Are organic fruits and vegetables more nutritious than their conventionally-grown counterparts? The debate has raged for years, and now the results from a four-year study conducted by scientists from Stanford University say that, no, organic produce doesn't get any extra points for nutrition. But organic food advocates say the study missed a few key points:
According to The New York Times, the study, which combined data from 237 studies and examined a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and meats over a four-year period, concluded that "vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts... Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli." The conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but "the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits."
The study did find that organic produce contained higher amounts of phosphorus and more more compounds known as phenols, which some believe can help prevent cancer. But the "size of the difference varied widely from study to study," so researchers took that result with some level of caution. It appears that produce ripeness had more to do with nutritional value than any other factor. As the NYT states, "a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one."
So what does this mean for organic food? Has it just been a marketing ploy to get consumers to pay more? Not so fast. Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, says "organic organic food is living up to its promise."
Advocates for organic farming said the Stanford researchers failed to appreciate the differences they did find between the two types of food -- differences that validated the reasons people usually cite for buying organic. Organic produce, as expected, was much less likely to retain traces of pesticides. Organic chicken and pork were less likely to be contaminated by antibiotic-resistant bacteria... The study also found that organic milk contained more omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered beneficial for the heart.
Advocates also say the study "sidestepped" the debate over the current "healthy" levels of pesticides. But regardless, advocates say that nutritional value is only one reason why people choose to buy organic.
[Other reasons people buy organic include] concerns about the effects of pesticides on young children, the environmental impact of large-scale conventional farming and the potential public health threat if antibiotic-resistant bacterial genes jumped to human pathogens.
Read the whole article and then come back and tell us what you think! Does this study in any way affect whether or not you will continue to buy organic fruits, vegetables, and meat in the future?
Read More: Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce | The New York Times
Related: It's True! Organic Fruits and Vegetables Taste Better
(Image: Ekaterina Pokrovsky/Shutterstock)
How to Cook Rice on the Stove
How To Cook Tender, Chewy Wheat Berries on the Stovetop
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Straw Mat from The ...
10 No-Fail Decor Tricks & Tips for Small Spaces
Beth's Romantic & Retro Residence
I have never thought that organic was supposed to be more nutritous so the study seemed silly to me. I always thought the key point was less chemicals.
I'm more worried about pesticide residue (both within and on the plant) than increased nutritional content. In fact, today is the first time I've ever even heard the claim that organically-grown produce had a better nutrient profile.
I had heard the claim about increased nutritional content of organic food, but it's not why I buy organic. I buy organic to avoid exposure to pesticides, to support eco-friendly growing practices and--a huge factor for me--to support farms that provide better working conditions to their laborers.
I could be wrong, but my sense is that how far a fruit or vegetable has traveled (ie if it was locally grown) impacts its level of nutrients more than if it is organically grown. So organic and local, or even possibly conventional and local is way better for you than something that's been shipped from Chile. Unless you live in Chile, of course!
Yes, less chemicals and non-GMO that is what I eat organic for.
Agreed @Rondak, I think that this study misses the point and if anything, putting out the headline of "Study Says Organics are not more Nutritious" simply feeds misinformation to the majority. Being free from chemicals, GMO produce that has unknown and scary implications, and being better raised for the sake of our environment are the points that people are not going to get from this. Maybe Monsanto was behind the spinning of this study's headlines with all the money they are spending against labeling...
I would hope organic farming would create less pesticides going into our water supply from water run-off.
I've rarely heard the idea that organic is more nutritious, but it always seemed quite clear that it wasn't. Healthier? Maybe. The long-term effects of pesticides have not been determined. Similarly, GMO food has also not been studied enough to determine it is bad for you.
The cost doesn't justify the possibility.
I disagree with this article and agree with everyone who commented on it. I wasn't aware that people believed organic foods were more nutritious, that's not the reason I buy them. I'm more concerned with what is in or on my food that SHOULDN'T be there, and the way the food is raised and farmed. People are going to begin doubting the reasons they buy organic in the first place because "the NYTimes says so". This annoys me so much.
For me, it was never a matter of how healthy the food is for humans. The methods in which non-organic foods are produced that adversely affect the health of our planets soil, water, and other important ecological factors. My decisions on purchasing organic foods are almost entirely for environmental purposes, not my own personal health.
I feel like most consumers should have been able to tell these people doing this study "Duh?!!" I don't think most people ever though organic meant more nutrition. That just doesn't make sense. Pesticides, modified foods, etc are why people buy organic.
Yeah, agree with most of the comments, and also found it strange that the study was even conducted. Nutrition/health has never been a reason for my choosing to buy organic produce. I buy it because 1) for many products (not all that I've noticed) I think organic tastes better; and 2) per MrBones above, it's better for the environment. I also tend to assume, rightly or wrongly, that companies that produce organic products are more generally aware of and responsible about their impact on the environment, their workers, local communities, etc.
Hello from yet another reader who (sometimes) buys organic not for more nutrients but just to limit poisoning...
Marion Nestle brings back the reasons for buying organic to the table: what's not in it.
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/09/are-organics-more-nutritious-again-sigh/
I am with the group of people that believe that organics are slightly more nutritious down the road than conventionals for the reasons of what does not go into them and healthier soils. Also, organics taste much, much better than conventionals. What is not in organics and the taste/quality of the food are the reasons why I prefer to buy organics.
Healthier or more nutritious foods are not relevant if the person eating does not live a healthy lifestyle.
The study specifically compares the nutritional differences of organic vs inorganic - which is perfectly valid since the research on this point has been inconclusive so far, and more research data can only improve our understanding. Blame NYT if you must for publishing an article with a misleading headline.
The research is not pointless. You have to do obvious studies in order to confirm the expected results. In this case, the researchers mostly reviewed data from past studies as an aggregate and the results are a big 'duh what we knew was right' situation. The article itself is reasonably balanced. However, the NYTimes puts a controversial title on the article regarding the results and made it seem completely different from what it is.
I do agree that I have never heard any store, farmer or advertiser say organic food is more nutritious. I have heard that certified organic foods don't have things that regular foods do. Like organic meat does not contain hormones or antibiotics (in Canada not sure about US) while regular beef is allowed to have hormones and antibiotics and regular pork/poultry is allowed to have antibiotics. That makes a difference to me.
Like other commenters I never thought organic was more nutritious. I just think the taste of the produce is much better.
Same here. A tomato is a tomato (composition, that is) - but whether or not there is a sheen of pesticide on that tomato that may or may not wash off is what drives me to buy organic versus non-organic.
I remember there being an article once about how fruits and vegetables were more nutritious decades ago than they are now -- does anyone else remember that or have a link?
I think the point of it was that over the course of the century, farmers have been picking cultivars and breeding to get traits that are desirable for marketing and selling the crop -- tomatoes that turn red all at the same time, strawberries that are bigger so that they're faster (and less costly) to pick. In focusing on the genes that hold these traits, I think the genes that made for more flavorful or nutrient-rich crops fell by the wayside. Part of the goal of the whole organic farming movement is to bring back some of the biodiversity that's been lost on a mass scale. If most organic produce now is just a non-pesticidey version of the typically available produce, then, yeah, I don't see why it would be any more nutritious. But down the road, I think the goal is to make those more nutritious versions viable for mass production.
Anyway, that's what's half-remembered, jumbled together in my head. If you're better informed and I'm spouting inaccuracies, please correct me!
Once again apartment therapy, where is the link to THE STUDY? A vegetable is not a vegetable. Nutrients depend on many factors. Where it's grown, what time of year it's picked, many more things. Why leech off NY Times instead of showing us at least the abstract? Papers are notorious for misrepresenting studies.
The key differences I care about that are well documented:
health of soil and water supply
health of farm workers
children who eat organic produce pee out less pesticides
organic meat has lower levels of ecoli and super bugs as well as antiobiotic residue
pastured meats and dairy have a totally different health profile
non-GMO
agricultural diveristy
AND Reason #1 TASTE
@APK_101 said it best ... SO many reasons to buy organic. And AS IF we are supposed to rely on what the Environmental Protection Agency says are "safe" chemical levels, that's just dumb. Are we really to believe that at some point we will not pay the price for ingesting chemicals and hormones on a daily basis? I also find the comment about "over-paying" silly as well... we pay more to support the farmers who are farming the right way, AND because organic is superior.
It's not about what organic produce HAS that non-organic produce doesn't. It's about what organic produce DOESN'T HAVE that non-organic produce does.
The study is spin as far as I'm concerned... either that or the people behind the study just don't get it.
I refuse to buy organic for the sake of buying organic. Who's to say the neighbor wasn't cropdusting and the wind took it over to the next field? Plus I have friends and relatives who are organic in everything but name; they just won't pay the stupid amount for certification.
I never worried about more/less nutrition, just about the chemicals!!!!!! I would love to know who funded this study for the college.... Hmmmmm????
I'm glad they did the study to show that organic isn't more nutritious, maybe it will stop all the claims of "for better nutrition, eat organic." It just ain't so. This is the second big study to say the same thing, one in the UK in 2009. Eat organic for lots of good reasons but not because it is "more nutritious."