Organic products: new target for food safety
It is understandable that the recent health crises linked to intoxication by particularly virulent strains of the E. coli bacterium, and that the questioning of bio about them, cast doubt on the health safety of organic products. A doubt however totally unjustified.
For cucumbers, we know that it was simply a mistake by the German administration. Some still took advantage of this to incriminate organic farming. For germinated seeds, the German farm suspected at the outset has been completely ruled out as a source of contamination. According to a statement from the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), those responsible are fenugreek seeds from Egypt, the exact origin of which has not been specified. In addition, with regard to French poisoning, the route of seeds from Egypt to Jardiland de Bègles is perplexing: Antwerp, Rotterdam, Germany, England and finally France. Not really a short circuit! Another obvious fact, rarely underlined: the problem is not organic, it is the germinated seeds.
With minced steak, we know that these are among the main foods at risk in terms of microbial contamination, and that intoxication by germinated seeds is relatively common worldwide. During germination, the seeds are in fact several days in a hot and humid atmosphere, ideal conditions for a rapid multiplication of bacteria. This, we believe, does not justify the advice given by the French authorities not to consume sprouts, which are excellent sources of vitamins. It suffices to observe strict hygiene rules, which French companies do which market them since in France - unlike the United States - we have never observed serious poisoning by these food.
Another question deserves careful consideration: while "E. coli" is a ubiquitous bacterium in our environment and almost always harmless, how did virulent strains such as O104 H4 appear, causing poisoning by sprouted seeds or O157 H7, the cause of hamburger poisoning? Would these strains not have appeared following the use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine associated with the consumption of grass or food treated with pesticides in factory farms? Van Huber from Purdue University in the United States recently suggested possible changes in the intestinal flora of animals that have ingested plants growing in fields treated with herbicides (Monsanto's glyphosate). Is the decline of bees not partly attributed to the combination of the association of certain pesticides with intestinal parasites?
To return to organic, remember that in 2003 the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) concluded that microbiological risks are not higher in organic than conventional and has not changed their mind since . There remains the more general question - the subject of endless controversy - of knowing whether or not organic products are better for health than others. From a nutritional point of view, the 2003 Afssa report on organic products concluded that they were slightly superior in terms of content of several nutrients (notably vitamin C, iron, magnesium) for certain foods, while considering that these differences had a negligible impact on the health status of the population. However, since that date, numerous studies have demonstrated a clear superiority of organic products according to at least two criteria: the content of fruits and vegetables in polyphenols and other antioxidants, and the content of milk in omega 3 fatty acids (+ 68% of omega 3 in organic products compared to conventional ones according to the average of the 11 comparative studies published since 2003).
But where the superiority of organic products over conventional ones is undoubtedly the most obvious, it is in terms of pesticide residues. According to the EAT (Total Food Study) just published by ANSES (National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety), one in two foods contains at least one pesticide residue. In organic, less than one food in ten contains it, coming in most cases from contamination by neighbors or by the environment.
Some object that the levels of residues found in food are too low to have a negative impact on our health. One argument contradicts the very abundant literature published on this subject. A meta-analysis published in Canada concluded that out of 207 scientific publications comparing exposure to pesticides and various pathologies (cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive problems, genotoxicity, dermatological problems) 173 concluded that there was a positive correlation between the incidence of these diseases. These were often, but not always, professional exhibitions, which does not change the conclusions to be drawn from them. Indeed, even if the pesticide residues present in food did not have a serious impact on the health of the consumer, which is highly improbable given the data in the scientific literature, do we morally have the right to consume foods we know that producing them can make farmers sick?
In addition, several recent scientific publications (the most recent in April 2011 in the American reference journal Environmental Health Perspectives) have highlighted the impact of organophosphate insecticides, widely used in France and around the world, on the nervous system: reduction in intelligence quotient, hyperactivity, abnormal reflexes, etc. Effects that appear even at very low doses, especially after exposure of the mother during pregnancy or young children. Health authorities are finally starting to take into consideration the "cocktail" effect of this uncontrolled combination of chemical substances denounced by various whistleblowers.
At a time when 45% of the population have chronic disorders or diseases partly related to exposure to chemical agents present in the environment, we therefore think that greatly reducing our exposure to pesticides - eating organic is the the only way to achieve this - is ultimately a very important public health and well-being issue.