Organic food is more nutritious

Question

Many consumers believe or are conditioned to believe that organic food is better for them, but does it really make a difference?

Answer 1

 The claim from the website is that: “consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.” (https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/more-scientific-evidence-organic-food-more-nutritious) Additionally, the website claim is that antioxidants are thought to help prevent heart disease, stroke and certain cancers. I agree that the science supports this claim, but some definition is required. First, “Organic” means something that is grown without the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer, and nutrition means something that will help with growth and health. Organic foods show signs of higher antioxidants according to scientific studies and the mayoclinic.org. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/add-antioxidants-to-your-diet/art-20546814) ¨The meta-analysis calculated that organic crops contained 18% to 69% higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds, depending on the type of antioxidant.¨ (https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/general-nutrition/organic-crops-found-higher-in-antioxidants/) Higher antioxidants does mean healthier lifestyle, however, according to the USDA many things are labeled as organic even if it's not certified by the USDA. Meaning that the majority of ¨organic¨ foods are not as healthy and beneficial as people claim. You need to know how to check and what you need to add to your diet. Antioxidants are substances that inhibit oxidation (spoilage) in processed food. Yes organic food can be beneficial, however there is not much difference in health, growth, or energy levels when someone buys organic food, because you will only benefit if you do it long term. 

Answer 2

 The claim from the website is that: “consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.” (https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/more-scientific-evidence-organic-food-more-nutritious) Additionally, the website claim is that antioxidants are thought to help prevent heart disease, stroke and certain cancers. I agree that the science supports this claim, but some definition is required. First, “Organic” means something that is grown without the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer, and nutrition means something that will help with growth and health. Organic foods show signs of higher antioxidants according to scientific studies and the mayoclinic.org. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/add-antioxidants-to-your-diet/art-20546814) ¨The meta-analysis calculated that organic crops contained 18% to 69% higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds, depending on the type of antioxidant.¨ (https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/general-nutrition/organic-crops-found-higher-in-antioxidants/) Higher antioxidants does mean healthier lifestyle, however, according to the USDA many things are labeled as organic even if it's not certified by the USDA. Meaning that the majority of ¨organic¨ foods are not as healthy and beneficial as people claim. You need to know how to check and what you need to add to your diet. Antioxidants are substances that inhibit oxidation (spoilage) in processed food. Yes organic food can be beneficial, however there is not much difference in health, growth, or energy levels when someone buys organic food, because you will only benefit if you do it long term. 

Answer 3

 The claim from the website is that: “consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.” (https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/more-scientific-evidence-organic-food-more-nutritious) Additionally, the website claim is that antioxidants are thought to help prevent heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.

 I agree that the science supports this claim, but some definition is required. First, “Organic” means something that is grown without the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer, and nutrition means something that will help with growth and health. Organic foods show signs of higher antioxidants according to scientific studies and the mayoclinic.org. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/add-antioxidants-to-your-diet/art-20546814) ¨The meta-analysis calculated that organic crops contained 18% to 69% higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds, depending on the type of antioxidant.¨ (https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/general-nutrition/organic-crops-found-higher-in-antioxidants/) Higher antioxidants does mean healthier lifestyle, however, according to the USDA many things are labeled as organic even if it's not certified by the USDA. Meaning that the majority of ¨organic¨ foods are not as healthy and beneficial as people claim. You need to know how to check and what you need to add to your diet. Antioxidants are substances that inhibit oxidation (spoilage) in processed food. Yes organic food can be beneficial, however there is not much difference in health, growth, or energy levels when someone buys organic food, because you will only benefit if you do it long term. 

Answer 4

The claim from the website is that ¨consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That´s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.¨ (https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/more-scientific-evidence-organic-food-more-nutritious) Additionally, the website claim is that antioxidants are thought to help prevent diseases, strokes, and certain types of cancers.

I agree that the science supports this claim, but some definition is require. First, ¨organic¨ means something that is grown without the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer, and antioxidants according to scientific studies and the mayoclinic.org (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/add--antioxidants/) Higher antioxidants does mean healthier lifestyle, however, according to the USDA many things are labeled as organic even if its not certified by the USDA to qualify as organic. Meaning that the majority of ¨organic¨ groceries are not as healthy and beneficitial as people and this article claims. You need to know how to check and what you actually need to add to your diet. Antioxidants are substances that inhibit oxidation (spoilage) in processed food. Yes organic food can be beneficial, however there is not much difference in health, growth, or energy levels when someone buys organic food, because you will only benefit if you do it long term.

Answer 5

The claim that organic food is more nutritious than regular food is false. While organic agriculture is grown under certain conditions that allow them to be labeled as ‘organic’. While the crops may be grown differently the differences between the foods are not clear. Organic foods are grown differently than regular produce. Meaning no genetic alterations, certain additives cannot be in the soil or farmers are unable to use pesticides on the crops. This may sound like the crops would then grow to become generally better for you than the standard. The USDA has strict standards that all produce must be upheld to be in the commercial food market. Regular and organic produce are grown to the same standard making neither better or worse. There is no clear evidence of organic food being better than standard. Nutrients levels are determined by various factors which have little to do with how they are treated and more external factors. This includes harvest time, rain or shine during the growing season, and soil health. And both can still be easily contaminated by various bacterias regardless if grown organic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880 In this Harvard article it cites studies done by Center of Healthy Policy at Stanford University 237 studies that found that there was no concluding difference between the nutritional value of organic and regular produce. In 2021 the USDA performed their annual survey of pesticide residues on food. Testing over 10,000 food samples from the American produce market. 99% were below the EPA’s tolerance level of residues. Therefore the amount of pesticides being eaten whether the produce is organic or standard is insignificant. Through both the Stanford and USDA findings it is concluded that there is no nutritional difference in either kind of produce. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/09/is-organic-better/ Other research from University of California Davis not only supports the fact that nutrition is the same in both kinds of foods, but has great examples of some foods. The difference between organic and non-organic milk is the lack of cows given growth hormone. When ingested the growth hormone is broken down by stomach acid posing no harm to the consumer. Both milks contain the same proteins, lipids, and other essential nutrients. Similarly, organic beef is cattle not treated with sex steroids. These are given to livestock to maximize meat yield for the farmers. Evidence has shown that beef from cattle that were treated had the same sex hormone level as organic beef. Overall from these studies it is concluded that organic foods have almost nutritional differences to foods grown regularly. While people may have different preferences, everyone is receiving the same vitamins and minerals. https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/good-food/are-organic-foods-really-healthier-two-pediatricians-break-it-down/2019/04

Answer 6

When it comes to the claim of is organic food healthier and better for you this would be a somewhat false statement while also having some truth to it. To define the definition of "organic" and what it means for a food to be organic it simply has to do with farmers not using artificial fertilizers, no colors or preservatives, no genetic modification, no routine use of antibiotics in animals. Organic food doesn't mean that it automatically has more nutrients. When it come for it being "better" there are studies that it can have slightly higher levels of nutrients but at the end of the day this is severely inconsistent. What may get people is organic food use fewer pesticides on their food which may confuse people that it's healthier. For example in the article that I listed below that's BBC news it says that when it comes to meat and milk they often contain more omega 3 and up to 50% more than conventional products. This is only because the life stock have more grass and clover in their diets in which affects this. The big thing that researchers are trying to figure out is if people who but organic food live longer and healthier lives, but this is uncertain because people who tend to live these lives eat healthier, exercise, don't smoke, and overall live healthy lives so its hard to tell if its the organic foods or just their daily life activities. In the article that Mayo Clinic put out they do say that people who eat higher amounts of organic food seem to have fewer cases of cancer call non-Hodgkin lymphoma and People who are pregnant who eat more organic food can avoid coming in contact with pesticides that have been linked to pregnancy complications. All organic farming is not the same and may use different soil to even different techniques. You can personally reduce the pesticides that you come across with when buying your produce and that is by always washing it before you consume it and can remove 90% of the pesticide residue. By choosing organic food or not the health benefits are not crazy good and not 100% proven to be better, but this is still a personal decision on which one you prefer.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

https://www.bbc.com/articles/c24rm0d3993o

Answer 7

The argument on whether Organic food is more nutritious varies but a study done by the Mayo Clinic states “It isn't clear whether organic food has more nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, than does conventionally grown food.

The level of nutrients in food depends on a host of factors. Nutrients may be different between varieties of a plant. Levels also depend on the quality of the soil, harvest time, and the way products are stored and for how long” (Mayo Clinic) https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

Healthline also states a valid reason that this claim is false but also is misleading due to the multiple studies that have different outcome due to variations in the way they’re handled. “Studies comparing the nutrient content of organic and non-organic foods have had mixed results. 

This is most likely due to natural variation in food handling and production. However, evidence does suggest that foods grown organically may be more nutritious” https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-organic-food#more-nutrients

Yes organic food can be a lot better for people due to the reduced pesticides and they tend to have more antioxidants and vitamins. But “tend to” doesn’t mean they are always better. This claim is misleading and false in the way it is saying that organic foods are always more nutritious. 

Answer 8

While saying that organic food is more nutritious than not organic food may seem like a simple answer there is more to it than many think. The article in this post states that “There should be no question now about whether organic agriculture is better for the environment and public health.” While another article from BBC states “It's tempting to think so, but the evidence isn't clear-cut” when referring to an organic diet. The article explains that people who buy organic groceries tend to live healthier lifestyles which makes it hard for researchers to have a fair testing group. “Some studies have suggested that organic crops contain slightly higher levels of certain nutrients, such as vitamin C, iron, magnesium and compounds like anthocyanins found in colourful fruit and veg, but results are inconsistent.” There is an argument to be made that the pesticides used in non organic food can help prevent other harmful things to the body. There are also no uniform rules to what counts produce as organic, we just assume it means there's no chemicals on are food but from what I've read that's not always true. Another article from the genetic literacy project claimed that the organic food market is a scam and is a way to get more money out of the same product. 

My conclusion is that I am uncertain if  organic food is more nutritious because the food holds the same properties but non organic food has chemicals which wouldn't make it any less nutritious but would make it less healthy. I'm going against the grain of this post and based off of the articles I read saying that Organic food is not more nutritious.

Answer 9

Many people would believe that organic food is more nutritious than traditional food, but this is not true. According to Harvard Health “The researchers discovered very little difference in nutritional content, aside from slightly higher phosphorous levels in many organic foods, and a higher omega-3 fatty acid content in organic milk and chicken.”People tend to think this is true because organic foods do not have pesticides meaning the foods are taken care of better than traditional food. Organic food is thought to be healthier and more nutritious because it doesn't have pesticides in it, meaning people would think that it would be healthier, with more nutrients because it's not hurting the body over time.  People eat organic so they do not ingest those pesticides and overall be healthier. Compared to regular food both organic and traditional food both have the same level of safety standards if its a growing strawberry or if it's a chicken breast. Both foods carry the same nutrient content because they are the same food, but one has no pests and may be in better growing/ breeding conditions than the other. Overall, there is no difference in nutrition between eating organic food compared to traditional food.

Answer 10

1. Write a brief overall summary of your findings.

The claim "organic food is more nutritious" is oversimplified and misleading. Evidence shows some specific nutrient differences (e.g., higher antioxidants in some organic crops; different fatty-acid profiles in some organic animal products), but no consistent, across-the-board nutritional superiority of organic foods. Several medical/academic sources conclude there isn’t strong proof that organic foods are more nutritious overall, though organic products often have lower pesticide residues/cadmium.  

2. What primary sources did you find (e.g., transcripts, videos of politician speeches, tweets from public figures, scientific studies)? For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.

• Vigar et al., 2019 (Systematic Review, PMC7019963): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7019963/ 
  • This study reviews human studies comparing organic vs. conventional diets. Finds little difference in macronutrients, but has compositional differences. It also stresses tat clinical/health implications are unclear and that organic foods generally carry lower pesticide residues and cadmium.
• Dangour et al., 2009/2010 (Systematic Review, PubMed 19640946 & related) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19640946/
  • This study concludes there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organic and conventional foods when looking at satisfactory-quality studies.

3. What secondary sources did you find (e.g., newspapers, magazines)? Only use secondary sources if sufficient primary sources are not available. For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.

• UC Davis Health (2019) https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/good-food/are-organic-foods-really-healthier-two-pediatricians-break-it-down/2019/04: In this study, two pediatricians state plainly: “Organic foods are not healthier, per se, in terms of nutrients,” though they discuss lower residues and other considerations. 
• Harvard Health Blog (2012) https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264: This Harvard study summarizes the Stanford review: no convincing differences in nutrient content or health benefit, while noting some safety/exposure advantages for organic. 
• EWG news release (2014) https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/more-scientific-evidence-organic-food-more-nutritious: this study highlights the findings of higher antioxidants/lower cadmium/fewer residues in organic crops, framing this as evidence organic is “more nutritious.” 

4. What potential biases or interests might each of your sources have?

• Peer-reviewed reviews/meta-analyses are academic and neutral aim.
• UC Davis Health and Harvard Health are academic medical communications for the public, they're likely to de-hype uncertain claims.
• EWG and Cornucopia are advocacy groups promoting exposures, they're likely to emphasize favorable findings and under-emphasize null results.