Researchers at Stanford University have concluded that “consuming
organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and
antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” but current studies “lack strong evidence that
organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Their meta-analysis was recently published in the Annals
of Internal Medicine.
In the past decade, sales of organic foods have increased to
more than $26 billion in the U.S. alone, while consumer prices of organic food may
be two times that of “conventionally” grown food. But whether or not organic
food affects a person’s health is not scientifically clear. The research team,
lead by Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler and funded by Stanford University Medical School, studied whether or not there was any statistically
supported evidence that consuming organic vs. conventional food resulted in
increased health.
Their conclusions could cast doubt on organic food producers’ claims that eating organic is better for you. The
research team synthesized a total of 17 human studies and 223 studies of typical
food and found no statistically significant data that backs up the claim that consuming organic food is better for your health. Dr. Smith-Spangler concedes that the
studies they examined were “heterogeneous and limited in number” and that more
research on the topic is needed to draw firm conclusions.
Hi Matt, thanks for posting an interesting subject. However, I have serious reservations about this study as 'science news.' First, it is a meta-analysis, merely at research that was previously done and looking for corralaries. Also, the authors had such a dearth of clinical studies available to them at 3 that any conclusions they draw about the clinical significance of the differences they note between organic and conventional crops is not well researched. The heterogenous nature of the results is truly problematic in a meta-analysis, and really decreases the ability to draw clear conclusions from the data. On the other hand, I believe one of their most significant observations was a reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in organic chicken and pork. Also, I feel the last sentence of your brief should be moved into earlier in the piece, so as to not leave us on a negative note.
ReplyDeleteYes, this was a meta analysis, but I'm pretty sure it still qualifies as science. I would point out that those analyzing the data were at least one step removed from the original studies, but that doesn't mean it isn't scientific in nature. And the fact that the study had flaws doesn't mean it lacks significance. I think they make it pretty clear that more research is needed and I'm pretty sure that more studies will be done in the coming years. This runs completely contrary to what most people (myself included) believe about organic food. I first heard about this on NPR and people were PISSED. The backlash to this study has been significant. That's why I chose it and I stand behind it as science news. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks for the comments Jason.
ReplyDeleteHey Matt thanks for the response.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies if my first comment was overly critical. I let this study get on my nerves due to its methodology and results, and the way it was represented in the media. I did not mean to attack your use of it as "science news," but NPR's and Foxnews and etc. Thanks again for a good topic.
No worries man. I agree the study and conclusions are in some ways deeply flawed. They found 30% higher levels of pesticides in the standard veggies but made no claim about how THAT could affect your health. This is why I chose this topic. I wanted to know more about it because I just couldn't BELIEVE the results. I personally eat organic whenever I can and abstain from meat for a variety of reasons - environmental, ethical, health and community - so this is a topic that hits close to home for me. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this. I also think I'd like to keep going on this as perhaps one of my bigger projects.
ReplyDelete