Advising Consumers About Organic Foods and Healthful Eating

Advising Consumers About Organic Foods and Healthful Eating

Hot Topics are short, concise practice and science-based answers to current questions RDs and DTRs may receive. Hot Topics are not an ADA position or stance on a topic and does not reflect Association consensus on the issue. Rather, they provide expert opinion to an emerging area of food, nutrition and health. Hot Topics are meant to assist RDs and DTRs to answer questions from patients/clients and the media.

Title of Topic: Advising Consumers About Organic Foods and Healthful Eating
Date of Release: October 2009

Claim of Topic:
Consumers make food marketplace decisions to meet their nutrition, safety, economic, personal and community needs. Purchasing decisions are obscured by many factors including the degree to which needs compete and overlap, as well as the wealth of information about foods available in the marketplace. Further, terms such as "organic," "locally grown," "sustainable" and "natural" can be difficult to understand. U.S. organic food sales have increased and most Americans purchase organic foods at least occasionally; however, only about 3 percent of total food sales are organic (1).

"Organic" foods are produced under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) regulations, requiring process certification throughout the production and manufacturing chain (2). The NOP describes the production and process practices required for a food to be certified as and labeled as "organic," but NOP certification does not claim nutritional or food safety benefits for organic products. USDA and non-governmental organizations promote local and regional food systems to make "locally grown" fresh foods available to consumers and to support small to mid-size farms and ranches (3). These foods may or may not be "organic." Some farmers who follow organic practices choose not to go through the certification process and many "conventional" farms use environmentally and agriculturally sustainable practices commonly associated with "organic" practices.

RDs' and DTRs' recommendations help consumers make food choices that contribute to dietary patterns consistent with MyPyramid and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Organic, local and natural foods are not necessarily healthy or sustainable, yet healthy food should be synonymous with both nutritious and sustainable (4). Consumers always should read Nutrition Facts panels for information on calories and nutrient content of conventional, organic, local, sustainable and "natural" foods.

Discussion of Topic:

  • Safety. All foods are covered under U.S. food safety laws and regulations, regardless of production method. The central food safety issues between "organic" and "conventional" products are pesticide residues and foodborne illness. USDA and other data sources show pesticide residues on most products are well below government-established thresholds, although typically are lower for organic products (5). Reports of contamination of produce by Escherichia coli show higher levels in organic produce, although the difference was not statistically significant (6). Other studies have documented that using animal manure fertilizer in organic production and "low input" farming increases the risk of contamination of fresh produce with E. coli, Salmonella and other enteric pathogens, but these risks can be reduced following HACCP practices (7, 8). A recent study demonstrated the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in the feces of organically and conventionally raised beef cattle to be similar to prior studies (9). It is important to note that many ingredients and methods (such as antimicrobial agents, preservatives and irradiation) with demonstrated food safety benefit are not allowed in organic food production (2). Both conventional and organic foods have been targets of foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls. Overall, conventional and organic foods have good food safety records.
  • Nutrient content. Systematic reviews recently completed in the U.K. and France show few differences in nutrient content between organic and conventional produce (10, 11). The U.K. review reported organic crops had higher levels of phosphorus and higher acidity and the French review reported organic crops had higher contents of iron, magnesium and polyphenols for some products. Both reported conventional crops were higher in nitrogen. The small differences reported, especially for minerals, were not across all products and result from variations in mineral uptake from soils and fertilizers applied to soils. It is very difficult to make comparisons in nutrient content because the differences are small and there are many variables, including plant cultivar, growing conditions, growing season, mineral content of soils, fertilizer sources and minerals in water, among others. A study of milk quality among conventional (without and with use of recombinant bovine somatotropin [rbST]) and organic varieties showed no biologically significant differences in quality, nutrients and hormones, although conventional milk had statistically lower bacterial counts (12). The small differences reported likely do not affect overall nutrient intakes by individuals and are in the range of expected variability for produce and dairy products. More research is required to address systematically whether significant differences exist in nutrient content of organic and conventional produce, grain, meat and dairy products.
  • Personal and family economics. Prices for organic products are generally, although not always, higher. Recent ERS studies show significant retail price premiums for organic produce and milk, the two top organic food sales categories, compared with conventional counterparts (1). This results in part from typically higher production costs for organic products than for convention products due to an increased reliance on both hired and unpaid labor, fuel and equipment repair costs, even though pesticide and related costs for conventional production are higher (1). Consumers can judge price differences as they compare like products.

    The economic realities for individuals who rely on WIC, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), free/reduced price school meals and other programs designed to help low-income people meet their nutrition needs are important to consider in any dialogue about food recommendations. It requires substantial attention to food choices to meet nutrient needs following the USDA Thrifty Food Plan purchasing conventional foods and is less possible with organic foods. RDs and DTRs always should consider food costs when advising consumers about food choices.
  • Community issues. Community issues are an important part of dietetic practice (13). Concerns about the sustainability of local farm communities and the environment also drive food purchasing. Given these community issues, "organic" should not be confused with "local." Importation of organic foods has substantially increased since 2002. Organic distributors, processors and other handlers responding to a USDA survey (38%) indicated they imported some or all organic products in 2004 (1). USDA's new initiative, "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food," promotes connecting consumers with local farmers (3). The basic tenet is that when farmers sell directly to consumers, there is no payment to a "middleman." By forging local relationships, consumers may learn more about specific farms related to labor, environment and safety practices as well as promoting local foods. However, regional and local foods are seasonal and may not be available year-round, which may limit variety. To meet consumer expectations, foods may be transported distances—fresh or processed, organic or conventional. Both shipping and manufacturing require energy and energy usage can be difficult to quantify overall when comparing local versus long-distance foods, considering economies of scale and differences in transportation. Trucking, for example, requires more fossil fuel than train or ship transport (14, 15).

    For milk, preliminary research indicates greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are similar for organic and conventional dairy operations with additional research needed to evaluate environmental factors concerned with production systems (16, 17). Organic milk production relies on greater farm acreage and less pesticide use than conventional production and inherently increases methane emission (16). Differences between organic and conventional dairy production require further research and the international dairy production community is developing standardized research and evaluation systems (17).

Bottom Line:
Recommend your clients eat more fruits, vegetables, low-fat and non-fat dairy products and whole grains to help meet recommendations from MyPyramid and the Dietary Guidelines. Whether organic, local or conventional, they are wholesome and contribute to healthful dietary patterns. Research on differences between organic and conventional products is ongoing and the best method to differentiate products is the food label.

Opportunities for the RD/DTR:
Providing food guidance to clients requires knowledge of food products in the marketplace. Helping clients to understand conventional, organic and local foods and seasonality and use of locally grown produce, dairy, grains, meat, poultry and seafood products can help them enjoy a wider variety of foods that meet food and dietary recommendations. As always, helping consumers to understand food labels, particularly nutrition and ingredient labeling, will help consumers to make choices that meet diet and health goals. Additionally, RDs and DTRs can advocate for and participate in additional research to help clarify nutrition, safety, economic and community aspects of food production, processing and distribution methods.

Resources/Reference:

  1. US Dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry, June 2009 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB55/
  2. National Organic Program (NOP). Organic Production and Handling Standards. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service. October 2002 (Updated April 2008). Available at: www.ams.usda.gov/nop. Accessed September 25, 2009.
  3. Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Available at www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER. Accessed September 25, 2009.
  4. American Medical Association (AMA). Report of the Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH). CSAPH Report 8-A-09. Sustainable Food, Resolution 405, A-08.2008. Available at: www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/475/refcomd.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2009.
  5. Gold MV. Should I purchase organic foods? USDA Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. Available at www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsIntro.shtml. Accessed September 25, 2009.
  6. Mukherjee A, Speh D, Dyck E, Diez-Gonzalez F. Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. J Food Protect. 2004; 67: 894-900.
  7. Mukherjee A, Speth D, Diez-Gonzalez F. Association of farm management practices with risk of Escherichia coli contamination in pre-harvest produce grown in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Intl J Food Microbiol. 2007; 3: 296-302.
  8. Leifert C, Cooper JM, Volakakis N, Ball K. Control of enteric pathogens in ready-to-eat vegetable crops in organic and ‘low input' production systems: a HACCP-based approach. J Applied Microbiol. 2008; 105: 931-950.
  9. Reinstein S, Fox JT, Shi X, Alam, MJ, Renter DG, Nagaraja TG. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organically and naturally raised beef cattle. Applied Envir. Micro. 2009; 75: 5421-5423.
  10. Dangour AD, Dodhia SK, Hayter A, Allen E, Lock K, Uauy R. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041.
  11. Lairon D. Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2009;DOI: 10.1051/agro/2009019.
  12. Vicin J, Etherton T, Kris-Etherton P, Ballam J, Denham S. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008; 108: 1198-1203.
  13. Harmon, AH, Gerald, BL. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Professionals Can Implement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and Support Ecological Sustainability. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007; 107: 1033-1043.
  14. Weber CL, Matthews HC. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci & Tech. 2008; 42: 3508–3513.
  15. Mariola MJ. The local industrial complex? Questioning the link between local foods and energy use. Agric Hum Values. 2008; 25: 193-196.
  16. deBoer IJM. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Prod Sci. 2003; 80: 69-77. Available at www.csuchico.edu/agr/farm/dairy/environmentalstudies/Environmental%20impact%20assessment%20of%20conventional%20and%20organic%20milk%20production.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2009.
  17. Environmental/Ecological Impact of the Dairy Sector. Bulletin Intl Dairy Fed. 2009; 436. Available at www.fil-idf.org/WebsiteDocuments/436-2009.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2009.

Written by Mildred M Cody, PhD, RD, LD, and Robert Earl, MPH, RD of the Food and Culinary Professionals Dietetic Practice Group.