09.05.12
New research picked up and publicized by the national news has added more fuel to the fiery organic versus non-organic food debate. The research, conducted by Stanford University and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, systematically reviewed 17 human studies and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in unprocessed foods like fruits, vegetables, grains, milk, eggs, chicken, pork, and meat and concluded that organic food doesn’t offer any more vitamins or nutrients than foods that aren’t organic.
“There wasn’t any strong evidence to support the idea that organic foods are significantly healthier,” said Crystal Smith- Spangler, the study’s lead author, told The Washington Post.
On the upside, Dr. Smith-Spangler and her colleagues also concluded that the “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” which is among the chief reasons consumers cite for choosing to purchase organic products in the first place.
“Consumers seeking to minimize their exposure to pesticide residues will find that foods bearing the USDA Organic label are the gold standard. This is because organic foods have the least chemicals applied in their production and the least residues in the final products,” said Christine Bushway, executive director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association (OTA). “And, because organic livestock practices forbid the use of antibiotics, including the routine use of low level antibiotics for growth, organic meat contains less antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
OTA spotlighted three other key conclusions in the meta-analysis:
Although the Stanford research acknowledged the lack of published evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods, the researchers did however cite higher levels of total beneficial phenols in organic produce, omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken, and vaccenic acid in organic chicken.
The link between agronomic practices and nutritional profile of foods is an emerging research topic, OTA’s Ms. Bushway noted. “We are optimistic that in the future, good applied scientific research on organic food and farming will show that healthy soils produce healthy foods,” she said.
Natural Products Association Executive Director and CEO John Shaw also weighed in on the study and echoed Ms. Bushway's sentiments. He also added, “It’s worth noting that organic refers to the method of production, not nutritional value. There are a wide range of organic cosmetics, medicines, even dry cleaning. Consumers who buy organic products care about a healthy environment and avoid risk to potentially harmful substances.
He went on to conclude, "There are a variety of organic dietary supplements on store shelves as well. Organic foods, along with supplementation as needed, can be an important part of a healthy lifestyle.”
“There wasn’t any strong evidence to support the idea that organic foods are significantly healthier,” said Crystal Smith- Spangler, the study’s lead author, told The Washington Post.
On the upside, Dr. Smith-Spangler and her colleagues also concluded that the “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” which is among the chief reasons consumers cite for choosing to purchase organic products in the first place.
“Consumers seeking to minimize their exposure to pesticide residues will find that foods bearing the USDA Organic label are the gold standard. This is because organic foods have the least chemicals applied in their production and the least residues in the final products,” said Christine Bushway, executive director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association (OTA). “And, because organic livestock practices forbid the use of antibiotics, including the routine use of low level antibiotics for growth, organic meat contains less antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
OTA spotlighted three other key conclusions in the meta-analysis:
- Conventional produce has a 30 percent higher risk for pesticide contamination than organic produce.
- Conventional chicken and pork have a 33 percent higher risk for contamination with bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than organic products do.
- There is no difference in the food safety risk between organic and conventional foods.
Although the Stanford research acknowledged the lack of published evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods, the researchers did however cite higher levels of total beneficial phenols in organic produce, omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken, and vaccenic acid in organic chicken.
The link between agronomic practices and nutritional profile of foods is an emerging research topic, OTA’s Ms. Bushway noted. “We are optimistic that in the future, good applied scientific research on organic food and farming will show that healthy soils produce healthy foods,” she said.
Natural Products Association Executive Director and CEO John Shaw also weighed in on the study and echoed Ms. Bushway's sentiments. He also added, “It’s worth noting that organic refers to the method of production, not nutritional value. There are a wide range of organic cosmetics, medicines, even dry cleaning. Consumers who buy organic products care about a healthy environment and avoid risk to potentially harmful substances.
He went on to conclude, "There are a variety of organic dietary supplements on store shelves as well. Organic foods, along with supplementation as needed, can be an important part of a healthy lifestyle.”