I don't know if you heard about the recent Stanford University study which compared vitamin and mineral levels in organically grown versus conventional foodstuffs.
Here's the jist:
Produce, dairy and meat were analyzed and compared and they found that there was very little difference between conventional and organically grown items.
It's not hard to believe that not much difference was found, actually, because in most croplands in the United States, the topsoil has been severely degraded over the last 50-100 years. I'd much rather see differences between long-standing organic farmland such as the rice-growers "Lundberg Farms" in California and a box of instant rice from the shelf. With that, there's so much more at stake than vitamin/mineral status.
I've eaten organic products since picking up tiny, spotted apples in a Nutrition World at Har-Mar Mall in Roseville... that's Roseville, Minnesota, not California. This was way before the USDA standards were imposed in 2002. Matter of fact, America's oldest certification program, Maine Organic Farmers and Growers Association (I love the acronym, MOGFA), was formed in 1971.
I think it's important to point out what national standards regulate. The following are prohibited in organic products: artificial colors, flavors and preservatives; added growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides, sewage sludge (do you remember the fight over that? the good guys won), radiation and genetically modified foods (GMO's).
Sounds like stuff you don't want in your kitchen, on your table, or in your mouth, right? So before I give you my opinion on the findings, I just want to point out that even if the thought of eating this stuff doesn't bother you, just having less of a toxic load in the environment they're produced in is better in general. Be kind to Mother Nature. As one of my patients put it recently, "It's better for the earth, too!"
But back to the study. It was a "meta-analysis," which means that the results of a bunch of papers were added up. One of my issues with the study was pointed out by the "Organic Consumers Association," an advocacy group based in Finland, Minnesota. They discovered that there were papers included in the study which pre-dated the onset of the USDA standards formulated in 2002. This harms the credibility of the data, obviously. If there are no standards in place, there's no way to compare products.
I would not stake my decision of whether or not to eat organic foods on this study's findings. The chemical residues and hormones in conventional products and the integrity of the farmland which is being threatened by the use of GMO crops is a much more important issue to base a decision. Where is that study, eh?
Well, it's time to go make dinner: Organic rice with tofu, homemade pesto with homegrown basil, yummy stuff. Must have some veggies in the fridge to throw in there...
