Few credible organic organizations make definitive claims that organic food is more nutritious than food grown by conventional methods.
Yet a Stanford University study published last week stating that there is no nutritional difference between the two types of food generated headlines and widespread surprise from those who believed organic produce to be superior.
Greater nutrition in organic food appears to be just one of those assumptions, or “truths,” that arise if the message is heard frequently enough to become familiar, even if no one can pinpoint the original source of the information.
Read Also
Sask. ag group wants strychnine back
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government asking for emergency use of strychnine to control gophers
A large percentage of consumers have accepted the idea of organic food’s nutritional superiority. A 2010 Nielsen study surveyed 27,000 consumers in 55 markets around the world about their reasons for buying organic food.
Seventy-six percent said it was because organic food was healthier and 51 percent said it was because it was more nutritious. Respondents could provide more than one reason, as the numbers show.
Those who believe there is greater nutrition in organic food might be tempted to label this latest research as just one more study, using limited data, that doesn’t support their assumptions.
However, this particular research is a “meta-study,” an analysis of many other studies. Stanford researchers examined 237 papers about diet types and 223 studies that compared nutrient levels in various products, both organic and conventionally grown.
“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, senior author of the meta-study paper.
The Organic Facts website explains the nutrition idea thus: “The health benefits of organic food are more perceived than real. However, the public opinion that organic food (is) healthier than conventional food is quite strong and is the sole reason for about 30 percent growth in the organic food industry since the past five to six years.”
Maybe the root of the organic nutrition belief lies in the comparative taste of produce. If it tastes better, it must be better for you, right? But there again, we find confusion over whether the organic tomato tastes better because of production methods or because it was vine-ripened, a luxury large scale producers and shippers cannot usually afford.
The real benefit of organic production, as most organic farmers will say, is environmental sustainability — food produced without the use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, using methods considered gentler for the soil, flora and fauna.
Author and organic food proponent Michael Pollan made that point in an interview posted on the News Fix blog.
“I think we’re kind of erecting a straw man and then knocking it down, the straw man being that the whole point of organic food is that it’s more nutritious. The whole point of organic food is that it’s more environmentally sustainable. That’s the stronger and easier case to make.”
Pollan and others in the organic food industry have been successful in defending that case.
Organic and conventional farm production both have an important place in the food system. Consumers want the choice and the market must supply it.
When it comes to food supply, it should not be an “us versus them” scenario, conventional versus organic. There is need and desire for both.
Now that the nutritional misconceptions have been exposed, conventional producers can continue to promote their contribution of economical and plentiful food, and organic producers can continue to promote their contribution of food they consider to be kinder to the planet.
Consumers will derive nutrition from both.
