How do organic foods compare to non-organic foods in terms of nourishment?

From a research standpoint, I believe that scientific comparisons of organic and non-organic foods show the clear benefits of organic. However, I also recognize that there are a relatively limited number of studies in this area and that the results have been controversial. Virginia Worthington, as part of her doctoral dissertation at John Hopkins University analyzed (and later published) 41 existing studies that compared organic to non-organic foods. On average, she determined the organic foods to contain:

 

o                               27% more vitamin C

o                               21.1% more iron

o                               29.3% more magnesium

o                               13.6% more phosphorus

In her review, she also noted that while five servings of organically grown vegetables (lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes, and cabbage) provided the daily recommended intake of vitamin C for men and women, their conventionally grown counterparts did not. Organically grown foods were also found to contain, on average, about 5% less nitrates than conventionally grown foods. While nitrates have not been conventionally spotlighted as toxic risk factors in food, they nevertheless appear (in the 216th spot) on the 2007 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances as published by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This review of organic foods also determined them to be lower in protein than their non-organic counterparts but to contain higher quality protein in terms of amino acid composition.

 

·                     Other studies on organic versus non-organic foods have found fewer statistical differences between their nutrient content, and in some cases, greater amounts of some nutrients in non-organic versus organic foods. These studies also typically show large amounts of variability in the nutrient contents of different foods, both organic and non-organic.

 

·                     From my perspective, it makes sense that certain crops, grown under certain very favorable environmental circumstances, would be likely to show greater concentrations of certain nutrients than other crops grown under less favorable environmental circumstances, even if non-organic farming methods were used in their cultivation. Basic patterns in sunlight, rainfall, temperature, and other factors would always remain critical in the final chemical composition of the foods. For this reason, when I consider the research as a whole, I believe it clearly shows the nutritional advantages of organically grown versus non-organically grown food.

 

·                     In a study reviewing data sets gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, researchers found that in a comparison of 8 fruits and 12 vegetables, 73% of the non-organic crops were found to contain pesticide residues, in comparison with 6-27% of organic crops (depending on the exact crops that were compared). For some non-organic fruits (apples, peaches, pears, and strawberries) and for one non-organic vegetable (celery), over 90% of the non-organic food samples showed pesticide residues.

 

·                     Additionally, 12-62% of the non-organic crops were found to contain multiple pesticide residues, and in some cases as many as 14 different pesticide residues. In the case of organic crops, this range was only 1-7%. About two-thirds of the time, a lower quantity of the pesticide levels was found in organic versus non-organic foods.

 

 

 

·                     Copyright © 2012 The George Mateljan Foundation, All Rights Reserved

George Mateljan Foundation, PO Box 25801, Seattle, Washington 98165