On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Technical / white paper
Application note
Salt reduction with SODA-LO™ Salt Microspheres
Tate & Lyle Food Ingredients
Organic produce offers no benefits over conventional farming methods when it comes to nutrition and health, according to the findings of a new wide ranging review of the evidence.
The new review – published in Annals of Internal Medicine – analysed data from more than 200 published nutrient analysis studies and human trials, finding that there is generally no difference in nutritional value or risk for bacterial contamination between organic and conventional foods.
The research team, led by Crystal Smith-Spangler of Stanford University, said their findings suggest consumption of organic fruits and vegetables has no benefit over conventional foods in terms of improving health.
"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious," said Smith-Spangler. "We were a little surprised that we didn't find that."
Dr Dena Bravata, senior author of the review added: "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."
The team did find that organic food consumption reduced exposure to any detectable pesticide residues by around 30%, but noted that pesticide levels were generally within the allowable limits for safety anyway.
The researchers said their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases: "If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional," said Bravata.
“Consumers may choose to purchase organic foods for other reasons besides nutrition and food safety, such as concern for animal welfare, the environment, or preferences in taste," added Smith-Spangler.
Organic evidence?
Organic foods are often twice as expensive as their conventionally grown counterparts, said the authors.
Though there is a common perception — perhaps based on price alone — that organic foods are better for you than non-organic ones, the authors noted that there is an open question as to whether they have added health benefits.
Bravata said that the evidence to back the supposed and often presumed benefits of organic consists of a "confusing body of studies, including some that were not very rigorous, appearing in trade publications."
"This was a ripe area in which to do a systematic review," said Smith-Spangler.
Review details
Smith-Spangler and her colleagues conducted the systematic review (found in full here ) of 17 human studies and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in unprocessed foods including fruits, vegetables, grains, milk, eggs, chicken, pork, and meat.
The team compared the health, nutritional, and safety characteristics of organic and conventional foods, finding that the published literature “lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.”
After analyzing the data, they found 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. Smith-Spangler and her colleagues said 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 the team did find weak evidence of the nutritional superiority of organic foods in that organic produce contained significantly higher levels of total phenolic compounds, which have antioxidant properties, and that organic milk and chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.
While researchers found that organic produce is 30% less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables, the reviewers noted that organic foods are not necessarily 100% free of pesticides. In addition, the pesticide levels of all foods fell within the allowable safety limits, they said.
Source: Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 157, Number 5, Pages 348-366, doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007
“Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review”
Authors: Crystal Smith-Spangler, Margaret L. Brandeau, Grace E. Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger, Maren Pearson, et al
16 comments (Comments are now closed)
Dean of Science at Stanford connected to Monsanto
Sharon Long the Dean of Science at Stanford was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto. That is why they did not include in the study what was in regular food vs NOT in organic food. Sad but true. Look it up
Report abuse
Posted by David Jones
29 September 2012 | 21h53
It's not what's not inside...
The argument is not that organic food is healthier for you in terms of its vitamin content. The point is that people want organic for what it does not contain I.e. chemicals, pesticides, anti-biotics and growth hormones. I like my food as close to nature as possible thanks.
Report abuse
Posted by Edwina Cottino
15 September 2012 | 15h37
The Rise of Scientific Fraud!
More paid for science from big industry, just what we need to further destroy what was left of our trust in science.
Anyone today can hire a company like Design Write Incorporated as Wyeth Pharmaceuticals did in 1997 to knock out forty studies on women's hormone replacement therapy for Premarin and Prempro and place them in 18 different scientific journals. Or go through thousands of studies cherry picking till you get the results to prove big food and agricultures position in order to make money while the American public suffer and die.
Busted: Wyeth Used Ghostwriters To Place Over 40 "Scientific" Articles In Medical Journals, Natural News, Thursday, July 08, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
The Brainwashing Is Working, By Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher
Happy Healthy Trails
Doc Blake
Report abuse
Posted by Dr. Paul Blake, ND
13 September 2012 | 11h59
Great Article
Thank you so much for posting this article. It is important that people know what the differences are as a consumer before making decisions and this article makes the point very clear. To those comments who are declaring that the world is sicker and we are full of toxins I would beg to differ that eating organic would be the answer to this in full or in part. The world is sicker and sicker by the day because we eat too much food and we dont move enough, not because we dont eat organic. Hopefully this article will touch enough people to save them money and point them in the right direction.
Report abuse
Posted by Mike
06 September 2012 | 02h43
Who sets the guidelines for "allowable safety" pesticide limits?
The focus on this article is on the nutritional content of organic vs non organic with the pesticides aspect is all but brushed over. I feel this warrants a much broader discussion or at least commentary on what those "allowable safety" limits are and who sets them. The tone of this article misses one of the key points of organic.
Report abuse
Posted by Kim Cheadle
05 September 2012 | 18h31
no wonder the world is getting sicker & sicker
the headline in an The Telegraph in Australia was "Health Myth Growing - study finds organic food no better than cheaper alternative"
* Is 30% less pesticide no better?
* Suggest readers do their own research and google "Dr Mercola" &/or EWG's "Skin Deep" to get a responsible balance of opinion.
Report abuse
Posted by Pete Dudley
05 September 2012 | 13h21
Author response
In response to some of the comments here I would like to note that the article above is written to be completely unbiased and I believe fairly and accurately reports the findings of the study.
The article does mention that there are benefits to organic (including the lower pesticide levels) and also notes that nutritional value is probably not a main contributor to people's purchasing habits. It is in fact environmental concerns and also a desire to have food untreated by chemicals (as stated in the article, and in comments below).
For those questioning methodologies, or the financial motives of the study authors. Please see the link in my article above. You can see the full peer reviewed study there. This offers a full explanation of methods and explains that the authors received no financial support for the article.
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for all the comments so far. And please do keep them coming. :-).
I should have a second article, following up some of your comments and adding my own thoughts online very soon!
Report abuse
Posted by Nathan Gray - Science Reporter for FoodNavigator
05 September 2012 | 12h34
Caveat Emptor
I'm inclined to view this article as slanted. Nutritional value and toxicity levels are two different subjects. I maintain a commitment to organic or at the very least, locally grown. There is no argument about organically grown produce offering the same nutrients as conventionally grown produce......it's about safety.
Report abuse
Posted by T Kelly
05 September 2012 | 00h10
any bias?
Such irresponsible reporting as is most of the reporting in our current world. so many people will read the headline & run with it. Not only do you have to go elsewhere to read the entire methodology used (which most wont do in this attention deficit era) but id like to know who funded the whole study. Its always a secretive fact in any of these pretty flimsy studies.
Report abuse
Posted by amk
04 September 2012 | 22h11
They have completely missed GMO's in this report
This is not a fair or equitable comparison in that there is absolutely no mention of the biggest threat to our heath from the food supply today which is the undisclosed presence of Genetically Modified Organisms in much of conventionally grown monoculture produce, especially corn, soy, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, hawaiian pineapple, papaya and now yellow squash and zucchini. This is but one study amidst many which are more accurately reported that dig deeper into what really promotes or prevents health and good nutrition. In addition it says nothing about what organic farming methods do to promote sustainable health for the soil and our planet. This report/study is an example of more misinformation spewed to a confused public, in attempts to promote other agendas, not in the public best interest.
Report abuse
Posted by Donna Wolf RD
04 September 2012 | 21h26
with all due respect...
As a nutritional therapist, I have to take issue with the conclusion of this article. There are many reasons why people are so sick with cancers and destroyed immune systems in our culture and toxins and nutritionally-deficient foods are to blame.
We are living in a toxic soup of which pesticides are a huge factor, not only in terms of the plants on which they are applied, but also in terms of what they do to the soil, water, air, and surrounding wildlife. I assume this article is referring to crops grown in the U.S. But we also have the issue of pesticides used in other countries on foods they ship here. I think we have all been made aware of the carelessness and deception surrounding food and food products coming from China.
And, in regards to the nutritive quality of food when comparing organic to conventional, the results largely depend upon the soil. And what we really need to be comparing is the nutritional content of today's crops compared to crops grown 100 years ago. That's where the difference lies and it's sad to see.
In order for a farm to earn the status "organic", rigorous soil-building has to happen and takes approximately 7 years. Not so with conventional farming. Conventional soils are extremely deficient in minerals. There are approximately 20 or so minerals that are supposed to be in the soil in order to produce a healthy, chemical-free, nutrient-dense crop with ALL the expected nutrients present. Typical conventional soils have about 3 - nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are common. But where is the boron, copper, zinc, manganese, cobalt, calcium, sulfur, iron, and so on. Deficient soil produces deficient crops necessitating chemically fertilization and pesticides. Deficient crops cannot fight off disease, just like deficient human bodies cannot fight off disease. I find it hard to believe that the nutrient quality/quantity is the same comparing conventional to organic crops.
The chemical contamination of organic crops mentioned in this article is unfortunate, if it happens at all, and is most commonly assumed to come from overspray from adjacent conventional farms and/or sprays used by land and road maintenance crews. This is a hot issue especially in light of cross-pollination that is occurring from GMO farms lying adjacent to organic farms. We need to protect organic standards with a vengeance against the over-reaching powers of BigFood and the government agencies that protect them.
And in terms of organic food costing double of non-organic, it is because organic crops are not subsidized by the government like conventional crops are!
We have been misled to believe an untruth about the real cost of growing food because conventional crops, especially corn and soybeans, are highly subsidized by the government which reduces the cost to the farmer and to the consumer. Organic food prices more accurately reflect the true cost of growing high quality, non-toxic food that nutriates the body and does no harm.
And regarding the difference between organic and conventional milk - it depends on the pasteurization process. Pasteurization and ultra-pasteurization kill all the "life" in the milk. Low-temperature, vat-pasteurization spares the majority of the enzymes necessary for digestion and assimilation into the body, but you have to really look to find vat-pasteurized milk. When you kill off those enzymes, what used to be a live food is now dead and, without the enzymes, the remaining white liquid becomes somewhat of an irritant or toxin to the gut. That is why there is such resistance to the banning of raw milk among those who have been living on raw milk for ages. The only other option we have is to put some enzyme activity back into pasteurized milk through culturing: yogurts, kefirs, cheeses,etc.
Clearly more work needs to be done by the "conventional" scientific community.
It will be a happy day when articles written by the scientific community are truly unbiased, well-researched and conducted, and with no hidden agendas attached.
This is not rocket-science folks. The misinformation and lack of education among conventional doctors, conventional nutritionists, and dieticians and others in the field is not an accident.
What is good nutrition? Good nutrition is based on a diet of nutrient-dense, properly-prepared foods that have not been altered by man. It makes a lot of sense it just doesn't make a lot of dollars.
Report abuse
Posted by Maxine Johnson
04 September 2012 | 20h08
Its what's NOT in it
As stated by Jordi below, this article is a somewhat misleading interpretation of the actual study. However what is most misleading is the assumption that organic produce is recommended or purchased because of superior nutrition content. This is completely false. The recommendation for organic produce from nutrition professionals is based on the consumption of fewer pesticides, which, as Jordi also pointed out, is linked to a host of problems--and has a cumulative effect. Articles like this confuse the lay public.
Report abuse
Posted by Kim
04 September 2012 | 17h55
It's always best to carefully read the abstract.
I quote: [Data Synthesis:...All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus.]. That's very different from the Conclusion: [The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.]. But its phrasing completely misleads readers with no Statistics background. Also bear in mind pesticides take their toll in the long run, with strong linkage to neurological diseases.
Report abuse
Posted by Jordi
04 September 2012 | 17h26
Need to know sources and financial backers
I agree with Augusto Freire's comments. People are losing site of sources' origins evidence and their champions' ultimate goal. All research and results can be skewed. More information is needed. Would like to get my hands on the original article.
Report abuse
Posted by Alma Cote
04 September 2012 | 15h53
Methodology
Thanks for your comment. There is now a link to the full study in the story above.
In the full study you will find details of the methodology and full details of the results. The author's declared no financial backing for this academic review.
Report abuse
Posted by Nathan Gray
04 September 2012 | 15h47
Biased study
It is funny to see that the authors report opposite findings as regards the title of the article in the middle of the report. The methodology is not described so one will not be able to determine veracity of results. Less exposure to pesticides alone is important enough for health.
Report abuse
Posted by Augusto Freire
04 September 2012 | 15h16
Read all comments (16)