Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.

Food

Why Organic Produce Can Still Be Better, Despite New Study Saying It's Not 'Healthier'

organiccarrots.jpg
(Photo by Krista Simmons/LAist)

With our free press under threat and federal funding for public media gone, your support matters more than ever. Help keep the LAist newsroom strong, become a monthly member or increase your support today.

A recently-released study by Stanford University says that organically-grown produce doesn't contain any more nutrients or vitamins than its conventional counterparts. This has the media -- and in turn consumers -- abuzz about whether purchasing the pesticide-free fruits and veggies is worth it.

The popularity of organic products, which are generally grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or use of antibiotics or growth hormones, is booming in the United States. The sale of organic foods increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion between 1997 and 2011 in the U.S., and despite the floundering economy, consumers have been willing to pay double the price of their conventionally-grown counterparts.

After sifting through 237 relevant studies on the matter, the researchers at Stanford found little significant difference in health benefits in the increasingly-popular organic foods.

“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 Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the paper.

Sponsored message

Stanford Medicine elaborates:

"No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids."

But the study seems to miss the point. The reasoning behind buying organics isn't as simple as the food being "healthier." There's really no doubt in our minds that consuming chemical-ridden carrots could be harmful, of course. But the real rationale behind buying local, organic produce is to know exactly where your food came from, who grew it, and how far it traveled to get there. All three of those factors play into the most important reason to buying local: When food is grown mindfully by passionate farmers, picked at its peak ripeness, and then sold directly to consumers, it simply tastes better. And though it's true that not all purveyors at the farmers markets are certified organic, the carbon footprint of their goods treads lightly.

In the words of our fellow journo Francis Lam on Twitter, "Saying organics aren't worth it because they don't have more vitamins is like saying lifting weights [is fruitless because it] doesn't give you better skin."

Other news sites are asking if this new Stanford study will drive consumers away from organic produce. If their reasoning behind buying organic was simply to avoid taking multivitamins, then perhaps so. But if consumers have done their homework, this won't impact the local food movement.

At LAist, we believe in journalism without censorship and the right of a free press to speak truth to those in power. Our hard-hitting watchdog reporting on local government, climate, and the ongoing housing and homelessness crisis is trustworthy, independent and freely accessible to everyone thanks to the support of readers like you.

But the game has changed: Congress voted to eliminate funding for public media across the country. Here at LAist that means a loss of $1.7 million in our budget every year. We want to assure you that despite growing threats to free press and free speech, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust. Speaking frankly, the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news in our community.

We’re asking you to stand up for independent reporting that will not be silenced. With more individuals like you supporting this public service, we can continue to provide essential coverage for Southern Californians that you can’t find anywhere else. Become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission.

Thank you for your generous support and belief in the value of independent news.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Chip in now to fund your local journalism

A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right