(PCM) Not when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System.
“People choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived health benefits,” said leader researcher Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler. “Our patients, our families ask about, ‘Well, are there health reasons to choose organic food in terms of nutritional content or human health outcomes?'”
Smith-Spangler and her colleagues reviewed over 200 studies that looked at the health of people who ate organic compared to those who ate conventional foods, as well as the nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves. They found there was no difference in the level of vitamins in organic plant or animal products, for the most part.
The only difference was slightly more phosphorus in the organic products, and organic milk and chicken may contain more omega-3 fatty acids, which was based on only a few studies.
But it’s a different story when it comes to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food.
More than one-third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared to seven percent of organic produce samples. Organic chicken and pork was 33 percent less likely to carry bacteria that was resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally-produced meat (MSNBC).
The jury is still out on the effects of pesticide exposure, so while organic food may not be nutritiously better for you, it may be still be better for you as far as pesticides and bacteria go.
More research is needed, but in the meantime, avoid the most contaminated fruits and vegetables! The Dirty Dozen
