Organic Foods One More Time Jon Barron Earlier this month, the Annals of Internal Medicine published

d a Stanford study that found that organic foods were neither substantially more nutritious nor substantially "cleaner" than non-organic products and are probably not worth the added cost.1 As might be expected, these conclusions brought the pundits on both sides of the argument wriggling out of the woodwork. he agricultural industry trumpeted, "See, that!s what we!"e been telling you all along." he organic industry cried, "#oul$ he "small" differences that the study cited are actually important, and besides, e"en if they aren!t, there is bias here." %hile the direct funding for the study may not ha"e been tainted &it was funded by an undergraduate research grant', some of the researchers in"ol"ed in the study are affiliates and fellows of Stanford!s #reeman Spogli (nstitute, which has been funded to the tune of millions of dollars by companies such as )argill, the world!s largest agricultural business conglomerate and se"eral agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations such as *onsanto. "+b"iously," the pundits argued, " he researchers are merely doing the bidding of their corporate puppet masters." Also, if that weren!t reason enough to lea"e the issue to others, (!"e already countered se"eral similar anti-organic studies in pre"ious newsletters--in fact, (!"e borrowed extensi"ely from those pre"ious newsletters for this report. And besides, ,iyaguha )ohen, one of our foundation staff writers, wrote a blog about this exact study se"eral weeks ago. %hat more is there to say on the -uestion. is organic food better for you/ 0uite simply, the reason (!m dealing with it now is that ( belie"e the true meaning of this study and its results ha"e been left unexplored. 1ey concepts worth examining ha"e been left on the table. 2efore we look into those, howe"er, let!s take stock of where we are at this point in time. #irst of all, ( belie"e that the alternati"e health community missed the moment and ended up arguing o"er table scraps as it were. As (!"e already mentioned, their argument was that the small differences cited in the study were actually important differences and that perhaps the results weren!t real anyway because of bias. 2ut in fact, the community at large ne"er considered the possibility that the results might indeed be real, and that the minimal differences between organic and con"entional produce were not only accurate as measured, but probably to be expected. 3i"en that, we!re left with two -uestions.

Starting with the assumption that it has nothing to do with bias or inaccuracy, why are the differences in nutritional "alues so much lower than most people expected/

%hy were the differences in pesticide contamination also less than expected/

2ut before we answer these -uestions, let!s -uickly re"iew the specific results of the study. Is Organic Food Better for You -- the Study? Among other things, the study concluded that.

#ruits and "egetables labeled organic were, on a"erage, no more nutritious than their con"entional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensi"e.

Specifically, the researchers stated that organic produce did indeed contain a "statistically" significant greater number of phenols, which are belie"ed to help pre"ent cancer, than con"entional produce. 2ut then the researchers pointed out that the si4e of the difference "aried widely from study to study, and the data was based on the testing of small numbers of samples. More importantly they also pointed out that ripeness has a greater influence on nutrient content than ho! the fruit is gro!n. A lush ripe peach, for

example, grown with the use of pesticides, can easily contain more "itamins than an unripe organic one.

+rganic milk contains more omega-5 fatty acids, but milk is not a primary source of omega-5 fatty acids in any case.

+rganic foods are no less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria such as E. coli. And yes, con"entional foods, including fruits and "egetables, are more likely to be contaminated with pesticide residues than organic produce--56 percent 7S 8 percent--but the le"els are almost always under the allowed safety limits, so the significance is minimal.

And organic chicken and pork are less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. 2ut the researchers argued that any such bacteria were likely to be killed in cooking, so again no ad"antage to organic meats.