FOOD

Organic Foods, Nutrition, and Health

For many people, higher nutritional content is the primary criteria they apply when choosing foods for a healthier lifestyle. As such, many people choose organic foods thinking that it means they are healthier. However, many conventional measures of health do not account for the other, less obvious health benefits of organics.

Typically, nutritional value is determined by the amount of vitamins, protein, fat, and other defined nutrients that are present in the food product. Given this type of measure, where there is a known need for a given nutrient, or a known effect, organic foods are roughly equal, to their conventionally grown counterparts. This has become the subject of much attention in the media, as a study was released in September 2012 by Stanford university that showed there was “little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious” (Brandt).

In the study, the researchers looked at data from 237 independent studies that, as a whole, looked at the nutrition and health effects of organic foods versus conventionally grown foods. As it combines information from a broad array of other study, the Stanford research has been called a meta-study or meta-analysis. To come to it’s conclusions, the meta-study looked at 17 studies about organic versus conventional foods as a diet, where six were clinical studies. The remaining majority addressed the amounts of pesticides or other contamination that was present in the two categories. Of significant note is that the study did not include any long term effects of either diet, instead focused on time periods between two days and two years.

The only notable differences, according to the authors of the study, was higher levels of some antioxidants and a lower rate of pesticides of various kinds in the organic foods. In the article from the Stanford School of Medicine news feed, it is stated that the researchers also found “a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids,” which would be a very significant advantage compared to conventional milk products (Brandt).

Aside from the basic measure of nutrition, many prominent food writers noted other benefits from organic foods. In another article by Flora Malein, of the Guardian, pointed out that, according to the study, there was “a 33% increase in the risk of consuming antibiotic-resistant bacteria” in chicken and pork that was raised with conventional means from those raised organically. However, the authors of the paper indicate that all of the food tested fell within the allowable amount of pesticide and other contaminations under the law as it is written. As Michael Pollan points out, “there's a question of how adequate those rules are,” and whether or not they account for dangers pesticides may pose to young children or pregnant women (Brooks).

Similarly, the response from Chuck Benbrook of Washington State University, indicates that there may be several issues with the meta-study, many of them technical in nature, but he does say that “their findings understate the health benefits” of organic food and methods, mainly due to issues he has with how contaminates were measured and the “ significant and ongoing contribution to the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The recent study, and the debate about its methods and conclusions highlight the ongoing discussion about the value of organics. Kims Severson, of the New York Times, illustrates the breadth of the debate in her article about the study. In her article, Severson describes the confusion as “deep divisions at the nation’s dinner table,” using strong language to convey the wide implications of the organic food discussion.

Severson does the best job of looking at the varying sides to the organic debate, from the price to consumers to the cost and administrative logistics of being certified organic by the FDA, to the role of taste and nutrition in a nation that is changing to healthier and better tasting foods.