ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Food and Cooking»
  • Food Markets & Shops

Organic Food Study: Eating Organic Food is Hype

Updated on September 4, 2012

I suspected this for a long time now, you know, eating organic this or that, paying more, much more, for the same non-organic food, just to find out, the REAL difference is minimal, at best. That is what Stanford researchers found out after conducting a study comparing organic and non-organic food. The simple conclusion is that nutrition-wise, there is no different between organic and non-organic food, whatever that really means. The only difference found between the two was that organic food has lower levels of pesticides and antibiotics. Now, before you give a big "told you so", the study showed that the non-organic food contained them well within the government safety limits, none were over. So, it comes down to whether you believe the limits set by the government are valid or not and if you are willing to pay much more for the same item because it is labeled, "organic". Organic food is not more nutritional the study showed. Taste was slightly different between the foods. The study also showed that the chances for bacteria contamination between the food types are unchanged, both were the same. They did find that in non-organic meat, that bacteria found had a 33% more chance of being to antibiotics because farmers feed them antibiotics to fatten them up.

Food labeled as "organic" must certify that it is produced without pesticide\fertilizer, or routine use of antibiotics. Organic food accounted for $31 billion. The study suggested that people should buy fruit only from USA\Canada, not Chile or other countries because of lower pesticide levels. Just remember, even the items with higher levels of it were within US government standards for health.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • swordsbane profile image

      William Grant 5 years ago from Wisconsin

      No reporting is balanced. Nothing that is balanced is interesting. Charles is probably right. Hence my statement. Either it's safe or it isn't. If it's safe, let people make up their own minds. If it's not, take it off the shelves. No one should be eating it.

    • perrya profile image

      perrya 5 years ago

      Well, yes and no. Depends on budget, income and how u believe whatever Charles state as fact, how the evidence was obtained and is it variable data. Sorry, just too many opinions as to how much better organic food is, always a spin on a study as well. But, ask a person who has 60 + years on them, in good health, long before the organic food craze and most would agree with the Stanford study, which i think is balanced.

    • tara.eisler profile image

      tara.eisler 5 years ago from Denver, CO

      I'd like to add that it's been shown that certain types of produce are known to contain a heavier concentration of pesticides and herbicides and those are the ones you really should make an effort to buy organic, otherwise, choosing conventional is fine from the standpoint of pesticides:

    • tara.eisler profile image

      tara.eisler 5 years ago from Denver, CO

      I find it to be prudent to actually do my own research on things, versus eating what the corporate mainstream media (with all of their privately held interests) spoon feeds to me. If you actually READ the study itself, you'll learn that the media only reported on one very small tidbit from the study, completely neglecting some pertinent info that would change the whole tone -- the study that you're trumpeting as determining that organic foods are bogus has actually determined that organic foods are SAFER to consume due to the lower pesticide levels. Then, you could do your research on the pesticides that are commonly used, and you'll find out that many of them are known endocrine disruptors, potential carcinogens, etc. Mmmm, sounds exactly what I'd want to be feeding myself and my family!

      In addition to the misreporting in the media, several agriculture experts have pointed out that the study was very misleading...for example:

      "Charles Benbrook, PhD, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center who reviewed the Stanford study and most of the underlying literature, found the study misleading. He noted that several well-designed US studies show that organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. For crops like apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, and grains, organic produce has 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids in most studies."

      (Above quote taken from:

      If you care what you put in your body, it's wise to do your own research. The food system in America has some serious issues and if you think that government bodies like the FDA are out for your best interests, you should think again...

    • swordsbane profile image

      William Grant 5 years ago from Wisconsin

      Food is practically the only commodity where you pay extra to get less. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Either it is safe, and you shouldn't be worried about it being in your food, or it's unsafe, and it should not be in ANY food. Why is that so hard?

    • Jellybird profile image

      Jellybird 5 years ago

      Furthermore another study indicates that the nutritional value of food diminishes from when it has been harvested making your frozen veggies more nutritious than fresh ones - so they say.



    • profile image

      Jayfort 5 years ago

      No! Say it isn't so! Another feel good, let's help the environment and ourselves, pie-in-the-sky idea shot down...

      Gosh, what can I say?