A study released yesterday by Stanford, University says that conventionally grown food has the exact same nutritional benefit as conventional food. Additionally, the study claims that although conventionally grown food has higher amounts of pesticide residue, organic food is not without pesticide residue and both are within allowable limits.
“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.
This information is notable because:
- The study was published from a University in California, one of the more liberal states and a large proponent of organic food.
- The study is a correlation of various studies completed regarding organic and conventional food. Repeatedly, studies show us that conventionally grown food is no worse for consumers than organic food, and this summary of the entire body of work concludes the same.
From Stanford’s press release on the subject, “After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.”
Read the rest of Stanford’s release here, and then consider searching for “organic food healthier” in the search engine of your choice to read the coverage from a variety of national and local news sources.