New study questions the advantages of organic foods

There has been some research over the years that organic produce is more healthful because it is constantly fighting off pathogens. In so doing, the produce becomes stronger, thereby producing more vitamins and antioxidants. Pesticide treated produce does not have to fight off any pathogens. The problem is this is still true in certain fruits and vegetables, just not all.

Reducing pesticide exposure in a 31 pound child's body is still reason enough to buy, or try to buy, organic produce.

Organic meat and milk still have more omega 3s than conventional meat and milk. Grass fed meat and milk have even more.

I have so many issues with the study. First, a meta analysis is never as strong as a new study. Second, lumping in produce and meat and even milk in one study makes no sense. Obviously, a person buying organic strawberries or grapes is not worried about the treatment of the animal or its exposure to sunlight and pasture time or feed laced with antibiotics. Similarly, a buyer of grass fed beef is not worried about pesticides.

Annoying, annoying, annoying and something else I will have to point out to my beloved but Republican father when he sends me a forwarded email on this.

I agree, this is an annoying article. It also makes me wonder who funded the research. Is this a way for the big food producers to justify that their produce is, "just as good" as organic produce? Yes, nutritionally it's the same. I don't think that anyone has ever doubted that, but yeah, it's the pesticides that are the main issue why many who choose organic, chose it to begin with.

This is interesting though, b/c the dietitians at the local hospital constantly say, "buying organic is a waste of $, it's the same nutrition as non-organic." I've always been a little bit surprised that they poo poo organics so much, since it's not just the nutrition part that ppl are worried about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minnie-zb

I buy organic out of the concern for pesticides and antibiotics. I never assumed they would be more nutritious.

---

Exactly. And what everyone else said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hillview

I found the article annoying as it seemed to misplace the focus of why people buy organic. The headlines was also a bit sensationalistic for the NYT for my taste.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellokitty

I agree, this is an annoying article. It also makes me wonder who funded the research. Is this a way for the big food producers to justify that their produce is, "just as good" as organic produce? Yes, nutritionally it's the same. I don't think that anyone has ever doubted that, but yeah, it's the pesticides that are the main issue why many who choose organic, chose it to begin with.

This is interesting though, b/c the dietitians at the local hospital constantly say, "buying organic is a waste of $, it's the same nutrition as non-organic." I've always been a little bit surprised that they poo poo organics so much, since it's not just the nutrition part that ppl are worried about.

---

It wasn't funded by anyone. The researchers specifically didn't want any perception of bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daisysmom

I agree what everyone else is saying - I always got organic fruits and veggies because I don't want to buildup pesticide ingestion. And for eggs, beef and chicken ... it is because I don't want to eat meat from an animal who ate corn with a bunch of pesticides in it. I was kind of irritated when I was listening to the Today Show's report on this today - they didn't touch on the pesticide distinction until the end. I worry that the media's spin on this will make a food provider whose on the fence not choose organic.

---

I am very much on the fence on this issue and agree that the study is not helpful to the cause - especially coming from Standford!

I haven't read the article yet (but I will), but I this was on NPR this morning too, and it seemed pretty clear that while the meta-analysis didn't find specific concerns about the pesticides on non-organic foods, that the impact of those pesticides required far more studying. They also made clear that by buying organic, regardless of the impact it may or may not have on your individual health, that it is better for the environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellokitty

This is interesting though, b/c the dietitians at the local hospital constantly say, "buying organic is a waste of $, it's the same nutrition as non-organic." I've always been a little bit surprised that they poo poo organics so much, since it's not just the nutrition part that ppl are worried about.

---

I wonder if they are saying this to help eliminate cost as one of the objections people often have to buying fresh produce. I would guess for a lot of nutritionists, they are struggling with just getting someone to eat better in the first place, by eating more fresh produce, whole grains and fewer processed foods. Organics don't even enter into the equation at that point.

I was not a fan of the study and it won't change my shopping habits. They kept referring to the nonorganic produce having pesticide levels that were still within the limits set by the FDA, but the FDA has been under fire for some time about being too lax on those limits. Plus, I like to support organic farming for the environmental benefits as well.

There are so many posts in this thread I want to yeah that! I never thought organic oranges have more vitamin C or anything! It's always been about pesticides and antibiotics, for me. And the environmental impact. The study even found more omegas in organic milk. So all the headlines saying organics offer no benefit are wrong. (I read the Washington Post article, and heard the NPR story which did mention the study's shortcomings, I didn't read the NYT article).

Agree w/ many of the PPs.

It reminds me of when people will say "organic bananas are a waste of money because bananas aren't high on the (dirty dozen) list of pesticide-containing fruits." Well, it depends on your goals and why you eat organically. The spraying of fungicides, pesticides, etc. in the countries that grow bananas has been linked to serious birth defects in children born to workers exposed, etc. So yeah, upgrading from 59 or 69 cent a pound conventional bananas to 79 or 89 cents a pound for organic might be something "worth it" to someone out there. I get that not everyone can do that or chooses to do that, but it doesn't make someone else's decision a "waste of money."

Ditto things like antibiotic use in animal feed. Even if you aren't concerned about the health effects on an individual, or don't believe those levels are harmful to consume, perhaps you *are* concerned about antibiotic resistance. The quantities of antibiotics used in raising livestock in this country are enormous, and it is well documented that this is a major contributor to drug-resistant pathogens. So someone might say it is a "waste of money" because they don't think consuming animals raised with antibiotics is unhealthful for them as an individual, but the 2nd person may feel it is important because they are uncomfortable with the ethics of heavy antibiotic use in livestock, and how it contributes to drug resistance.

I haven't read the actual study yet; I only had time to catch a bit of it on NPR. I did not hear if they teased out small farm practices vs. big agra "organics" because that's another point that I think is important. Practices at some small organic farms (or biodynamic farms) are likely very different from those used by big agricultural companies that are producing "organic" produce. The nutrient content when you are buying from your local farmer who picked the food 2-3 days ago vs. buying Earthbound farms from Walmart might mean different levels of nutrients remaining in the food depending on how long ago it was picked, how far it was trucked, etc.

We do a lot of organics, but I have never been hung up on the specific label. I'm more concerned with overall practices (we have a local farm that raises grassfed, pastured animals not labeled "organic"vs. "organic" animals that are heavily grain fed , for example). Many in the holistic/whole foods community have lamented the changes that have come with the "organic" labeling, and how difficult it is for a small farmer to obtain that certification even if they are using organic practices. Big agra lobbied heavily for their own wording to allow them to grow and be involved in the "organic" market.

People have so many different goals for why they might eat organics, etc. that it is silly IMO to try to decide whether they are "worth" the cost...one person looks at those organic bananas and says totally not worth it, they aren't a dirty dozen item. The next person things a 10 or 20 cent per pound premium is well worth it to avoid exposing banana workers to so many chemicals.