After I first heard the results of the now highly-publicized Stanford study, I thought “Really? Who Cares?” I haven’t heard people claim organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventional, so what’s the big deal. The main arguments for choosing to eat organic primarily revolve around the fact that there’s less risk of exposure to pesticides, and other nasties, such as the hormone cortisol, and because organic food is generally much better for the environment.
However, weeks after the study was published, I continue to hear discussion and debate over the findings–so now I feel compelled to comment.
I won’t analyze all the findings and claims, but I will address a few summarized on Stanford’s website.
“While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides.” Right. Well, quite frankly, I’ll go with the “30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination” regardless of whether the “not necessarily 100 percent” is 96 percent or 99 percent.
“… Researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits.” Forgive me, but considering the U.S. still allows widespread use of Atrazine, an herbicide that has been shown to chemically castrate frogs and other amphibians, has been linked to breast and prostrate cancer in humans and has been banned in the EU for eight years, the U.S.’s “allowable safety limits” appear to hold little and questionable value.
“Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear.” Read heavy sigh here. Yes, the dramatic increase in antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria must be attributable to the fact that we spend too much time on our personal electronic devices. And pay no attention to the documented cases of serious illnesses from pesticides, such as Roundup, that have contaminated the air or drinking water of communities located near application sites. “The significance is unclear?” Really??
As a reminder of why organic is better, please read (or reread) my original blog on buying organic. If you want to get the most nutrition out of your produce, buy local and organic where it counts (see the Environmental Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen“). Many fruits and vegetables start to lose their nutritional value the second they’re picked. Buying local food–for example, at a farmer’s market, in which case the produce was picked that morning–offers the most nutritional punch. If you don’t plan to eat the food that day, keep it as fresh as possible in bags (where appropriate) that allow your produce to release naturally-occurring gases and retain the right moisture levels.
Toward the end of their report, the Stanford researchers do include mention of the other benefits, such as environmental, of eating organic food, but it’s disappointing that they didn’t have the foresight to construe how the media would oversimplify the primary conclusion of their study as it was presented.