"Is organic agriculture polluting our food with heavy metals," asks James E. McWilliams in Slate. I suppose anything is possible, but McWilliams’ article doesn’t give us much reason to worry.
McWilliams worries that dirt used to grow organic foods contains some of the same toxins as the soil used to grow non-organic crops:
Whereas conventional agriculture follows the law of supply and demand, organic agriculture follows what its founder, Sir Albert Howard, called "the law of return." Potential waste, according to this dictum, ends up enriching the soil.
The law of return, however, has a loophole. One issue frequently overlooked in the rush to embrace organic agriculture is the prevalence of excess arsenic, lead, cadmium, nickel, mercury, copper, and zinc in organic soil. Soil ecologists and environmentalists—and, to some extent, the concerned public—have known for more than a century that the synthetic pesticides of conventional farming leave heavy metals in the ground. But the fact that you’ll find the same toxins in organic soil has been something of a dirty little secret.
This passage seems to imply that composting last year’s crop waste back into the soil concentrates these toxins with each successive iteration. Later in the essay, McWilliams points out that organic fertilizers like manure can also concentrate heavy metals in topsoil. He admits that scientists don’t know whether organic soils are dirtier, on average.
Even if it’s true that organic soils contain more heavy metals, it doesn’t follow that organic food is a greater health hazard. McWilliams doesn’t show that increasing soil metal translates into increased metals in the food.
McWilliams notes that produce is a leading source of lead exposure for the average person. However, he doesn’t say how close the average person is to lead toxicity. Even if produce contributes more heavy metals than any other source, it’s
probably still the case that we don’t get that much of it. Nobody gets lead poisoning from fruits and vegetables now. For all we know, we could double these trace quantities and still be in the clear.
As always, the dose makes the poison. McWilliams rattles off the symptoms of acute lead poisoning (anemia, brain damage) as if they might be threats from organic food. He doesn’t give any evidence that lead exposure from produce could be anything close to the levels that cause these acute symptoms (e.g., in children who eat a lot of lead paint chips).
Whether trace metal accumulation is a problem for organic agriculture is a legitimate scientific question to be explored by nutritionists and agronomists. McWilliams concerns seem entirely premature and overblown, given the speculative nature of his concerns.



27 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thank you for reading Slate so we don’t have to. If it were a newspaper, it wouldn’t be fit to line a bird’s cage.
TThanks Lindsay
I read a few weeks ago that tests had been done comparing the nutritional values of organic and regular produce, and no differences were found. That implies to me that toxic materials don’t get into them.
But until they prove that organic-vs-regular makes a difference, I’ll buy the regular stuff, because it’s less expensive.
YMMV.
Well I’ll take pesticide and chemical-based fertilizer free produce even if there are some trace heavy metals. Along with produce that is not genetically modified too.
I doubt there is a way to avoid some level of contamination considering how industrial we’ve been, and I’ll stick with the more organic approach any day.
Before accepting the word of that study, who sponsored it? I’d think the big Chem/Big Agra would have a desire to downplay the possibility of harm from their products and do anything to minimize organics.
As you say YMMV
Hey, everyone dies of eating organic food, if they don’t die of something else first. Was that in the study?
That sounds like along the lines of the leading cause of death being birth…
I guess I’ve got to read the article….. as someone who used to do very small scale organic growing and raising organic meat (rabbits, chickens, pork and beef) back in the 80’s…… I bought hay and grain from suppliers who did not use pesticides….. I recycled the manure into my garden and orchard…… So if there was any heavy metals that was returned to the soil then it came from the source……
Ok I scanned the chain of articles….. so if they are using chicken manure compost to fertilize “organic” farms but the fertilizer is not from an organic source…. in my strict interpretation would not call it organic farming….
Oh good grief!
One of the problems with industrial farming is the leeching of minerals from the soil. Our grandparents got far more zinc, magnesium, etc. with their food. Many modern ailments are linked to a lack of minerals.
The mind reels.
Did you know that the probability of dying is only 50%? Half the people who were ever born are still alive today.
Ok I found the little nugget that tells me what is going on ….
manures
Raising my first batch of baby chicks….. we got 50 to raise and followed the instructions provided by the standard feed store…… putting out waters for the chicks with “medicine” and did this for a couple of weeks….. I was doing much of the work, mixing it, putting it out and cleaning the waters……. then I got sick…. really sick….. and was seen in the ER with arsenic poisoning …. Poison control theory was that I was absorbing it through my skin…..
On a serious note, I’ll ask the organic farmer at the farmer’s market tomorrow whether he’s ever heard of this hypothesis.
I wonder what kind of fertilizer Bush uses on the Brush Ranch? I’d hate to think that his crops are dangerous. He’s going to be out there bringing in the next harvest soon. Other than that, there’s not much for him to do.
Well I read it….. what I see is someone adding 2+2 and coming up with 5….. My first question is their definition of organic farming…. is it not using pesticides but not monitoring what other products put on the land is not within my scope of the definition……
Once I figured out that crap in ya get crap out…… Buy feed and hay from growers who live with the same principles……
Blue Texan upstairs
tests had been done comparing the nutritional values of organic and regular produce, and no differences were found. That implies to me that toxic materials don’t get into them.
No it doesn’t.
Many modern ailments are linked to a lack of minerals.
Minerals are not heavy metals.
It makes perfect sense that recycling organic matter laced with heavy metals sets up a loop where they become more and more concentrated. Just as feeding protein from downed cattle back to cows concentrates prions. The solution of curse is to not put the metals into the environment in the first place. But that’s expensive and would also mean that people would starve given how the food industry operates today.
This sounds like the latest attempt to cast doubt on the value of organics. Its a wonder that humanity was able to survive until commercial fertilizers were created. All that manure and compost used through the first 8 millenia of agriculture would have surely killed us if we continued using it another year or two!
Okay, many modern ailments are linked to a lack of minerals and heavy metals.
Our bodies evolved as part of an ecosystem that included soil with minerals and heavy metals. Industrial farming has drastically altered the ecosystem, and our bodies are struggling to deal with it. Supplementing your diet with minerals and heavy metals such as silver and zinc, to replace those that we used to get naturally in our produce, is a healthy thing to do.
Organic farming is not just about keeping pesticides off the produce, it’s about restoring the natural ecosystem, primarily the natural soil.
many modern ailments are linked to a lack of minerals and heavy metals.
Minerals are essential I’d agree but heavy metals? Sure we need copper and zinc in very small amounts but usually the term is associated with mercury and lead. Very bad, highly toxic and the focus of the research:
That’s bad and the fundamental point remains – it’s a bad idea to concentrate heavy metals in out food supply.
BTW, there is no “natural ecosystem” to return to, no Gaia. Many soils are highly toxic naturally due to any number of reasons. Life has an amazing ability to adapt… sometimes, not always. “Gaia” or sacred Nature is just another mystification, just another opiate for the masses.
Okay,guys, you need to know a little soil science and politics.
First the politics: This same story has been circulating around the globe for about 19 months. This story and other anti-organic articles come mainly from a conservative think-tank called The Hudson Institute and are sent out by a father and son, Dennis and Alex Avery. They were also the source for many of the pro-rBGH milk reports.
Now for the science: Organic soils are high in organic matter which comes from cover crops and compost. Animal waste does contain heavy metals which occur naturally in plants that the livestock eats. Soils that have high organic matter should also have an good cation exchange rate, which is a measure of how efficiently nutrients move from the soil into the root zone of the plant.
If your soil is high in organic matter with a good technical balance, it will not allow heavy metals to move into the root zone easily. Nutrients are absorbed into the plant, via eucleic acid that is secreted from the roots. The nutrient transfer is basically a chemical reaction that does not transfer heavy metals efficiently; so even if there were a higher measure of heavy metals in the organic soil, the amount of heavy meals would *not* be higher in the plant.
Later in the essay, McWilliams points out that organic fertilizers like manure can also concentrate heavy metals in topsoil. He admits that scientists don’t know whether organic soils are dirtier, on average.
What’s he saying would imply that farmers who use chemical fertilizers simply get rid of the organic waste (like cornstalks) that would go into their soil. Many of them used to do that, by burning it, which would release it into the air to… settle on the fields again.
Meanwhile, he seems to be entirely unfamiliar with the idea of water runoff. Water running off of farms that use chemical fertilizers carries the crud into the streams, which eventually winds up in the oceans. (Where it does tend to concentrate in fish, but that’s because they’re downhill from the farms.) If it didn’t do that, heavy metals and the like would easily reach toxic levels on chemical fertilizer farms quite quickly and get worse from there.
The same applies to organic farms. Runoff is going to carry away pre-existing toxins; it would certainly carry it away from compost piles. Chemical dilution then does its magic, since organic farms would no longer be introducing excess heavy metals into the cycle.
The only way for organic farming to be worse than fertilizer farming about concentrating heavy metals would be if runoff only applied to fertilizer farming.
And now I’ve gone and read the piece: everything he said will apply to chemical-based fertilizer farming. The exception is for organic fertilizers that come from somewhere else. But for organic fertilizers to result in more concentration of heavy metals in the soil would require that those organic fertilizers contain more heavy metals than chemical-based fertilizers. A pity he sort of blew past that point, because in some circumstances that kind of excess contamination could occur, which would be the single case where things would be worse for organic farming.
max
[’He coulda skipped the fear-mongering and just stuck to the potential problem, but no….’]
So we’re all going to die. I promise that organic vegetables are less toxic than any traditionally grown crop. Yes there may be concentrations is manure, but A) its almost always composted which lets compounds break down and B) prolly safe to say that the chemical footprint is still better than the most benign chemical fertilizer.
The alternative, having the world all become hunter/gathers seeking wild asparagus is laughable.
if there were a higher measure of heavy metals in the organic soil, the amount of heavy meals would *not* be higher in the plant.
Then why are there higher levels of heavy metals in organic grains than in the commercial plants?
Contaminants in organically and conventionally produced winter wheat in Belgium
It’s obvious from this that the conventional food is lower. Especially in lead. Any explanation for why what cannot happen according to you is clearly happening?
You need to visit The Organic Center, http://www.organic-center.org/
There you will find scientific peer reviewed paper on organic food about nutrients, heavy metals and all other aspects of organic farming,
We see these reports over and over again, yet if you ask for a copy of the papers reviews and you suddenly find out that the report has not been peer reviewed.
Or like the recent paper that said that reported there was no nutritional difference between conventional and organic foods. Upon reading the paper it turned out that the researchers used organic land to grow both the organic and conventional produce. So if you start with a highly mineralized, balanced soil you will come up with similar results.
When the researchers were asked why they did not use conventional soil to grow the conventional food for they replied they did not think it would make any difference.
So until I get to read the study from Belgium I will reserve my judgement on their claims.
Thanks, I didn’t know all these things. I just rely on what I read my own common sense. I have a decent education but of course I don’t know everything.
the key word here seems to be “estimated” intake. not measured.