Study Shows Little Difference Between Organic And Conventional Food
New study shows that organic food is not as healthy as it is thought. Organic food was supposed to be significantly superior in terms of Â nutritional value , taste and low bacterial contamination. No substantial evidence that could link nutritional benefits to consumption of organic products was found.
Researchers from Stanford University School of Medicine made a review of 17 human studies and 223 food studies. They compared safety, nutritional value and health benefits of both conventional and organic foods.
Dr.Â Crystal Smith-Spangler and Dr. Dena Bravata, team liders, discovered no significant evidence to prove that organic foods have Â more important beneficial effects on the human body than common foods.
Previous studies on organic food showed that organic rice has high levels of arsenic. Organic strawberries were also found with a lower level of potassium and phosphorous than conventionally grown strawberries. However, researchers found that there are higher levels of omega-3 acid, vitamin c, phenol and other antioxidants in organic products, but a deficiency in these compounds is extremely rare.
Furthermore, because of the use of different fertilizers, the scientists have found high levels of nitrogen in organic foods which “is very unlikely to provide any health benefits” as Dr.Â Smith-Spangler stated.
Organic foods are made using farming methods that don’t includeÂ addition of pesticides or any other chemicals. They are not processed using chemical food additives, irradiationÂ or industrial solvents. In addition, organic meat andÂ dairy products must come from free-range animals which are fed organic vegetables and fruits.
Many countries demand producers a certain certification to growÂ and sell organic foods within their territory. In this context, organic food is supposed to be the food produced according to each country’s organic standards, which are usually set by the national governments or international organizations.
Reasearchers were looking for long-term studies concerning the health outcomes of Â people who consumed organic foods versus common foods, but the maximum time of a study consisted of only 24 months. They declared that they still have no significant evidence whether organic foods bring more long-term health benefits than common foods.
The study provoked controversial responses from different health organizations like a UK charity called the The Soil Association. This association, which believes in healthy, humane and sustainable food, farming and land use.
The Soil Association appreciated some aspects of the study, while criticizing others. The declared that this study treats crop trials as if they were clinical trials of medicine and exaggerates with the differences between the studies they reviewed. Moreover they emphasized the fact that the study focuses more on the negative effects rather than the positive ones, when it should be vice versa.