Organic Labels Bias Consumers Perceptions through the “Health halo effect”

The word “organic” can mean many things to consumers. Even so, the power of an organic label can be very strong: studies have shown that this simple label can lead us to think that a food is healthier, through what is known as the ‘health halo effect’. But can this bias go further? A study by Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab researchers Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin and Wansink set out to answer this question. Their study shows that an organic label can influence much more than health views: perceptions of taste, calories and value can be significantly altered when a food is labeled “organic”. Certain people also appear to be more susceptible to this ‘health halo’ effect than others…are you?

115 people were recruited from a local shopping mall in Ithaca, New York to participate in this study. Participants were asked to evaluate 3 pairs of products— 2 yogurts, 2 cookies and 2 potato chip portions. One item from each food pair was labeled “organic”, while the other was labeled “regular”. The trick to this study was: all of the product pairs were organic and identical! Participants were asked to rate the taste and caloric content of each item, and how much they would be willing to pay for the items. A questionnaire also inquired about their environmental and shopping habits.

Even though these foods were all the same, the “organic” label greatly influenced people’s perceptions. The cookies and yogurt were estimated to have significantly fewer calories when labeled “organic” and people were willing to pay up to 23.4% more for them. The nutritional aspects of these foods were also greatly biased by the health halo effect. The “organic” cookies and yogurt were said to taste ‘lower in fat’ than the “regular” variety, and the “organic” cookies and chips were thought to be more nutritious! The label even tricked people’s taste buds: when perceived as “organic”, chips seemed more appetizing and yogurt was judged to be more flavorful. “Regular” cookies were reported to taste better–possibly because people often believe healthy foods are not tasty. All of these foods were exactly the same, but a simple organic label made all the difference!

Who is less susceptible? This study found that people who regularly read nutrition labels, those who regularly buy organic food, and those who exhibit pro-environmental behaviors (such as recycling or hiking) are less susceptible to the organic ‘health halo’ effect. So, if you do not consider yourself in one these groups, take a closer look when shopping for organic foods—they are, after all, still cookies and chips!

What is Organic Food? (Video) ….

Source: Cornell University Food and Brand Lab

Read more ….

Do organic labels make us think food is healthy? ….

Do You Really Need to Buy Organic Foods To Avoid Pesticide Residues?

For the US, there is a perfectly good way to answer the question, “Should we be concerned at all about pesticide residues on our conventional food?” There is a publically available, fully transparent, downloadable data-set that provides exactly the information needed to get those answers. Each year, a group in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA-AMS) conducts a huge effort called “The Pesticide Detection Program.” (PDP). They collect thousands of samples of food commodities from commercial channels throughout the year, and then take them back to the lab and analyze each for hundreds of different pesticide residues. It is effectively a “report card” on the entire food production system about how well it protects consumers from undesirable pesticide exposure.

Read more at Applied Mythology ….

Little Evidence of Health Benefits from Organic Foods

You’re in the supermarket eyeing a basket of sweet, juicy plums. You reach for the conventionally grown stone fruit, then decide to spring the extra $1/pound for its organic cousin. You figure you’ve just made the healthier decision by choosing the organic product — but new findings from Stanford University cast some doubt on your thinking.

“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford School of Medicine, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

The popularity of organic products, which are generally grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones, is skyrocketing in the United States. Between 1997 and 2011, U.S. sales of organic foods increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion, and many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these products. Organic foods are often twice as expensive as their conventionally grown counterparts.

the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called “tons of analyses.”

“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Smith-Spangler, who is also an instructor of medicine at the School of Medicine. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.”

The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products. While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear.

Read more at Stanford School of Medicine ….

Read further ….

Eating organic food ‘won’t make you healthier’ ….

EU Organic ‘Euro-Leaf’ Logo Becomes Mandatory

Following a 2-year transition period to help operators adapt to the new labeling rules and avoid waste of existing packaging, organic food producers are required to display the new EU organic “Euro-Leaf” logo on prepackaged food products that have been produced in any of EU Member States effective July 1. The logo is still optional for non-prepackaged and imported organic foods., and other private, regional or national logos will continue to be allowed to appear alongside the EU label

In addition to the logo, the new labeling rules also include the compulsory indications of place of farming of the products’ ingredients and code number of the body that had been in charge of the controls.

The new rules also cover organic aquaculture production of fish, shellfish and seaweed. The rules set EU-wide conditions for the aquatic production environment, the separation of organic and non-organic units and specify animal welfare conditions including maximum stocking densities, a measurable indicator for welfare. The rules specify that biodiversity should be respected, and do not allow the use of induced spawning by artificial hormones. Organic feeds should be used supplemented by fish feeds derived from sustainably managed fisheries. Special provisions are made for bivalve mollusk production and for seaweed.

“Our hope is that the new EU logo can develop into a widely recognized symbol of organic food production across the EU, providing consumers with confidence that the goods are produced entirely in-line with the strict EU organic farming regulations,” said EU Commissioner for Agriculture & Rural Development Dacian Cioloş. “I hope that these changes will give a boost to the organic farming sector, but also further enhance consumer protection.”

Read more ….

Organic Tomatoes Contain Higher Levels of Antioxidants than Conventional Tomatoes

Study conducted at the University of Barcelona shows that organic tomatoes contain higher levels of phenolic compounds than conventional tomatoes. Phenolic compounds are organic molecules found in many vegetables with proven human health benefits. The UB’s Natural Antioxidant Group, headed by lecturer Rosa M. Lamuela, had previously proved that organic tomato juice and ketchup contain higher polyphenol content than juice and ketchup made from conventionally grown tomatoes.

Lamuela points out that during the production process of ketchup and juice, there are lower levels of polyphenols; therefore it was necessary to verify that the differences observed in previous studies had their origin in the tomatoes themselves and not in the technology used during the production process. As lecturer Lamuela states, “it must be verified with raw material”.

Polyphenols —natural antioxidants of plant origin— are considered to be of great nutritional interest because its consumption is associated with the prevention of cardiovascular and degenerative diseases, and some forms of cancer. The team behind the study has analysed a variety of tomato called Daniela and has determined its phenolic profile by using liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. With this method, the research group of the UB could identify 34 different phenolic compounds in tomatoes. According to Rosa M. Lamuela, “the benefit of taking polyphenols through foods is that they contain a wide variety of such molecules, which are increased”. This would be more beneficial to health than the intake of supplements. Tomatoes also contain lycopene and other carotenoids, and vitamin C. Hence, according to Lamuela, “they contain many beneficial compounds”.

Organic or conventional crops?

Differences between organic and conventional tomatoes can be explained by the manure used in both cases. “Organic farming doesn’t use nitrogenous fertilizers; as a result, plants respond by activating their own defence mechanisms, increasing the levels of all antioxidants”, explains the first author of the article, Anna Vallverdú Queralt. “The more stress plants suffer, the more polyphenols they produce”, points out lecturer Lamuela. Numerous scientific investigations show that the consumption of these antioxidants has numerous health benefits. Researchers claim that more studies of clinical evidence are still needed to be able to state that organic products are truly better for our health than conventional ones. Lamuela would like to carry out a study with humans comparing organic and conventional tomato consumers.

Source: Universidad de Barcelona

Organic Produce May Offer No Nutritional Benefits

A study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry reports new evidence that organically grown onions, carrots, and potatoes generally do not have higher levels of polyphenol antioxidants than vegetables grown with traditional fertilizers and pesticides.

The new study adds further confusion to the ongoing debate on whether organically grown fruit and vegetables are any more nutritious than their traditionally cultivated counterparts.

The researchers stated that the ability of crops to synthesize selected secondary metabolites was not systematically affected by the growth system across different growth years and geographical locations.

However, some commentators have previously pointed out that nutrition is not the main reason that many people opt for organics, stating that the avoidance of pesticides and consumer preference for produce grown using land-conscious practices account for much of the sector.

Read more ….

No Health Benefit Difference between Organic and Conventional Foods

Consumers who opt for organic foods often believe they are improving their health, but there is currently no strong evidence that organics bring nutrition-related health benefits, a new research review finds.

A “disappointingly small” number of well-designed studies have looked at whether organic foods may have health benefits beyond their conventional counterparts’, according to the review, by researchers with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health in the UK.

Moreover, they found, what studies have been done have largely focused on short-term effects of organic eating — mainly antioxidant activity in the body — rather than longer-term health outcomes. And most of the antioxidant studies failed to find differences between organic and conventional diets.

Read more ….