A recent study by a Stamford University team has caused controversy by claiming that organic food has no more nutrients in it than non-organic food. The study went on to say that there were no obvious health benefits to eating organic food including fruits, vegetables, eggs, grains, dairy, poultry and meat. “We did not find strong evidence that organic foods are consistently more nutritious than conventional foods,” said Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, leading author on the study.
The study found that organic foods contained no more nutrients than their non-organic counterparts, although they did contain fewer traces of pesticides and meat was less contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The study did not take into account extraneous considerations such as flavor or sustainability which many opponents to the study say play a large factor in their decision to invest in organic foods.
The study pooled together about 200 reports on the nutritional content of organic and non-organic foods.
There has been wailing and gnashing of teeth from the organic food corner with some going as far as to suggest nefarious motives on behalf of Smith-Spangler’s team. Opponents of the study have banded together to create a petition calling for the retraction of the findings.
Its important to note that the study did find higher pesticide residues in children who consumed conventionally grown foods. The study also stipulates that the impacts of pesticide residues have yet to be determined.
The issue is extremely complex and to illustrate the effects of non-organic food, I’m going to use a sweet little girl with a sweet potato. Meet Louise and watch her amazing escapes into the world of Bud Nip.
Need some good karma? Like us on Facebook and get more good vibes than you can poke a sharp stick at!