The New York Times  today is reporting the results of a mega-study conducted by Stanford University on organic produce and meats, looking at four decades of results. The over-all study concluded "that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli. The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats."

The study had no external financing in order to avoid any trace of bias.

That's not to say that the study found no difference between organic and inorganic. The organic produce did have less pesticides as "the Stanford researchers concluded that 38 percent of conventional produce tested in the studies contained detectable residues, compared with 7 percent for the organic produce." However, all the residues on conventional foods were within safe limits.

And there were a few nutrients that were enhanced on organic foods, such as phenols and phosphorus.  Again, this was qualified, as "Other variables, like ripeness, had a greater influence on nutrient content. Thus, a lush peach grown with the use of pesticides could easily contain more vitamins than an unripe organic one."

You can read more on the results of the study at the New York Times, Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce, or at the Stanford Univ. Medical School website, Little Evidence of Health Benefits from Organic Food. It's an interesting study that, as the Stanford team noted, was to provide  "an objective review of the current science of organic foods, their goal was to allow people to make informed choices."

Fresh Vegies