The New York Times today is reporting the results
of a mega-study conducted by Stanford University on organic produce
and meats, looking at four decades of results. The over-all study
concluded "that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on
average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts,
which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely
to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli. The
researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic
meats."
The study had no external financing in order to avoid any trace
of bias.
That's not to say that the study found no difference between
organic and inorganic. The organic produce did have less pesticides
as "the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of
conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable
residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce."
However, all the residues on conventional foods were within safe
limits.
And there were a few nutrients that were enhanced on
organic foods, such as phenols and phosphorus. Again,
this was qualified, as "Other variables, like ripeness, had a
greater influence on nutrient content. Thus, a lush peach grown
with the use of pesticides could easily contain
more vitamins than an unripe organic one."
You can read more on the results of the study at the New
York Times, Stanford
Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and
Produce, or at the Stanford Univ. Medical School website, Little
Evidence of Health Benefits from Organic Food. It's an
interesting study that, as the Stanford team noted, was to
provide "an objective review of the current science of
organic foods, their goal was to allow people to make informed
choices."
