A new study has found that organic produce and meat aren’t much different from their non-organic counterparts when it comes to nutritional content, but may be better as far as pesticide residue and antibiotic resistant bacteria are concerned.
Reuters is reporting that researchers at Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System reviewed over 200 studies that compared the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods and/or the nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.
The study’s major findings included:
• There were no significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional fruits and vegetables.
• Detectable pesticide residue was found in 7% of organic produce and 38% of conventional produce.
• Both organic and conventional foods were at similar risk for bacterial contamination.
• Organic chicken and pork was 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally-produced meat.
In order to label a food as organic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that farms must avoid the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics.
On the other hand, conventional farms in the U.S. use pesticides for pest control and often raise animals in crowded indoor conditions where they are fed antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease. The Food and Drug Administration is currently examining whether or not the type of antibiotic used contributes to the increasing number of drug-resistant diseases in humans.
The bottom line is that “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, senior author of the paper and a physician at Stanford’s Center for Health Policy to USA Today.
These results may come as a shock to most consumers of organic foods who say they’re willing to pay a little more for what they perceive to be better food. A 2010 Nielsen study found that 76 percent of organic food purchases say they bought them believing them to be healthier. Another 53 percent said it was to avoid pesticides. Fifty-one percent said they purchased organic because it’s more nutritious and 49 percent said they did so because they believe organic farming is better for the environment.
However, Chensheng Lu, who studies environmental health and exposure at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, told Reuters Health that people should still consider pesticide exposure in their grocery-shopping decisions.
“If I was a smart consumer, I would choose food that has no pesticides,” he said. “I think that’s the best way to protect your health.”
He concluded that more research is necessary to fully explore the potential health and safety differences between organic and conventional foods.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
The conclusions seem strange to me looking at the results of the study, because the pesticide and antibiotic factors are huge , and avoiding would be healthier. I’D like to see a little more about the study, how it was set up and who funded it.
I do organic for a variety of reasons as mentioned in article, also food allergies. One factor not mentioned here is avoidance of GMOs. I don’t want my chickens and beef fed with GMO grain, nor do I want other foods tainted with it. We don’t have full disclosure labeling so it is up to the consumer to do the footwork and pay higher prices.
There are some interesting videos and books to read which you may disagree with some of their conclusions, but their points about our loss of freedoms is well made–“Farmaggedon” and “Raw Milk Revolution” are two off the top of my head. I’m not a radical on food, but it is interesting to see the freedom aspect.