“Flawed study” is on its way to becoming a new catch phrase, as citizens try to work out the practical meaning of scientific research. Journal articles published last year and this year seem to cast doubt on the health benefits of organic food – but their strongest finding was that there is not enough research on the subject. As a faculty member at Saybrook University, where I teach graduate students and sit on dissertation committees, I have some experience in evaluating published and unpublished research. Here is one suggestion for evaluating research you read about in the news: Ask yourself, Who conducted the study? If it was funded by chemical manufacturers, it is likely to defend the use of pesticides. If it was paid for by an environmental organization, any financial benefit is less likely to bias the researchers. Did you know that research is sometimes squelched if the funders don’t like the results? Scientists can be asked to sign an agreement saying that the funder owns the results and may publish them – /or not./ So for every study that defends a chemical, there may be others — unpublished — that found it to be dangerous for people or the planet.
Yup I’ve suspected it for years. Now the United Nations, through its International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management’s new report called Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials, says the agriculture is one of the two top sectors needing major renovation this century. The other is – all together now – energy. So if your budget isn’t quite ready to handle a solar array, you can do as much for the planet with earth-wise food choices.
Remember the 5 guidelines of The Earth-Friendly Food Chain: More organic, less meat, more diversity, and more local. Oh wait, that’s only four. Ok, add in “less processing, packaging, and waste,” as the fifth guideline. The most powerful food choice of them all? Number 2: eat less meat ( that means less fish, dairy, and eggs). It’s official – see the UN website’s write-up here.
There are other sources of protein besides food from animals, so your health won’t be harmed — and frankly would improve if you reduced your consumption of artery-clogging, waistline-expanding cholesterol. 
If you have high blood pressure, you’ve been told a million times to cut back on salt intake. Salt overuse may also contribute to stroke and heart disease. But do you know how much salt you’re eating? Most people don’t, and that’s an ignorance that is not bliss… it’s dangerous. Writing for the New York Times (click for full article), Michael Moss reported, “The food industry releases some 10,000 new products a year, the Department of Agriculture has reported, and processed foods, along with restaurant meals, now account for roughly 80% of the salt in the American diet.”
Salt ponds in San Francisco Bay help satisfy Americans’ appetite for salt. By some estimates, deep cuts in salt use could save thousands of lives a year.
Why am I mentioning this on a blog about food and the environment? Because one of the best ways to avoid excessive salt is to avoid processed foods and fast foods, which typically are loaded with salt to create flavor in the otherwise bland product. In other words (and I’m only going to tell you this another million times), do some of your own cooking with fresh foods and you won’t be letting salt sneak into your body. That’s good advice for everyone.
Unlike all ball games, judicial rulings are sometimes claimed as victories by both sides. This just happened with a Supreme Court ruling on chemical giant Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa crop. (FYI, alfalfa is a $9-billion sector in the US).
In a Grist article, Tom Laskawy pointed out: “Despite the news reports claiming victory for Monsanto, the Supreme Court did not overturn the central tenet of the case: that the USDA prematurely approved Roundup Ready alfalfa… More importantly, the Supreme Court has also now ruled for the very time that ‘environmental harm’ includes economic effects such as reduced agriculture yield or loss of market due to genetic contamination.”
“That’s a huge win for our side… That’s gigantic!” Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist of Consumers Union, told me. Future lawsuits can now confidently use the gene-flow argument against approval and use of genetically engineered crops. Other share his glee. The Center for Food Safety called the ruling “a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the farmers and consumers it represents.”
Source:
Dear Linda,
Can you answer my friend Mark’s question about whether it’s better to eat conventionally grown produce from local sources (he lives in Boston) or organic produce from other parts of the country or world? I figured if anyone knew for sure it would be you !
Heidi
Question:
Heidi,
There aren’t enough choices among the food items. We eat organic and local whenever possible now. Other than listing both “Seasonal Fruit” and “Tropical Fruit”, I didn’t see any foods that made any distinction like that. And I expect it makes a big impact.
On a related topic, I haven’t been able to get a good answer to the question: if the type of produce I want to buy is available in two versions–conventional from my region, or organic from across the country (or even central America)–which is the best choice? I suspect that the answer depends on which specific produce, and whether you value global or local issues more. But I can’t seem to find anything comparing this so that I can make a more informed decision.
– M
Answer:
Hi Heidi,
Thanks for thinking of me for this!
Your friend’s question is a perfect example of the complexity of the food options. Generally, I favor organic because getting poisons out of our system is so crucial! And organic is good for your health, which means less medicines down the line.The locavore campaign has attracted criticism and I think you’d have to do the math on every product you buy in order to make the “right” decision. Since nobody is going to do that, it’s a matter of probabilities.
How local are the local options? As with every other damn thing that is good, big business has coopted it — I heard of one person who found that her local supermarket was labeling “local” anything grown in the United States! Cheating! And if it’s truly local, how do they get it to the market — in a decrepit pickup truck (not good) or by rail (better)? And how much packaging is involved in either case?
Also, there might be local growers who are not certified organic but who are “in transition” — the 3-year buffer period after they used their last poisons but their soil is not clean yet. Some growers also don’t want to go to the bother of certification.
Another factor is WHO is the grower. If it’s a subsidiary of agribusiness, it’s linked to the heavyweight industrial system. If it’s a small family farm, whole other story.
I do one quick short cut: Eliminate the farthest foods first. No apples from New Zealand, no wine from South Africa. There’s a checklist for going local in my book (along with all the other material about organic, packaging, diversity, etc) — maybe you could suggest that your friend buy a copy!
It’s always heartening to know there are people out there willing to do the right thing for themselves and the planet!!
Linda
Thank You:
Linda,
Thanks for your prompt & thoughtful answer, I have forwarded it to my
friend along with links to your two books on Amazon (I actually think he
already has a copy of the first one).Heidi
Oregonian Thomas Houseman is an undeterred vegetarian winemaker. “Anything that you can pair with meat, if you think about it stylistically, it’s easy enough to pair with either vegetables or meat alternatives,” says Houseman. Meanwhile, Jon Grant, another winemaker and vegetarian, adds, “Wild mushroom risotto with an understated California Pinot Noir can be quite lovely.” Turns out there are quite a few meatless vintners out there. Read more at this SF Chronicle article.
