There’s discussion around the globe today about a Stanford study that concludes that fruits and veggies labeled organic were no more nutritious than conventional foods which are less expensive.
Andrew Holtz, one of our HealthNewsReview.org reviewers, gave me permission to quote what he wrote on a journalists’ listserv.:
“The stories I’ve seen in the local media here fail to make clear
distinctions between what the Stanford researchers measured
(nutrients, bacteria levels and pesticide residue) and what many
proponents of organic practices talk about (concerns about effects of
pesticides on the general environment and farm workers, whether
routine use of antibiotics increases the risk of resistance, and so on).Too many stories lead with a summary statement that the Stanford
meta-analysis failed to find that organic foods are “healthier”
without being clear about how the researchers and other sources
defined the term. The mismatched comments of experts discussing
different topics is bound to leave people confused.Oh and my favorite quote in a local story was from a dietician who
said: “Nutritionally there’s no greater value between organic or
inorganic produce.” I guess she shops at a market that offers lumps of
coal in the produce section.”
The Behind the Headlines project on the NHS Choices website did its usual thorough review. Excerpts:
“Ultimately, the findings should be interpreted with some caution. There was a high level of variation between the studies in terms of the methods used, which makes the results of this review less reliable. It is also worth noting that few studies looked at relevant health effects and the studies ran for no longer than two years. This means no conclusions about long-term health benefits of organic foods can be drawn from this research. …
Overall, this systematic review provides some limited evidence of the differences in the health effects of organic and conventional foods. The authors do note that results should be “interpreted with caution” due to the high variation between the included studies. They note these differences may be due to soil type, storage practices and variation within organic practices.
There are some additional limitations to this review. Some of the human studies had very small samples which ranged from six to 6,630 people. In addition, none of these studies ran for longer than two years, which means conclusions about the long-term health benefits of organic foods cannot be drawn. The authors also note that some of the included field studies may not reflect real-world organic practices.
The researchers do suggest that a more effective method of assessing the relative benefits of “organic verses conventional food” would be to carry out a cohort or randomised controlled study. But these types of studies would be both very time consuming and expensive.
(One of the researchers) added when discussing the research that, “if you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional”. “
(Photo credit: USDAgov via Flickr. Creative Commons)
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
JaneW
September 4, 2012 at 5:35 pmHonestly, I never believed that “organic is healthier” claptrap. It’s environmental. For example, I buy organic dairy, eggs and meat because I believe feeding antibiotics to livestock is disastrous public health policy. The article should have mentioned that!
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like