START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
581,880 people care about Real Food

Yes, Organics are Better for You: New Study Misses the Mark

Yes, Organics are Better for You: New Study Misses the Mark
  • 1 of 3

Headlines are screaming: “Organic food no more nutritious than non-organic,” “Organic food is not healthier,” “New study finds scant evidence of health benefits.” Big Ag must be rubbing its collective hands with glee. They shouldn’t.

The report stirring so much interest is a survey published in the September 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. Stanford University scientists reviewed 237 studies in an attempt to answer the questions patients were asking the lead author, Dr. Dena Bravata: are organic foods better for me? Are they worth the extra cost?

Since no one had done a meta-analysis of the studies comparing conventional and organic produce, Bravata and her team set out to sift through thousands of papers in search of answers. They settled on the 237 most relevant.

What They Found: A Little Poison Is Okay

Stanford School of Medicine’s Michelle Brandt summarizes their findings: “After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods.”

Overall, the studies found both kinds of food had similar vitamin content. Organic had more phosphorous, but few people have a deficiency in that nutrient. Protein and fat content of organic and conventional milk was similar, though the organic product delivered more omega-3 fatty acids. Organic produce contained less pesticide residue, organic meat less antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, whether or not that was clinically significant was not clear.

None of the studies were long term, so the question of health benefits or detriments remained virtually unanswered. Those using human subjects ranged from two days to two years. Nor is it clear any of the studies compared the effects of a solely conventional or solely organic diet.

Organic produce was found to have less pesticide contamination than conventional, but none of the produce was pesticide free. Given the amount of pesticide contaminating land, water and air, that is hardly surprising.

The studies were the proverbial apples and oranges, and the researchers admit that “publication bias may be present” in some of them. That bias is what creeps in when those undertaking the study have organizational, corporate and/or monetary interest in a particular conclusion.

  • 1 of 3

Read more: , , , , ,

Photos 1 and 2: Thinkstock; Photo 3 from Secret Tenerife via Flickr Creative Commons

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

85 comments

+ add your own
6:07AM PDT on Sep 25, 2013

Thank you Cathryn, for Sharing this!

12:11PM PDT on Sep 28, 2012

thank you for writing a very in-depth, intelligent, and seemingly non-biased (until the last paragraph) commentary on the stanford report. i had yet to see a response that didn't just say "no, that's not true! the report is stupid!" i only buy usa produce, and a good 75% or more of which i insist on being organic. i try for local as much as possible, and my co-op is very good about keeping me supplied with food from nearby. coming from a deeply agricultural background, i am extremely concerned about farm laborer's welfare. i grow a lot of my own food, but plenty of staples in a modern diet are just not convenient or cost effective enough for me to produce from my tiny urban landscape. it's a constant battle with many setbacks, but the important thing is to know you're doing the absolute best you can.

5:31PM PDT on Sep 25, 2012

Alex H. - Yeah, I wondered who funded the study too. James K. - Thank you for your amazing, thorough rebuttal to the "Stanford study". Linda J. You are an inspiration in terms of your smaller footprint.
Here in CA we are fighting to get GMO-containing products LABELED. Of course, MONSANTO is spending MILLION$ to defeat "YES on 37". If you have family or friends who live here, please ensure that they know about "YES on 37" We are going to take Monsanto DOWN.



5:51AM PDT on Sep 12, 2012

It deeply disturbs me to see a study like this being given any credence at all.Who paid for it??!!There is an insidious worldwide agenda in the media attempting to undermine peoples' faith in organic food,and the reason is,the push to force GM food down our throats!!Our food choices are being undermined and this is unconscionable.Corporate greed is out of control and we will all suffer illhealth,and possibly liver failure and death,as a result.Why the fight against proper labelling?What are they hiding??Read Jeffrey Smith's confronting books and find out;it's shocking!

4:45PM PDT on Sep 11, 2012

Wow...I cut my comment in half and it STILL won't print the whole thing! Here's the final paragraph in full:

Noting that most of America is woefully math challenged (not to mention logic and critical thinking challenged), it certainly appears to me that the researcher either deliberately structured the risk difference outcome to make the average person believe that the risk difference is much lower than it actually is - OR, the researcher is devoid of basic math, logic and statistical calculation skills. In other words, the researcher is either dishonest or incompetent...either one of which is enough to completely discredit any other information contained in the study and making the entire study worthless.

4:43PM PDT on Sep 11, 2012

The key component of the Stanford report is in its methodology of determining the “Risk Difference”. The risk difference calculation fails the common sense (not to mention mathematical) test. One incidence is 5%, the other is 35% and the risk difference is 30%? What nonsense! The absolute difference may be only 30%, when simply subtracting one number from the other, but the effective difference is far, far greater.

Contained in the article is the analysis of the study done by Professor Charles Benbrook, who states that the method of calculating the Risk Difference is an “unusual and unfamiliar metric” – and my limited research into the methodology of calculating risk supports his statement. His analysis was linked in the article, but here’s it is again for you to look at. http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/

While Professor Benbrook calculated the difference one way, here’s another one that may make it clearer. Consider a situation where you are making 5% on $1000 and 35% on another $1000. The absolute difference between the two percentages obtained by simply subtracting one number from the other is 30%, certainly…but the difference between $50 and $350 is definitely not 30%! In reality, $50 is only about 15% of $350, so the real difference between the $50 and $350 is 85%…which is exactly what Professor Benbrook points out using his method of calculation.

4:43PM PDT on Sep 11, 2012

Continued from above:
In a way, Professor Benbrook also understates the difference, depending on how you look at it. Certainly 5% is only 15% of 35%, so the difference can be stated as 85%...but 5% is also only 1/7 of 35%, so if you have 5 instances in once case and 35 instances in another case, the higher amount is actually 7 times (700%) of the lower amount. When we're using statistics, as in so many things, the framing of the argument is the key...and that illustrates the accuracy of the famous Mark Twain quote "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics".

As both Professor Benbrook and I have noted, using different forms of calculation, the risk difference claims made in the study are totally without merit in regard to the data in question - regardless of what other applications to which that kind of analysis may be valid - although I confess I can't think of any that would be.

Noting that most of America is woefully math challenged (not to mention logic and critical thinking challenged), it certainly appears to me that the researcher either deliberately structured the risk difference outcome to make the average person believe that the risk difference is much lower than it actually is - OR, the researcher is devoid of basic math, logic and statistical calculation skills. In other words, the researcher is either dishonest or incompetent...either one of which is enough to completely discredit any other information contained in the study and making th

8:09AM PDT on Sep 11, 2012

thank you

6:17PM PDT on Sep 9, 2012

My advice to all is Grow what you consume. It's the only way you'll know what is truly not in it!!

1:53AM PDT on Sep 9, 2012

Surely anything not ready-poisoned has to be better.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Once Big Oil has appropriated this technology, no doubt they will claim credit for being environmental…

@Jenny I so liked your comment I am going to copy and paste it here so it can be read again. "David…

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.