Green Calgary

Food Misconceptions Deconstructed

Filed in: Food Choices

Reader Question

“Unquestioned assumptions are the real authorities of any culture.” - Source Unknown

We cannot wish to make good decisions with poor information. Good decision making requires good, honest information. Only then can we begin doing what is necessary to build a healthy and resilient food system for everyone. So let’s get started!

---

Ashley's Answer

This month, for the first time in 3 years, I will be breaking away from the typical question and answer format used in the Ask Ashley column. This is not because we’ve completely exhausted every environmental question but because the recent articles I’ve written on the subject of food have generated some discussion around this very important and urgent topic. The concerns raised by readers are certainly fair and I’m happy to see people being critical of what I am saying. After all, nobody holds all of the answers. Having said that, the points raised are reoccurring and if we are to develop an appropriate response to our current predicament, we will have to carefully examine them. We cannot wish to make good decisions with poor information. Good decision making requires good, honest information. Only then can we begin doing what is necessary to build a healthy and resilient food system for everyone. So let’s get started!

Misconception #1:

Biotechnology (a.k.a. genetic modification (GMO) or genetic engineering (GE)) is necessary to feed the world’s large and growing population.

Reality #1:

Well, not exactly. According to Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on The Right to Food, harvests from the past two years have reached historic heights. In other words, humans today are producing more food than ever before. De Schutter suggests that 12 billion people could be fed if all cereal crops were directed to human consumption instead of to animals (meat, dairy, eggs) and to their cars (biofuels). Thus, it is not a lack of food that drives hunger but, rather, inequality, poverty and insufficient purchasing power from the world’s poorest.

According to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAAKSTD) report titled Agriculture at a Crossroads, the assertion that biotechnology is needed to solve the hunger issue is a false one. Fifty percent of the world’s hungry are subsistence farmers who struggle to provide enough food for themselves and their families year-round. For them, food storage infrastructure is needed. This would allow the storage of food during periods when food is scarce and at its most expensive. It also gives farmers the option of holding onto crops after harvest, selling them when prices are more favorable. Also needed, according to the IAAKSTD report, is education relating to conservation and organic farming techniques, such that farmers are less dependent on inputs; not more dependent, as is the case with biotech crops. A dependence on inputs, according to De Schutter, makes farmers more vulnerable, as they are driven into a deepening cycle of indebtedness (the full discussion with Olivier De Schutter can be heard here). 

For another 20% of the worlds hungry – the landless labourers working on plantations – biotechnology does not offer help. The reason these people are hungry is simply because they are not paid enough to feed themselves and their families. To resolve this, better terms of trade are needed. Supporting Fair Trade helps.

Misconception #2:

Organic food is not any healthier than conventional food.

Reality #2:

This depends on who you ask. A 2009 review commissioned by the UK’s Food Standards Agency found there was no evidence of nutritional superiority in organic foods, while a French review released a month later found that organic plant products contained more dry matter and minerals (iron and magnesium), more antioxidant polyphenols, and fewer nitrates. Organic animal products contained more polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are believed to be beneficial to human health.

These reviews, however, are in contrast to the findings reported by Thomas Pawlick in his book The End of Food, which documents the nutrient decline in food since 1950. According to Pawlick, supermarket potatoes in Canada no longer contain Vitamin A, while their iron content has declined by 57% along with their Vitamin C. In that same time, tomatoes have lost 61.5% of their calcium, 35.5% of their iron and 50% of their Vitamin A. Sodium content in tomatoes has risen by a staggering 200% since 1950, which is bad news for people with high blood pressure. These changes, Pawlick argues, are the result of a number of factors including: the choice of variety (Grand Alexander vs. Granny Smith), the methods used to raise our food (organic vs. conventional), the time it takes to raise it (rapidly or slowly) and its treatment after harvest (eaten soon after harvest, irradiated, or stored for months). His research suggests that the farmers supplying large supermarkets are no longer selecting fruit and vegetable varieties based on their nutritional qualities and taste but on qualities like thickness of skin (so they travel long distances well), and uniformity in size and colour. In many cases, Pawlick suggests, we must eat five times as much of any one item to get the same amount of vitamins and minerals as our parents got in the 1950’s. Scary!

Another interesting study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) - the same organization that tested the blood of Rona Ambrose and Jack Layton for toxins - looked at pesticide residuals on 87,000 conventional fruit and vegetable samples conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration and came up with the list of The Dirty Dozen and The Clean Fifteen. They write:

“The growing consensus among scientists is that small doses of pesticides and other commonly used farm chemicals can cause lasting and serious damage to human health, especially during fetal development and early childhood. Reducing our exposure and consumption of pesticides reduces health related risks.” 

The EWG suggests that we can cut our pesticide exposure by almost 80% by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated instead.

If we are to deal with these new food realities, we will have to choose our food differently. We can start by looking for heritage varieties (heirloom), which were developed over centuries for their taste, rather than their ability to travel 4000 kilometres and to be stored for 3 months. Flavour and sweetness are a good indication of nutrition. Take a look at the EWG’s Dirty Dozen list and choose your fruits and vegetables accordingly. Support local and organic farmers who take pride in producing the tastiest and healthiest food possible. Plant a garden. It doesn’t have to be large; a windowsill will do.

Misconception #3:

Organic food is a lot more expensive than conventional food.

Reality #3:

Yes and no. To paraphrase Dr. Anne Clark of the University of Guelph: the reason organic foods typically cost more is because the full cost of production is passed on to the consumer. That is, the cost of improving soil health, bettering the lives of animals, and protecting waterways is included in the price paid at the checkout. Conventionally produced foods also carry high costs but these costs are hidden. Water and air pollution, soil erosion, pesticide drift, and the proliferation of super-bugs from the near constant use of therapeutic antibiotics on animals all carry heavy costs but these are not paid for by the farmers and, thus, conventionally produced food is kept artificially cheap. We do, however, pay for the cost of this system eventually. The price paid comes in the form of higher taxation, ballooning health care costs, and a lower overall quality of life (the full discussion with Dr. Anne Clark can be heard here). And if you are not convinced, a study from the Department of Economics at Iowa State University pegs the externalized costs of conventional agriculture at $5.7 to $16.9 billion annually. This, the authors note, is cost we are all on the hook for. 

The fact is, whether we choose conventional or organic we eventually pay the price of our choices. The question is: Do we choose a preventative system – one that protects waterways, builds soil, reduces fossil fuel use, avoids poisonous pesticides – or one that simply deals with environmental degradation, exorbitant health care costs, and a decreased quality of life?  Any way you slice it, we (or our children) will be held accountable for the choices we make.

In conclusion, our current food system is in dire need of repair. To fix it we will all have to participate. The greatest challenge, according to Gene Longsdon - a central leader to the agrarian movement – is that,

“Our society, our culture, does not understand that food is everyone’s business. We have decided, as a society, to let a few people worry about our food while the rest of us worry about money. And so food production has more or less become the domain of a few very large international corporations (adapted from A Nation of Farmers  by Sharon Astyk & Aaron Newton, 2009).”

This is not to say we are powerless. We can drive change through our collective actions. We need to reengage ourselves in this debate by demanding healthy, nutritious food. It might cost a bit more but why, when we demand the highest quality in cars and electronics, do we settle for the cheapest food? For real change to happen our priorities will have to shift.   

If you are interested in learning more about our current food system I highly encourage you to check out the film Food Inc.. Also worth checking out is the work of Michael Pollan - a sentinel voice on the issue of food and nutrition. He has written such books as The Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food and the newly released Food Rules. Green Calgary’s Sustainable Food Choices resource is also a great place to start.
Please feel free to leave comments and continue to send me your thoughts, comments and questions.

Sentimentally,

Ashley

Post to Twitter Share on Facebook