Last night I left the farm and drove into Manchester to see Food Inc. (which was wonderful) and engage in a group discussion about industrial food. Now, I knew I was going to the movies, but I had no idea when the film was over there would be a stay-in-you-seats discussion over local community action. There was. I love Vermont.

A local group call Manchester Town Transition hosted the post-film talk. The MC walked down the rows, mic in hand, asking about changes that could happen in our area to help solve the problem. I listened to local small farmers take turns talking about their issues: horror stories about trying to sell to grocery store chains, the struggle to get apathetic people involved in the town farmer's market. We passed around the microphone with ideas and talking points and when it got to me I had one question to ask the eager audience.

"How many people here have a garden?"

Everyone shot up their hands. We were preaching to the choir.

Not one of us needed to see this movie. It was like an evangelical popping in a praise-n-worship CD in a station wagon with the rest of the youth ministry. What we needed was to get our unsaved friends in the seat next to us. People who, unless handed the microscope, would never look that close into their cereal bowl. That's where you come in. Go see this movie and take someone who doesn't give a damn about corn.

The problem is that Americans have convinced themselves that cheap food, a seasonless selection and endless variety are their rights — not healthy food, in-season crops and reasonable variety. Some folks say a local organic diet is an elitist goal. That regular folks can't afford it. (Then you learn that only counts for organic pre-prepared meals. We'd rather watch TV than cook a meal together.) We've bought the lie that eating whatever we want of lesser quality is a good thing. Because it's easier. Because by eating industrial beef rather than local, we don't have to connect the cow with the burger.

This is scary to me. Really scary.

Ask the average American if they'd rather buy feed-lot chicken that comes with a death warning or drive to a farmers market down the block and pay a dollar more a pound for a free-range, disease-free bird. Most will prefer the healthier option, yet few choose it. One hilarious section of the movie interviewed a well known organic farmer who was almost shut down for processing his poultry outdoors near the fields they free range on. So he sent a large sampling of his stock and sampling of similar meat from the grocery store shelves to be tested for bacteria. The results showed that his stock was ridiculously healthier, and his animals never went through chlorine baths and a packaging plant. It's how the animal is raised, son.

I understand that we have a world to feed. The movie wasn't so much against industrial food as it was against the lack of regulation, safety standards and solid policy. The creators of Food Inc. aren't asking everyone to boycott the grocery store; they're asking you to change what's inside — by voting with every purchase for healthier food. Buy local, organic, and do your best. True, not everyone can afford an all-local diet, but most of us can afford one local meal a day. Experts say that if every American ate one meal sourced from within 100 miles of her home each week, the food industry would be forced to change dramatically. Then organic wouldn't be expensive, it would be normal.

Get some oats at the farmers market and you've just eaten a breakfast that can change the world.

The base problem is most people don't want to think about where their food comes from. They don't want to buy healthier meat for more money and eat it less. They don't care about local farmers, or that poisoned peanut butter and salmonella outbreaks have become nothing more than background noise on the evening news. They have jobs, lives and families to take care of. I get it. I have a job, too. But I'll be damned if I'll sit back and watch the food my family eats hurt them. We may have our disagreements, even about blog posts like this, but they can count on me to produce meat, eggs, vegetables and energy that won't put them in the hospital.

You are what you eat. Be something better.

You can find more posts from Jenna here. Plus, read about her food and homesteading adventures on her blog, Cold Antler Farm.

You’ve probably caught wind of the recent British study that challenges the superiority of organic foods to their conventional counterparts. If you’re like me, your instant reaction was probably “hogwash,” and you’ve no doubt been patiently waiting for the real story. The Organic Center never disappoints — here’s the must-read response.  

State of Science: Nutritional Quality 

Authors:
Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist
The Organic Center

Donald R. Davis, PhD.
Retired Research Scientist
University of Texas at Austin

Preston K. Andrews
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architechture
Washington State University 

An advance copy of a study appeared today that will be published in the September edition of the American Journal of Clinical Research. The published paper, "Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: A Systematic Review," was written by a team led by Alan Dangour, at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA).

In their written report, the London team downplayed positive findings in favor of organic food. In several instances, their analysis showed that organic foods tend to be more nutrient dense than conventional foods. Plus, their study omitted measures of some important nutrients, including total antioxidant capacity. It also lacked quality controls contained in a competing study released in 2008 by The Organic Center (TOC). Last, the FSA-funded team also used data from very old studies assessing nutrient levels in plant varieties that are no longer on the market.

The London team reported finding statistically significant differences between organically and conventionally grown crops in three of thirteen categories of nutrients. Significant differences cited by the team included nitrogen, which was higher in conventional crops, and phosphorus and tritratable acids, both of which were higher in the organic crops. Elevated levels of nitrogen in food are regarded by most scientists as a public health hazard because of the potential for cancer-causing nitrosamine compounds to form in the human GI tract. Hence, this finding of higher nitrogen in conventional food favors organic crops, as do the other two differences.

Despite the fact that these three categories of nutrients favored organic foods, and none favored conventionally grown foods, the London-based team concluded that there are no nutritional differences between organically and conventionally grown crops.

A team of scientists convened by The Organic Center (TOC) carried out a similar, but more rigorous, review of the same literature. The TOC team analyzed published research just on plant-based foods. Results differ significantly from the more narrow FSA review and are reported in the study "New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods." 

The TOC findings are similar for some of the nutrients analyzed by the FSA team, but differ significantly for two critical classes of nutrients of great importance in promoting human health – total polyphenols, and total antioxidant content. The FSA team did not include total antioxidant capacity among the nutrients studied, and it found no differences in the phenolic content in 80 comparisons across 13 studies.

Unlike the London study, The Organic Center review focused on nutrient differences in "matched pairs" of crops grown on nearby farms, on the same type of soil, with the same irrigation systems and harvest timing, and grown from the same plant variety. It also rigorously screened studies for the quality of the analytical methods used to measure nutrient levels, and eliminated from further consideration a much greater percentage of the published literature than the FSA team.

While the FSA team found 80 comparisons of phenolic compounds, the TOC team focused on the more precise measure of total phenolic acids, or total polyphenols, and found just 25 scientifically valid "matched pairs." By mixing together in their statistical analysis the results of several specific phenolic acids, the FSA team likely lost statistical precision.

Instead, the TOC team focused on studies reporting values for total phenolic acids, and also applied more rigorous selection criteria to exclude poorer quality studies.

The TOC team found:

• Twenty-five matched pairs of organic and conventional crops for which total phenolic acid data was reported. The levels were higher in the organic crops in 18 of these 25 cases, conventional crops were higher in six. In five of the matched pairs, phenolic acid levels were higher in organic crops by 20 percent or more. On average across the 25 matched pairs, total phenolics were 10 percent higher in the organic samples, compared to conventional crops.
• In seven of eight matched pairs reporting total antioxidant capacity data, the levels were higher in the organically grown crop. Of 15 matched pairs for the key antioxidant quercetin, 13 reported higher values in the organic food. In the case of kaempferol, another important antioxidant, the organic samples were higher in six cases, while five were higher in the conventional crops.

In the TOC study, there were an ample number of matched pairs to compare the levels of 11 nutrients, including five of the nutrients in the FSA review. For the five nutrients covered in each review, the TOC team was in general agreement with the FSA findings for two (nitrogen and phosphorous).

The London team did not assess differences in key individual antioxidants, nor in total antioxidant activity, important nutrients that have been measured in several more recent studies.

Across all the valid matched pairs and the 11 nutrients included in the TOC study, nutrient levels in organic food averaged 25 percent higher than in conventional food. Given that some of the most significant differences favoring organic foods were for key antioxidant nutrients that most Americans do not get enough of on most days, the team concluded that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, in particular, offered significant health benefits, roughly equivalent to an additional serving of a moderately nutrient dense fruit or vegetable on an average day.

Why the Different Results?

A review of the London-based team's methodology and study design points clearly to why the FSA and Organic Center studies reached some different conclusions.

Inclusion of Older Studies

The FSA review included studies over a 50-year period: January 1958 through February 2008. The TOC team included studies published since 1980. Most studies published before 1980 were found flawed for purposes of comparing the nutrient content of today's conventional and organic crops.

Most of the older studies used plant varieties no longer in use, and did not measure or report total phenolics or antioxidant capacity (since these nutrients were just being discovered). The older studies used analytical methods that are now considered inferior, compared to modern methods.

Further, since the 1950s, plant breeders and growers have consistently increased the yields of food crops, leading, in some cases, to a dilution of nutrients. In 2004, one of us (Donald R. Davis) reported evidence for a general decline in some nutrient levels in 43 garden crops between 1950 and 1999 (Davis et al., "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 23(6): 669-682; a summary of the Davis paper is posted).

Similarly, an Organic Center report by Brian Halweil describes in detail the evidence linking higher yields and nutrient decline ("Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient levels in the U.S. food supply eroded by pursuit of high yields").
Thus, results in the FSA study are likely confounded by the team's decision to include data from over three decades ago.

New Studies Support Greater Nutrient Density in Organic Foods

Since February 2008, the cut-off date of the London study, some 15 new studies have been published, most of which use superior design and analytical methods based on criticisms of older studies. The Organic Center is updating its earlier analysis with these additional studies. These new studies generally reinforce the findings reported in the March 2008 TOC report, particularly in the case of nitrogen (higher in conventional crops, a disadvantage), and Vitamin C, total phenolics, and total antioxidant capacity, which are typically higher in organically grown foods.

The Center's study finds that protein content and beta-carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A, are typically higher in conventionally grown foods, but since both are present at ample or excessive levels in the diets of most Americans, these differences do not confer a nutritional advantage nearly as important as heightened levels of phenolics and antioxidants in organic foods.

Exclusion of Studies Analyzing Results on "Integrated" Farms

The FSA team excluded studies comparing organic foods to "integrated" and biodynamic production systems, stating that "integrated" systems are not conventional. Most conventional U.S. fruit and vegetable producers are now using advanced levels of Integrated Pest Management. Thus, "integrated" systems are now a more accurate description of "conventional" agriculture in the U.S., than a definition grounded in monoculture, the calendar spraying of pesticides, and excessive applications of chemical fertilizers. The London team did not report in the published paper which "integrated" studies were dropped, but we suspect some important U.S.-based studies may have been eliminated.

TOC Study Applied Much Stricter Screens for Scientific Validity

The two teams agree that many published studies are methodologically flawed, and hence should not be included in comparative studies. But the FSA and TOC teams used very different rules to screen studies for scientific quality and to select matched pairs for analyses.

The FSA team cites five criteria: definition of the organic system; specification of the plant variety (i.e., crop genetics); statement of nutrients analyzed; description of laboratory method used; and, a statement regarding statistical methods for assessing differences. The London team states that they simply required some discussion of these issues in published papers, but did not set or apply any qualitative thresholds in judging scientific validity.

The Organic Center team focused on the same factors (plus several others) and used stated, objective criteria for assessing them. The TOC team reviewed the statistical power and reliability of the analytical methods, a process that eliminated dozens of results. Finally, the TOC team insisted upon a close match of soils, plant genetics (variety), harvest method and timing, and irrigation systems, all factors that can bias the results of a comparison study.

Inclusion of Market-Basket Studies

The FSA team included some market basket studies, for which there is no way to know the specific circumstances of the farm locations, the plant genetics, the soil type, or harvest method and timing. In the Organic Center study, market basket results were judged as "invalid" based on several quality-control screening criteria.

This review is also available as a pdf document below.

Review of FSA Sponsored Study on Nutrient Content 

ISTOCKPHOTO

No, it’s not the pesto sauce. A 2-year-old pizza parlor based out of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., uses only purely organic ingredients to make its pizza, purchases renewable energy credits to off-set their power consumption by 100 percent and recently purchased a fleet of hybrids for all their deliveries. Pizza Fusion has locations in three states, with restaurants opening soon in 10 additional states. The business has spread along the East Coast all the way to states like to states like California and Washington. The store was the brainchild of Michael Gordon and Vaughn Lazar, who met in college and decided to join the ranks of entrepreneurs through their own, eco-friendly method of customer service. The company’s mission:  “To uphold the highest level of integrity in all we do, from the quality and origin of our food to our care for the health of our customers and the environment.” Pizza Fusion is up for the 2008 Co-op America People's Choice Award for the green business of the year, which goes to the business that receives the most community votes. The other contenders for the title are Alter Eco, Babyworks, Frontier Natural Products Co-op, Gaiam, Inc., Kate’s Caring Gifts, Mountain Rose Herbs, Mountains of the Moon, We Add Up and West Paw Design. The winner will be announced at the Green Festival in San Francisco, Calif., on Nov. 14.

We’re trying it before you buy it.

Company: Organic Valley
Product: Pasture Butter
Editor’s score: 5/5

Ingredients: pasteurized organic sweet cream, salt, microbial cultures
Price: $3.69 (Search Organic Valley coupons.)
Where to Buy: available at most grocery stores, or find a retailer near you

Why we liked it : rich, smooth, seasonal, high-quality, nutritious, unique, animal-friendly, farmer-friendly

“If you're afraid of butter, as many people are nowadays, just put in cream!” — Julia Child

Fact: Butter is one of nature’s simplest and most perfect foods. This is something Julia Child knew well — she sang butter’s praises until the end of her life, which turned out to be a not-too-shabby 91 years. And from the looks of it, Organic Valley knows it, too. That brand you likely recognize from the organic section of your grocery store has a fabulous new offering, Pasture Butter, and I give it two big ole thumbs up!

Like all of Organic Valley’s products, Pasture Butter is produced without any harmful and unnecessary pesticides, antibiotics or synthetic hormones, and the animals involved in its production are humanely raised. But that’s not what’s so unique about Pasture Butter, so let’s move on.

Pasture Butter is only produced during the summer (May to September) from the certified organic milk of cows raised on pasture. (You can find out the specifics of the cooperative’s pasture-grazing standards here.) Grass-fed animals have their most abundant buffet of nutritious greens precisely during this time, and that translates into some supremely healthy dairy products.

Ever heard of CLA? The benefits of conjugated linoleic acid have been in the news a lot lately. CLA is a naturally occurring trans fatty acid (this is not the man-made bad guy you’ve also heard so much about) manufactured in the gut of animals that graze. CLA research is new, but early studies have found that it may be a really great cancer-fighter and immune-booster. If milk-producing animals aren’t allowed to graze — as is their wont — their milk simply won’t be high in this nutrient, so you can’t expect to get it from non-pastured dairy products. In fact, grass-fed animal products are the richest natural source of CLA.

CLA is just one of the omega fatty acids that have been found to be richer in grass-fed animals. The potentially important ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6 fatty acids has also been in the news a lot, and Pasture Butter has a naturally occurring, heart-healthy optimal ratio. See the rest of the Nutrition Facts for yourself.

How is Pasture Butter different?

1. REAL FLAVOR. It’s rich, complex, a little nutty, a little grassy, and … well … buttery. Like it should be. Organic Valley produces Pasture Butter in small batches, and churns it longer than standard butter, which has the result of reducing moisture and increasing yummy butterfat. Regular butter is still butter, so it’s usually pretty good and improves the foods you pair it with. But this one can practically stand alone, and if you can resist the urge to snarf it down solo, it’ll make the foods you dress in it simply sing!

Part of the reason this butter is so dang good is that it’s cultured. That’s right, sophisticated. Well, it is a pretty sophisticated butter we’re talking about here, but no, that’s not what I mean. Before being churned, live cultures are added to the cream to ripen it, yielding sweeter and more complex flavors, not to mention making it easier to digest. Allowing cream to ripen — or ferment, or culture, however you want to put it — was once simply the status quo. If you know someone with an antique butter churn who can remember a time before refrigerators, ask them how long they would let fresh cream sit out before making butter with it.

2. AMAZING TEXTURE. It’s creamy, thick, dense, silky-smooth and super-duper-spreadable. Little-known fact: The spreadability of butter is determined by its ratio of saturated to unsaturated fat. If it’s relatively easy to spread, it has more unsaturated (good, healthy) fat and less saturated (bad, artery-clogging) fat. And a 2006 study found that the softer the butter, the more fresh pasture was in the cow’s diet. In fact, cows that eat nothing but grass have the softest butterfat of all.

3. GOOD AS GOLD. The pretty, pretty yellow of Pasture Butter is evidence of its high vitamin and beta-carotene content. Grasses eaten while they are alive are higher in vitamins E, A and beta-carotene than the standard commercial dairy diet, and those nutrients end up in the cream, and thus the butter. (More about that here.) But buyer beware: The pretty, pretty yellow of some nutritionally inferior butters is only evidence of its high food coloring and additive content. Would you like a side of annatto with your butter? Always check the label!

4. RESPECT FOR THE SEASONS. Early summer butter used to command a premium price as compared to the butter you could get the rest of the year. But that was before our food system replaced seasonal and regional variation with homogeneity. Pasture Butter is one of the few food products you’ll find at regular grocery stores these days that even acknowledges Mother Nature in this way. In my opinion, that’s a reason almost as good as flavor to go out and get some Pasture Butter for yourself. (Did you know that meat and dairy are seasonal foods, just like asparagus and tomatoes? Learn more about that in Eat in Sync with the Seasons.)

The butter’s downfalls: Um, does butter have a downfall??? Let’s ask Julia Child.

We’re trying it before you buy it.

Company: Kaia Foods
Flavors tested: Dates & Spices, Raisin Cinnamon and Cocoa Bliss
Price: $6.99 for a 12 oz. bag
Editor’s score: 3.5/5

Why we liked it: Surprisingly yummy! (When choosing the right ones)

I don’t know about you, but when a package says things like “Buckwheat Crunchies” it doesn’t sound too appetizing. Fortunately for the raisin cinnamon and cocoa bliss flavors, these gluten-free granolas actually make tasty snacks. Raisin cinnamon wins in the flavor category. Its strong cinnamon flavor mixed with the sweetness of the raisins makes it worth another handful.

The Granola’s downfalls: Some flavors are better than others…

Although many of us in the office love healthy foods (these little breakfast foods are high in fiber, and are vegan AND raw), the Dates & Spices flavor failed to entice us for more. Its dry texture and lack of sweetness made it fall flat with taste testers.

To order online or find out more about these products, visit the Kaia Foods Web site.

We’re trying it before you buy it.

Company: Kopali Organics
Product: Organic Goldenberry dried fruit
Editor’s score: 3.5/5

Why we liked it: Berry Delicious!

The package itself describes the product as “sweet and tangy,” and that is definitely what it is — with an emphasis on tangy. It’s so tangy, in fact, that it’s overwhelmingly sour, a major plus for the sour-candy lovers out there (3 out of the 5 taste testers I recruited thought these were tasty)! And with almost 10 grams less sugar than other popular sweet/sour candies plus a full serving of real fruit, it’s a healthier choice. They are also certified organic, and therefore free from harmful chemicals and funky genetically engineered ingredients.

The Goldenberry’s downfalls: Texture, color and overwhelming taste

A little like large brown raisins, these little snacks on-the-go actually look unappetizing. They are also filled with tiny little seeds that crunch when you bite into them, somewhat hindering the ‘raisinlike’ appeal. Also, if you’re expecting a subtle taste similar to a raisin, the shot of sourness may be a little too much to take.   

For more information on their many products, visit the Kopali Web site.