• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Organic = Healthy?: More Research Needed to Determine Benefits of Organic

Posted on: Monday, 10 April 2006, 12:00 CDT

By Valley Morning Star, Harlingen, Texas

Apr. 10--EDITOR'S NOTE: Interest in organic foods is growing at a rapid pace in the United States. As the demand for organic products increases, farmers, researchers and consumers in the Rio Grande Valley are beginning to explore this new market. In the second installment of a three-part series, Valley Morning Star reporter Melissa McEver takes a look at organic farming research in the Valley.

By MELISSA McEVER melissam@valleystar.com 956-430-6252

As a researcher, Gene Lester spends hours each day pondering unanswered scientific questions.

But in his opinion, too few researchers are asking the important questions about organic foods: Are they really better for you than "conventional" foods? Just how dangerous to our health are the pesticides lingering on produce? Do the chemicals pose a risk to our children?

No one has definitively addressed these queries, said Lester, a plant physiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Subtropical Agricultural Research Center in Weslaco.

"Not much research is available on organics, and 80 to 90 percent of it is faulty," he said.

Lester is doing his part, investigating the differences between organic and conventional grapefruit. Based on his preliminary findings, organic red grapefruit has more lycopene -- an antioxidant that gives the fruit its red color -- than conventional fruit, but the organic grapefruit has lower levels of other nutrients. He's still analyzing the results of the study, which wrapped up in March.

Federal funding for research projects like Lester's is limited, however, and universities and institutions often end up scraping for research money as a result, said Joe Bradford, a soil scientist for the Weslaco research center. Bradford also is conducting research on organic management of fruits and vegetables.

What the research says

The research that does exist on the benefits of consuming organics, experts said, is conflicting, confusing and in many cases inconclusive.

Of the studies that researchers have conducted, few are peer-reviewed or valid scientifically, agreed Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation. The foundation is trying to change that by funding research projects on organic farming practices.

Some studies have suggested organic crops have more vitamin C, iron and magnesium, with lower levels of nitrates and heavy metals. Other studies have found little difference between the two. It's not much to go on, Scowcroft said.

Lester has written a scientific review of the research on organically versus conventionally grown produce, and he found in many cases that scientists didn't compare apples to apples. Often, the researchers didn't control variables like soil differences, rainfall and pest management, he concluded.

"Baseline information really needs to be in place for both," Lester said. "Otherwise, you can't compare the two (organic and conventional)."

Research also is inconclusive on just how high pesticide levels are in conventionally grown foods, or if those pesticides have a negative impact. A 2003 USDA survey found pesticide residue levels above legally allowable limits in a small portion of samples, but no residue at all in most food samples. Pesticide residue is lower in organic foods, but not completely absent, according to a "Consumer Reports" study.

We also know little about the long-term impacts of pesticides on our bodies, Lester and Bradford said.

"We don't know -- are they retained? What's happening to our central nervous system, liver, respiratory system?" Lester said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains a pesticide monitoring program that checks food samples for pesticide levels, said FDA spokesman Mike Herndon. The FDA tests samples for maximum pesticide levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The FDA doesn't conduct research on effects of long-term exposure through diet, but the EPA monitors pesticide exposure in children, according to EPA's Web site. The agency reports that pesticides can block absorption of nutrients from children's diets, and that their bodies might not remove them as efficiently.

In an interesting twist, however, recent research suggests that consuming organics could have a protective effect on children. A study published in February in "Environmental Health Perspectives" reported that children who ate organic foods for five days had lower concentrations of pesticides in their urine than before the five-day period. Earlier studies have reported similar results, according to the Health Behavior News Service.

Even without much proof to show that organics are healthier, consumers still tend to believe that organically grown foods are better for them, reported Italian researchers. As the demand grows, researchers might be forced to pay attention, Scowcroft said.

Where's the money?

Getting funding for research projects, however, is an uphill battle.

Only a small portion of the federal government's budget is devoted to organics research, although the amount has increased in recent years, according to numbers from the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. CSREES is the primary agency that funds agricultural research projects at universities.

In the last five years, federal funds have gone toward a higher number of organic research projects -- in 2004, 187 organic-research projects received a total of $10 million in awards from CSREES, compared to 78 projects receiving $3 million in 2000. That's still just a sliver of the overall CSREES pie -- the agency had more than $605 million in funds available for research in 2004, said Michael Fitzner, director of the agency's plant systems section. That amount doesn't include additional funds for university extension.

Fitzner said he's seeing growing support for organics research, but "of course, everyone wants more," he said. "There's a lot of work to be done."

A number of research projects at the USDA center in Weslaco haven't gotten off the ground yet because of inadequate federal funds, Bradford said. Researchers had planned to lease 190 acres from a nearby grower to start a certified organic farm, but haven't received enough funds to operate it, he said. The agency is able to lease a few acres on the farm for organic citrus research and testing organic methods for disease and pest control.

"We'd fully utilize the farm if we could," Bradford said.

Some organic advocates think there are political forces at play in the national tug-of-war for research funds. Scowcroft cites the research taking place at some universities on behalf of chemical agricultural companies -- research that he thinks can cause conflicts of interest.

"It's product-based, profit-based research," Scowcroft said. "And sometimes professors can reap the profits."Out of the nearly $52 million spent in 2005 for agricultural sciences research at Texas A&M, for example, $4.4 million came from private sources, the university reported to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Some of those sources are nonprofit organizations, while others are for-profit companies, Texas A&M officials said.

Texas A&M has collaborated on research with chemical companies Monsanto, Dow and BASF, said Diane Gilliland, assistant director of research administration for Texas A&M's experiment stations. But Gilliland said that the university's relationship with industry doesn't affect its interest in organics research.

"We'd be interested in doing a project on organics, but finding the resources for funding is a challenge," she said. "It's not a big money area."

Lester hopes the interest in organics research -- and the funds for it -- will pick up.

"Many questions haven't been answered," he said. "I don't even know if they've been asked."

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, Valley Morning Star, Harlingen, Texas

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

XETRA:BAS,

Source: Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, Texas)

More News in this Category