Omega 3s, 6s, and Health
A flood of new science is strengthening the connection between the highly skewed ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids in the typical Western diet and a host of adverse health outcomes. Conversely, any and all steps to reduce omega 6 and increase omega 3 intakes are likely to improve health outcomes.
The typical American diet has an omega 6 to omega 3 ratio of about 15 to one. Recently published research suggests that some people consuming mostly processed foods and conventional animal products can ingest 40 micrograms of omega 6 for every microgram of omega 3.
The omega 6 to 3 ratio in human breast milk has gone from 6:1 to 18:1 over the last four decades. According to Dr. Gerard Ailhaud, “Omega six is like a fat-producing bomb” (Sustainable Food News, July 19, 2010).
An optimally heart-healthy diet would contain no more than a 3:1 omega 6 to omega 3 ratio (and some scientists suggest that a 1:1 ratio would be even better, especially during pregnancy and when people are combating obesity and/or Type 2 diabetes).
For this reason, the search is on for foods and production technologies that, ideally, simultaneously reduce omega 6 and enhance omega 3 concentrations in common foods.
Fortunately, food scientists need not search very hard because there is already a proven method to do just this – providing cows, pigs, and chickens more grass and forage-based feeds in their diets, and less corn.
And so, by seeking out organic dairy, meat and poultry products, consumers can take a step in the right direction, based on dozens of studies that have shown organic production can increase the levels of omega 3s by 50% or more, coupled with reduction in omega 6 levels (but rarely by 50%).
Until just a few years ago, scientists thought that improving cardiovascular health was the major reason to shift the ratio of omega 6s and 3s in the diet. This is clearly not true anymore.
Hundreds of studies have compared specific, adverse health outcomes associated with a Western diet, compared to diets containing less processed foods and red meat and more fish and grains. The healthier diets usually result in about 50% improvement in omega 6 to omega 3 ratios – for example, lowering the ratio from 15:1 to 7:1. In addition to well-documented cardiovascular benefits, dietary changes of this magnitude have been associated with –
- A 50% reduction in the risk of ADHD (Howard et al., 2010),
- Reduction in depression during pregnancy and lessened chance of reduced IQ and motor skills among children at age eight (Hibbeln, J.R., and J.M. Davis, 2009),
- Significantly higher scores among girls in the Bayley Mental Development Index (Ryan, A.S. et al., 2010),
- Higher IQ scores at age 64 (Whalley, L.J. et al.,2004),
- Improved respiratory health among toddlers (Minns, L.M. et al., 2010),
- Significant improvements in sperm count and quality (Safarinejad, M.R. et al., 2010), and
- Substantial reductions in tooth decay among elderly people (Iwasaki, M. Et al., 2009).
These are just a sampling of the dozens of new studies that have appeared recently on the possible benefits that could follow a shift downward in the omega 6 to 3 ratio. While more research is needed, consumption of organic milk, meat, and poultry products is clearly one of the most accessible – and affordable (see the first “Do You Know” below) – ways of doing so.
Sources: Howard, A.L., et al., “ADHD is Associated With a ‘Western’ Dietary Pattern in Adolescents,” Journal of Attention Disorders, July 2010.
Hibbeln, J.R., and J.M. Davis, “Considerations regarding neuropsychiatric nutritional requirements for intakes of omega-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids,” Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids, Vol. 81, Issues 2-3, August-September 2009, pages 179-186.
Ryan, A.S., et al., “Effects of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on neurodevelopment in childhood: A review of human studies,” Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids, Vol. 82, (2010), pages 305-314.
Whalley, L.J. et al., “Cognitive aging, childhood intelligence, and the use of food supplements: possible involvements of n-3 fatty acids,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80 (2004), pages 1650-1657.
Minns, L.M. et al., “Toddler formula supplemented with DHA improves DHA status and respiratory health in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial o US children less than 3 years of age,” Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids, Vol. 82, Issues 3-4, April-June 2010, pages 287-293.
Safarinejad, M.R. et al., “Relationship of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids with semen characteristics, and anti-oxidant status of seminal plasma: A comparison between fertile and infertile men,” Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 29, Issue 1, February 2010, pages 100-105.
Iwasaki, M. Et al., “Longitudinal relationship between dietary n-3 fatty acids and periodontal disease,” Nutrition, Available online January 25, 2010.
Strong Links Detected Between Pesticides and Skin Cancer
Government-funded scientists have found a strong linkage between exposures to certain pesticides and skin cancer.
The strongest linkages involved the fungicides maneb and macozeb, with an odds ratio of 2.4 – suggesting a 2.4-fold increase in risk. The insecticide parathion also strongly increased risks (odds ratio 2.4), as did carbaryl (odds ratio 1.7).
Benomyl and several carbamate insecticides also increased the risk of melanoma significantly.
Source: Dennis, L.K. et al., “Pesticide Use and Cutaneous Melanoma in Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 118, No. 6, July 2010, pages 812-817.
Proving Organic Food is More Nutritious
Dr. Katz, Director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center, posted a provocative July 10, 2010 piece in the Huffington Post entitled “Organic Food, Health and the Burden of Proof.” He began the piece focusing on a recent study suggesting that some people think that the organic label turns junk food into the nutritional equivalent of a silk purse.
Katz is the developer/promoter of a proprietary food nutritional quality rating scheme now showing up on some foods in certain supermarkets – the Overall Nutritional Quality Index. Without doubt, Katz has thought deeply about the characteristics of a nutritious food compared to ones that are less nutritious.
He begins his Huffington Post piece by saying that -
“Paradoxically, my long-standing interest in organic food has encompassed both ardent support and concerned opposition...My support for organic food -- and my own family's frequent selection of it -- has largely been based on potential benefits to the planet. These, I think are self evident, so I won't elaborate them here.”
He goes on to introduce the key question – Are organic foods inherently more nutritious? First, he states that –
“Organic does not mean ‘nutritious.’ Broccoli may be grown conventionally, but still has the nutritional profile of broccoli. Gummy bears -- and sugar, for that matter -- may be organic... However, it says nothing good about what they do contain, or add to your diet.”
In addition, Katz bemoans the fact that -
"...the food industry has draped products in labels touting organic ingredients even when such ingredients are a nominal part of the whole.”
And then Katz delivers the punch line –
“The industry has done much to propagate the view that organic and nutritious are synonymous.” But, he states, some consumers in Whole Foods are deluding themselves when they choose “...whipped cream and pepperoni pizza...under the halo effect of ‘natural and organic...’”
Katz “begs to differ” that organic junk food deserves a halo.
The second half of the piece contains the most provocative content. Katz moves on to discuss the powerful new paper in the journal Pediatrics linking exposures to organophosphate (OP) insecticides with ADHD (for more, see the May 17, 2010 “In the News” item on this study).
Turning from pesticide risks to nutrient content, Katz reports that -
“Other research over recent years suggests that organic produce may be, on average, 20 percent more concentrated in vitamins and minerals than conventionally grown produce.”
Our findings suggest the difference is, on average, about 25% and is most significant, from a public health point of view, in terms of elevated total antioxidant capacity (see “New Evidence Supports the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods”).
Katz notes, as well, the contrary conclusion reached by the Dangour et al team that carried out the U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA) review --
“On the other hand, a systematic review of the literature on organic foods published May 12 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that ‘evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects.’"
[Note -- The Center responded in depth to the Dangour et al review, and published a letter in the AJCN pointing out the methodological flaws that led to the team’s conclusions. The Dangour et al team, in its response to our letter, did not challenge or disagree with our criticisms.]
But after acknowledging the Dangour et al paper, Katz points out that -
“This paper, however, bespeaks absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.”
He then poses a key question –
“Consider what it would take to PROVE that organic foods confer a health benefit.”
His answer follows –
“Imagine a clinical trial in which 1,000 people are assigned to strictly organic foods, and another 1,000 to conventionally grown foods, for 10 years. Such a trial would be enormously costly, cumbersome and logistically demanding -- if feasible at all. Some chemical contaminants would almost certainly get into the diets of the 'organic' group despite the very best efforts to prevent it, and these would also contaminate the study- because they would narrow the intended difference between treatment groups.”
Katz then describes some hypothetical outcomes from the above study -- three fewer cases of cancer or ADHD, and/or “other maladies” and asserts that three fewer cases over 10 years “...would be too few to distinguish from a statistical fluke in a sample of a thousand people.”
But, he says, suppose there were three fewer cases of cancer or ADHD in the organic diet group –
“Three extra cases of cancer per ten years in 1,000 people caused by pesticide residues would mean 3,000 extra cancers every ten years per million people! In a population of 300 million, it means 300,000 extra cancers every decade!”
“What this tells us is that the health effects of pesticide residues and other common contaminants of conventionally produced food could be truly enormous at the population level, and still all but invisible to epidemiologic research.”
His concluding comments follow in full –
“Organic and nutritious do not, and never will, mean the same thing -- please be aware of that, and beware marketing messages to the contrary. But along with known benefits of organic food for the planet, we have more and more hints of potential health benefits as well. The case gets incrementally stronger with time that a food that is nutritious to begin with is better still if organic.”
“While we don't have, and are unlikely to get, definitive proof of the health benefits of eating organic, perhaps it's time for the burden of proof to go the other way: since organic food is better for the planet and is likely to be better for health, we should accept it as such ... unless someone can prove it isn't!”
Purchasing organic food does not limit the importance of responsible, personal dietary choices. Too much salt in organic chips does about the same thing to people as too much salt in conventional chips; ditto, saturated fat; ditto, calories.
What does matter is each person's daily ingestion of essential nutrients, and micro-nutrients like antioxidants, and our daily intakes of chemicals/animals drugs/food additives that can trigger a host of nasty unintended consequences, some of which remain obscure in the complex mix of factors and fate that determines who grows up and remains healthy and who does not.
If we happen to be pregnant, or less than two years old, these chemicals can trigger disruptions in the developmental process, some leading to lifelong adverse consequences including ADHD, autism, cancer, reproductive problems, and heightened risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The nutrient density of many organic foods now exceeds comparable conventional food in part because the nutrient content in conventional food has fallen as a result of what scientists call the "dilution effect," a widely accepted phenomenon featured extensively in the Center’s “Still No Free Lunch” Critical Issue Report by Brian Halweil.
But Katz is right – the organic label is not a guarantee that all organic food will always be nutritionally superior, but acknowledging this reality does not diminish the importance of the fact that organic fruits and vegetables are nutritionally superior about two-thirds of the time and organic dairy and meat products are almost always more nutritious.
As Katz states, organic food can contain unhealthy levels of added sugar, salt, and saturated fats. Organic produce can also be pushed to yield levels where the “dilution effect” kicks in and reduces nutrient density to, or below, levels common in conventional produce.
Today, the organic label is no guarantee of nutritional superiority, but this could change over time, at least for some foods, if and as qualified health claims with their roots in organic production are applied for and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Changes will be needed in the National Organic Program rule, and more investments will be needed in science and quality control, if the organic community is to decisively enhance the nutritional profile of organic foods.
We also agree that “definitive proof” is lacking for most health benefits linked to organic food and farming. But still, the evidence is strong in a number of areas and supports the conclusion that consumption of organic food, especially in conjunction with sound dietary choices, tips the odds toward healthy development during pregnancy, a newborn’s safe passage through the critical windows of development, and graceful aging. What does “graceful aging” mean? It means growing older with fewer vision problems, less inflammation and chronic pain, and slower loss of mental acuity and memory.
But in terms of the burden of scientific proof, there is a huge difference between the evidence required to conclude that organic food and farming “tips the odds” toward healthier development and living, in contrast to saying that organic food and farming will definitively cause – or prevent – some specific health outcome.
This difference reflects the reality that nearly all health problems with deep and diverse roots in infant development, lifestyle, and physiology are caused by a combination of many things, and often just the timing of events in a person’s life. The tipping point leading to chronic disease might be an unusual chemical exposure, perhaps coupled with a period of high stress, a bout of the flu, or suffering through a case of enteritis after exposure to a common foodborne pathogen like Salmonella or campylobacter. It can happen at any life stage, even before a child is born.
Perhaps an analogy will help make this key point clearer. In an individual’s complex dance through life, hopefully dodging disease and dealing with adversity, no one note or rhythm determines the outcome, but none the less, notes and rhythms do matter, and especially how they flow together. The same goes for food and how precisely a person’s diet provides the nutrients needed at a particular stage of life.
New Tests Needed to Assess the Allergenicity of GM Foods
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms has issued a new “Opinion" on the allergenicity of GM food and feed. It provides a comprehensive, up-to-date assessment of the risk of allergenic proteins appearing in GM foods and outlines the promising new tools emerging to assess allergenic risk.
Several aspects of allergenicity risk assessment are emphasized including –
- Need to search for sequence homology and structural similarities to known allergens,
- IgE binding tests and testing of the digestibility of newly expressed proteins, and
- Need for and uses of 3-dimensional structural analyses of allergens, profiling technology, exposure assessment and post-market monitoring.
The background information, scientific evidence and rationale on which the conclusions and recommendations are based, can be found in six detailed annexes.
It is worth noting that none of the currently planted GE crops have been subjected to the type of studies and in-depth assessment called for in this opinion.
OTA Makes the Case for Preserving the Integrity of Organic Alfalfa
In a strongly worded July 29, 2010 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, the Organic Trade Association calls upon USDA to keep in place the injunction against the planting of genetically engineered Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa.
OTA predicts that if RR alfalfa is de-regulated and approved for widespread planting, organic production and trade will be “irreparably harmed.” The USDA is currently considering allowing some planting of RR alfalfa this fall before the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.”
Alfalfa is a notoriously “out crossing” plant, which means pollen can and does move for long distances from one field to the next. This is why there is no way to contain RR alfalfa if approved for commercial planting. Within just a few years, virtually all alfalfa seed will contain the RR gene, making it essentially impossible to grow non-GE alfalfa on a commercial scale. The impacts on the organic livestock industry could indeed be extremely serious and virtually unreversible, as argued by OTA.
Massive Kellogg Cereal Recall –Tip of the Iceberg?
Kellogg has recalled 28 million boxes of cereal as a result of off flavours and illnesses caused by the leaching of methylnaphthalene from packaging material into the cereal. Year-on-year net earnings have declined by $302 million, in large part because of this disaster.
Knowledgeable food safety experts fear that this episode is the tip of a much larger iceberg. They anticipate that as more effort is made in assessing the movement of common food packaging chemicals like methylnaphthalene and BPA into packaged food, new questions and concerns are bound to arise.
A fresh look is needed of the vulnerability of organic packaged foods to this same sort of problem.
Source: Rory Harrington, “Tainted packaging recall hits Kellogg profits,” www.foodproductiondaily.com, July 30, 2010.
Interesting factoids about food, farming and the environment
Cost to boost omega 3 intakes by 0.17 micrograms via four ounces of wild Atlantic salmon -- $4.50.
Cost to boost omega 3 intakes by over 0.18 micrograms via eight ounces (one glass) of organic whole milk -- $0.43.
Sources: Omega 3 levels from the USDA “National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference” (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/); typical whole milk and salmon prices, Internet search of multiple food price websites, July 26, 2010.
Percent of foodborne illnesses caused by unpasteurized milk in the 1930s – more than 25%.
Percent of foodborne illnesses linked to pasteurized milk today – less than 1%.
11 outbreaks of illness involving hundreds of cases, some serious and requiring hospitalization, have been caused by raw milk in the first seven months of 2010.
Source: Richard Raymond, “No one should get sick drinking milk,” Feedstuffs, July 26, 2010.
310 million acres of organic blueberries were planted in FarmVille in just four days, with help from “Farmer Joe Cascadian” and over 5,000 of his Facebook friends.
Sources: Sustainable Food News, July 23, 2010. The Facebook game “FarmVille” has an estimated 20 million users per day.
Elizabeth Olson, “For FarmVille Players, a Crop From a Real Organic farm,” New York Times, July 14, 2010.
A former DowAgrosciences employee has been arrested for economic espionage for allegedly passing along to the Chinese government secrets needed to replicate the organically-approved bioinsecticide spinosad.
Source: Chemical and Engineering News, July 26, 2010
If Chinese consumers are to match the per capita meat consumption of Koreans, global meat production will need to increase 9%.
Source: Richard Barley, Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2010, page B16.
Radioactive wild pigs attacked a wheelchair bound man in a Berlin Park on July 20, 2010.
650,000 wild pigs were shoot by hunters last year, who were paid $550,000 by the German government to remove radioactive meat from the food supply.
The meat of wild pigs in the Bayerischer Wald region of Germany, near the Czech border, contains over 10-times the safe level of radiation, nearly a quarter-century after the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
The radioactive wild pig problem in Germany may still worsen and will last at least 75 years after the Chernobyl disaster.
Source: Charles Hawley, “Radioactive Boar on the Rise in Germany,” SpiegelOnLine, July 30, 2010.
Note: Imagine a team of experts developing the risk-management plan for a new nuclear power plant including a protocol to avoid radioactive-pig attacks on wheelchair bound senior citizens in city parks.
As the nation deals with the aftermath of the BP oil spill, and reassesses how to conduct and manage risks from inherently risky endeavours, like deep-water oil drilling and nuclear power, we should expect the unexpected and become more humble about our ability to predict and manage risks. Disasters big and small will happen and the best we can do is project their costs honestly, with wide margins for error, and factor such costs into the analysis of alternative courses of action.
TOC Contributing to Worldwatch Institute Project
TOC Chief Scientist Chuck Benbrook has joined the Scientific Advisory Group working with the Worldwatch Institute’s “Nourishing the Planet” project. This project is currently conducting the research supporting the writing of the 2011 “State of the World” report, which will focus on advancing global food security. The Gates Foundation is funding “Nourishing the Planet” and publication of the 2011 “State of the World” report.
Interviews are conducted with each advisory committee member and published on the “Nourishing the Planet” blog. The interview with Chuck Benbrook appeared on July 16, 2010 and has been picked up by several other websites and blogs. The full interview is posted on the Center’s website. Excerpts appear below.
Nourishing the Planet (NTP) – “Can you describe the possible ways that organic agriculture methods can help improve farmers’ income, increase food security, and decrease world hunger?”
Benbrook response – “If you dispassionately look at what is needed to promote productivity and food security in chronically food short regions, core organic farming principles and practices have much to contribute, and certainly far more than the GMO and chemical-intensive corn-soybean production system in the U.S. corn belt. This is particularly true in restoring soil fertility and reversing the steady decline in soil organic matter.
Six core principles and objectives of organic farming must form the foundation of sustainable food systems, and hence food security in Africa –
- Build the quality of the soil by increasing soil organic matter;
- Promote above and below-ground biodiversity for its inherent, multiple benefits (biological control, more diverse diet, lessening risk of catastrophic crop loss, etc);
- Integrate crop and livestock operations to exploit synergies between the two;
- Use crop rotations, cover crops, multi-cropping systems, and agro-foresty to utilize available sunlight and moisture more fully, especially in the spring and fall months;
- Avoid the use of toxic chemicals and hot fertilizers because of their potential to burn up organic matter, kill or reduce populations of non-target organisms that play valuable roles in food chains ultimately helping to feed people, and pose risks to people living in close proximity to treated areas; and
- Produce high-quality, nutrient dense products that will hopefully command a premium price in the market place, reflecting their true value.”
NTP – “Why should wealthy consumers care about hunger in other parts of the world?”
Benbrook -- “For the same reason that everyone should – helping assure everyone has enough to eat is a universal moral imperative. There is no chance for peace and stability in a world where chronic poverty and hunger afflicts one-sixth of mankind. Hungry people are desperate people, and the actions they sometimes take, or embrace, to feed themselves and their families erode the fabric of civilization, just as erosion saps soil quality.”
TOC Consumer Blog Up and Running
Check out our new consumer-focused blog ”Mission Organic Made Easy” featuring fresh postings three days a week by Sara Snow, Annie Brown and Jamie Kelly. Since launching we have covered topics ranging from organic bedding, the obesity and pesticide link, organic crepes, what exactly is a GMO, and the ultimate recipe for happiness (with pictures). Here’s the link.
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, July 9, 2010
“The best 'big gun' against obesity”
Chuck Benbrook and Alan Greene
One of the nation's foremost experts on type 2 diabetes, Thomas Buchanan, said in the June issue of the journal Obesity that our obesity crisis has become so severe that the United States must "bring on the big guns" by widely promoting minimally invasive weight loss surgery.
Given the number of people struggling with overweight and well on the road to diabetes, the total cost and human impact of the tens of millions of surgical procedures that would be required to combat obesity in this way boggles the mind. Plus, the long-term weight-reduction effectiveness of less invasive surgical procedures is unknown, as are rates of complications from "hardwiring" weight loss by physically manipulating a person's GI tract.
We agree that the crisis is urgent, with 1 in 3 children born today expected to develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetimes. We also agree that the two major "weapons" now deployed in the fight - moderate lifestyle interventions designed to reduce weight, and drug therapies to slow the progression of diabetes - are just not up to the challenge of reducing the frequency and severity of the disease. For most patients, they only delay the onset of symptoms by a few years.
But instead of placing hope primarily in surgical interventions to lose weight, let's use different "big guns" earlier in life to help prevent overweight and diabetes in the first place. Recent science points to several promising options, many of which impose only modest costs on society and will deliver benefits beyond lowering the risk of diabetes. With effort, we can farm and eat our way around at least some of the problem.
Given that almost everyone is well aware of the basic nutritional imperatives to control weight and lower the risk of diabetes, why are so many people struggling to change dietary patterns sufficient to promote good health?
First, food habits and taste preferences, once formed, are hard to break. It's time to make forming good food habits in children a national priority. Let's focus on cultivating Nutritional Intelligence - the ability to recognize and enjoy healthy amounts of good food.
Poor-quality, fast and highly processed foods are the most readily available, convenient and affordable source of calories for many people. These foods are manufactured and advertised by companies that have gotten very good at producing and promoting food products that taste good and trigger pleasing sensations and deliver a short-term boost in energy levels. Incidentally, these well-documented physiological responses to processed and fast foods are brought about via mechanisms not unlike those leading to drug addiction.
Second, the ubiquitous presence in certain foods of chemicals that can promote obesity is another major reason so many people struggle to change diets in a way sufficient to promote good health.
Everyone is exposed to dozens of such chemicals every day through their diet. Many are present in food as a result of how the industry preserves and packages food products. Alarming new data link a pregnant woman's exposure to organophosphate insecticides to increased risk of obesity and diabetes as her child grows up. Residues of about a dozen organophosphate insecticides are an unavoidable part of the daily American diet for everyone consuming conventionally grown food. This is why many health professionals, food companies and consumers are turning to organic food and farming as a commonsense way to take one set of risk factors off the table.
Stronger and more effective steps are clearly needed to combat obesity and diabetes. Nutritional Intelligence is the "big gun" we need. Let's avoid creating undue hope in the "big gun" of surgical procedures that deliver questionable long-term improvements in quality of life at very high cost.
Instead, as a nation, we need to pursue an aggressive, systematic campaign designed to clean up our food, promote wise food and dietary choices, and invest in the prevention of disease, especially during the early stages of life when the foundation for healthy development and disease prevention is laid, or disrupted, by what we eat.
Chuck Benbrook, an expert on agricultural policy, is the chief scientist for the Organic Center in Boulder, Colo. Dr. Alan Greene is a clinical professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine and a senior fellow at UCSF's Center for Health Professions.
Core Truths on the Major Benefits of Organic Food and Farming
Core Truths is a ground-breaking compilation of the most current research on organic agriculture. This highly readable and graphically stunning 108-page coffee table book documents the verifiable health and environmental benefits of organic products.
For more information
The Organic Center Features Jerry Garcia Artwork
Do you or someone you know love The Grateful Dead? Do you enjoy beautiful original works of art? If so, select a giclee of Jerry Garcia original artwork and benefit The Organic Center. This unique fundraising initiative to benefit The Organic Center is made possible through the generosity of filmmaker Deborah Koons Garcia and features the series, "In the Garden," by the late Jerry Garcia. Individual prints are $250, or get the full series for $1,000. To order your Jerry Garcia art, click here.
"The Scoop," is an electronic newsletter published monthly by The Organic Center. For a free subscription, visit www.organic-center.org.
Backed by the world's leading scientists, physicians and scholars, The Organic Center is committed to two goals:
1) RESEARCH: providing free, peer-reviewed, credible science that explores the health and environmental benefits of organic agriculture.
2) EDUCATION: helping people and organizations access and better understand science that sheds light on the organic benefit.
To access free downloads of the latest in organic science go to: www.organic-center.org.
Our Outreach and Communication Program –
Informed consumers drive the organic marketplace. Help The Organic Center reach consumers with the latest science on the organic benefit by:
For companies, The Organic Center's Affinity Marketing Partnership Program provides resources and tools to help educate your customers about the personal benefits of organic food and farming.
- For more information about our affinity marketing program, email Jamie Kelly
Joan Boykin - Executive Director
Annie Brown - Development Director
Charles "Chuck" Benbrook, Ph.D. - Chief Scientist
TOC Board Chair: Mark Retzloff, Chairman of the Board, Aurora Organic Dairy
Treasurer: Timothy Escamilla, VP Procurement/Supply Chain, Ready Pac Produce
Secretary: James White, CEO, Jamba Juice
The Organic Center
P.O. Box 20513
Boulder, CO USA 80308
Back to the top