Dissecting Our Health

by guest blogger Coach Mark Smallwood, Rodale Institute executive director

The end of 2012 raised quite a few eyebrows and much ire as some quiet and some not-so-quiet snubs were aimed at organic foods. First, the Stanford meta-analysis, which claimed organic foods were “no better” than conventional foods (though their actual findings showed some clear organic benefits). Then, the timid report from the American Academy of Pediatrics hesitantly providing a wishy-washy statement for pediatricians to use as a guide when discussing organic foods with patients. And, finally, the betrayal of Dr. Oz, a formerly staunch supporter of eating organic, who tucked tail and spouted support for GMOs (and venom at “elite” organics) like a well-paid industry mouthpiece.

All these messages claim to be focused on “health” and whether or not certain foods help or hinder our progress toward this mystical perfection for which we are all supposed to strive. But, as I was just coming to realize last fall, all these detractors have one thing in common: They narrowly define health in terms of nutrient content. And it struck me: Maybe the problem is we are speaking a different language.

Organizations and researchers working on organic issues over the years have focused primarily on a different definition of health. For these groups, broader, more holistic concerns like contaminated water, soil degradation and loss, and the effects of toxic pesticides on environmental and human health have taken precedence over a reductionist study of individual nutrients.

Why? Because organic farming (and, therefore, organic research) is based primarily on biology rather than chemistry. Whereas conventional farmers look to synthetic fertilizers to provide their plants with specific nutrients (N-P-K), organic farmers focus on nourishing the living interactions in the soil, water, air, and even wider wildlife and insect communities to create strong, healthy plants. Organic farming recognizes the complicated interactions that go on within the natural world that result in true health—interactions we might not necessarily be able to control by adding or deleting individual nutrients.

Medical science is really just beginning to glimpse and talk more freely about these natural interactions in human health—think antioxidants and phytonutrients, the incredible health benefits of which weren’t “discovered” until the 1990s. While conventional medicine has historically focused on increasing this or that vitamin or mineral to promote health or on substituting this or that “bad” food with some “healthy” engineered foodstuff (think margarine instead of butter or saccharin instead of sugar), we are coming to realize there are complex interactions of often unknown factors that result in true health.

Although we would (and do) argue that there is more to health than nutrients, maybe the organic community has done itself a disservice by essentially ignoring the nutrient density of the end product. As I wrote before, “if nutrient content is how organic foods will be weighed and measured by American shoppers, it is time for some long-term, hands-in-the-dirt research to really find out how organic and conventional foods stack up.”

So 2013 will be a year for new plans at Rodale Institute. Our Farming Systems Trial (FST) has side-by-side research fields that have been managed organically and conventionally for more than 30 years—the perfect location for a sound comparative nutritional study. The crops are all grown in the same soil, are processed in the same manner, and can be tested after the same number of days following harvest. Plus, it takes at least five years to begin to see the full impacts of organic and conventional practices on soil and, therefore, crops. It only makes sense this would translate to the full impacts on nutrient density, as well. The long-term organic and long-term conventional fields of the FST provide an excellent field laboratory to address the impact of growing methods on nutrient density.

The organic community has been baited, and we’re ready to bite. We believe we can put the skeptics to rest once and for all.

 

Coach Mark Smallwood has been dedicated to environmental sustainability, efficiency, and conservation for decades. Since joining Rodale Institute in December 2010, he has brought heritage livestock back to the institute’s 333-acre farm, expanded and enhanced its research efforts, and launched “Your 2 Cents,” a national campaign to support and promote new organic farmers. In recognition for his sustainability efforts, Coach was chosen as a messenger for Al Gore’s Climate Project, presenting to more than 15,000 people on the effects of global warming. Last, but certainly not least, as a longtime organic farmer and biodynamic gardener, Coach has raised chickens, goats, sheep, and pigs and driven a team of oxen.

Print Friendly Version of this pageGet a PDF version of this webpage

Related Posts:

, , , ,

6 Responses to Dissecting Our Health

  1. Sarah Stack January 29, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    Hurray for Rodale Institute! 2013 will provide the groundwork for exciting leaps forward. I am continually amazed that choosing organic isn’t a blatantly obvious choice. But I guess the American public isn’t privy to all the NIH studies showing the harmful effects of chemicals and the evidence that none of us escapes a chemical body burden. Or, the fabulous short from the Environmental Working Group called “Ten Americans”.
    Lastly, I was disappointed (but not surprised) that America’s doctor is bought by industry. It says a lot about the sad state of our country.

  2. J0-Ann January 29, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    I did mourn a bit of Dr Oz.

  3. Donna in Delaware January 29, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    After a friend of mine wife became ill, (she still haven’t recovered properly), although she is much better, he said that he started to rethink the way that they eat, what they eat, portion control and the supplements that they take. He was amazed at the “wealth of information” that I had about organic food and living. So I forwarded information to him about RODALE INSTITUTE’S Website for him to have a look. Also the EWG Webpage and two others. I informed him that it doesn’t stop with what they eat and drink. What they use on their bodies and in their home to clean and breathe is also important. Next, what they wear and sleep on will become important also. Small steps, then move on. Getting them to eat cleanly is the most important first step. The learning curve is steep and on-going. He is most appreciative, and will be well on his way to better health and better living. Thanks to Rodale Institute and other grass-root organizations for all they do to advance organic living and farming.

  4. Ingrid Ramirez-Chuley February 1, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Just as important as what we put in our bodies, is what we put ON our bodies. Our skin absorbs EVERYTHING we put on it. I use USDA organic certified ingredients in my formulations and yes, it does cost me more to make them but i feel good about using them & having my family, friends & loyal supporters use them as well. Many people don’t know or don’t understand the benefits of using plants/fruits that have not been treated with chemicals and in the case of skin care products, using those which are paraben-free. Great article! I hope the American public will become more reliant on what true nature has to offer.

  5. Don Stinchcomb February 1, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

    You had it exactly right for the first five paragraphs and then you must have been interrupted by a phone call and went the exactly wrong direction from there on. We have to drum home that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For example: calcium is recognized by all as something we must have in our diets. Not all calcium from all food has the same bioavailability and without a certain percentage of magnesium and Vitamin D then the calcium is ineffective. Part of the problem is not understandiing what makes up a food. For example: table sugar is made up of unequal percentages of glucose to fructose whereas high fructose corn syrup which the supporters claim as “sugar” has a higher percentage of fructose which, it is now claimed, is not recognized by our bodies and therefore does not signal us that we have had enough sugar. To break organic vs. conventional product down by nutrients is proving nothing; what we have to concentrate on as how these nutrients are all necesary in optimizing human physiology.

  6. Norman Lang February 14, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

    It also seems that we need to be more proactive and insistant that the message gets out to as large an audience through media as possible. The reluctance of mainstream media to report all the facts needs to be addressed vigorously. Perhaps they need to be reminded to print all the news that’s fit to print, which Horace Greely, I believe, stated so succintly. If I have misquoted please correct me if I am wrong.

Leave a Reply