The organic advantage

Imagine a new gasoline that claims to reduce future repair costs and lengthen the life of your car. Not only that, but this new gas will also improve mileage and reduce your car's exhaust pollutants.

If the gasoline cost an extra $2 to $3 per gallon than your usual gasoline, would you buy it? Would you wonder if it's really as good as they say? Perhaps you'd ask to see the data that backs up the claims. What if you were told, "We know it's better because of the way we make the gas"? What if a competitor markets a completely different "greener gas" but makes exactly the same claims about its advantages? Could you tell which one is best? Or, would you go back to your usual gas until you had more information? What if it were just 5 cents more per gallon? What if it were $5 more per gallon?

In my view, this scenario is similar to what consumers now face with organic foods. Although producers of organic foods are generally not allowed to claim specific health benefits, plenty of advocates endorse the idea that organic foods are healthier. And much of the appeal is intuitive given that organic foods have no synthetic fertilizers, growth stimulants, genetic modification, and so on.

So, are organic foods truly healthier? Are they worth the added cost? The answers may not be as clear as you think.

A complicated issue

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying organic foods are bad. They may actually be better for you, safer than conventional foods, and well worth their higher prices. It's just that we don't have clear evidence to back up those claims.

It's a tricky issue. Before we can all agree that organic foods are worth the higher prices, there are several reasons not to accept the "organic advantage" at face value. Any benefits they offer depend on

• How you define "organic"
• How you define "better"
• How much the potential (and unproven) benefits of organic foods are worth to you
• How much the potential (and often unproven) risks of conventional food bother you.

Defining "organic"

Although the word "organic" has a number of meanings, when it comes to food, it refers to production using only feed and fertilizer that are free of antibiotics, growth hormones, synthetic pesticides, other synthetic ingredients, bioengineering, or radiation.

That may sound simple, but what about a fertilizer that is "chemically created" but is identical to fertilizer of animal origin? What about food that is mostly organic but has traces of food from a non-organic farm? How can the consumer know what the term "organic" means when they see it on a food label?

The U.S. government has taken actions to address these questions. Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990. This led the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create the National Organic Program that took effect in late 2002. This program creates and updates regulations for food producers who label their foods "organic," including the use of the "USDA Organic" seal.

According to the USDA regulations:

• Organic foods may not use radiation, genetic engineering, petroleum-based or sewage sludge-based fertilizers, synthetic substances, or pesticides.
• Animals must not receive antibiotics or growth hormones. And, they must be allowed year-round outdoor access and fed only organic feed.
• A food may be labeled as "100 percent organic" if all ingredients are organically produced.
• A food may be labeled "organic" if at least 95% of the ingredients are organically produced. The remaining 5% must be included on the USDA's "allowed substances" list or not available in organic form.
• "Made with organic ingredients" means that at least 70% of the ingredients are organically produced; these products cannot carry the USDA Organic seal.
• If less than 70% of a product's ingredients are organically produced, the product itself cannot be called organic (and the seal can't be used), but individual ingredients that are organically produced may be noted in the list of ingredients.

These labeling regulations are not about food safety or quality. They are about food production - the process of how the food is produced. Inspectors are supposed to certify food producers' methods to decide which label is most appropriate, and test to confirm compliance with the regulations.

Defining "better"

When people talk about the "organic advantage," what do they mean? Here are three ways that organic foods might be better for you than "conventional" foods:

Health. A big part of the appeal of organic foods is the belief that they are good for human health. Advocates of organic foods often state that we can reduce cancer, heart disease, and other important health problems if only the food supply was completely organic. While they may be right, it's still speculation at this point.

One analysis reviewing 137 studies over 50 years found no significant differences in the nutritional value of organic foods over conventionally produced foods. Similarly, a review of 223 prior studies examining nutrients and contaminants in a variety of organic and conventional foods found no convincing evidence that organic foods were more nutritious.

There are some studies finding lower rates of certain conditions (including obesity) among people who choose organic foods, but they aren't convincing - it's likely that these same people have healthier habits and more resources than the average "non-organic" person.

As I breeze through the produce section at my local grocer, I have some confidence that the organic apples are different from conventional apples in how they're produced. But I cannot be confident that they're worth the higher price because they provide significant health benefits.

One other point to consider: for people on a tight budget, the high cost of organic foods could lead to a less healthy diet overall because after paying a premium for organic foods, inexpensive junk food is one way to stretch the remaining budget.

Taste. I've heard it said that you can easily taste the difference between organic and non-organic foods, and that organic foods clearly taste better. But, at least one study found this wasn't true. Researchers raised a variety of otherwise identical vegetables (including lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, and onions) that were grown either organically or conventionally. Consumers were asked to compare their taste in a blinded fashion. No major differences were reported. In fact, conventionally produced tomatoes were rated as having a stronger flavor. Perhaps the results would have been different for fruits, meats, or other food items but, again, there is no compelling evidence that there is an "organic advantage" when it comes to taste.

Safety. It seems reasonable to assume that organic foods are safer than conventional foods. After all, pesticides, antibiotics, and sewage sludge-based fertilizers can't be good for you, right? Fair enough.

But key questions remain: How unsafe are conventional foods? Do conventionally grown apples truly represent a health risk and, if so, how different is the risk posed by organic foods compared with non-organic foods? We have little or no data to answer these questions. And there are inexpensive ways to reduce pesticide exposure from conventional foods, such as washing, peeling, cooking, or freezing them.

Of course, there may be other reasons people are willing to pay a premium for organic foods: protecting the environment, humane treatment of animals, and even cultural or religious influences. Still, there are plenty of people choosing organic foods based on assumptions and promises about health that are not backed up by real evidence.

How much is the "organic advantage" worth to you?

Putting aside concerns about how to define "organic-ness" and the fact that health advantages are unproven, there's still the issue of price.

For example, if a single organic apple cost $8.00, would you buy it? What if the health advantage was small? Each person would still have to weigh the health advantage against the difference in price. Perhaps it would be an easy choice for some (especially the wealthy), a tougher one for others, much like the expensive car with the highest safety rating. Even for those who could barely afford it, some would choose to spend the money while others would not.

The organic food industry is a multibillion-dollar enterprise. And it's growing. Sales of organic foods in the U.S. were about $3.6 billion in 1997. By 2022, annual sales of organic foods were more than $60 billion. It's remarkable how much we are willing to pay for these products despite the absence of a proven health advantage.

A myth in the making or ahead of the curve?

The lack of scientific evidence is not a big deal for everyone. After all, we make plenty of decisions every day - health-related and otherwise - without scientific scrutiny to back them up.

My favorite example is the "parachute assumption." No one has performed a highly scientific study of whether using a parachute when jumping out of a plane is a good idea. We simply accept the idea at face value because the experience of skydivers using parachutes is compelling. (Of course, the occasional tragic parachute malfunction also proves the point.) We don't need to actually do the experiment comparing outcomes of 100 skydivers using parachutes with 100 others not using parachutes. We can guess the results and have confidence that choosing to use a parachute is the right call.

But the organic food advantage is not nearly so clear. Years from now, we may have data that organic foods offer no measurable health or environmental benefits. At that point, many will have wasted considerable resources buying these foods based on the false expectation that the added cost was worthwhile. Then again, if the data go the other way and it turns out that organic foods provide major health benefits, those who had chosen organic foods will be healthier and, perhaps, live longer than those who were waiting for proof.

So, should you pay more now (if you're able and willing) for possible benefit, or wait for proof and go with conventional foods? Based on currently available evidence, I'd say there's no right answer.

Image: © istetiana/Getty Images