Organic vs. Conventional: No difference?
So after paying double for apples for the past few years, was it really worth it? A new study just released in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reveals no difference in nutritional quality between organically-produced and conventionally-produced foods. The researchers studied 50 years worth of published food science articles and determined that the nutrient content of organic foods and conventional foods (including crops and livestock) is basically the same.
The study has received lots of attention since it was published yesterday and has been picked up by many major news outlets including the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. And maybe opponents of organic foods are happy. But I’m wondering if it’s really that revelatory.
If you buy organic foods because you think they contain more nutrients than the alternative, then yes, this study proves you wrong. But is that really why anyone buys organic? Not me. I don’t buy everything organic, but when I do buy organic, it’s not because of the extra nutrients I think I’m getting; it’s because of what I know I’m not getting: no chemicals, no additives, no weird contaminating substances. Just like when we grow our own at home.
On the other hand, another study published earlier this year in HortScience (analyzed here by Time Magazine) showed that the nutritional content of today’s conventionally-produced vegetables is 5 percent to 40 percent less than that of the vegetables produced in the United States 50 years ago. So maybe organic produce isn’t more nutritious than conventional produce, but the mainstream tomatoes you buy at the store today don’t pack nearly the same punch as the ones your grandmother bought 50 years ago. Just one more reason to grow your own.
What do you think about this study? If you buy organic, do you do so for nutritional content or to avoid the bad stuff?
Very informative text. I’ve found your blog by accident but I’m really happy that i did. You have some really good info on here:)
Thanks for commenting, everybody. Glad to hear I’m not the only one who didn’t think this study was such a big deal. As for the second study, I’m with you, RU. It is worrisome. I think the study shows that we may be eating the same foods they ate 50 years ago but today’s industrialized farming practices have gradually diluted their nutritious value.
Agree with you, and all those who’ve commented – it’s about what you’re not getting (chemicals), but also about not “poisoning” the environment. It’s the second study that was more worrisome…have we selected out the more nutritious foods from 50 years ago, possibly because the less nutritious ones pack better, can be transported better, are hardier, etc.??
When I buy organic, it’s to avoid the bad stuff. Plus, organic milk seems to taste so much better than the non-organic milk.
My thoughts on this study were the same as yours: As far as I’m concerned, the reason to buy organic is not b/c you want extra nutrients, but b/c you want less contamination. And less contamination is always a good thing.
I just started buying organic products, in particular produce. We did this mostly because we wanted to keep our now 8 month old daughter away from as much of the extra chemicals and additives as possible. Since we make her food from scratch, starting with the best ingredients was important. I did think they had more nutritional value but I do not think that was as big of an issue as staying away from the pesticides, other chemicals and the additives. Plus organic produce just tastes better in general, and truthfully that is almost enough on its own. I will continue to buy organic regardless of this study.