WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2016 - Meta-analyses of existing
research studies, published Tuesday in the British Journal of Nutrition, assert
that switching to organic milk and meat “would go some way towards increasing
our intake of nutritionally important fatty acids.” The 16 researchers behind
the two reports, largely Europeans assembled by Newcastle University in
England, claim to have found “clear differences between organic and
conventional milk and meat” in their assessment of 196 papers on
milk and 67
papers on meat.
These “groundbreaking” studies “show a clear health
advantage to choosing organic milk and meat,” said the U.S.-based Organic Trade
Association (OTA). But nutritionists and dairy and beef industry experts
contacted by Agri-Pulse say the
differences are meaningless to health.
“By far the most significant differences in the nutritional
quality of both organic meat and milk are the much more favorable fatty acid
profile,” says Chuck Benbrook, an Oregon-based agricultural economist who
served as the only North American author on the papers. The reason is “much
more reliance on forage-based feeds on organic livestock farms, coupled with
much less reliance on corn and soybean-based grain supplements,” he told Agri-Pulse.
The authors say both organic milk and meat contain around 50
percent more omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced products and that
organic meat had slightly lower concentrations of two saturated fats that are
linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
“Omega-3s are linked
to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and
function, and better immune function,” says Chris Seal, a Newcastle professor
of food and human nutrition.
“Several of these differences stem from organic livestock
production and are brought about by differences in production intensity, with
outdoor-reared, grass-fed animals producing milk and meat that is consistently
higher in desirable fatty acids such as the omega-3s, and lower in fatty acids
that can promote heart disease and other chronic diseases,” says Newcastle’s
Carlo Leifert, who, like Benbrook, is a member of the advisory board of the
U.S.-based Organic Center.
U.S. dairy and beef experts who examined the Newcastle
papers agree that any differences are likely due to whether cattle are fed on
pasture or grain, but not whether they are raised organically. In emails to Agri-Pulse, they also sharply dispute
the authors’ beliefs that consuming organic milk or meat could result in any
significant advantages for human health.
Higher levels of the omega-3 fatty acids are typical of
pasture-fed cows, says Chris Galen, senior vice president of the National Milk
Producers Federation (NMPF). “This is not a function exclusive to organic
methods of production; it’s the result of the forage the cows consume, and the
effect would be the same for non-organic cows consuming grass while on
pasture.”
But more important is whether higher fatty acids are
biologically significant for humans, he adds. “The amounts are still so small
that it’s not likely any health claims asserting a benefit could pass muster”
because even higher-fat dairy products are not a major contributor of omega-6
or omega-3 fatty acids in the diets of Americans, according to the National
Cancer Institute.
The same is true for meat, says Stephen Smith, regents
professor and faculty fellow in animal science at Texas A&M. “The
differences in n-3 fatty acids between organic and conventionally raised beef
are virtually identical to differences seen between pasture-fed (non-organic)
beef and conventional beef. So there is no benefit to the claim that organic
per se is better than pasture-fed beef,” he said in an email relayed by the
North American Meat Institute. “The total amounts are so low in beef and other
meat animals as to be of no significance whatsoever.”
Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition
research for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), makes a similar
observation. “All meat typically contains only small amounts of these nutrients
so increasing the normal amount 20 percent or even 50 percent will still result
in a small amount when consumed,” she says.
McNeill finds it “difficult to determine with any degree of
certainty the reason for the differences” found in the meat paper. “The authors
combine data for different breeds of poultry, cattle, sheep and goats from
across the EU,” she says. “The authors speculate that their observations may be
attributable to increased grass feeding, but there is no data in this study to
support a conclusion that the difference can be attributed to whether the grass
was grown organically.”
Each paper’s acknowledgment opens its findings to questions
of whether the studies were designed to produce a favorable result for organic
meat and milk. The organic food industry has sought to justify claims of
nutritional superiority since a seminal report by Stanford University
researchers in 2012 concluded that, in their words, “The published
literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more
nutritious than conventional foods.”
The Newcastle papers both cite support from the Soil
Association’s Lord Peter Melchett, one of Britain’s earliest and best known
champions of organic food, and disclose financial support from the Sheepdrove
Trust, an activist purveyor of organic lamb. Its associated Sheepdrove Organic Farm
cites on its web page a July
2014 study by many of the same authors claiming advantages for plant-based
organic food.
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com