What Are The Real Benefits Of Eating Organic Foods?

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine recently tried to answer the question of the real health benefits of eating organic foods.  They conducted a review of the literature, and concluded that the question had not been adequately addressed.  This led to review the research literature over the course of the last 50-years, and conduct a meta-analysis, in an effort to answer this question.

What Are The Benefits Of Eating Organic Foods?

The publication of this study is timely, as my wife and I were just discussing this subject at the dinner table.  She posed the following question to me

What does it actually mean to call a food organic?

It has only been in the last few years that the U.S.D.A. has started regulating the labeling of foods in the U.S. as “organic.”  In order for a product to comply with labeling regulations, growers must show they produce foods with restricted farming practices.  This essentially limits the types and quantities of synthetic agents that can be used to produce “organic” products.  The theory goes that foods produced by a process that uses fewer “chemicals” should be healthier, and the process should be more “sustainable.”  (i.e. less environmental impact).

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which is considered one of the premier research centers for public health in Europe, searched the academic literature for studies evaluating the nutrient content of foods produced using modern farming methods, as well as organically produced foods (produce, meats, and dairy).  Researchers eventually selected 55 studies they considered to be of research quality, starting from over 52,000 available publications.  A meta-analysis of these publications showed

…conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed. Analysis of the more limited database on livestock products found no evidence of a difference in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products…

Now, it’s always worthwhile to be skeptical of dramatic research findings, but my perception of Europe (in general) is that, culturally, they are very pro-organic.  Probably more so than the U.S.  (Someone may correct me on this…).  With that in mind, I would tend to believe these results.  It seems logical to me, as no matter the production methods, the develop and concentration of nutrients occurs via biological processes that should differ little based on production method.

Having said that, the study does not examine the effect of pesticides, fat concentrations, other nutrients, etc.  Nor does it deal with the question of sustainability.  In defense of the organic movement, one can point to many studies, like this one, that support the idea that some organic produce contains fewer pesticides.  Presumably, a by-product of organic growing methods.  (Of course, since the article is published on the website beyondpesticides.org, it leads again to skepticism.)

In our home, we generally don’t buy organic produce.  We do, when reasonably possible, purchase locally grown produce.  Our rationale is simple here.  Buying local hopefully ensures the greatest “freshness” and supports the local economy.  We tend to purchase the leanest cuts of meats, and when possible, will buy grass-fed.  We also consume wild game (venison, and others).  These are the only truly “organic” meat products, in my opinion.  But, of course, these can’t be purchased at a store.

What’s your position?  Do you buy organic foods?  Do you believe, in spite of these results, there are true benefits of eating organic foods, or does this study change your opinion at all?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!