Sanet Post, Charles Benbrook,
Re: Gussow on Nutrition/Food Systems
December 8, 1996

Hi Joan. Joan Gussow has written a thought provoking commentary entitled "Is Organic Food More Nutritious? And Is That the Right Question?" in the latest issue of the OFRF bulletin (Fall, 1996, Number 3). Joan will also be speaking on this subject at EcoFarm about January 24th, so I suspect she might enjoy some commentary on her piece, and the issue in general.

She argues that basing an argument to society at large -- organic systems are better for people than conventional systems -- on the basis of vitamin/mineral, protein, and other nutritional parameters is not supported by the science that exists, and for many reasons, would not stand up even if the long-term, expensive studies were carried out to rigorously test the hypothesis. She states instead that the reasons society should support organic farming are mostly environmental. Some thoughts/reactions.

I agree with Joan that the problem the food industry/agriculturalists needs to solve is not vitamin/mineral deficiency. Most nutrition-related health problems have their roots in excess. Herein lies the critical issue which has not been assessed adequately and which, I believe, will show major differences between farming systems that are of significance to human nutrition and health.

Conventional farming systems (especially high-value, short season fruits and vegetables) that pump water, nutrients, and biocides into hybrid plants bred for a few traits that have lots to do with plant architecture and fast growth/yield may not alter vitamin/mineral levels much, but they certainly do alter dramatically the overall composition of the harvested foods -- density, sugar content, protein and type of protein, digestible fiber, and perhgaps most important, many known and unknown biochemcials that may affect bioavailabiltiy, the human immune system, reproductive performance, and who knows what else. Such farming systems work for growers (i.e. produce profits under contemporary polices/marketing institutions) because they give the grower the ability to control key "macro-parameters" of the farming system, but only at the expense of management practices that result in minimal biological diversity and ecological interactions. In general, simplicity/narrow genetics in farming systems results in a diet that is also simpler in terms of what is in it, and maybe also what people can get out of it. And in the case of excess consumption of certain foods, from certain places most of the time, even greater "concentration" of simplicity in the diet of many individuals.

The American diet/citizens suffer from many of the same problems as crops, and the way people grow and develop, and our nutrition-related health problems are not unlike what is observed in crop fields. It is clearly possible to eat organic foods excessively and to miss an adequate balance of nutrients, protein, etc. But there are some self-correcting tendencies in organic systems that may eventually be viewed as highly desireable in improving the human diet/nutrition/health interface.

Look at, and eat a standard, over-amped conventional strawberry, bulbous, tasteless, and then do the same with an organic strawberry. The differences are unmistakable. Without knowing what careful science will establish as significant differences, surely there will be many. If a person ate the functional equivalent of organic strawberries across their diet, compared to others eating conventional counterparts, I believe across the population their would be significant changes in health status, for many reasons that Joan notes, and others known of us can now imagine.

I agree with Joan that it is easier today to document and explain the environmental benefits of organic vs. conventional systems, especially in areas with significant pest pressure, but I still believe there is ample suggestive evidence that how food is grown affects what is in it, which affects what people are inclined to eat, and which then affects their health. Complicated causality indeed, but still possibly very, very important.

Hope you'll produce a written version of your talk, Joan, so it can be shared more widely.

chuck