British Journal of Nutrition study: organic produce really is healthier for you

A new study refutes claims by an earlier Stanford study that stated that organic produce was no more nutritious than conventionally grown produce. The bottom line still remains this: eat your fruits and vegetables.

Organic produce is healthier

A couple of years ago, Stanford University released a study on organic food that many people feel got it wrong. What they studied was the comparative nutritional value of organic vs. conventionally grown produce. They found no difference. How they reported their findings was to state that organic produce was no healthier for you than non-organic, completely ignoring the health implications of residual pesticides. Now another study suggests they were wrong about the nutritional differences too. Continue reading “British Journal of Nutrition study: organic produce really is healthier for you”

Organic vs. non-organic: A flawed Stanford study produces dangerous sound bites

A study just released by Stanford University scientists has found that organic foods—produce, meat and dairy—are no more nutritious than non-organic or conventional foods. The study also reports that they are no less likely to be contaminated. They’re probably right. They examined more than 40 years’ worth of research on the topic; the study used no outside funding to avoid any “perception of bias;” and, well, they’re scientists.

The problem with their research, as I see it, is that they asked the wrong question. No one has really seriously claimed that organic foods are more nutritious. And earlier studies on this very subject have already stated what the Stanford researchers were “surprised” to discover. To me, they missed the point. Their central question was kind of like asking if LED light bulbs are any quieter than conventional ones, or if fuel-efficient vehicles are any shinier than gas guzzlers. Continue reading “Organic vs. non-organic: A flawed Stanford study produces dangerous sound bites”