Organic food has been the “big thing” for along time now, supermarkets have cashed in on it, suppliers have cashed in on it and even local businesses have got in on it. But according to a new study from Stanford University organic produce and meat are no better for you in terms of nutritional content and vitamin content than conventional foods however organic foods do have a reduced amount of pesticides and antibiotic resistant bacteria.
The team at Stanford reviewed more than 200 hundred case studies that compared either the health of people who ate organic or conventional foods or more commonly, nutrient and contaminant levels in the foods themselves.
The food list included – organic and no organic fruits, veg, grains, meat, poultry, eggs and milk.
The US government has set standards for organic farms and the farmed livestock – these standards include, avoid the use of pesticides and fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics and the livestock must have access to pastures during grazing season.
Many of the case studies reviewed did not specify to what standard they were” organic foods”
The team at Stanford University found no difference in the amount of vitamins in plant or animal products produced on by organic mean or by conventional means and the only difference was slightly more phosphorous in the organic products.
However it was discovered that the conventional products contained less detectable pesticides compared to that of the organic products and organic pork and chicken were 33% less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.
In my opinion I think it is a little early to say organic food is no better for you than conventional food, but it seems money is being put into research, so in a few years time I’m sure there will a breakthrough.
Simply Science News 