New Study Rates Organic Food No Healthier Than Conventional Food

For the past few years, my friends and relatives have been divided into two belligerent camps--those that buy all or mostly organic food and those that are convinced it's a waste of money.   (Okay, there's also a third group--those that buy relatively little organic--because of the price--but feel guilty about not buying more.)  A well-publicized Stanford University study has gotten all three groups excited, giving all of them a chance to say, "I told you so."

The study causing all this commotion was published in the September 4th issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. The research team, led by Dena Bravata, M.D., M.S. and Crystal Smith-Spangler, M.D., M.S. looked through thousands of studies comparing organic and conventional foods and selected 237 of the most relevant to analyze. According to the Stanford School of Medicine site, "There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years."

Here are some of the main conclusions of the Stanford study:

- There was little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional food.

- There was no consistent difference in vitamin content. Researchers found more phosphorus in organic products, but, since few people have a phosphorus deficiency, this difference is insignificant.

- There was no difference in protein or fat content except for a few studies which suggested that organic milk might have significantly more omega-3 fatty acids.

-  Organic chicken and pork seemed to provide less exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is unclear.

- In general, pesticide levels of all foods fell within allowable safety limits.  Fewer organic foods were contaminated by pesticides, but not all organic produce was pesticide free. According to the New York Times, the researchers found that 38% of the conventional produce contained detectable residues of pesticides, compared to 7% for the organic produce.  

- Two studies that compared children who ate organic with those who ate a conventional diet found lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of the organic group, but the researchers considered the clinical significance of this unclear. 

Bravata's goal was not to discourage people from buying organic but rather to educate them.  She pointed out that, health benefits aside, there are other reasons why people buy organic--such as taste preferences, concerns about the environment, and animal welfare.  Smith-Spangler said that the study provided "information people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget, and other considerations."

Readers, journalists, publications, and organizations that favor organic responded to the study's conclusions immediately and vehemently. They accused the Stanford study of ignoring many of the reasons why consumers choose organic. (The authors of the study admitted this, as shown above.) 

A representative of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is quoted in the New York Times as saying that the argument that organic produce is more nutritious "has never been a major driver" of why people choose organic. A Prevention magazine posting said this: "...food isn't simply a delivery device for vitamins and minerals alone....It has become a delivery device for artificial colors, additives, preservatives, added growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides and so much more." In addition to disallowing all of these, the article points out that food certified organic must be free of artificial sweeteners, genetically engineered proteins and ingredients, sewage sludge, and irradiation.  There are also consumers who say their allergic symptoms disappeared after they switched to organic food, some attributing that to the absence of color additives in their diet.

A Los Angeles Times article entitled "The case for organic food" also criticizes the Stanford study: "What's most glaring about the Stanford review is what's missing from it, which is any examination of processed foods...that make up the bulk of the American diet." 

The debate goes on and on. If you want to read a recent response to the LA Times article, one that defends the Stanford study and opposes organic, click here: http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/opinion-where-s-case-organic-foods. The author refers readers to his son's book, The Truth About Organic Foods. 

Organic sales are growing, but they remain a small percentage of the total U.S. food sales.  According to the Stanford School of Medicine website, "Organic foods are often twice as expensive as their conventionally grown counterparts." (Supporters of organic foods say there are good reasons for this.)  Still, the site goes on to say, the sale of organic products is "skyrocketing in the United States."  Here the proof: from 1997 to 2011, organic food sales increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion (says Stanford) or $31.4 billion (a figure the Christian Science Monitor attributes to a recent government report.)  According to the USDA, organic sales make up 4.2% of total retail food sales. 

Perhaps the type of food you choose is determined by the answer to this question:  do you believe the government and the scientists who have stated that the levels of additives, antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides in conventional foods are safe?  If you trust their conclusions, you're probably purchasing conventional food and feel comfortable about doing so.  If you are convinced that these additional chemicals are or could be unhealthy, you're probably leaning toward organic.  Your position on organic food may be similar to your general attitude toward risk-taking. Do you feel that, when there's a suspicion of danger, something should be avoided, or do you, absent good evidence to the contrary, assume it (whatever it is) is safe? How much risk can you comfortably tolerate?   As with investing your money, it's probably best to make the choice that minimizes your anxiety. But, maybe you don't want psychological analysis from a food site. 

The Shelf Life Advice staff was not surprised by the results of this Stanford research.  To read more about comparisons of organic and conventional food, click on these links:

http://shelflifeadvice.com/content/which-are-safer-organic-or-conventional-food-products

http://shelflifeadvice.com/content/organic-food-more-nutritious-conventional-food-0

For additional information about organic foods, put "organic" into the search box on the Shelf Life Advice home page.

Will any of this information change consumer buying habits?  Probably not. 

Source(s):

med.stanford.edu (Stanford School of Medicine) "Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds"

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

nytimes.com "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=0

csmonitor.com "Organic food: Costlier? Yes.  More nutritious? No."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0904/Organic-food-Costlier-Yes.-More-nutritious-No.-video

blogs.prevention.com "Organic Food vs. Conventional: What the Stanford Study Missed"

http://blogs.prevention.com/inspired-bites/2012/09/05/organic-food-vs-conventional-what-the-stanford-study-missed/

latimes.com "The case for organic food"

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/opinion/la-ed-organics-20120905