Is Organic Food Worth the Price Premium?
I’ve been mulling recently on our food choices. First the media reported on a Stanford study which said that organic food wasn’t any better than ‘normal’ food .
Wow! That goes against everything we believe about organic food. If you’d asked me “Is organic food better for you?” I would instantly have said yes.
And then there was the debacle with Whole Foods Market – more on that later.
Plus, there’s the whole question of Organic food in general.
But let’s look for now at the Stanford study.
What Did the Stanford Report Say?
There are two main premises of the Stanford report:
- There are just as many pesticides found on organic food, as on ‘normal’ food.
- Organic fruit and vegetables are not any more nutritious than conventionally grown produce which costs less.
And there’s no disputing that – the evidence in the study is clear.
The Stanford report’s answer to “Is Organic Food Better For You?” is definitely No.
How Did They Test?
Well, the testing methodology was interesting. For example:
- Although ‘normal’ food has more pesticide residue than organically grown produce, they were both within the allowed safety limits and so, as per the methodology of the report, it wasn’t a problem. (Whether those limits are genuinely safe is a whole other story) (when can it possibly be “safe” to ingest pesticide residues?).
- Organic chicken and pork have less anti-biotic-resistant bacteria than factory farmed. However, the report argued that those bacteria would be destroyed during cooking and thus it wasn’t a problem, and therefore not significant.
- Organic produce contained more phenols (which are believed to help prevent cancer). However, the results varied hugely making it difficult to be definitive on this.
- The ripeness of the tested produce had a significant impact on the study. For example, a perfectly ripe peach grown with pesticides would have far more nutrients than an unripe organic one.
- In terms of nutrients in the produce, the Stanford study concentrated on phenols and Vitamin C, which are normally present in both conventionally AND organically grown produce. But for example, a good organic fertilizer will provide a broad range of nutrients including selenium and other trace minerals. Plants will absorb these if they are in the soil. Without them, the plant will still grow, but produce fewer antioxidants – and the antioxidants are one of the big benefits of eating organic produce. They don’t seem to have been taken into account into the study.
So, I can see WHY the report came to those conclusions.
But I do think that it was biased in terms of ignoring nutrients that are present only in organically-farmed produce.
There was some concern over whether there was some financial backing from large corporations – so far I haven’t seen enough definitive evidence to make me agree or disagree with that.
So, what’s the answer?
The Stanford report is unequivocal – they say that organic food is NOT any better for you.
I believe otherwise.
Yes, unfortunately some organic is better than others (more in my next post). Nonetheless, buying organic food in general IS worth the premium. Is organic food better for you? Yes. If you wish to avoid GMOs, you need to buy organic. In order to reduce your exposure to hormones, sewage, irradiation and additives, you need to buy organic.
But try to avoid the low-end organic produce. I’ll show you how in my next post.
PS Here’s a nice challenge – be mindful of your food this week. Try to eat one vegan meal, and if you’re eating out, don’t go to places that serve their food in single-use plates or containers with plastic cutlery. Eat local, seasonal produce. I’m doing that today, and I’m giving a lot of thought to food this week.
Photo Credit: Microsoft
Clare,
great point about organic food that is not really organic. I remember you had a post where you gave great tips about how to recognize the difference. Thanks!
Yes, it’s a real shame that we can’t even rely on organic being reliably good any more – but it’s still better than the alternatives. Thanks for your comment!
I don’t know that the argument was ever which (organic or normal) has more nutrients although I can’t help but think that the chemicals used in pesticides will destroy some nutrients in food. I believe that the argument has always been about the chemicals and their effect on health and the environment. I personally would rather have no (or at least fewer) chemicals in my food. And I’d also rather choose foods which weren’t grown by people who had to worry about their exposure to those chemicals. And what about the land … are those chemicals adding to quality of the soil or destroying it? I think there might be studies out there showing that pesticides contaminate the land rather than enrich it. The whole issue of organic vs. “normal” is about more than just the food … it’s health and the environment. The sad thing is that many people who were on the fence about organic foods will now feel quite comfortable to choose “normal” options. My personal feeling is that it was a very irresponsible report.
You’re absolutely right! It’s such a pity the report got so much press attention. Had it proved the benefits of organic, it would probably have gone unnoticed. I think you’re right, those on the fence will indeed feel more comfortable choosing conventional produce.
Absolutely the whole organic debate is about far much more than the benefits of an item of produce, it’s also about the farm workers and the land and the effect on the environment. I suppose a small study can’t do everything so it focussed on the reason people cite most often for choosing organic food, nutritional value. It was made to prove what was required to be proved (as are reports on all sides), and the controversial headline guaranteed global media coverage. Sigh. Thanks for your comment!
It’s scary how they use many different pesticides to keep the pesticide residues beneath the allowed safety limits for each single pesticide.
The additional risk of mixing different chemicals and the effect of it is not studied enough to say it’s “safe”.
I don’t believe safety limits is a good solution.
You raise a very valid point about absorbing residues from multiple different pesticides, which indeed we presumably do when eating a variety of fresh produce. I have zero faith in any “safe limits”, I cant see that it’s safe at any level except zero. Thanks for stopping by!
[…] my review of the controversial report, I said that the report proved what it said, but that it had left certain key benefits of organic […]