ShareThis Page
The ‘benefits’ of ‘organic’: Not much |

The ‘benefits’ of ‘organic’: Not much

| Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:46 p.m

The take-away from Stanford University’s new, four-year “meta-analysis” of 237 previous studies comparing organic and conventional foods is as old as antiquity: caveat emptor — buyer beware.

The study concludes that organic fruits and vegetables, on average, are no more nutritious — and no less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria — than less expensive conventional fruits and vegetables. It also says organic meats have “no obvious health advantages.”

Organic produce does have less pesticide residue. But the amount on conventional produce is “almost always under” Environmental Protection Agency safety limits. Cooking kills bacteria on meat. And organic milk does have more heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

But when it comes to organic vs. conventional overall, the study’s senior author tells The New York Times, “I would say there is not robust evidence to choose one or the other.”

American businesses long have charged premiums for products with fancy labels. Last year, produce labeled “organic” was a $12.4 billion market — up 12 percent from 2010 — and Americans spent $538 million on organic meat, the Organic Trade Association says.

Factors besides nutrition — such as perceived environmental impact — also motivate organic food buyers. But by giving Americans a better idea of what they’re paying for, the Stanford study should help everyone shop smarter.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.