Organic Foods and the "Healthier For You" Debate

You might have seen recent news reports and articles about a Stanford study that claimed organic foods were no healthier than non-organic foods. The media reports quoted specific passages that lead me to wonder if there was other relevant information that wasn't being readily shared. I decided to look up the actual Stanford School of Medicine article about the release of the study and found a number of interesting pieces that didn't make it into a number of news outlets.

First, let's take a moment to define the study itself. No actual study took place. A group of researchers chose 237 papers they deemed most relevant out of thousands, 17 of which were actual studies. That 17 included six randomized clinical trials. Of the 237 total papers, 223 compared either the fungal, bacterial and pesticide contamination levels or nutrient levels between organic and non-organic foods. According to Stanford, "there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced foods."

On the review itself, the background summary states that health benefits are unclear according to existing evidence. Under Data Synthesis it says that only three of the human studies looked at clinical outcomes between populations for allergic reactions (wheezing, eczema and atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection.

So that's the background of the review itself. Now we'll look at some of the things stated in the review that haven't been as widely reported:

Two of the studies included showed significantly lower levels of pesticides in children who ate organic diets versus non-organic.
Phosphorous levels in organic foods were significantly higher than in non-organics.
The risk of contamination with pesticide residues was lower in organic foods (30% in the papers chosen for inclusion; see limitations below).
The risk for bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics was higher in non-organic pork and chicken.
A limited number of studies showed that there could be significantly higher levels of Omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk as opposed to non-organic.

It's up to you to decide for yourself if those are good things or meaningless.

Limitations of the review

The senior author herself stated that this information had limitations. The researchers noted the incongruous nature of the studies they looked at due to the differences in methods of testing. There were also physical factors like soil type and weather as well as a big variation in farming methods that limited the work. The senior author, Dena Bravata, called the initial mix of papers she found to be a "confusing body of studies, including some that were not very rigorous, appearing in trade publications."

Media reaction

Many mainstream media outlets lead with headlines like, "Organic food no healthier than non-organic: study." Some stated with complete assurance that organic foods simply aren't healthier. In order to come to that conclusion, reporters either read only carefully selected passages or nothing at all. Some did admit that organics might have lower pesticide residues but not many considered that to be important.

Many regular people do, however. Growing numbers believe that lower levels of pesticides can only be a good thing. Studies are being done frequently that conclude that pesticides could be causing a number of health problems (see some notes on RoundUp). And the finding that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are lower in organic foods can't be considered a negative. Not many people ask for a side of antibiotic-resistant disease with their chicken Parmesan.

However, for argument's sake, let's say that pesticides are healthy, illnesses that can't be killed with antibiotics are a good thing and there really aren't more nutrients in organic foods versus non-organic. There are still numerous reasons why organics can be a good choice, including taste (a lot of organic foods simply taste better), environmental concerns of non-organic farming and animal welfare. That's according to the review's senior author.

If studies are to be done on organic foods, there has to be a standard for evidence. We need to know the nature of the "conventional" farm and the organic one. Different farms can use different methods that could yield different results. Bravata even states this in the analysis of the review's limitations, saying that specific organic practices like how manure fertilizer is used and handled could "yield a safer product of higher nutritional quality."

Studies on long-term health effects would have to be long term. Toxicologist Betsy Wattenberg says, "in order to really know anything about food-related risks that people tend to care most about, such as cancer or reproductive and developmental health issues, we would need carefully controlled studies that last for years or even decades. Those kinds of studies don't exist."

Chensheng Lu, who works with exposure and environmental health at Harvard's School of Public Health, says, "If I was a smart consumer, I would choose food that has no pesticides." He concluded that more research is necessary and that it is premature to conclude organic produce and meat isn't any healthier than the non-organic versions.

So despite what the mainstream media at large may say, if you have been buying organic food you have good reasons to do so. If you are concerned about supposedly organic food coming from big companies, check out your local options. That's the best way to know for sure what practices are used and in some cases you could save some money overall.

Sources

By Christy Lindsay-Promolife

See us on Google +