Making NonSence of Food Labels

This piece in Time on food labels is frustrating.  In trying to help consumers “make sense” of food labels, they only confuse the situation – making several unsubstantiated claims and linking to dubious sources to support other claims. 

For example, here is what they say on the label hormone free:

There is a long list of health concerns tied to hormone-filled meat, from prenatal developmental problems to early puberty and infertility. Though the evidence isn’t always reliable, some studies have shown growth hormones from certain foods can disrupt human hormones and can even contribute to breast and prostate cancer.

If you click through to all three of the links they provide above, none actually shows what the piece purports they show.  The first link is to an advocacy website for “sustainability,” which in turn mainly references some European Union reports but not any actual studies published in peer-reviewed journals.  The second link is to a website about cancer, which discusses the correlation between meat eating and cancer, but says nothing about how added growth hormones used in meat production relates or does not relate to cancer.  The final link is to a scientific study that has nothing to do, as far as I can tell, with the use of subtherapeutic hormones given to cattle in feedlots.  Ironically, the scientific paper is about chicken meat, but broilers in the US are not given added growth hormones, so I’m not sure what the link has to do with what the authors are claiming.

Now, I’m not saying there are no problems with hormone use.  For example, there is evidence that growth hormones can lead to less tender beef.  But, generally these are concerns about eating quality not safety.

Another example is when the piece discusses pesticide use it says:

If a food product has  the USDA Organic certification, it’s usually pesticide-free, too.

That statement is absolutely false.  Organics can use a long list of “natural” pesticides, many of which are just as toxic as synthetic pesticides.         

Why is it so hard for Time to put out on objective piece on food labels?  It goes to show how much misinformation there is on food floating around that even when one wants to “set the record straight” they can’t find a good place to turn.

Organic Food Misperceptions

In my experience of doing numerous studies on consumer perceptions of organic foods, ​I've found a strong "halo effect."  That means the positive word "organic" acts as a halo and makes everything else about organic appear good even if it's not.  The result is that people often believe a lot of things about organic that aren't true.  

This piece by Christie Wilcox on the Scientific American blog ably dismantles two widely perceived myths about organic food: namely that organic foods don't use pesticides (they do) and that natural pesticides are less toxic than synthetic pesticides (they aren't).  

The Organic Food Subsidy Myth

Over at Reason.com, Balyen Linnekin offered a thoughtful response to the recent Stanford review showing little difference in the nutritional content of organic and non-organic food.  However, toward the end of the article Linnekin repeats a claim about organics that I’ve heard many times:

Finally, consider that organics critics like Cohen and Bailey attack the high cost of organic food while failing to mention that conventional food production—from soy and sugar to beef and dairy—is highly subsidized. Organic food production, on the other hand, is not.

First, for many, many food products including virtually all fruits and vegetables from tomatoes to spinach to oranges to apples, there are no regular government subsidy programs - organic or not.  Thus, government subsides cannot explain the high price of organic lettuce compared to non-organic lettuce. 

Here is a part of what I had to say about the issue in my forthcoming book, The Food Police (footnotes omitted):

We’re often told organics don’t get government subsidies, but that’s a fabrication.  In Europe, organic farmers are subsidized like all other farmers.  In the U.S., there are programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program that pay producers to transition from conventional to organic.  There are other programs that use federal monies to help organic farmers pay the cost of certification.  Organic farmers can receive government-subsidized crop insurance just like non-organic farmers.  Organic milk is subjected to many of the same complex price-support rules imposed by the government on non-organic milk. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are spent on research and education into organics and on marketing and monitoring programs.  The food police tell us that the growth in organic food demand is the free market working at its best, while using the taxing power of the state to manipulate the market by subsidizing organic production, marketing, and research activities.  You can’t have your organic-is-libertarian cake and eat it too.

Are Organic Foods Reallly Healthier?

A recent study by Stanford University researchers concurs with the case I make in my forthcoming book, The Food Police, that there is no systematic difference in the nutritional content between organic and non-organic foods.  ​​

​The study has caused quite a stir among many organic food advocates who cannot seem to acknowledge the science on the subject.  

Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't some advantages to organic; however, as I've argued, the advantages are often over-hyped and the costs often downplaced.  If you have questions about organic, this Q&A piece in the NYT just about nails it.​