Nutritional Value of Organic Food Challenged by Stanford University Study

organicfood.jpg
Katharine Shilcutt
A new study conducted by Stanford University researchers suggests that organic food may not be as nutritious as many believe it to be.
A recently released Stanford University study, which reviewed and analyzed more than 200 previously conducted studies comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods, suggests that organic food may not be a shining star in the department of nutritional value. The study's findings, in a nutshell: There is little difference between the health benefits of organic and non-organic foods -- organic foods are not necessarily more nutritious, and they don't necessarily carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives. Additionally, although organic produce has a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides.

Yikes. That's a lot to take in. For years now, organic food has been surrounded by a golden halo that makes it shine brighter than all other categories of food. Within hours of the release of Stanford University's study, both media and consumers alike were abuzz on this hot topic -- could it really be that organic products, which often cost two to three times more than their conventionally grown counterparts, fall so short?

It really depends on how you look at it.

For one thing, the nutritional value of organic food is not its only selling point. There's much more to organic foods. A USDA Consumer Brochure does a great job of explaining: "Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation."

Even Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the research paper, knows that "if you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional." These reasons include taste profile and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare, she told Stanford's Department of Medicine.

Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in Stanford's Division of General Medical Disciplines, and Dr. Bravata's co-researcher, says that the goal of the study was to
"shed light on what the evidence is," and that the findings that they put out "is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations."

Whether they achieved that goal is a question. Many publications weighed in on the subject.

The Los Angeles Times: In an op-ed case for organic foods, the L.A. Times says that some parts of the study's findings are debatable, and that the study "fails to get to the heart of the reason most people spend extra for organics." The Los Angeles newspaper was surprised that processed foods labeled "organic" had no part in the study, but credits the study for pointing out "how little is yet known about the benefits of organics and the harms done by widespread pesticide use."

The New York Times: The NYT says that while organic food fans will most likely not be swayed by the study, "the conclusions will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people into overpaying." In their review of the study, they also mention that no outside financing was used, usually a good thing for objectivity.

National Public Radio: NPR science correspondent Allison Aubrey spoke with host Neal Conan about the study. Aubrey points out that the research methods used for the study should be examined, as "studies of people were very limited," and for this reason, it is "fair to say that this is not the last word on whether organics are healthy or better for you." She and host Conan agree that the debate over organic food is many times an emotional one -- Aubrey sees that "organic is part and parcel of a sort of cultural movement...a food renaissance."

We wonder what kind of effect the presentation of this study's findings will have have on the organic food market. As for you, will you continue to buy organic, or continue to stay away from organic? And what did you think of Stanford University's study?



Follow Eating Our Words on Facebook and on Twitter @EatingOurWords
My Voice Nation Help
10 comments
bokflori
bokflori

This goes to show that just because you went to Stanford you are not that smart.

I guess you don't need critical thinking to get into that school.

US has the most cancerous people in the world. They also happen to consume the most non-organic food. I don't care about the label, as long as there are no poisons sprayed on my food.

SF108
SF108

That Stanford study that everyone's quoting was totally fraudulent.

 

The study's co-author, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

 

The following document shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html

 

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics. This research was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.   

 

ivancillo
ivancillo

The co-author of this was involved in promoting tobacco vs science back in the day, so why would you even believe anything this article says...Organic rules!!! It's better as it has less pesticides and toxic chemicals, and if it local even better as it will be fresher and will have more nutrients.

http://naturalsociety.com/stanford-organic-study-big-tobaccos-anti-science-propaganda/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+naturalsocietyblog+%28Natural+Society%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Shawn
Shawn

Yeah I didn't understand this "news".  It's like someone did a study that determined that organic foods don't cause you to become an immortal like on the Highlander movies.  I don't know anyone that every believed organic foods would have more vitamins or be more nutritious somehow.  Everyone I know believes that they have less harmful chemicals due to not using as many pesticides (or medicines in the case of animal products), that they are grown and harvested in a more old-fashioned ecologically responsible way.  This study doesn't seem to even involve any of those types of things.  Additionally, since pesticides, chemicals, and medicines that are often in "conventional" foods are either not studied well or are proven to be a problem over a longer period of time, a two year study like this would be very insufficient.  This type of stuff takes years, decades, lifetimes to study.

Anse
Anse

It's worth pointing out that the biggest reason organics cost more than conventional produce is that the government heavily subsidizes conventional farm production; take away those subsidies, particularly corn subsidies, and you'd see their prices go up, especially meat.

gossamersixteen
gossamersixteen topcommenter

My garden will stay organic, sure I spend a small fortune on organic fungicide (serenade/actinovate) and for natural fertilizers but my dinner alone last night (tomatoes and sweet basil) makes it worth while. And I don't think twice when feeding the better half or my son produce straight from our garden. 

Smedley
Smedley

The only reason I ever purchased "Organic" goods was with the understanding that there would be less exposure to pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics. That's what made it healthier in my mind.

 

I don't eat cows, but I wonder how many cows whose meat would classify as "organic" get mad cow disease...

shirleyarcher
shirleyarcher

@AcademicUpdate 2 more Qs re Organics study: we don't fully know value of antioxidants etc. or full pesticide harm over time to ppl & planet

conebaby
conebaby topcommenter

I have to say the uproar around this was fascinating. Friends posted this link on Facebook and were like, "See! You don't have to buy organic! You've been duped!" Like they were right about something we hadn't even been arguing about.

 

I've never thought organic=more nutrition; I buy organic for what there is less of--chemical pesticides. I buy LOCAL because the fresher picked, the more nutrients, but I also know local doesn't equal organic.

 

I buy a lot of organic here b/c it's so supremely affordable. In AK I rarely did, because "regular" produce was expensive enough ($1.99 red peppers--IN SEASON), and in NY summer kept organic prices pretty affordable, though I might not buy all organic through the winter.

 

For me, no big deal. I'll continue to buy a mix of local, organic, and non-organic.

Anse
Anse

@Smedley Organic beef should be fed on grass. The mad cow problem flared up because conventional beef producers were feeding the cows corn that had been adulterated with beef by products; in other words, they were forcing the cows into cannabalism. If your organic beef really is organic, then you shouldn't have to worry about mad cow.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...