Is Organic Food Healthier Than Conventional Food?

Organic foods may not be 100 percent pesticide-free
Image by iStock / melhi
Organic foods may not be 100 percent pesticide-free

Organic foods are often touted as being healthier and tastier than conventional foods, but is this actually true?

A recent scientific review looked at over 200 studies comparing conventional food to organic with the researchers concluding:

"The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

This paper caused quite a stir in the fitness and health blogosphere. Many organic proponents were quick to attack the study while scientific types defended it.

It does seem to fly in the face of the widespread assumption that organic food is better for you. But the researchers admit their study had limitations and there may be some organic farming practices that could produce food of higher nutritional quality.

Benefits of Organic Food

While on one hand the paper seems to be a knock against higher-priced organic foods, some clear benefits are also shown to eating organically grown foods.

The paper noted that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional produce though organic foods may not necessarily be 100 percent pesticide-free. However, both types of food were below the allowable safety limits for pesticides. In addition, organic chicken and pork reduced the exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

What the study doesn't address is what are the risks of long-term pesticide exposure and at what levels? Pregnant women and young children in particular may be susceptible to negative effectives of such exposure.

What Should You Eat - Organic or Conventional?

Organic food does cost more in general so is it worth it?

As with many issues in fitness and health, I'd say it depends.

First, let's be clear that a conventionally grown apple is still more nutritious that an organic Twinkie (I'm not sure if they've produced one yet but I wouldn't be surprised if they do someday). What I mean is that all those organic chips and cookies don't really count as health food. Organic packaged food is fine on occasion but most of your diet should consist of real foods like fruits, vegetables, lean meats and healthy fats.

If food cost is an important factor for you, I'd recommend you still get plenty of conventional fruits and vegetables in your daily diet and wash them thoroughly before eating.

You can also download the Environmental Working Group's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce to find out which fruits and veggies are the highest in pesticide exposure.

I think buying local, even if it's not organic, is the best option for better tasting and fresh food. Check out the local Vancouver Farmer's Markets or see what your local grocery store has that's in-season and local.

If you eat meat I'd recommend finding a good butcher and get meat that's growth-hormone and antibiotic-free. We get most of our meat from Windsor Meats on Main St. (Note to foodies; try the PEI potato-fed steaks. Best. Steaks. Ever.) And look for wild fish as opposed to farm-raised.

Extra Credit

Best-selling author and food writer Michael Pollan wrote a fantastic piece on organic food in 2001 for the New York Times. It's long but worth a read if you'd like to know more about organic farming and food production.

About the Author : Curb Ivanic

Curb Ivanic is a strength and conditioning coach who will occasionally indulge in good chocolate or a tasty pilsner. If you're fit enough, you can catch him running, boarding, paddling or hanging out with his family in Vancouver. Web | Twitter

See more by this author >

Comments

6
    • Anonymous
    • September 17, 2012 @ 2:10

    I believe the point of ating organic foods is in the second sentence: "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."


    Enough said.


    • Anonymous
    • September 18, 2012 @ 2:53

    yes!


    • Anonymous
    • September 17, 2012 @ 1:04

    REPOST

    apologize for spelling mistakes in the below post


    I can't really believe you'd post that?

    I'm starting to think all these studies / reviews are fake. Someone was paid lots of money to get this out there.

    How could I believe this, when we're told regular Conventional and / or GMO food is no harm to us. What blows me away, is that we are never advised what chemicals have been sprayed on the crops, how does it affect our bodies, the soil and the environment of the farm. Let's face the reality here, Conventional and / or GMO food has been tested on rats and proven that the rats which ate Conventional and / or GMO food were more vulnerable to cancer as well as other diseases. Also, those same rats did not live as long, they got tired and aged faster.

    Yet they fail to share this type of information to the public.

    How can I believe any of this studies when such information is not being "advertised" (aka put out there for us to know) to us by the Government. Why? Because it's a money making game. Too much has been invested into the conventional and gmo industries.

    This to me is just another mind trick, a way to step up the marketing game.

    I'll just stick with organic, thanks


    • Anonymous
    • September 17, 2012 @ 12:58

    I can't really believe you'd post that?

    I'm starting to think all these studies / reviews are fake. Someone was paid lots of money to get this out there.

    How could I believe this, when they tell us regular Conventional and / or GMO food is no harm to us. What blows me away, is that they will to specify what chemicals has been sprayed on the crops, how does it affect the soil and the environment of the farm. Let's face the reality here, Conventional and / or GMO food has been tested on rats and proven the rats that ate Conventional and / or GMO food were more vulnerable to cancer as well as other diseases. Also, the rats that ateConventional and / or GMO food did not live as long, because tired and old faster. Yet they fail to give us this type of information to the public.

    How can I believe any of this studies when such information is not being "advertised" to us by the Government. Why? Because they bank on it.


    This to me is just another mind trick, a way to step up the marketing game.

    I'll just stick with organic, thanks


    • Anonymous
    • September 17, 2012 @ 11:30

    Note that the food was not tested so there is no data at all for conclusions that there is no difference, and the clinical results in three studies were "inconclusive". I fail to see how this article shows anything at all relating to the actual nutritional value differences between organically and conventionally grown food.


    Indeed, the article states: "Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present."


    Does anyone actually read studies before commenting on them?


    • Anonymous
    • September 17, 2012 @ 8:09

    What about the effects of the pesticides, etc on the people working on the farms? Should that be taken into account when deciding between conventional and organic?

    I am very much pro-organic, but I find this recent debate very interesting and I like hearing all the different sides.

    Terri


  1. Leave Your Comment

    Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
    Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.