According to a Stanford study recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, there is no compelling evidence that eating organic food is healthier than conventional food. The Stanford research team reportedly reviewed thousands of previous studies and compiled 237 that were deemed relevant. Only 17 were considered high-quality research (randomized controlled trials) and no study looked at health outcomes beyond two years.

Researchers reported that although levels of two nutrients, phosphorus and omega-3s, were higher in some organic foods, other nutrient and vitamin levels were not higher compared to conventional foods. They also reported that pesticide levels were higher in conventional foods, as was exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but noted that no negative health effects were appreciated despite the lack of long-term follow-up.

I read reports of the study with amazement, first that these conclusions were drawn without adequate follow-up, then over how the parameters measured were quite simplistic yet used for far-reaching conclusions. It’s like saying, "I ate this genetically modified lettuce grown on the mainland which was sprayed with pesticides and irradiated and traveled here by container, but I didn’t have to go my doctor afterwards, so it must be just as good as the local organic lettuce, handed to me with a smile by the person who grew it, at the Kapiolani Community College farmer’s market. By the way, it was also cheaper."

Rebuttals to the report have come fast and furious from around the world.

Allegations have been made that the study’s lead investigator, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a history of working closely with Big Tobacco and that the current study is indirectly funded by large agribusinesses, two of which are actively fighting legislation that would require labels on genetically modified foods. In addition, complaints have been raised that Dr. Ingram, who is also a pioneer in statistics, under reported the amount of pesticides found in the non-organic foods.

Heather Rogers of the Huffington Post eventually interviewed study co-author Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler. They clarified that the study looked only at direct and immediate impacts to consumers. Its scope did not include the environmental impact of non-organic farming nor the potential human health effects of agrochemicals on farmworkers or adjacent communities were these chemicals to leach into the groundwater. Also beyond the scope of the study was whether non-organic farms are breeding grounds for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Finally, Dr. Smith-Spangler acknowledged that, although the higher pesticide levels found in non-organic foods was within the limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency, there is an ongoing debate as to whether those limits should be tightened.

Still, the primary motivation for people choosing to buy organic is not because they think these foods have more vitamins. The conclusions of the study miss the point. According to Ryan Sutton of Bloomberg: "We pay more for organic or free range products because we believe it’s the right thing to do. We want to support the farmers and growers who treat their animals, their crops and mother nature’s land with respect and dignity."

———
Ira Zunin, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., is medical director of Manakai o Malama Integrative Healthcare Group and Rehabilitation Center and CEO of Global Advisory Services Inc. Please submit your questions to info@manakaiomalama.com.