'Organic food isn't healthier than conventional products'

Organic food is no more nutritious than produce grown with pesticides and chemicals, as a new Stanford University study has claimed that it provides no added health benefits.

Researchers from the Stanford University found that there was not much difference between organic food and conventional produce when it comes to nutritional value. They also found that there was no guarantee organic food would be pesticide-free – a key attraction for many consumers – though it did have lower levels, the Daily Mail reported.
Many people pay as much as a third more for organic food in the belief that it is healthier and safer.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," senior author, Dr Dena Bravata said.

Researchers sifted through thousands of papers looking into the health benefits of organic food. The review included studies of people with organic and conventional diets, as well as research into nutrient levels, bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination.

Researchers found no consistent differences in the vitamin content of various foods. They also found no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk.

"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn't find that," co-researcher Crystal Smith- Spangler was quoted as saying by the paper.

The researchers did find organic produce was 30 per cent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruit and vegetables, but not guaranteed to be pesticide-free, while pesticide levels of all foods came within the allowable safety limits.

Two studies of children found lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of those on organic diets, though for all those studied the levels were below allowable safety thresholds.

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal.