Reflections on the Stanford Meta-Study on Organic Foods

Written by Amy Levine | Sep 7, 2012 9:00:00 PM

As you may have seen recently, a meta-study (an analysis of multiple studies) by researchers from Stanford University looked at the nutritional benefits of organic food. The study concluded that organic food isn’t any more nutritious than conventionally-grown foods that use pesticides.

We feel the media really dropped the ball on this. Even though there are studies that show organic food to be more nutritious, the media neglected to mention that ‘organic’ refers to a particular method of food production, not to the nutritional contents of food. Specifically, the study and most media have failed to highlight that organic farming:

Protects and promotes the well-being of farmers and our eco-system (soil, ground water, atmosphere, oceans, wildlife, etc).
Results in foods that contain fewer chemical pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and no GMOs.

These are key benefits that we believe shouldn’t be ignored and they are some of the reasons why we support organic food production.

To read more rebuttals and analysis to this study, check out the following:

Organic Food Isn't More Nutritious, but That Isn't the Point [Link]
Actually… Organic Foods ARE Healthier for You [Link]
Study Questions Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce [Link]
Problems with 'Organic Food Not Any Healthier' [Link]

Why do you choose organic? Let us know!

View full post