Organic fear mongering

The following video from MSN contains some of the worst kind of fear mongering in relation to non-organic foods.  Eat non-organic celery?  It will lower your kids IQ.  Eat non-organic apples?  Your kids will get ADHD.  

The  sources for all the claims in the video (see the bottom right hand part of the screen) are to places like wired.com, organicauthority.com, cnn.com, thedailygreen.com, and CBSnews.com.  Of course, non of the actual links are provided, so one can only guess at what "evidence" supports the claims.  I would bet good money the claims arise from associative studies that cannot support cause-effect claims.

If you want real facts on organic (along with citations to real science journals), I suggest chapter 5 of The Food Police. A twitter follower also pointed me to this older paper on the history of "black marketing" associated with some (but not all) wings of the organic food movement.

What is Natural Food Anyway?

At little over a month ago, I discussed some of the ongoing legal challenges that are swirling around "natural" claims on foods.  One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators.   

I thought I'd try to shed a little light on the subject by making use of the survey project I just started and asking consumers what they think the word means.  In June, I added two questions to the survey.  The first question listed 10 statements and individuals had to place them in a box that said "I believe foods containing this ingredient are natural" or one that said "I DO NOT believe foods containing this ingredient are natural."  The order of items was randomized across respondents (sample size is 1,004, demographically weighted to match the US population, sampling error is about +/- 3%).  

The results indicate that most people think added cane sugar, salt, at beet sugar are "natural" but HFCS, sodium chloride, and biotechnology are not.  Interestingly, salt and Sodium Chloride are the same thing!  Yet, using the technical/scientific name reduces the % perceiving salt as natural from 65.6% to 32%!

Processed foods are seen as least natural.  "Processed food" is also a vague term.  Is cheese a processed food?   

The second question I asked was the following, "Which of the following best fits your definition of 'natural food'?"  I gave four options, and here is the % of respondents choosing each option.

The majority of respondents thought that the best definition (at least among the four I included) was, "fresh foods with no added ingredients and no processing."  

I suspect many of the foods sitting on a grocery store shelf that use the word "natural" do not meet this definition consumers found most descriptive.  

Environmental Working Group on Organic Impacts

The Environmental Working Group (EWG)​ lists on their web site a ranking of the relative environmental impact (measured in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) of different foods.  The table is based on life-cycle analysis (LCA) conducted by a company called Clean Metrics.

I'm not ​an expert on LCA and I haven't dug into the detail on how Clean Metrics conducted the analysis.  Thus, I won't comment for now on the relative ranking of the different foods and commodities.  

However, I find the labeling on the EWG's prominent graph highly misleading.  The reason is that the chart repeatedly says things like:​

choose organic; ​buy organic; avoid growth hormones

Here is the problem. The research doesn't actually support the claim that these urgings would actually lower greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, by their own admission, the EWG reveals that:

The lifecycle assessments are based on conventional rather than pasture-based or organic systems of food production. . . we were unable to identify definitive studies and widely accepted methodologies assessing greenhouse gas emissions from pasture-raised, organic or other meat production systems. 

So, the analysis didn't actually study the greenhouse gas emissions of organics or pasture-raised!​

​Moreover, when we look at the words of the company (Clean Metrics) that conducted the study that forms the basis of the EWG chart, we see things like:

There is not a strong correlation between organic food production methods and lower carbon footprints.

and

On balance, grass-fed animal products from ruminants are likely to have higher carbon footprints compared to products from conventionally housed/fed animals.

​Also, when we look at the research on growth hormones, like in this Journal of Animal Science article, we find

Manure output increased by 1,799 × 10^3 t as a result of [growth -enhancing technologies - primarily growth hormones] withdrawal, with an increase in carbon emissions of 714,515 t/454 × 10^6 kg beef

and this article in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science shows that the use of the growth hormone rBST in milk could reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, the EWG may have other reasons for advising against consuming foods with growth hormones or advising to eat organic over conventional, but I find it misleading to make these claims in a prominent graph ranking foods by greenhouse gas emissions.

Science of Obesity

Last week the journal BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) published an essay by Gary Taubes.  His article contained a lot of good sense about the state knowledge on the science of obesity and reveals how little we really know.  

Here is a key excerpt:​

Another problem endemic to obesity and nutrition research since the second world war has been the assumption that poorly controlled experiments and observational studies are sufficient basis on which to form beliefs and promulgate public health guidelines. This is rationalised by the fact that it’s exceedingly difficult (and inordinately expensive) to do better science when dealing with humans and long term chronic diseases. This may be true, but it doesn’t negate the fact the evidence generated from this research is inherently incapable of establishing reliable knowledge.

and

Without rigorous experimental tests, we know nothing meaningful about the cause of the disease states we’re studying or about the therapies that might work to ameliorate them. All we have are speculations.

As for the experimental trials, these too have been flawed.

and

Rather than acknowledge that these trials are incapable of answering the question of what causes obesity (assumed to be obvious, in any case), this research is still treated as relevant, at least, to the question of what diet works best to resolve it—and that in turn as relevant to the causality question.

and in conclusion

We believe that ultimately three conditions are necessary to make progress in the struggle against obesity and its related chronic diseases—type 2 diabetes, most notably. First is the acceptance of the existence of an alternative hypothesis of obesity, or even multiple alternative hypotheses, with the understanding that these, too, adhere to the laws of physics and must be tested rigorously.

Second is a refusal to accept substandard science as sufficient to establish reliable knowledge, let alone for public health guidelines. When the results of studies are published, the authors must be brutally honest about the possible shortcomings and all reasonable alternative explanations for what they observed.

Organic Shampoo Over-Rated Too?

​I'm not a big follower of developments in beauty products.  But my wife is (not that she needs it!).  In any event, she passed along this interesting exchange on a cosmetic web site.  I wonder if the hair expert will receive the same kind of attacks as my recent Huffington Post article that challenged some of the conventional wisdom of organic food.

Dear Paula,
I have an itchy scalp. I also have color-treated hair, so my hair can feel dry. I used Aveda Brilliant Shampoo for many years. I loved the way it gave fullness to my hair but then I learned it was not wholly organic so stopped using it. . . . I like organic stuff and have tried olive oil, rosemary oil, and vinegar for itchy scalp, but am frustrated and just don't know what to look for anymore. Help!

Jan

Dear Jan,

First, you need to let go of the idea that natural and organic products are better for your hair and scalp. Although I understand the pull organic products have, the truth is such products typically contain ingredients that are likely what caused some of the problems you’re dealing with now, especially the itchy scalp. 

A great shampoo should be a blend of synthetic and natural ingredients, but even then the natural ingredients often do little other than look good on the label. Natural ingredients cannot do a very good job of cleansing the scalp or removing styling product buildup from hair—one reason shampoos with mostly natural ingredients tend to leave hair feeling worse, not better. . .