Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests

(AP) WASHINGTON - Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out - and concluded there's little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children - but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

"I was absolutely surprised," said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch.

"There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods," from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, "there isn't much difference."

Her team did find a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning.

Specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday's analysis agreed. But when bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non-organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

That finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not because they're sick but to fatten them up. Farmers say it's necessary to meet demand for cheap meat. Public health advocates say it's one contributor to the nation's growing problem with increasingly hard-to-treat germs. Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, counted 24 outbreaks linked to multidrug-resistant germs in food between 2000 and 2010.

The government has begun steps to curb the nonmedical use of antibiotics on the farm.

Organic foods account for 4.2 percent of retail food sales, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It certifies products as organic if they meet certain requirements including being produced without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.

Consumers can pay a lot more for some organic products but demand is rising: Organic foods accounted for $31.4 billion sales last year, according to a recent Obama administration report. That's up from $3.6 billion in 1997.

The Stanford team combed through thousands of studies to analyze the 237 that most rigorously compared organic and conventional foods. Bravata was dismayed that just 17 compared how people fared eating either diet while the rest investigated properties of the foods themselves.

Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable pesticide levels. In two studies of children, urine testing showed lower pesticide levels in those on organic diets. But Bravata cautioned that both groups harbored very small amounts - and said one study suggested insecticide use in their homes may be more to blame than their food.

Still, some studies have suggested that even small pesticide exposures might be risky for some children, and the Organic Trade Association said the Stanford work confirms that organics can help consumers lower their exposure.

CSPI's DeWaal noted that difference, but added that the issue is more complicated. Some fruits and vegetables can harbor more pesticide residue than others - she listed peaches from Chile as topping a recent testing list. Overall levels have dropped in North American produce over the last decade as farms implemented some new standards addressing child concerns, she said.

"Parents with young children should consider where their produce is coming from," DeWaal said, calling types grown in the U.S. or Canada "a safer bet" for lower pesticide levels.

As for antibiotics, some farms that aren't certified organic have begun selling antibiotic-free meat or hormone-free milk, to address specific consumer demands, noted Bravata. Her own preference is to buy from local farmers in hopes of getting the ripest produce with the least handling.

That kind of mixed approach was evident in a market in the nation's capital Thursday, where Liz Pardue of Washington said she buys organic "partially for environmental reasons." Pardue said she doesn't go out of her way to shop organic, but if she does, it's to buy mostly things that are hard to wash like berries and lettuce.

Michelle Dent of Oxon Hill, Md., said she buys most of her groceries from regular chain stores but gets her fruit from organic markets: "It's fresh; you can really taste it."

Anna Hamadyk of Washington said she buys only organic milk because she has a young son.

"I would love to buy everything organic, but it's just too much money," said Hamadyk, who also shops at local farmers markets.

[gsxrliterbike]

OMG who payed for this article? let me guess? whoever wrote this is extremely obtuse, its not whether or not the nutritional value is better, its has the vegitable been sprayed with dangerous chemicals and or benn genetically modified.. good greif

Organics are healthier becasue they dont saturate the food with harmfull chemicals that casue all types of illnesses, cancer, blood disease and so on..

people do yourselves a favor and stop eating garbage, stop eating all thoer processed foods with sugar and high fructose corn syrups, YUK stop eating simple carbs and sugars that casue diabetes and other problems like OBESITY, jeez people stop listening to dolts like this editor and take care of yourselves..

shame on the author for tellig people that eating that crap isnt bad for you! shame!!

[AndrewBrodsky]

Because I was frustrated trying to really understand where the weight of evidence fell in relation to research on organic foods and other nutritional topics, I created my own site, Fact or Fizzle. I reviewed and rated all of the relevant research on the safety and nutritional value of organics (including the Stanford study) and found little compelling evidence in support of organics. When study quality and conflicts of interest are taken into account, the weight of evidence is mixed. Some studies have found nutritional and safety advantages of organics, but as many have not.

You can read the complete analysis at http://www.factorfizzle.com

[gsxrliterbike]

let me spray a corrot with pestacides then put it inyour fridge for a week, then you can rinse it off and eat it...

good greif people

[rogerpelizzari]

The Stanford study that everyone's quoting was totally fraudulent.

The study's co-author, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

The following document shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics.

This research was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.

[mpetkus]

Nice Try Monsanto, but here's a newsflash for ya:
(in a nice hush whispering tone)
The Horse Already Left The Barn...

Alex Jones Infowars Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[willer_k]

Isn't the presence of pesticides and antibiotics (both of which kill living organisms and both of which have the potential to cause severe health issues) enough to raise some eyebrows? Is this article suggesting that if people continually ingest these things, they won't suffer any long-term health consequences? An extensive 20- or 30-year study might warrant a "hardly healthier" conclusion, but a single university study of unspecified length? I don't think so.

[Karcryo]

Why would you not make a decision of buying organic food, solely on your health? I do currently buy organic, local whole food based upon a pure reason for my health. I found the statement in the article stated by Dena Bravata to be rather silly. She states "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," Do people need to be sick to buy organic? In my case, I personally was sick with Breast Cancer before I switched to local, whole organic food. That was ten years ago. It was also stated in the article, that they did not find strong evidence, but that must mean they did find evidence that it was better and better can lead to best. So would you not concluded that organic is the best compared to conventional. Could I not concluded that these last ten years was better because I did not have any signs of cancer and was not sick in fighting my cancer. Considering I've been eating local, whole foods organically is the best nutrition I could put in my body. So I would conclude that maybe just eating GMO-free, local food is the best way to fight cancer. Maybe, just maybe, as a consumer you would not have to have cancer to find this out. I would never what anyone to go through what I have, but I would like everyone to be able to eat organically and to have it be more affordable to everyone. Could this be the one of the answers to better health care?

Bravata, Smith-Spangler and the team may be confused, but I am not. Maybe the team is asking the wrong questions in reviewing the data to begin with. The data the public needs is labeling and to vote yes to Prop 37 so they can make their own decisions. Organic or not, GMO-free or not. No data has been collected to find on what people eat and how much they spend on personal health care. It is more about the questions that are being asked to find that answers that are truly needed.

[jhbeck23]

Tom Philpott at MotherJones (dot-com) sees this study rather differently. The study's view reported above that "Organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of containing detectable pesticide levels" was reached by subtracting a 5% chance with organic from a 35% chance with non-organic. Wouldn't you usually say that the chance was seven times higher with non-organic? Or that the chance was 1 in 20 for organic, one in three for non-organic? The substraction is not wrong, but it seems to be stated so as to minimize the difference.

[El3737]

Hogwash! Is CBS promoting biotechnology here?

Mike Adams said it best, "The funding source of the study is listed as "None." Does anybody really believe that? All these scientists supposedly volunteered their time and don't get paid to engage in scientific endeavors? It's absurd. The money for the study had to come from somewhere, and the fact that the Annals of Internal Medicine is hiding the source by listing "none" is just further evidence of scientific wrongdoing."

The study is also deeply flawed by looking at studies from the 1960's when nutrients were higher, different varieties were used, GMOs hadn't infected our markets, and no government organic certifications existed.

[USObjector]

Many thanks to Monsanto for funding this wonderful "study.". Now we can all go back to eating Frankenfoods with Roundup pesticide already built into our corn! Can I have a glass of fluoridated water to go with that delicious GMO meal? Get your flu shots, sheeple and breathe one chemtrails in deep!

[Veilbusters]

**Study on conventional being as safe as organic foods misleading, consumer group warns - HealthPop - CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57505839-10391704/study-on-conventional-being-as-safe-as-organic-foods-misleading-consumer-group-warns/


**New Junk Science Study Dismisses Nutritional Value of Organic Foods
http://www.anh-usa.org/new-junk-science-study-dismisses-nutritional-value-of-organic-foods/