Recently, a Stanford University study on organic food received a firestorm of press coverage. The dominant buzz, heard from some of our nation’s leading newspapers and wire services: organic food isn’t worth its higher price tag.
The Stanford paper, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, debuted with a press release titled, “Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods.” Its findings were based on an analysis of 237 selected studies.
The Stanford study found that the vitamin and nutrient content of most fruits and vegetables grown in conventional or organic fields was similar. Organic and conventional milk also had comparable protein and fat content. Dollar-for-dollar, organics came out looking overhyped.
Here is where the slope gets slippery. Many media outlets glazed over some important facts in the Stanford study – among them that the analysis didn’t look at any long-term studies of organic versus conventional diets.
Also lost in the noise … organic milk had significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which reduce inflammation and promote brain health. Organic produce had much lower pesticide residues. And organic chicken and pork reduced exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Americans need to eat more fresh food. It’s common sense that, from a nutrient-perspective, a conventionally-grown apple is healthier than an organic cookie.
Look carefully at this study – especially if you are concerned about long-term exposure to pesticides and hormones, the taste of food, animal welfare, or how agriculture practices impact the environment.
Web Links
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/sumc-le082812.php
Photo, taken in August 2012, courtesy of Jennifer via Flickr.