Because of my commitment to defend science, scientists, and technological innovation in agriculture, I encounter folks and groups on the “other side” who use all sorts of interesting — even bizarre, and dysfunctional — tactics to scare consumers about science, food safety, and the need for technological innovation in agriculture.

Their objective?

To get consumers to think something is unsafe about foods produced by biotechnology … that they are unhealthy or even dangerous. And, oh yeah, to promote a sense of urgency to “encourage” consumers to buy other versions of the same product sold with labels such as natural, farm-fresh, no added hormones, or organic, etc. The obvious intent is to infer that these foods are better for you!

The other objective is to get consumers to pay a whole lot more. Great marketing scheme! Especially, when there are no discernible differences in nutrient content or wholesomeness.

As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and other science-based information sources know, organic food production practices are NOT the answer to the question: How are we going to feed a growing world population?

I appreciate that farmers who wish to produce food using the organic standards have every right to do this. Likewise, consumers who wish to buy these products should be able to do so. This is the foundation of a democratic marketplace … if you produce something, and someone buys it, you have created the market.

However, the marketing approaches used to promote these products are a problem. I have written extensively in my Blogs about the deceptive and misleading attacks on safety of milk from cows treated with rbST; plants and plant-derived foodstuffs produced using the tools of genetic engineering; and other products produced using the tools of modern biotechnology (drugs, cloned animals, diagnostic tools, etc.).

A standard strategic response by the Luddites is to attack whatever I write about or present. Nothing new; this has been going on for a long time.

The attacks come in different ways. They write all sorts of letters, fill up their Web sites with trash, and spew out blogs. A keystone of their attacks is that facts (based on sound science) are not important. It is a lot easier to make it up than spend time finding facts to support their argument.

These authors often present what they call “science-based evidence,” “replicated research,” and the like to support their claims. The messages are very misleading. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that either the “research” does not exist or has been done in a such a biased and poor manner that nothing meaningful can be concluded from it — at least not to scientists working at reputable universities, nonprofits, and companies.

To make matters worse, many in the scientific community are missing the larger implications of all this: A large percentage of the public cannot, or do not, want to differentiate good science from bad. They just make decisions and move on.

Studies have consistently shown that the more consumers know about technology, the more they support it. A long-standing challenge has been how to deliver scientific education programs to the U.S. population in an exciting and informative manner that results in learning. It is an enormous challenge.

Especially, when it is easier to scare individuals than educate them.

An example of slander

The College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State recently put on some educational programs to present the facts about different production practices used in animal agriculture. A component of these programs was to compare different production and husbandry practices, including comparing organic versus conventional farming.

A long story made short: I received a letter from some groups expressing their outrage over these programs. Interestingly, they took great exception to the programs we “delivered” — however, we received the letter before the programs were even presented…the groups were responding to the press release!

I will share one excerpt from that letter to illustrate my point:

“…As a dairy scientist, I find Penn State’s treatment of organic dairy management unobjective, unscientific, unprofessional and deleterious to many livestock farmers in Pennsylvania who are making extra efforts to farm well. Replicated research shows that there are nutritional benefits in organic milk that are beneficial to human health…”

These two sentences illustrate how facts are repeatedly skewed by the opponents of biotechnology. In reality, the programs were nothing like the above blather about being “unprofessional and deleterious.”

At the same time, the inference here is that if you don’t farm using organic production practices, you are not farming well. This is absolute nonsense. Amazing! This author is actually a dairy farmer!

Further nonsense is the statement that “replicated” research shows nutritional benefits. There is no credible evidence in support of these assertions. This fallacy is well illustrated by a blog I posted on July 27, 2008 “Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority.”

The fact is there are countless farmers using conventional production practices, and biotechnology, who farm well and produce safe and wholesome food. And this food is compositionally the same as that labeled organic.

Most unfortunate of all is this: The ongoing smoke and mirrors debate and continuous fretting over the U.S. food system distracts all of us from confronting and solving far more serious and pressing issues.

IN Gulliver’s Travels, the King of Bobdingnag — the land of the giants — claimed that whoever could make two ears of corn grow where only one grew before was a greater patriot than all the politicians put together.

It’s sad to note then that nearly 300 years on from the publication of Swift’s satire, the politicians are still standing in the way of an agricultural technology that has the potential to do just that.

Despite food prices having risen by 50% in two years, the Government appears to have no strategy to reverse things. On the contrary, the direction of policy is all towards supporting the inefficient organic sector. Moreover, it shows no sign of dropping its opposition to new food technologies that offer the prospect, among other things, of higher yields from the same acreage.

It’s not hard to guess from which quarter in the current coalition the opposition to GM (genetically modified) food principally emanates. Earlier this month, Environment Minister John Gormley mused out loud that Ireland must keep open the option of declaring itself a GM-free zone. This despite the fact that the Food Safety Authority — the expert body — has been generally positive about GM-derived foods.

In delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price, not least in the Third World. Closer to home, incredibly, the programme for government not only stakes out an anti-GM position but declares itself in favour of biofuels which require land to be given over from food to fuel production.

Is it any wonder supermarket prices are skyrocketing? The politicians believe, of course, that they are reflecting public concerns. If the entire world was well-fed and food prices were static, stay-as-we-are might be an affordable luxury. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, don’t politicians have a responsibility to show leadership, to support the scientific and agricultural sectors as they explore ways to grow more, better food?

In a free society, shouldn’t the ultimate decisions lie with consumers who can make up their own minds? As long as the relevant experts are satisfied that GM food is safe — and they are — shouldn’t we be left to decide whether or not to purchase it?

Isn’t that the correct approach rather than engaging in a spurious, never-ending public debate that will inevitably be hijacked by the tiny number of green fundamentalists? ‘Safe’ is the last word the romantics would use to describe GM. Despite Americans having eaten it for years with no discernible side-effects, these so-called earth-lovers continue to raise claims that eating GM food can cause cancer and liver disease (and heart failure and brain damage and any other unpleasant health complication they can concoct on the basis of some kooky laboratory experiment, one suspects).

All credit to the self-styled defenders of our environment, though: they have managed to scare the life out of most of us. They are working with the grain: in the current zeitgeist anything processed or industrialised is potentially harmful, while anything that appears to be close to nature is pure and uncorrupted.

So, rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, the environmentalists reject it as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems.

Have they forgotten that Mother Nature supplies not only delicious things for us to eat, but also its fair share of toxic fungi, bacteria and viruses?

There is a clear paradox here. While we in the developed world enjoy prosperity and health as never before, when it comes to GM foods superstition, ignorance and fear appear to be triumphing over human reason. One suspects that if matters had been left to the likes of Greenpeace, we would all still be hunter-gatherers.

Superstition, of course, is as old as time. When Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species by means of natural selection, he violated the ancient notion that species are immutable and created by God in a hierarchy — with humans near the top, just below angels. The superstition about GM is similar: a sense that we are ‘playing God’ by moving genes around.

The further each generation is from the land and, thereby, a direct knowledge of crop production, the more susceptible to the scaremongering we become.

Many other innovations that are now commonplace in our lives were met with similar scepticism and opposition when first introduced. Some might be able to recall the horror stories about microwave ovens. Before that, pasteurisation and even technologies such as canning and freezing provoked alarm.

For all the frightening talk about ‘Frankenstein foods’, though, GM is simply a new tool for plant breeding, a development of what humans have been doing successfully for centuries: breeding wild grasses into wheat and barley, wolves into dogs and so on. In each case, human choice replaced biological chance. The difference is that now we have the ability to isolate the genes which carry specific traits: the randomness has been taken out of the equation. Throughout history there have been those who embraced this kind of change and those who clung to the old ways because they felt at least the risks were known. And since feeding ourselves was the primary occupation of mankind for most of our history, changes in food production have tended to be accepted only very slowly. Modern intensive agriculture has a bad press. The need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world’s topsoil and one-third of its forests.

BUT organic farming is scarcely the answer: it requires even more land to be devoted to agriculture. This is the dirty little secret the disillusioned financiers who give up the rat-race to sell organic jam, the New Age religionists and the middle-class hypochondriacs don’t want you to know. Their response is to turn their fire on new technologies to make agriculture more efficient so more land can be left wild — or to call for us all to eat less and breed less.

This hostility to GM makes no sense. Already, GM crops have been designed which are insect-resistant or have a herbicide resistance so they need less spraying. Another benefit is that agricultural land doesn’t require such extensive tilling, which allows more organic matter to accumulate in the soil.

This is just the beginning. The future holds promise for new GM crop varieties with increased tolerance of drought, heat and cold; with improved disease resistance or nutritional value, or as production systems for pharmaceutical compounds (such as edible vaccines for the developing world) and renewable industrial compounds (such as biodegradable plastics). These ideas might be unfamiliar, but that is no reason to reject them out of hand.

The discussion of food illustrates a broader need to remind ourselves just how much modern society has achieved in changing the lives of people for the better through the application of science, industry and reason. Perhaps then we will all be better able to see the ideas of the anti-GM brigade for the manure they really are.

Dr. Rosen analyzed a pro-organic report by Charles Benbrook and colleagues at the Organic Trade Association’s Organic Center and found the data had been selectively chosen and presented to “prove” the desired point. Dr. Rosen’s report, Claims of Organic Food’s Nutritional Superiority: A Critical Review, was published by ACSH.

In the original pro-organic paper, Benbrook and colleagues had stated that organic produce is 25% “more nutritious” than that produced by conventional agricultural practices. But when Dr. Rosen actually recalculated some of their data, correcting several inaccuracies, he concluded that the conventional products were actually 2% more nutritious than the organic varieties:

•The Benbrook paper had claimed that organically grown vegetables had much more quercetrin (a precursor of the antioxidant quercetin) than conventional varieties. But the organic vegetables studied had been sprayed with an organic pesticide that greatly increases plants’ production of quercetrin — so of course they beat the conventional plants on that measure.

•Dr. Rosen also points out that the organic proponents included data of dubious validity in their review. They used data from articles that were not peer-reviewed, and in one case included nutrient content from an analysis of whole kiwi fruits — both the inedible skin and the edible pulp, though this is not what the consumer would eat.

Dr. Rosen’s analysis demonstrates how organic proponents have, once again, used misleading and inappropriately-evaluated data to support their agenda.

For more information please contact Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President, or Dr. Ruth Kava, Director of Nutrition, at ACSH (212-362-7044).

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

• Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.
• Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.
• Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

I. Executive Summary

Organic milk and dairy foods advocates have been very aggressive in their advertising, promotion and sales using statements and “facts” that lack scientific validity. Some of this information is true within a given context, while much is false and/or misleading. Science does not support the health, nutrition, or safety claims made by the organic industry. Actually, toxin levels have been shown to be higher in organic foods due to ineffective pesticide treatment of organic grain crops. In the one area where there exists a potential nutritional advantage of organic milk, such as increased levels of CLA, omega-3 fatty acids, and other antioxidants, access to fresh, high quality pasture is the key, not whether the production system is organic or conventional.

II. Introduction

The present consumer environment is one of growing mistrust of science and technology, rejection of advanced technology, and a favoring of “more natural” alternatives. This is most apparent in the realm of food and nutrition (2). Where it is not very apparent is in the area of health care, including GMO-produced insulin, surgical advances, etc. So why this dichotomy? The simple answer is promotion, advertising, and advocacy on the part of alternative food producers vs. conventionally-produced foods. The most aggressive alternative food production system is ORGANIC.

Consumers are motivated by perceived benefits such as better health / better treatment of animals, better nutritional value, better taste, environmentally friendly production methods, and “it’s the right thing to do” (2). Organic milk currently represents 3.4% of all fluid milk sales (19), and demand will continue to grow at a 25% annual rate (8).

After the organic food standards became effective in October of 2002, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman clarified that organic certification (by his agency) expressed a production philosophy and that organic labeling did not imply a superior, safer, or healthier product than food not labeled as organic (24). In spite of this, organic advocates continue to promote organic foods while disparaging conventionally-produced foods. The Organic Valley website (15) states, “The use antibiotics, synthetic hormones, and genetically modified organisms to intensify production in today’s conventional agricultural practices gives rise to serious health questions.” The website continues, “Organic foods are known (and appreciated) for their superior taste and quality. For individuals and families seeking high nutritional value and reduced risk of exposure to toxins associated with factory farming practices, organic offers peace of mind.”

The Organic Valley website (15) goes on to list the 7 reasons why kids should drink organic milk:
1. produced without antibiotics
2. produced without synthetic hormones
3. produced without harmful pesticides
4. high in CLA (conjugated linoleic acid)
5. excellent source of calcium
6. organic milk is wholesome
7. it’s the right thing to do.

Such statements by advocacy groups fall into 4 categories – true, true but misleading, totally misleading at best, or false and misleading. The “science” quoted by certain advocacy groups is selective at best and misinterpreted at worst. Scientific experts take exception to this. Dr. William Lockeretz from the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, speaking to the 5th International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Conference on Trade in Organic Production stated, “From my reading of the scientific literature, a claim cannot be made that there is a clear, consistent nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods.” Dr. Norman Borlaug, a 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, stated in Reason Magazine in April of 2000, “There’s absolutely no research that shows organic foods provide better nutrition” (2). So, what is the unbiased science behind this apparent organic vs. conventional debate, or, as Paul Harvey would say, “Now, the rest of the story.”

III. Defining “Organic”

USDA introduced the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. The program was fully implemented in October of 2002 with a 5-year sunset (October 21, 2007). The original parameters included no use of antibiotics, synthetic hormones, or “unapproved” synthetic pesticides; “access” to pasture; product labeling; etc. It is important to understand that if a food product is certified “organic”, this describes the process by which the food product was supposed to be produced and processed; it does not describe the product itself (2). The most controversial of these parameters is the “access to pasture” due to it’s vague meaning and it’s apparent abuse. Organic purist believe that to promote and advertise certain nutritional benefits that are present only from significant pasture feed intake, there needs to be specifications for access to pasture. Proposed 2007 revisions to the OFPA would mandate: animals older than 6 months must pasture, animals must be on pasture for at least 120 days or growing season, a farm plan must be in place, and greater than 30% of dry matter intake must be from pasture.

Program oversight has also been an issue raised by the organic purists, unhappy with some of the practices of the larger farms and processors. The USDA has come under fire in the past for not taking action on complaints of OFPA violations. Two audits of its organic program, performed by the American National Standards Institute in 2004 and by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General in 2005, were highly critical of how USDA has handled complaints of potential violations of organic standards. The 2005 reports states that ‘in fiscal year 2003, the eight complaints referred to the national organic program for a decision have not been resolved.’

There remain issues with international consistency of organic standards, especially from countries exporting organic products and ingredients to the U.S. For example, EU organic standards allow limited use of antibiotics (20). Critics claim China’s fledgling organic industry is plagued by lax standards, inadequate oversight, exploitation of workers, and practices such as using human waste to fertilize fields, which isn’t the kind of “organic” the USDA and most consumers support (6).

IV. Composition

Potential attributes of organic and conventional milk are most easily compared by analyzing the gross composition. AgSource (1) provided the author with blind data for such a comparison. Table 1. illustrates the composition data from 130 midwest dairy farms, showing a major difference in rolling herds averages (RHA), slight but insignificant differences in fat and protein content of organic vs. conventional raw milk, and a somewhat significant difference in somatic cell counts (SCC).

Table 1. Gross compositional comparison of conventional vs. organic raw milk (n=130).

Table 2. takes a different look at the data, comparing RHA composition data, which provides a more enlightened view of the true situation. Production system does not seem to be the issue; size of farm is the more telling with significant differences across the board between small, middle-sized, and large farms.

Table 2. Gross compositional comparison of organic and conventional raw milk across rolling herd averages (n=130).

V. Quality and Sensory Attributes

There is very little science which examines true quality and/or sensory attributes of conventional vs. organic milk and dairy products. Zhao, et al. (27) reported organically and conventional grown vegetables did not show significant differences in consumer liking or consumer-perceived sensory quality. The only exception was in tomatoes where the conventionally produced tomato was rated as having significantly stronger flavor than the organically produced tomato. Comparisons of fluid milk quality is difficult due to processing differences. 80% of organic milk is ultra-high temperature pasteurized vs. high-temperature-short-time for conventional fluid milk. Non-scientific comparisons have been made, such as the following example. Jed Davis, Director of Marketing for Cabot Cheese, stated, “There’s a real opportunity in that there’s organic cheese out there but … if you did a taste test against our traditional product, (it) would win out in the case of most people’s taste buds” (26).

VI. Safety

Microbiological safety comparisons have not been conducted on organic vs. conventional milk and/or dairy products. A 2004 study (14) comparing microbiological safety of organic and conventional produce [476 organic samples / 129 conventional samples] found that no samples contained Escherichia coli O157:H7, 2 samples (organic lettuce and organic green peppers) contained Salmonella, and E coli was detected in 9.7% of organic samples and 1.6% of conventional samples. Some research suggests the widespread use of animal manure, when composted improperly, result in a higher occurrence of pathogens than conventional farming (24, 25).

A Norwegian study (13) concluded there was no marked difference in milk somatic cell counts between organic and conventional herds. This agrees with the AgSource data (1) presented earlier in this paper. The bottom line is that milk is safe, whether conventional or organic. All milk must comply with very stringent safety standards. In fact, milk and dairy products are among the most highly regulated and safest foods on the store shelf.

VII. Antimicrobial Resistance

Much has been stated concerning the increased antimicrobial resistance of conventionally-produced food products. The science paints a different picture. Ray, et al. (16) administered a survey of antimicrobial use (antibiotics, etc.) by dairy farms. Over 90% of organic farms (n=26) reported no antimicrobial treatment of dairy cows. The majority of conventional dairy owners (n=69) reported antibiotic use for treatment of various gastrointestinal, respiratory, and mammary infections in the herd. In addition, 49% of conventional farms reported use of medicated milk replacer whereas only 1 organic farm (3%) reported use of medicated milk replacer. The most commonly reported antimicrobial agents used within the previous 60 days on conventional dairy farms were penicillin, cephalosporins, and tetracyclines. Although resistance by Salmonella isolates (n=1,243) to these antimicrobial agents was observed among a high percentage of dairy herds, it is interesting to note that no significant difference in resistance to these individual antimicrobial agents was observed between organic and conventional dairy farms in the study.

This lack of difference in antimicrobial resistance of microbial isolates between conventional and organic dairy farms is further supported by others studies conducted domestically and internationally. Sato, et al. (18) saw no evidence that restriction of antibiotic use on dairy farms in Wisconsin was associated with prevalence of resistance to the antimicrobials tested – ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, erythromycin, and tetracycline. A Danish study (4) reported no difference in prevalence of penicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus or in the proportion of Staph aureus resistant to penicillin between conventional and old organic herds, or before and after converting to organic farming. Roesch, et al. in Switzerland (17) found clear differences in the percentage of antibiotic resistance were mainly bacterial species related, but did not differ significantly between isolates from cows kept on organic (n=60) and conventional (n=60) farms, except for Streptococcus uberis, which exhibited significantly more single resistance when isolated from cows kept on organic farms (6/10 isolates) than on conventional farms (0/5 isolates).

VIII. Mycotoxins

Claims of lower levels of toxins in organic milk vs. conventional milk appear to also be unfounded. Two European studies indicate higher levels of aflatoxin M1 in organic milk and cheese compared with conventional products. Ghidini, et al. (11) observed that aflatoxin M1 contamination in some, but not all, samples (n=156) of organic milk (35 ug/l) was significantly higher than those of conventional milk (21 ug/l). Vallone, et al. (22) research results showed the presence of aflatoxin M1 in organic cheese samples frequently, but at low levels (<0.25 mg/kg cheese). This occurrence has been hypothesized to be due to ineffective pesticide treatment of organic grain crops.

IX. Pesticides

The exposure of organic crops to synthetic pesticides is, indeed, less than that of conventional crops, but product results are somewhat variable and often mis-interpreted. USDA results from the Pesticide Data Program show no significant differences in pesticide levels between conventional and organic milk. Of the 739 milk samples tested, 100% contained low level pesticide residue, all below actionable levels. A similar survey in Italy concluded that organic and conventional samples of milk do not show relevant differences for organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and heavy metals. It must be pointed out that regulatory surveys worldwide do not test for organic pesticides – including non-synthetic and approved synthetic.

In a review conducted by Cal-Davis and IFT (24), it was reported that research has shown that organic foods contain less pesticide residue than conventional food, but “the marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be insignificant.” It is important to consider the risks, if any, currently posed by pesticide residues in foods before determining the incremental health benefits from consuming organic products. Results on pesticide residues in organic vs. conventional milk and dairy products is mixed at best, and shows no clear advantage for consuming organic milk.

X. Nutrients

Nutrition, health, and wellness is currently the major food marketing push. This, of course, includes highly nutritious milk and dairy foods, whether organic or conventional. In an extensive study of published results from 1926 to 1994, which included cereals, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, wine, beer, milk, and other dairy products, Woese, et al. (25) concluded that no major differences in nutrient levels were observed between the different production methods. Other studies (24) indicate organic production methods result in higher nutrient levels, but the same mechanisms that can produce potential benefits, like polyphenolic compounds, may also generate higher levels of toxins such as glycoalkaloids in potatoes and tomatoes.

In a UK study, Ellis (9, 10) found that milk with a higher level of omega-3 fatty acid content could be presented as a valuable contribution to a balanced diet to consumers, but it is important to emphasize that both organic and conventional milk are excellent sources of conjugated lenoleic acid (CLA), regardless of the production system, as well as other vitamins and minerals. Reported data is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean % of each group type of fatty acid averaged over 12 months sampling each milk type (organic vs. conventional) (10).

Organic milk has a higher proportion of polyunsaturated to monunsaturated fatty acids and of n-3 fatty acids than conventional milk. There was no difference between organic and conventional milk with respect to the proportion of CLA or vaccenic acid. A number of factors other than farming systems were identified which affected milk fatty acid content including month of the year, herd average milk yield, breed type, use of total mixed rations, and access to fresh grazing. Season, herd yield, and access to fresh pasture were also important factors in determining the milk content of vitamins A, E, and beta-carotene. Increased milk yield was associated with decreased vitamin E and beta-carotene content. Farming system was less important, except in the case of vitamin A, for which there was a slightly lower concentration in organic farm-gate milk (9). Access to fresh, high quality pasture seems to be the most significant variable in the nutrition equation, regardless of organic or conventional production systems.

The story is exactly the same for levels of antioxidants in milk such as flavenoids, etc. and other valuable compounds. Research by Bani and Sandrucci (3) concluded that pasture plays the pivotal role under organic systems. Grazing can increase the CLA content of milk, however, this largely depends on pasture botanical composition, altitude, and stage of maturity, regardless of whether the production practice is organic or conventional. Even Organic Valley agrees with this assessment in their scientifically-slanted study conclusion that milk from pasture-raised organic cows has been shown to have significantly higher levels of vitamin E, omega-3 fatty acids, beta-carotene, and other antioxidants than milk from conventional cows raised in confinement.

Grazing is the key. The problem is that the majority of organic fluid milk on the market is from cows on pasture an average of 60 partial days and pasture grasses make up <5% of their dry weight feed intake.

XI. Environment

Scientific studies on the environmental impact of organic vs. conventional farming systems is all over the board. Inherently, one would think organic farming would be better for the environment. Some researchers have taken a different view. A Dutch study by Boer (5) on life cycle assessment evaluated the environmental impact of organic vs. conventional milk production. He concluded global warming potential of milk production was 48-65% due to emission of methane. Organic milk production inherently increased methane emission.

XII. Conclusions

Collins (7) concludes that, when evaluating the health claims, research does not support a health advantage of organic over conventional milk for any segment of the population. With regard to chemical, nutritional, technological, or organoleptic quality traits of organic and conventional milk, Bani and Sandrucci (3) reported no significant difference between the two dairy systems has been observed when compared under similar technical and environmental conditions.

Winter (24) observed that, while many studies demonstrate qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that one food systems is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition. Pesticide residues, naturally-occurring toxins, nitrates, and polyphenolic compounds exert their health benefits or risks on a dose-response basis, and data do not exist to ascertain whether the differences in the levels of such chemicals between organic foods and conventional foods are of biological significance.

Science must focus on the facts at hand which have been generated by well designed and conducted research studies. It becomes the only truth in a marketing environment of consumer confusion and misconceptions, as well as false and misleading promotion and advertising. The key to success for dairy is to be truthful to the consumers. We should be saying, “Buy our products; they’re great; you’ll love them; and they’re good for you”, instead of “Buy our products because they won’t kill you and your children, and our farming methods won’t trash the planet like those other guys” (2)!

XIII. References

1. AgSource. 2007. Unpublished testing data analyis.

2. Avery, A. 2006. The Truth About Organic Foods. Henderson Communications LLC, Chesterfield, MO.

3. Bani, P and A S Sandrucci. 2003. Yield and quality of milk produced according to the organic standards. Scienza e Tecnica Lattiero Casearia 54(4):267-286.

4. Bennedsgaard, T W, et al. 2006. Resistance to penicillin of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cows with high somatic cell counts in organic and conventional dairy herds in Denmark. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48:24.

5. Boer, I J M de. 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science 80(1/2):69-77.

6. Brady, D. 2006. Online extra: Why the stink over China’s organic food? BusinessWeek Online October 16.

7. Collins, K. 2007. Organic milk: What you get for the money. Health MSN Website.

8. Das, A. 2007. Organic milk seen flooding the market. National Milk Producers Federation Dairy Industry News Alert, May 14.

9. Ellis, K. 2006. Studies of the composition of milk produced on organic and conventional dairy farms. Organic Studies Centre Technical Bulletin Issue 8.

10. Ellis, K A, et al. 2006. Comparing the fatty acid composition of organic and conventional milk. J Dairy Sci. 89:1938-1950.

11. Ghidini, S, et al. 2005. Comparison of contaminant and residue levels in organic and conventional milk and meat products from Northern Italy. Food Additives and Contaminants 22(1):9-14.

12. Gogoi, P. 2007. How organic are Wal-Mart ‘organics’? BusinessWeek, January 19.

13. Hardeng, F and V L Edge. 2001. Mastitis, ketosis and milk fever in 31 organic and 93 conventional Norwegian dairy herds. J Dairy Science 84:2673-2679.

14. Mukherjee, A, et al. 2004. Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and E coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. J Food Prot 67:894-900.

15. Organic Valley Website. http://organicvalley.coop.

16. Ray, K A, et al. 2006. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella from organic and conventional dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 89:2038-2050.

17. Roesch, M, et al. 2006. Comparison of antibiotic resistance of udder pathogens in dairy cows kept on organic and conventional farms. J Dairy Sci. 89:989-997.

18. Sato, K, et al. 2004. Comparison of prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter sp. isolates from organic and conventional dairy herds in Wisconsin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70:1442-1447.

19. Sieman, G. 2006. Organic Valley presentation.

20. Stewart, K L. 2007. Is the organic milk glass half full or half empty? NutraUSAIngredients.com, January 30.

21. USDA. 2006. Pesticide Data Program – Annual summary calendar year 2004. February.

22. Vallone, L, et al. 2006. Aflatoxins in organic milk and dairy products. Veterinary Research Communications 30(Suppl 1):369-370.

23. Winter, C K. 1999. Pesticides and human health: the influence of pesticides on levels of naturally-occurring plant and fungal toxins. Pesticides: Managing risks and minimizing benefits. American Chemical Society symposium series 734, Am Chem Soc 165-173.

24. Winter, C K and S F Davis. 2006. Scientific status summary – Organic foods. J Food Sci 71(9):R117-R124.

25. Woese, K, et al. 1997. A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods – results of a review of the relevant literature. J Sci Food Agric 74:281-293.

26. Wright, L. 2007. Cabot to relaunch organic Cheddar. National Milk Producers Federation Dairy Industry News Alert, April 13.

27. Zhao, X, et al. 2007. Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables. J Food Sci 72(2):587-591.

The Denver Post
July 29, 2007 Sunday

I don’t like to buy organic food products, and avoid them at all cost. It is a principled decision reached through careful consideration of effects of organic production practices on animal welfare and the environment. I buy regular food, rather than organic, for the benefit of my family.

I care deeply about food being plentiful, affordable and safe. I grew up on a dairy farm, where my chores included caring for the calves and scrubbing the milking facilities. As a teenager, I was active in Future Farmers of America, and after college I took a job in Washington, D.C., on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee staff.

But America no longer has an agrarian economy, and now it is rare for people to have firsthand experience with agricultural production and regulation. This makes the general public highly susceptible to rumors and myths about food, and vulnerable to misleading marketing tactics designed not to improve the safety of the food supply, but to increase retail profits. Companies marketing organic products, and your local grocery chain, want you to think organic food is safer and healthier, because their profit margins are vastly higher on organic foods.

The USDA Organic label does not mean that there is any difference between organic and regular food products. Organic farms simply employ different methods of food production. For example, organic dairy farms are not permitted to administer antibiotics to their sick or injured cows, and do not give them milk-stimulating hormone supplements (also known as rbGH or rBST). The end product is exactly the same – all milk, regular and organic, is completely antibiotic-free, and all milk, regular and organic, has the same trace amounts of rbGH (since rbGH is a protein naturally present in all cows, including organic herds). Try as they may, proponents of organic foods have not been able to produce evidence that the food produced by conventional farms is anything but safe.

Do organic production practices benefit animals? Dr. Chuck Guard, professor of veterinary medicine at Cornell University, told me that it pains him that many technological advancements in animal medicine are prohibited for use on organic farms. He described how organic farms don’t use drugs to control parasites, worms, infections and illness in their herds. “Drugs take away pain and suffering,” he said. “Proponents of organic food production have thrown away these medical tools, and the result is unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals.”

In order for milk and meat to qualify as USDA Organic, the animals must never be given antibiotics when they are sick or injured. On organic farms, animals with treatable illnesses such as infections and pneumonia are left to suffer, or given ineffective homeopathic treatments, in the hope that they will eventually get better on their own. If recovery without medication seems unlikely, a dairy cow with a simple respiratory infection will be slaughtered for its meat, or sold to a traditional farm where she can get the medicine she needs. I don’t buy organic milk because this system is cruel to animals, and I know that every load of regular milk is tested for antibiotics to ensure that it is antibiotic-free.

Organic milk certainly is not fresher than regular milk. Regular milk is pasteurized and has a shelf life of about 20 days. Organic milk is ultrapasteurized, a process that is more forgiving of poor quality milk, and that increases the shelf life of milk to about 90 days. Some of the Horizon organic milk boxes I’ve seen at Costco have expiration dates in 2008! There is a powerful incentive for retailers to put the ultrapasteurized organic milk on the shelf just before the expiration date, so consumers will think the organic milk is as fresh as the regular milk. After all, consumers are paying twice as much for the organic product.

Do organic production practices benefit the environment? In many cases, they do the opposite. Recently, Starbucks proudly informed their customers that they would no longer be buying milk from farms that use rbGH, the supplemental hormone administered to cows to increase milk production (even though the extra hormones stay in the cow, and the resulting milk is the same). The problem with this policy is that Starbucks will now be buying milk from farms that are far less efficient at making milk. Without the use of the latest technology for making milk, many more cows must be milked to produce the same number of café lattes for Starbucks’ customers. More cows being milked means more cows to feed, and therefore more land must be cultivated with fossil-fuel-burning tractors. More cows means many more tons of manure produced, and more methane, a greenhouse gas, released into the atmosphere.

I see Starbucks’ policy as environmentally irresponsible. When a farmer gives a cow a shot of rbGH, the only environmental cost is the disposal of the small plastic container it came in. But the environmental benefits of using this technology are enormous.

Attention all shoppers: Safeway is adopting the same misdirected policy as Starbucks, judging from the prominent labeling of milk at my local Safeway store: “Milk from cows not treated with rBST.” When I’m feeling particularly green, I drive past Safeway and shop at another grocery store in protest.

Consumers assume that organic crops are environmentally friendly. However, organic production methods are far less efficient than the modern methods used by conventional farmers, so organic farmers must consume more natural and man-made resources (such as land and fuel) to produce their crops.

Cornell Professor Guard told me about neighboring wheat farms he observed during a visit to Alberta, Canada: one organic and one conventional. The organic farm consumes six times as much diesel fuel per bushel of wheat produced.

Socially conscious consumers have a right to know that “organic” doesn’t mean what it did 20 years ago. According to the Oct. 16, 2006, cover story in Business Week, when you eat Stonyfield Farms yogurt, you are often consuming dried organic milk flown all the way from New Zealand and reconstituted here in the U.S. The apple puree used to sweeten the yogurt sometimes comes from Turkey, and the strawberries from China. Importation of organic products raises troubling questions about food safety, labor standards, and the fossil fuels burned in the transportation of these foods.

Does buying organic really benefit your family? Remember, there is no real difference in the food itself. At my local Safeway store, organic milk is 85 percent more expensive, eggs 138 percent higher, yogurt 50 percent, chicken thighs 80 percent, and broccoli 20 percent. If the only organic product you buy for your family is milk, then you are spending an extra $200 on milk each year. If you buy 5-10 other organic products each week, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, yogurt and meat, then you could easily approach $1,000 in extra food costs per year. Families would receive a more direct health benefit from spending that money on a gym membership, a treadmill, or new bikes.

When I share this information with friends who buy organic, I get one of two responses: they either stop buying it, or they continue to buy organic based on a strong gut feeling that food grown without the assistance of man-made technology has to be healthier.

I don’t push it, but I wonder: Why do people apply that logic to agricultural products, but not to every other product we use in our daily lives? There are either no chemicals, or the minutest trace of chemicals in some of our foods. But other everyday products are full of chemical ingredients. Read the label on your artificial sweetener, antiperspirant, sun lotion, toothpaste, household cleaning products, soda, shampoo, and disposable diapers, for example. The medicines we administer to our children when they are sick are man-made substances. Chemicals aren’t just used to make these products; they are still in these products in significant amounts. It just doesn’t make sense to focus fear of technology on milk and fresh produce.

I say, bypass the expensive organic products in the grocery store. Buy the regular milk, meat and fresh produce. It is the right choice for the family, animal welfare and the environment.

Sales of organic produce are booming on the back of alleged benefits to health and the environment, as well as claims of higher standards of animal welfare. But are we being misled by “feel good” claims that don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny? Read what Mr. Cox has to say about the situation in the United Kingdom in this most informative BBC Report.

The battle for public perception about “biotechnology in the barnyard” and animal agriculture is an interesting illustration of the use of “word play” or “verbal engineering” by anti-biotech activist groups. The intent? To misinform and scare consumers about biotechnology, science and our food production systems.

These “word sequences” are carefully engineered. The internet is awash in them!

Given the proliferation of junk science rhetoric on the internet, it seems like there is big business in scaring consumers.

A Story of Word Play – Some Examples

The activist groups who promote rbST-free milk also tout the merits of artificial hormone-free (AHF) milk. The obvious intent is to scare consumers by using the words “artificial” and “hormone”. As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and Terry Etherton’s Blog on Hormones, Biotechnology, and Food Safety know, all milk contains a lot of naturally occurring hormones, and conventional, rbST-free and organic milk are all equally safe.

Back to AHF…if a hormone is the same, regardless of whether it is made by a “natural” or “synthetic” process does it matter how it is made? Absolutely, not!

I have not had any calls or emails from individuals with diabetes expressing concern about their use of synthetic/artificial (or recombinant) human insulin.

With respect to synthesizing recombinant proteins such as bovine somatotropin, human insulin or human somatotropin that are the same as those made “naturally”, is it really artificial if it is synthesized using the same biology that takes place in the body? How come we don’t call proteins made in the body synthetic? In science, we do. However, we refer to the process as biosynthesis!

My point – it is inaccurate, and misleading, to use the logic that associating the words “artificial” or “synthetic” with the word hormone makes that hormone different than the “natural” version. They are exactly the same. Obviously, the intent is to scare consumers with some combination of the words artificial, synthetic and hormone on milk cartons.

More word play…

“Factory farming” is another term used by the Luddites to misrepresent farming to consumers. The intent is to convey that something bad is being done in production agriculture. As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology know, this is nonsense! The farms are NOT factories and the vast, vast majority are owned and operated by families.

Sustainable farming is touted by organic food groups as the way to farm. The clear inference is that the “other” forms of agriculture production are NOT sustainable, and that progressive farmers are not practicing sustainable farming practices. I have yet to meet any farmer who is not concerned about being a good steward of their land and animals! That is, using effective and appropriate management systems to sustain their farm for future generations.

Evolution of word play…

Language obviously evolved as a communication tool. A critical aspect is how the use of a word(s) has an intended impact on other associated words in the phrase or sentence. For example, the word organic by itself has a broad and much different meaning than the phrase “organic chemistry”.

It is interesting that the word “organic” has been hijacked by promoters of “organic food”. The first definition of organic in Dictionary.com is: “noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.” This is a long way from the intent of the organic food crowd. I find it ironic that foods we consume, irrespective of their being described as organic, natural, or conventional are loaded with organic chemicals…a reality that seems to be overlooked by many.

My encouragement – there are more pressing social issues to tackle than worrying about the attacks on the most robust, and safest, food system ever witnessed in recorded history by using word play or verbal engineering that has as its goal to misinform and scare consumers. My encouragement – let’s use the evidence base built on sound science to inform consumers about biotechnology, the food system and food safety, not the scare tactics pushed by the activist groups that are based on misinformation.

These reviews are a great “read”!

A key summary point is that “it is premature to conclude that either food production system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition.” So, please read these reviews, and make your own conclusions.

Dr. A. M. “Tony” Shelton, who is a Professor of Entomology at Cornell University and a visiting scientist at Lincoln University, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand) that the debate on biotech crops is misleading New Zealand’s public.

This article is a great example of the ongoing misinformation campaigns run by opponents of biotech crops in New Zealand, and throughout the World.

Shelton addresses the issue that organic agriculture farming practices are safer than those used by farmers of biotech crops. The benefits of biotech crops have been clear to agricultural scientists and many working within agricultural sectors, but may be less clear to the public, he says. Over the last 10 years the use of biotech crops has resulted in the reduction of 224 million kilograms of active pesticide ingredients being sprayed.

Organic standards require farmers to apply only pesticides that are “natural” and not synthetic, but being “natural” does not ensure safety. For example, sulphur, a major fungicide used in organic agriculture, is toxic to a broad range of organisms and is a longer-term soil and environmental contaminant than most of its synthetic counterparts.

Another claim, according to Shelton is that the use of Bt crops will lead to the development of insects resistant to Bt, eliminating one of the tools organic growers have to control caterpillar pests. After 11 years, there has not been a case of insects developing resistance to Bt plants in the field. When Bt plants were developed, scientists knew about the potential for resistance and developed strategies that have proven effective in preventing resistance to Bt plants.

Shelton says that many conventional farmers now employ some organic practices to add to soil health on their farms. He also says that many organic farmers he knows have expressed interest in using some biotech plants to help control pests in a more environmentally sustainable fashion, but the organic lobby will not allow it for philosophical, not scientific, reasons.