Two weeks ago the internet was abuzz over this Stanford study claiming organic produce was no more nutritious than conventional. But did they miss some key points? Yes, argues one writer at Mother Jones.
As commenters noted on that post and everywhere, nutritional content isn't really the reason most people choose to buy organic anyway! Now Tom Philpott, former editor of Grist and current sustainable food advocate, strips the study down in a recent article for Mother Jones and explains why he thinks the Stanford researchers underestimated the most important reason to buy organic: pesticide exposure.
The Stanford study confirmed that organic produce harbored fewer pesticides than conventional produce, but researchers essentially dismissed that finding as unimportant because "conventional produce carries trivially small levels of pesticides, and you might as well save your money and forget organic," as Philpott notes. But the problem with this logic is five-fold. Here's why:
1. Pesticide residue on conventional produce is actually much worse than the study suggests. In this detailed critique of the study you can see it boils down to a statistical error.
2. The study also didn't distinguish between single pesticide trace and multiple traces, or between light traces and heavier traces. For example, Philpott notes that essentially the study says that "an organic apple carrying a tiny residue of a relatively innocuous pesticide is equivalent to a conventional apple containing a cocktail of several relatively toxic pesticides."
3. The study fails to mention the risks posed to unborn children who are exposed to pesticides while in utero.
4. The study also ignores the "cocktail" effect, or the effect that happens when one is exposed to several pesticides at once from a single fruit or vegetable.
5. Finally, we actually know very little about how exposure to low levels of multiple pesticides affects us over time. According to Philpott, we know more about how pesticide exposure affects amphibians, and the results aren't pretty.
For more insight on each of these points, read the whole article linked below.
→ Read More: 5 Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short | Mother Jones
Related: New Study Says Organic Produce Is No More Nutritious Than Conventional
(Image: Joanna Miller/The Kitchn)
5 Things Paris Taught Me About Travel
Recipe: Ham, Cheddar & Chive Egg Bakes
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Bacsac Bacsquare 04...
Apartment Therapy's Sofa Shopping Guide
Nikki’s Sweet and Cheery Print Studio
And don't forget that some people actually care about the health of the workers farming the produce, and the impacts on ground water, and air quality, and soil health, etc etc.
If people farmed cotton organically in Texas (even though we don't eat cotton), there probably wouldn't be problems with arsenic in rice coming out of Texas.
with GMO labeling on the ballot in California in November and the millions of dollars Monsanto and other companies are throwing against it, I don't think the timing of this hubbub is coincidental. non-organic companies seem to feel they have a lot to lose from being honest with their consumers.
PS- it's also not true that this additional label would [or, should] pass any cost onto the consumer. at least, the labels the EU has been putting on for decades hasn't.
The conflict isn't organic vs GMO, it's organic vs chemicals. A GMO plant could be farmed organically and a non GMO plant could be raised coated in pesticides. Two different issues.
Thank you, @FANCYD. I was going say the same thing. I've found it disturbing how little mention I've seen of the health of farm workers in this whole debate. They are no doubt being exposed to much higher levels of these pesticides that we ever will be as consumers.
Yet these same 'organic obsessed' people buy buckets of Roundup and spray in their yards and think nothing of it!!!
And it isn't so much the pesticide issue. You have a lot of people who buy organic fruits and vegs and then buy regular processed foods and never look at the amount of chemicals, high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils that are in those foods; they then can't figure out why they're obese! Organic foods, whole or not, have NO ingredients that are chemically processed. You can buy non GMO or pesticide free foods year round but if you are not looking at the WHOLE picture, you aren't any healthier than if you were buying regular, processed, pesticide laden, GMO foods. And yes, the health of the workers should be top priority. I live in NC, where most of our farmed foods are picked by migrant workers. This issue has been swept under the rug for years by corporations and factory farms that don't want to shortchange the stockholder by doing the right things
Most, if not all, chemicals are bad news, period. To me, eating a piece of fruit sprayed with insecticide is equivalent to spraying it with Raid before eating it. Same thing. Down with Monsanto!
I agree that there are probably people who buy all organic produce but use pesticides in their own yard because they have not thought about the dichotomy, and that issue is worthy of discussion. But lets not generalize because it brings down the level of the discussion. I for one do not use Roundup for the same reasons that I buy organic, and I expect that there are many others who do the same.
Umm, AL.RODERICK, no GMOs cannot be farmed organically.
FANCYD beat me to. The issues of ongoing ground contamination from previous pesticide use and worker's health are very important.
It's important to find out who funded this study. When I looked up the study, it shows that the researcher did not disclose the potential conflicts of interest, but the forms can be viewed. I tried to open the forms & they wouldn't open so it's hard to say... but any time you read about "the latest study" the first thing you should do is try to find out who funded it.
And who buys organic because they think it's more nutritious? Just echoing the sentiments of everyone else here. There are plenty of health and environmental reasons to by organic. Also somewhat related: count me in on voting YES on 37!!
GMO is not organic by definition. And still convenient that GMO effects aren't studied in any 'officially recognized' manor. GMO's scare me even more so than the pesticides themselves (although the two are not mutually exclusive, if you take into account the new Bt corn.)
Honestly, I buy certain items organic and certain one conventionally because I notice more of a taste difference. I like the taste of organic fruit better. And although there are plenty of reasons to buy organic, it's not always feasible for everyone. Not everyone has the financial resources to only buy organic and free range. So whether we like it or not conventional fruits and vegetables are necessary to a huge portion of our current society.
Another reason to buy organic, if you can afford it, is the benefit that the soil itself gets.
I don't have any sources to share (sorry - bad internet user, bad!), but the heavy use of pesticides and herbicides in large-scale farming heavily depletes the nutrients in the soil, requiring more pesticides the next year, and the next, and the next (this nutrient depletion is also the reason that farmers in the midwest, where I'm from, alternate planting soy and corn fields - if I remember the science correctly, beans help to replace lost nitrogen in the soil, and if the fields weren't planted in rotation like that they wouldn't produce anything at all).
Even if it were proven that there were no other benefits, the preservation of our soil and watersheds are enough reason for me to purchase organics vs. traditional produce when the budget allows.
no, organic is not the easiest on the wallet. but demand over the past 5 - 10 years has already created more organic options at increasingly better prices. and do remember that only a few generations ago 'conventional' and 'organic' were one and the same. consumers didn't have to choose their budget over their health. I like to think we're finding our way back there again.
al.roderick: when so many plants have been genetically modified to be more compatible with and receptive to pesticides, how different can the issues be? when I buy organic I expect non-GMO. of course, the way these things play out that isn't the case so often anymore. I want a label.
@Daleth who funds a study often does not matter. Yes, some scientists, doctors, etc are corrupt. If an ocelot researcher had evidence that poachers were a cause of ocelot endangerment, it would not be at all unusual for a cat conservation group to fund the study so it could be finished. It does not usually equal bias, because when a study is wrong it is a huge embarassment to the researchers and they can lose their reputation and funding.
If anyone wants to read the ACTUAL STUDY, see below. It is certainly a very general and vague study. But they are not claiming anything except lack of evidence for organic food being healthier. Using their methods, they are 100 percent correct. The study didn't look at the overall picture, but it never claimed to. It's the media's fault for making people think the study was important or made these wild claims. Why don't writers read and link to the study before riling everyone up??
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
The goal of the study was not to identify what food was "healthier" or "safer," but if organic food was actually more nutritious, which it isn't. These points they "missed" are utter nonsense and have little to do with the point of the study.
I'm with @emmi and @drhilarious
This is a research paper - they can't make sweeping statements, they have to back it up with statistics. If they don't have data on the clinical significance of pesticide residues, then they can't make a comment about it.
The paper's authors concluded with this:
In summary, our comprehensive review of the published literature on the comparative health outcomes, nutrition, and safety of organic and conventional foods identified limited evidence for the superiority of organic foods.
The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Which is precisely what most of the commentators on the topic have said. It's not their job to tell the consumers what to do, they can only state the facts they have at their disposal. And people seem to forget that this was a research paper, aimed at fellow researchers, not the public at large. The general public can't even download the whole article.
"The goal of the study was not to identify what food was "healthier" or "safer," but if organic food was actually more nutritious, which it isn't. These points they "missed" are utter nonsense and have little to do with the point of the study."
DRHILARIOUS
I have nothing to add. Done.