The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.” “Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Smith-Spangler, who is also an instructor of medicine at the School of Medicine. The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called “tons of analyses.” 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.
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 were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.Īfter analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. Those included 17 studies (six of which were randomized clinical trials) of populations consuming organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies that compared either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) grown organically and conventionally. “This was a ripe area in which to do a systematic review,” said first author Smith-Spangler, who jumped on board to conduct the meta-analysis with Bravata and other Stanford colleagues.įor their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze. So Bravata, who is also chief medical officer at the health-care transparency company Castlight Health, did a literature search, uncovering what she called a “confusing body of studies, including some that were not very rigorous, appearing in trade publications.” There wasn’t a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence that included both benefits and harms, she said. In fact, the Stanford study stemmed from Bravata’s patients asking her again and again about the benefits of organic products. Organic foods are often twice as expensive as their conventionally grown counterparts.Īlthough there is a common perception - perhaps based on price alone - that organic foods are better for you than non-organic ones, it remains an open question as to the health benefits.
sales of organic foods increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion, and many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these products. The popularity of organic products, which are generally grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones, is skyrocketing in the United States. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.Ī team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. “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. You figure you’ve just made the healthier decision by choosing the organic product - but new findings from Stanford University cast some doubt on your thinking. You reach for the conventionally grown stone fruit, then decide to spring the extra $1/pound for its organic cousin.
You’re in the supermarket eyeing a basket of sweet, juicy plums. Crystal Smith-Spangler and her colleagues reviewed many of the studies comparing organic and conventionally grown food, and found little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious.
0 kommentar(er)
