiency of production has contributed to a loss of immunity in the bees, resulting in their premature death.

The problem we are left to face is an enormous one.  Scientists featured in the PBS documentary warn that if we are unable to stop the further loss of bees, we are faced with the loss of the very foods (fruits, nuts, and vegetables) that protect us from chronic illnesses.  The reality is that there are no known means to pollinate the blossoms of fruit or nut trees that can begin to compare with the efficiency of honey bees.  As an example, a hive of bees pollinates 3 million flowers a day; however, when an effort is made to pollinate flowers manually, it has been estimated that one human being can pollinate a maximum of only 3 trees a day.  Further, it is estimated that to replace honey bees with human or artificial pollinators would cost about 90 billion dollars a year in the U.S. alone; and even so, such an effort may not be sustainable for long.

The bottom line?   It is amply evident that now is the time for us to put in concerted effort and resources into finding a viable solution to this very serious problem, which,  if left unchecked, is expected to turn into a global crisis.  It is estimated that if the bees continue to disappear at the current rate, the honey bee population in the United States will cease to exist by the year 2035.

What can you do to help the bees, and both our current and future food supply?

1.  Become informed about the gravity of the problem – View The Silence of the Bees.

2.  Learn how you can help by visiting the PBS Nature Site.

3.  Check out the Web and Print Resources designed to create awareness and action steps to address this problem.

4.  Support sustainable agricultural practices that have for centuries preserved the health of honey bees.

5.  Share this post, related information, and the PBS documentary with concerned others.

Our health, our future, and the future of our food supply rests in our own hands.

1.  In your considered opinion, does food have anything to do with how or why so many people develop heart disease/ high blood pressure/cancer/diabetes/ (fill in the blank)?

2.  Does food have anything to do with the prospects of preventing these conditions?

Now, it seems ironic to me, that even in our present time in which solid epidemiological research has indisputably established the link between diet and health, there are still millions of people out there who are uncertain and tenuous about whether this link is truly real.  Due to the fact that this topic is very broad, I am deliberately going to restrict this discussion to a few simple truths for the purpose of this post.  Let us momentarily consider some of the facts.

It is no secret that today, the West (especially the United States, most of Europe, and Australia) is mired in an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and several (predominant) cancers.  Interestingly, this was not always the case.  A careful study of the progression of disease rates in the West reveals that chronic disease rates skyrocketed in the West in close correspondence with the transition from largely agrarian to largely industrialized methods of food production.  The mass inundation of the supermarket shelves with processed and packaged foods, especially post World War II (and especially in the U.S.), marked a phenomenal change in people’s eating habits, and with that, a literally phenomenal change in the state of their health as well.  Whereas at one time, food was produced by one’s own physical labor and was a source first of sustenance, and then of pleasure; this principle became fully reversed with the advent of commercial and industrialized foods.  Now, it became more about pleasure first, and then sustenance (if at all).  Refined, over-processed, over-salted, over-sweetened and trans-fat laden foods came to rule the supermarket shelves, and then our taste buds.  Even the quality of eggs, meats and dairy suffered, as the goals and objectives of “efficient” corporate mass production took precedence over that of maintaining the purity and nutritive ability of food.   This has gone on now for several decades, up to our present time.   And now, to all this, we have (albeit unwillingly) added new health destroying variables.  Ask most anyone, and they will tell you — Stress and fatigue seem to rule the day; a daily 8 hour shift on the computer occurs with alarming regularity, whereas daily exercise is irregular at best; sleep is elusive and usually averages less than 6 hours a night; the sit-down farm fresh meal, either for lunch or dinner, is a distant pipe-dream of  the past, whereas the “techno-protein bar” on-the-go  is the dominant reality of the lunch hour, and the home-cooked dinner is a rare treat, hardly the daily norm.

Thus far we have talked about the “West” in general and about nations generally perceived to be Western.  Now, let’s take a look at the state of health in nations that have relatively recently undergone Westernization in terms of their socio-economic structure.  Two particular and especially salient examples in this category are China and India, and each of these two nations has in recent years seen a truly astronomic rise in rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.   Interestingly, the rise in chronic disease rates in both China and India (especially in the metropolitan areas) corresponds exactly with their large-scale abandonment of traditional, sustainably produced whole foods, and their adoption of Western-style mass produced processed foods.  For example, it  is no longer “trendy” in India to make lentils and brown rice with a side of fresh, local vegetables and home-made fresh yogurt for dinner; It is now infinitely more exciting to order “Western” foods for the lunch or dinner meal — hot dogs, burgers, pizza and the like.  How do I know?  I have been there.  These are the new foods there; these are the new items of excitement.  

But, the excitement won’t last…and neither should it.  The World Health Organization recently estimated that by 2010, 60% – or more than half – of the world’s cardiac patients will be from the Indian subcontinent alone, giving India the dubious distinction of being the country with the highest rate of heart disease in the world.  It is interesting, isn’t it, to note that this was once a nation with some of the longest-lived people on the planet?  The same was also true for China, for Okinawa…and the list goes on.

It is said that those who refuse to learn the bitter lessons of history are doomed to endure repeating them.  And, the lessons of history in this case are simply these:  Locally produced, traditional whole foods (whole grains, freshly picked vegetables, fresh fruits, fresh eggs and meats, pure pressed nut and seed oils and other similar foods) both nourish and sustain people, and have done so for centuries.  In addition, sustainable agriculture preserves the health of the soil, which in turn literally gives life to the food and thus to people, and often a sense of community as well.  But, wherever and whenever people turn their backs on the soil, and chase after the latest and greatest “fast-” or “techno-food” of the day, they chase after a dangerous illusion — one that costs them their vitality and, all too often, even their very lives.   And these are the facts, not mere opinion — neither mine nor someone else’s.  The numbers establish the truth.

So, does food have anything to do with being sick or staying well?  Well, the numbers tell us that the West is sick, and the newly “Westernizing” nations (especially with respect to food and lifestyle) are already sick, and rapidly getting sicker.  The food experiments of the U.S., Europe, Australia, China, India, Okinawa, and other nations as well, all testify that those who have no clue where their breakfast, lunch or dinner come from are the sickest of all.  Conversely, those who either produce their own food or, at the very least, prepare their own meals from fresh, local foods seem to be beneficiaries of uncommonly long lives and a true joie-de-vivre.  Add to this, the fact that substantial research convincingly tells us that with careful attention to the foods we eat and with regular exercise, nearly 70% of certain cancers and 80% of heart attacks are preventable, and the question arises: how much more proof do we really need to believe that what we eat matters?

Let’s sum this up.   For those still haunted by whether food really matters, here are the formal answers to the two questions posed at the beginning of this post:

1.  Yes, modern denatured, over-processed, commercially prepared, and mass-produced industrialized foods have a lot to do with both how and why so many people develop one or more chronic diseases.

2.  Yes, locally and sustainably produced, un-tampered, whole foods have a lot to do with our prospects of preventing these conditions.

While food is not the only factor in the genesis of disease and other factors such as genetic or environmental exposures may play a role in both the genesis of disease or the prevention of it, nonetheless both time-tested and epidemiological evidence bear out that what we eat and how we produce what we eat are fundamental to our well-being and to our very existence.

You see, in any land where nearly every meal is processed, preserved, pre-packaged, frozen, or microwavable; where a myriad of foods are specifically designed to be eaten on-the-go; and where the average adult has neither seen nor can even recognize a kernel of real wheat, rye or barley — health seldom reigns.

Now, history is not always good, and Modernity is not always bad.  But, there is at least one instance in which I can unreservedly say that history and Tradition were good for us, whereas Modernity has been bad — And, this instance applies to the food we eat.

Today, those who live in America and in the Westernized nations around the globe are sick with an endlessly long list of chronic diseases.  Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity top the list — but the list goes on and on.   It seems to be an odd paradox, doesn’t it?   We live in lands replete with technologically advanced Medicine, we appear to have beautifully laid out foods on clean supermarket shelves, and we have more money to spend on food relative to most people in the world.  Why then, are we sick?

Ah!  Perhaps we are sick because in this case, the literal stampede of Modernity has come home to roost and fully to take its toll.  High levels of chronic disease in Westernized nations are the final symptom of an underlying problem.  And, the problem is this:  Decades of over-consumption of fast, over-processed, and largely Industrialized foods, coupled with our stress-filled, breathless lifestyles have hollowed us out (sometimes, both physically and emotionally) and depleted our ability to resist disease — And, this is one case where nothing short of a return to Tradition will remedy the crisis.

Traditional, un-tampered, locally grown whole foods sustained generation upon generation for millennia.  Yet, in the most recent century, food took on a completely novel character.  The ubiquitous and attractive ads for juicy hamburgers and fat-laden pizzas victoriously erased our memories of simple, but nourishing home-made meals; factory-produced and “techno-foods” even appeared insidiously to alter our taste-buds to such an extent that we actually desired to eat them.  And, this went on, and on.  Fast forward to today, and we find that modern, refined/processed and Industrialized foods have triumphantly all but drowned our connection to the past — and with it, our memory of the way we once used to eat and live.

But, enough.  The price we have paid for Modernity in this instance has been too heavy, and our losses, too high, even inestimable.  It’s time to turn off the blaring noise of Modernity, and to bring back into our lives some of the riches of Tradition.  Loud commercials will continue ad nauseum to entice us to eat the very foods that have nearly destroyed us — it is up to us to turn them off.  And, it’s time to re-discover and get re-acquainted with pure, life-giving and life-sustaining whole foods — to taste them again, and remember what we have missed.  What we have missed is our health, our sustenance, and in essence, our very well-being which derives life and nourishment directly from the purity and quality of the foods we eat. 

Make no mistake — choosing between Tradition and Modernity in this case is not a matter of mere taste or preference.  If that were so, I would not have bothered to write this article.  But, the matter is much more serious — It is about choosing between health and sickness; in fact, between life and death itself. 

If you are reading this, there is still time… and the power to choose resides with you.  Use it well.