"Organic" May Not Necessarily Mean "More Nutritious"

A team of researchers from Stanford University recently concluded that organic produce and meat isn't any better for you than non-organic food when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content. The study compiled over 200 other studies that compared the health of people eating organic versus conventional foods, along with the nutrient and contaminant levels of the foods themselves. The researchers found there was no difference in the amount of vitamins in the plant and animal products, and only a slight difference in the nutrient values. To be considered "organic", U. S. Department of Agriculture guidelines require that farms avoid the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics and that livestock have access to pastures while grazing. Unsurprisingly, the researchers noted that the organic foods generally reduced exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In the studies, more than a third of the conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared to just seven percent of the organic samples. Conventional pork and chicken were 33 percent more likely to carry antibiotic resistant bacteria than their organic counterparts. However, because both the organic and non-organic samples fell well within acceptable pesticide residue levels as set by the USDA, the Stanford team added that more research is needed to explore the benefits of organic foods before drawing any further conclusions of it's effects on human health.