This headline is everywhere this week. It isn’t true and it isn’t what Dr. Bravata said, but it is a fantastic example of how science can be twisted to serve a political or economic goal. Like maybe not getting GMO labeling in California. California is pushing for European style GMO labels. I wonder how many food companies buy ads? I wonder how they feel about the GMO labeling law? I wonder if that could possibly be helping this meta-analysis to be so misinterpreted?
The actual paper by the Stanford team is available at the following web address for your perusal. The abstract is free, the paper you would need to purchase and you can read it for 24 hours for about $20. I purchased the paper so I could make sure I had my facts straight.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
What they actually said is the following
1) The risk of getting antibiotic resistant bacterial contamination is 33% higher if you eat conventional chicken or pork as opposed to organic, however there are not enough studies in this area.
2) The risk that you will be contaminated with pesticides is 81.5% higher in conventional produce. 7% of organic vs 38% of conventional. Two human studies showed significantly lower urinary pesticide levels in children who consumed an organic diet. There were no included studies that provided data on pesticide levels in milk, meat, eggs or poultry. Nothing was found because there were no studies to review.
3) Organic milk and chicken both contained more Omega 3 fatty acids than conventional chicken and milk and this finding was robust.
4) Vitamin and mineral levels of were not well researched in organic vs. conventional meat.
5) There is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that organic produce, especially that grown in Europe, is meaningfully higher in vitamins and minerals.
6) There was not enough data to come to reasonable conclusions about grains, soy or the vitamin and mineral content of meat.
7) The definition of organic varied by date, country and study so it was difficult to know how organic or conventional something really was. This may be a part of why the data is inconclusive.
Oh, that isn’t what you read…well it is what they said. The New York Times was technically actually accurate in its reporting they glossed over the lack of grain and soy data.
So how does this happen? I am not sure. I do, however, have my suspicions. That said, here is why I don’t think you can make a conclusion that conventional food is even just as nutritious as organic.
1) Grains and soy make up a large part of the typical American diet, so to conclude that there is no benefit to organics without including the food group most Americans eat the most of is incomplete at best. The doctors were largely mute on this topic and the media connected some dots that weren’t there.
2) The studies were not reviewed because they do not exist. Most non-organic corn, soy and canola and a significant number of potatoes contain GMOs. There have been some rat studies that I would describe as not comforting about GMO potatoes, soy, corn and canola, but the sort of large scale studies that are needed do not appear to have been done. Monsanto should do and publish this work, but they have not done so.
3) The data came largely from Europe (70%) based on European farming methods. Europe has nothing like California. The farms are smaller and certain regulations are tighter. Its not an ideal comparison to the American mega-farms. My guess is that conventional farming in Europe may be less conventional. I know that the conventional fruit and veggie farmers from Michigan that I meet at my local farmers markets still try to avoid pesticides when they can, hence the how conventional is conventional conundrum.
There are indeed studies that indicate that organic foods contain more nutrients. The hypothesis that says that there is little difference may not be proven, but it also cannot be dismissed. Here are a few sample studies.
Study of the Nutritional Differences in Organic vs Conventional Milk. Organic milk contains more nutrients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22430502
Study of the nutritional differences between organic vs. conventional vegetables. Organic vegetables contain more nutrients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333
As do organic apples
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19388640
Organic chicken has more microbes than conventional, but fewer of the ones that can actually cause epidemics that kill people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17477278
And much higher levels of phenols (anti-cancer) vitamins and nutrients were found in organic eggplant vs. conventional eggplant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443597
The following is from an English study which clearly shows that grass feeding (summer cows) and organic food made a difference in fatty acid profile of milk. Organic milk being healthier.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21183013
So I want to thank the doctors for what I believe was a genuine piece of unbiased research and you have my sympathies.
For now, I think I am going to still keep eating organic food. But I eat it for a lot of reasons besides vitamin count. And thanks to your work I will feel a bit better when I need to eat non-organic produce.
