Organics – are they healthier?

Image from Move Nourish Believe

There’s been a lot in the media about organics lately with the release of a study by scientists at Stanford University that concluded organic foods are no more nutritious than their conventionally grown counterparts.

For me, this isn’t a revelation.  I wouldn’t imagine there would be a reason why they should be higher in nutritional value, unless they were grown in soils that were higher in nutrients. Then they may be slightly higher in minerals.

But what the study did report is that organic foods had significantly lower levels of pesticide residues. Here’s what the study says:

The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

For me, that’s what I’d imagine organic produce would do. Not that organic production would produce food that was  higher in nutritional value.   While pesticides used in the production of food have been deemed to be safe at levels used, and residues are at low levels in fruit and vegetables, for many it’s a personal choice to avoid them if possible.   The other issue with the use of pesticides is they can accumulate in soils, contaminate water and can be harmful to non-target insects – for example bees.

Because organics is a more labour intensive process, it will cost more.   I think if cost wasn’t an object, more people would choose organic options.

Choosing organics is a personal choice – for me being able to avoid pesticide residues is a good thing.

You can read the article abstract here

What are your thoughts on organics?