Study suggests organic foods nutritionally superior

07/11/2014 01:39:00 PM
Vicky Boyd

The Organic CenterA new research study from the United Kingdom suggests organic crops and foods made from them are nutritionally superior to conventional counterparts.

The results contradict a 2012 research report from Stanford University that found organic foods were no healthier than conventional foods.

The United Kingdom project involved an international group of experts led by Newcastle University that analyzed 343 previous studies, according to a news release.

The researchers found that organic crops and crop-based foods were up to 60% higher in several key antioxidants than foods from conventionally grown crops.

They also showed that organic crops were four times less likely to contain pesticide residues than their conventional counterparts and that organic crops had on average 48% lower cadmium levels than conventional crops.

Cadmium, a heavy metal toxic in high doses, has been linked to kidney failure, bone softening and liver damage.

“The nutritional differences between conventional and organic crops have always been a much-debated topic,” Jessica Shade, science programs director for the Brattleboro, Vt.,-based The Organic Center, said in the release. “This significant study reevaluates the issue from a more inclusive, statistically accurate standpoint and strongly shows that organic fruits and vegetables have definite health benefits to conventionally grown products.”

Based on the study’s results, she said that consumers could gain up to 40% more antioxidants just by switching from conventional to organic foods.

Shade credited the differing report outcomes to additional research that had been conducted since the Stanford report was issued.

With more research came more data from which to cull, she said. The Newcastle study analyzed 343 studies compared with Stanford’s analysis of about 200 research papers.

The Newcastle report is scheduled to be published July 15 in the British Journal of Nutrition.



Comments (6) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Nama    
July, 12, 2014 at 04:43 PM

It could be beneficial that organic foods be made more accessible by lowering their price. It makes sense that organic products may be better for the health overall. The fact that they may be less tempered with compared to food with pesticides may lead to their higher quality. Generally speaking, losing weight is not just about having a certain body type. A great thing is that it may also have a positive effect on: knee pain, it may help lower blood pressure, lowering the risk of kidney stones, reduce bad cholesterol, and even help regarding the risk of cardiovascular disease. If you are looking for a solution, you may want to check this page out: http://9nl.us/qdc0 Have you ever found tasty food that may also help with weight loss?check the page above for more info.

Dr. JRF    
Marietta  |  July, 12, 2014 at 08:43 PM

The main reason that "organic" foods cost more is because they are predisposed to much greater losses in yield from insect infestation, competition from weeds, and just plain rotting in the field. That means much less of the potential yield gets through the culling process, so that by the time the produce gets to the food market it won't be obviously rotten. Even then they don't get it all. Most of the spoilage that you see on "organic" produce in the grocery store is due to residual effects of parasitism by insects and diseases that occurred in the field before the crop was harvested. Without "conventional" agriculture that is used to generate our ample food supply, typical yield losses from "organic" farming would be 40% to 100% (that's correct, 100% means no yield whatsoever; all the crop would be lost). In order to make up for those losses, "organic" food producers have to charge their customers more, otherwise they would go out of business altogether because they wouldn't have anything to sell. There are about 7 billion people on this planet. If the world's societies had to feed that many people with totally "organic" farming it would mean that even if all of the earth's soil surface were turned into farm land, and if every square inch of that land were plowed up and planted to food, there still wouldn't be enough food. Many people would starve, even in the highly developed countries of the world. If you truly want that to happen, contact your legislators and demand that they sacrifice all of our national treasures (national parks, grasslands and forests) and turn them all into "organic" farmland. Endangered animal and plant species would have to be sacrificed, all so that you can eat lower priced "organic" things.

GrowYourOwnFood    
The big city  |  July, 13, 2014 at 01:41 AM

Thanks Monsanto, would any of the other corporate shills like to weigh in?

    
July, 13, 2014 at 02:06 AM

... Propaganda... ever gardened doc? Enjoy your life. Stop smoking.

Ryan    
Oregon  |  July, 13, 2014 at 10:55 AM

If all the earth's soil were turned into farm land..... Then we would be able to feed the solar system. You must not realize how big this planet is. If the entire world lived in one large city, would you be surprised to know the size of that city would be no bigger than Texas. The next time you are in an airplane, look down. There are huge gaps of uninhabited land in EVERY country.

Paul Fey    
Nashville  |  July, 13, 2014 at 02:10 PM

We could argue all types of points when this topic comes up , but the lions share of all of this comes down to , are you eating fruits and vegetables daily instead of other foods ? It's not so much as to which one is best for you , rather , it is more important to get people to eat any of it in the first place. Just go into any grocery store , and observe the aisle space taken by cakes , cookies , candies , chips , sodas , pies , and compare that total space to the produce section. Junk food rules ! by a 10 -1 margin. This is what needs to be addressed , not organics verses conventional .

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight