FDA

Organic foods vs. Conventional foods – Part 1: The Stanford Study

U.S. sales of organic foods increased from $1 billion in 1990 to $26.7 billion in 2010. The Stanford study of which most has come in the last few years. Since 2002, annual sales have increased by $18 billion.
Recently a team of researchers from Stanford did a review comparing organic and commercial foods. It was prompted by a doctor whose patients kept asking her how much healthier organic foods were. A 45 year Medline search yielded 240 papers which met their inclusion criteria. 17 of the studies compared populations consuming organic or conventional or non-organic foods. The other 223 studies compared the levels and/or amounts of a variety of factors (nutrients-bacteria-fungus-pesticides) from numerous food types and/or classifications fruits, vegetables, dairy (milk & eggs), grains, and meats (beef, chicken, pork) produced organically or normally. The duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.
Results of the Stanford Study
No significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods based on the literature.
No consistent differences in vitamin content between organic and conventional food.
No consistent differences in mineral content with one exception — phosphorus, which was higher in organically grown fruits and vegetables.
No difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk.
Organic milk contains higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids (authors noted limited studies).
Pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable limits (although what is allowable and even measured is debated in some circles).
23% of organic produce had pesticide contamination.
37% of commercial produce had pesticide contamination -- 30% higher than organic.
Lower levels of urinary pesticide residues were noted in the 2 studies on children which compared organic foods to conventional foods.
Both conventional and organic chicken and pork had bacterial contamination (This is why we cook these products).
21% of organic chicken and pork contained bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics.
45% of commercial chicken and pork contained bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics -- 33% higher than organic.
Conclusion: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods."1
Comment: This is an emotional topic and the release of this paper stimulated an emotional reaction. Please note that the authors did not say organic wasn’t more nutritious only that it wasn’t significantly more nutritious. Of course, since many organic foods cost significantly more money, this becomes a big issue. In Part 2, we will focus on the main criticisms of the study and take a look at the synthetic chemical residues (acaricides, bacteriacides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, plant activators, soil fumigants) found on various foods to determine which ones are worth the higher cost of buying organic.

1.Crystal Smith-Spangler, Margaret L. Brandeau; Grace E. Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger et al. Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review Annals of Internal Medicine 4 September 2012;157(5):348-366

916 E. Imperial Hwy.
Brea, CA. 92821
(714) 990-0824
Fax: (714) 990-1917
gdandersen@earthlink.net
www.andersenchiro.com