Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review
Background: The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.
Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.
Data Sources: MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
Study Selection: English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.
Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.
Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).
Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Organic food not much better than conventional
-
galapogos
- GM, Team Biceps
- Posts: 9989
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:35 am
- Enter the middle number in the list(3): 0
- No curling in the: curl rack
- Location: In front of my computer
- Contact:
Re: Organic food not much better than conventional
5 Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short
Too long to post, but in a nutshell:
1. Conventional produce is much worse than organic on the pesticide-exposure question than the 30 percent number suggests.
2. To arrive at their "risk difference" metric, the authors didn't distinguish between a single pesticide trace and multiple traces; or between light traces and heavier traces.
3. This ignores a growing body of research that pregnant women's fetuses can be harmed at low exposures of organophosphate pesticides, as can young children.
4. The authors—like the EPA itself—ignore the "cocktail effect" of exposure to several pesticides, say, from a single apple.
5. We probably know more about how exposure to low levels of multiple pesticides affect amphibians than we do about how they affect people—and what our amphibious friends are telling us isn't pretty.
Another critique from Chuck Benbrook, mentioned in the article (PDF link)
Initial Reflections on the Annals of Internal Medicine Paper “Are Organic Foods Safer and Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review”
Too long to post, but in a nutshell:
1. Conventional produce is much worse than organic on the pesticide-exposure question than the 30 percent number suggests.
2. To arrive at their "risk difference" metric, the authors didn't distinguish between a single pesticide trace and multiple traces; or between light traces and heavier traces.
3. This ignores a growing body of research that pregnant women's fetuses can be harmed at low exposures of organophosphate pesticides, as can young children.
4. The authors—like the EPA itself—ignore the "cocktail effect" of exposure to several pesticides, say, from a single apple.
5. We probably know more about how exposure to low levels of multiple pesticides affect amphibians than we do about how they affect people—and what our amphibious friends are telling us isn't pretty.
Another critique from Chuck Benbrook, mentioned in the article (PDF link)
Initial Reflections on the Annals of Internal Medicine Paper “Are Organic Foods Safer and Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review”
Re: Organic food not much better than conventional
"conventional" wisdom on choice of organic foods is not realistically based on the nutrient value per se (although I would love to see a meta-analysis of the quality of fat in meats), but definitely on fruit/vegetables which are eaten raw/with skin, e.g. berries, apples etc.
I don't see the study contradicting this at all.
But sadly, yes, the media has jumped on it, as expected. After all, they sell "news". Hence why I try not to read the news.
I don't see the study contradicting this at all.
But sadly, yes, the media has jumped on it, as expected. After all, they sell "news". Hence why I try not to read the news.